Youtuber Metatron discusses how Jesus may have looked like.
From 23:33 he talks about forensic studies and what hints it can give to how people looked like in Jesus time and the area he lived in.
Other talking points are the different kinds of iconography which depicts Jesus and the cultural backgrounds of those depictions.
He also analyzes a passage in the New Testament were the resurrected Jesus is envisioned
Clothes and hair are also discussed.
Contents of the video:
-Introcuction -Confirmation Bias -Lack of Description -Early images -Deification -Black African -Hidden Hint -What Did people from first Century judea look like? -Forensic studies -Physical anthropology and skin coloration -Hair
Metatron assesses the skin color of 1th century Judaeans as a 4 on the Fitzpatrick scale (olive to moderate brown) and a range of 21-27 on the von Luschans chromatic scale.
Metatron also seems to agree with the notion mentioned in Joan Taylors book "What Did Jesus Look Like?" that the Judeans in Jesus time would have looked much like Iraqi Jews look today. It seems at least they osteologically are the closest.
Metatron assesses the skin color of 1th century Judaeans as a 4 on the Fitzpatrick scale (olive to moderate brown) and a range of 21-27 on the von Luschans chromatic scale.
I heard Metaron using this word "olive" (skinned) that people sometimes use. I don't like the term. It seems like a way of using a term like "light brown" or "medium brown". Olives come in various colors anyway.
the color most associated with olive is a muted green color Nobody has greenish skin (although some yellowish) so when you exclude the green element you have light brown, brown, dark red and black
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
I just read in an old Swedish dictionary that the word olive when concerning colors have existed here since at least 1791. In that time though it was more often used in connection with cloth and textiles instead of peoples skin tone.
According to some the color term olive more refers to olive oil than the fruit itself.
Wikipedia has this to say about olive skin
quote:Olive skin is a human skin colour spectrum. It is often associated with pigmentation in the Type III to Type IV and Type V ranges of the Fitzpatrick scale. It generally refers to moderate or lighter tan or brownish skin, and it is often described as having tan, brown, cream, greenish, yellowish, or golden undertones
People with olive skin can sometimes become paler if their sun exposure is limited. However, lighter olive skin still tans more easily than light skin does, and generally still retains notable yellow or greenish undertones.
In the beauty industry the term seems to be rather frequently used.
Another description of the skin tones of Jews in ancient times is from the Mishnah Negaim 2:1 which states:
quote:The bright spot in a German appears as dull white, and the dull white spot in an Ethiopian appears as bright white. Rabbi Ishmael says: the children of Israel (may I be atonement for them!) are like boxwood, neither black nor white but of an intermediate shade.
Here is the color of Boxwood. It can vary some, but it is usually some shade of lighter brown.
Here is a sheme over human skin colors based both on Fitzpatricks and von Luschans scales. Type IV and the range 21 to 27 are here called "moderate brown skin"
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
In the video Metatron also mentions Joan Taylors book What Did Jesus Look Like? from 2018. Joan Taylor is a professor of Christian origins and second temple Judaism at King's College London. In her book she uses ancient art, archaeological remains, historical texts and interviews with anthropologists to conclude that, like most people in Judea around the time, Jesus most likely had brown eyes, dark brown to black hair and olive-brown skin. He may have stood about 5-ft.-5-in. (166 cm) tall, the average man’s height at the time. She also says that the people most reminiscent of 1th century Judeans today are the Jews of Iraq
quote:.... one of the fascinating things for me was to discover that really interesting work has been done by physical anthropologists on skeletons of Jews excavated in Judea and Galilee from the first century and sometimes second century and they have really looked at the issue of ethnicity and what people correspond to ancient in terms of modern populations actually and they have said that Jews of the first century looked quite a lot like Iraqi Jews today, there's an Iraqi look about the skeletons that they have uncovered so if we're going to be thinking about Jesus ethnicity we should be looking at Iraqi Jews so I remember when I worked on the kibbutz long ago some friends of mine who were from Iraq and it's really fascinating to me to think yes they had the look of most of the Jews of first century Judea.
In this video she tells about her book and her research
Here is a sheme over human skin colors based both on Fitzpatricks and von Luschans scales. Type IV and the range 21 to 27 are here called "moderate brown skin"
[/QB]
Their actual color sampled from each photograph and a mechanically (digitally) made black and white version of the colors. The colors on the original chart at the top are inaccurate, way off as to actual color of the people in the photos, the worst example is that yellowish color for the top one
Also if we looked at the colors before seeing the people we would never say one was "white". Thus that is a race word and should be excluded from an attempt like this to measure scientifically
Which is darker than the other? Look at the black and white version (the term white and black acceptable to pose the question but do not literally pertain) We can see 1-4 are very close Look in the female column,1A and 3A in the b & w version They are so close it's not worth distinguishing. Whoever put this together is probably thinking "Hispanics are darker" and then using what may be an Hispanic woman. She looks darker in the color version but I believe it's the same thing with that man who looks pinkish, her redder tone gives the impression of darker but not be actually darker. look again at the b & W version 1A vs 3A nearly the same (maybe female 3 is a hair darker than male 3 but working with the photos here, these are the closest female/male - don't look at the color look at the b & w ) but we can see how the color tint gives an impression weighing toward darker or lighter but may be in fact to as much difference actually
There is no scientific standard for naming colors so it's arbitrary. The chart is basically shades of brown, The man on the top right has pink tones which is due to his blood showing from underneath his light pigmentation. Below him , the other man 2B is similarly light (see the b & w version) but does not have that pink tone. That pink element, due to blood not his melanin content (he does have some) makes him actually register darker in a photo (see the b & w version) then the woman to his left
If this was done more scientifically it could be done on the basis of light to dark. First take 30 photos of various light and dark skinned people form all over the world and photographed in the exact same lighting Then take the color version and put it aside for a moment. Instead make a black and white version and then organize those into a set of 6 which clearly shows light to dark (or dark to light- think about the bias) Then use that order to make the final color version. Then just number each photo, don't use any color words
You can see what happens if you start with ordering color photos, that the different tints are a distraction in determining actual light to dark level
Arbitrarily, changed the order from dark to light instead of light to dark Regardless this is a sequence organized according to the b & w which shows the actual dark to light gradation. Here, the females and males of the same or nearly the same tone are together for each number. This in my opinion is a more accurate arranging (or backwards order it doesn't matter)
Also look at 2 here, note the color. Then look at the original chart marked "dark brown skin" the color they put next to the photos. That color is to rich and saturated compared to the people here. Some people have that rich color but the people here have a little more muted in their actual brown color.
It's also biased to not have like 5 people from different parts of the world for each number which further exposes superficiality of skin tone (I added an Indian woman at the top here to correspond to the man as virtually the same)
Which skin tone did Jesus have? How did he look? It's unknown, unimportant and will probably remain that way forever
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: In the video Metatron also mentions Joan Taylors book What Did Jesus Look Like? from 2018. Joan Taylor is a professor of Christian origins and second temple Judaism at King's College London. In her book she uses ancient art, archaeological remains, historical texts and interviews with anthropologists to conclude that, like most people in Judea around the time, Jesus most likely had brown eyes, dark brown to black hair and olive-brown skin. He may have stood about 5-ft.-5-in. (166 cm) tall, the average man’s height at the time. She also says that the people most reminiscent of 1th century Judeans today are the Jews of Iraq
quote:.... one of the fascinating things for me was to discover that really interesting work has been done by physical anthropologists on skeletons of Jews excavated in Judea and Galilee from the first century and sometimes second century and they have really looked at the issue of ethnicity and what people correspond to ancient in terms of modern populations actually and they have said that Jews of the first century looked quite a lot like Iraqi Jews today, there's an Iraqi look about the skeletons that they have uncovered so if we're going to be thinking about Jesus ethnicity we should be looking at Iraqi Jews so I remember when I worked on the kibbutz long ago some friends of mine who were from Iraq and it's really fascinating to me to think yes they had the look of most of the Jews of first century Judea.
In this video she tells about her book and her research
So you have the comment here "there's an Iraqi look about the skeletons"
skeletons are not informative on hair type, skin or the fleshy parts of the face
"olive-brown skin"
there's that olive word again, no standard as to what it exactly is. You could call the background color of the book cover "olive". I would call the color gray with a slight greenish yellow tint. It doesn't correspond to any of the people on that chart above although some people, not that common, might actually be similar in color to that color. To guess Jesus was this color is highly speculative.
And why if titling a book "what did Jesus look like" is there a piece of art depicting Jesus -instead of none or multiple art pieces depicting Jesus in various ways? If you are going to title the book like than and put one depiction of him on the cover, why buy the book >> The author has shown us already on the cover what she thinks Jesus looked like and there is no reason for adding a question mark (assuming she had control over the book cover)
As for the video, her main point was more that she thinks artistic representation of Jesus do not have his clothing right, that he was probably "shabbier" looking, with a poor person's clothes rather than the white gowns and other details which she says are more like wealthy garments of the time. She seems to think Jesus should be portrayed poorer looking and also thinks longer hair to less likely than short hair
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
In Metatrons video he disagrees with her, he thinks it is possible that Jesus could have had longer hair than people in general, but it sounds more that he is guessing. We will never know since there are no actual portrait made of him during his lifetime.
The notion that the ancient skeletons have similarities with modern Iraqi Jews she got from interviews with Israeli anthropologists. One of them seems to have been Yossi Nagar, the same man who wrote about the Israeli human osteological database which is mentioned in the thread about the "Tens of Thousands of Ancient Israelite Skeletons". He seems to have a lot of experience of ancient skeletons in Israel.
About the color scales, here is von Luschans chromatic scale without photos
Perhaps one can learn more about the skin tone of the ancient Judeans from well preserved autosomal DNA, so one can do a DNA phenotyping. There are already some forensic reconstructions, but they do not really say much about the skin tone of those people.
Otherwise she also seems to have gone by artistic representations from around Jesus time.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness And why if titling a book "what did Jesus look like" is there a piece of art depicting Jesus -instead of none or multiple art pieces depicting Jesus in various ways? If you are going to title the book like than and put one depiction of him on the cover, why buy the book >> The author has shown us already on the cover what she thinks Jesus looked like and there is no reason for adding a question mark (assuming she had control over the book cover)
I do not know how it is in this case, but many times it is the book publisher who chooses the cover. Often they choose a picture they think is selling, and not always correctly following the content or conclusions in the book. So the author is not always the one who decides which cover the book shall have.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: In Metatrons video he disagrees with her, he thinks it is possible that Jesus could have had longer hair than people in general, but it sounds more that he is guessing. We will never know since there are no actual portrait made of him during his lifetime.
The notion that the ancient skeletons have similarities with modern Iraqi Jews she got from interviews with Israeli anthropologists. One of them seems to have been Yossi Nagar, the same man who wrote about the Israeli human osteological database which is mentioned in the thread about the "Tens of Thousands of Ancient Israelite Skeletons". He seems to have a lot of experience of ancient skeletons in Israel.
About the color scales, here is von Luschans chromatic scale without photos
Perhaps one can learn more about the skin tone of the ancient Judeans from well preserved autosomal DNA, so one can do a DNA phenotyping. There are already some forensic reconstructions, but they do not really say much about the skin tone of those people.
Otherwise she also seems to have gone by artistic representations from around Jesus time.
As we can see when converted to black and white the number order if applied to the black and white becomes inconsistent Some people have a yellowish tone but a reddish tone like the below is under represented on that chart and it's more common
There are a lot of instances in the chart of differences to small to be relevant, for instance 30-33 could all be one number There is a lot of this that could be consolidated Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
A sketch of Jesus as Joan Taylor imagines that he can have looked like.
In one newspaper they likened him with a Syrian refugee concerning his looks.
(although I don't know how she knows how this military officer is not a Roman or Greek in part)
wiki, Fayum portraits:
By the Roman period, much of the "Greek" population of Faiyum was made-up of either Hellenized Egyptians or people of mixed Egyptian-Greek origins.[14] Later, in the Roman Period, many veterans of the Roman army, who, initially at least, were not Egyptian but people from disparate cultural and ethnic backgrounds, settled in the area after the completion of their service, and formed social relations and intermarried with local populations.[15]
While commonly believed to represent Greek settlers in Egypt,[16][17] the Faiyum portraits instead reflect the complex synthesis of the predominant Egyptian culture and that of the elite Greek minority in the city.[13] According to Walker, the early Ptolemaic Greek colonists married local women and adopted Egyptian religious beliefs, and by Roman times, their descendants were viewed as Egyptians by the Roman rulers, despite their own self-perception of being Greek. The dental morphology[18] of the Roman-period Faiyum mummies was also compared with that of earlier Egyptian populations, and was found to be "much more closely akin" to that of ancient Egyptians than to Greeks or other European populations.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Here is a short presentation of Taylors book in the Swedish "Kyrkans tidning" (The Churchs newspaper) translated from Swedish
quote:New book explores Jesus' appearance
THEOLOGY | PUBLISHED: MARCH 29, 2018
Long hair, blue eyes and beard. White, foot side kaftan with wide sleeves. Researcher Joan E Taylor's new book does away with the traditional image of Jesus.
- It is important to understand his ethnicity in a world where we are extremely aware of ethnicity. Presenting Jesus as a European is simply wrong historically, where Western Europe somehow claims Jesus. But he was a Jewish man from the Middle East, he looked like a Syrian refugee, she says.
What Jesus looked like and how he dressed is a question that has not occupied much research. One explanation for that is that the Bible is silent on the matter.
- The appearance and the signals this sends out play an important role for the readers of these texts. But there is no explicit description in the Bible of Jesus, says Joan E Taylor, professor of early Christianity at King's College in London and who recently published the book What did Jesus look like?
Based on various sources – a close study of the Bible and the Gospel texts, other contemporary texts and archaeological finds – a picture could nevertheless emerge.
The silence itself is an important clue, she believes. For other biblical figures, such as John the Baptist, are described relatively extensively.
- It is strange because Jesus is described as a relative of David, and a kind of new Moses. And both of these figures, David and Moses, are remembered as exceptionally handsome, she says.
The clues led her to the conclusion that the mundane was Jesus' characteristic.
- There was nothing in Jesus' appearance - at least not in his body - that could be described as exceptional. You couldn't tell he was tall or short or had any distinctive features. And that's important, I think, because it indicates that he was probably more or less average, she says.
If a contemporary clue to his appearance is to be found, it is among Mizrahi people in, for example, present-day Iraq, says the Israeli anthropologist Yossi Nagar.
- He had a Middle Eastern appearance: Medium brown or olive skin, black hair, brown eyes. Not blonde hair and blue eyes, she says.
The reference to Yossi Nagars statement is on page 161 in the book.
Old picture of Iraqi Jews Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Iraqi Jews also known as Babli (Babylonian) Jews are just one of the several minhagim who are said to closely resemble 1st Century Judeans. There are also Mitsrai (Egyptian) Jews, but the closest likely being Halabi Jews of Syria.
As I've expressed elsewhere, I'm suspicious of Metatron, and I recall someone saying he is a Christian, whatever..
We have descriptions from Romans as well as some artwork and of course crania of 1st century Judeans giving us an idea of how the historical Jesus may have looked like. Interestingly, the cranial morphology of 1st Century Judeans was not much different from that of Chalcolithic Jericho as shown here. As far as skin color, I think that issue was discussed too many times. Egyptians described Asiatic (including Judean) skin complexion like "honey". Judeans themselves describe themselves as neither black nor white but complexion like boxwood. And one Bible passage that describes Jesus in his angelic form the 'Elder of Days' states the following..
Revelation 1:14-16 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; and his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
By the way, our most popular images of Jesus with the long hair comes from Byzantine art and then later Vatican and Florentine art in Western Europe. Long hair was characteristic of pagan priests and other holy men of Greece and Rome which became incorporated into the these European cultures' vision of the Son of God. All depictions of 1st Century Judeans show men with short hair.
A couple of popular reconstuctions.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
I've had positive interactions with Metatron in the past, so I'm a bit reluctant to talk too much smack about him behind his back. I will admit that I'm not a fan of his whole anti-"woke" leaning, and I've seen people on r/badhistory criticize him for misrepresenting history in the name of politics (e.g. this post calling him out for exaggerating homophobia and heteronormativity in ancient Greece). So I share DJ's suspicions about his agenda, even though I'm coming at it from a different angle.
With that said, his reported claims about Jesus's probable complexion aren't too unreasonable IMO. I admit to not being a Christian or even a theist at all, but if there was a historical Jesus, an appearance within the Middle Eastern range appears most likely for him. That being said, there would have been a fair amount of diversity throughout all the Roman provinces at that time, so him and other 1st century Judaeans having some African or other non-Levantine ancestry isn't impossible either. Let's not forget the "black and comely" Shulamite woman from the Biblical Song of Songs, although IIRC that took place centuries before Jesus's time.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Note that I haven't said anything bad about Metatron. I've watched some of his videos and I am just suspicious of him is all. I find his anti-black attitude on Egyptians and other North Africans to be strange considering that Roman accounts clearly describe them as 'black' yet he is suppose to be very knowledgeable about his Roman ancestors as he likes to brag and is fluent in Latin. As far as him being "anti-woke", that's really no issue for me and in fact I would support that sentiment IF done in the right way. I do see the complaints he makes such as the BBC black-painting Romans and feminizing the British Celts. So I get where he's coming from in that regard.
As for his Jesus claims, again he is basing this on all the evidence we have on 1st Century Judean people so no argument from me either.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Non-"BHI" european scholars from earlier centuries record the fact that the earliest artwork of Christ depicts him as a black man.
"Liberal Review: An Organ of the Independent Thinkers of America, Volume 3" by Mangasar Mugurditch Mangasarian, page 478 (1906) Library of the University of Michigan
Also, firsthand eyewiteness accounts written by non-"BHI" europeans record the fact that native Jews in Israel were comparable to black slaves in the American south, in regards to skin color.
"Memorials of Gilbert Haven, Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church" page 340 (1880) University of Michigan
"Black complexion", Jordanian Bedouin Arabs
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
We've been through this before. He compared them to literal, southern slaves in America. You always seem to skip over that part. Plenty of arabs over there for him to compare them to, yet he didn't mention arabs at all.
Sorry.
More non-"BHI" european scholars talking about how black native Jews are/were.
This one compared them to black ethiopians (not arabs).
"On the Classification and Geographical Distribution of the Mammalia:" by Richard owen, page 96-97 (1859) John W. Parker and Son
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: We've been through this before. He compared them to literal, southern slaves in America. You always seem to skip over that part. Plenty of arabs over there for him to compare them to, yet he didn't mention arabs at all.
Sorry.
You highlighted some parts and excluded others like the bolded from this sentence at the beginning of the notes >>
quote: The natives of Palestine, Jews and Arabs, except the few of the former imported from Germany, are of a brown complexion, almost the color of the bright brown mulatto.
So you are the one who started with the skipping over
Bishop Haven says "almost the color the bright brown mulatto" and relates this to the natives of Palestine, Jews and Arabs. These are two different religious groups of similar biological stock genetically and in appearance
You are going to just not ignore parts of sentence you don't like, i.e "bright brown mulatto"
He goes on to describe a particular "Jewess" he saw in Bethlehem >>
quote:The most beautiful lady we saw abroad, one of the loveliest we ever looked upon, was a brown Bethlehem Jewess, who passed us at the tomb of Rachel, on her donkey, with her brown, bearded , and turbaned lord and lover walking at her side, a perfect type of the Rachel and Jacob of four thousand years before. Just such complexions may one see to-day in those who were but lately Southern slaves.
He compares this particular woman's complexion to that of a slave in the American South although does not compare other features
Going on:
quote: A very comely and attractive Bedouin, of a bright brown complexion, went up the pyramids with us, and stood under the Sphinx. When asked to come to America, he replied, " You will sell me." We had been selling multitudes of his complexion for generations. Dean Stanley describes Abraham as a Bedouin sheik. Except in the faith, he says, "In every aspect the likeness is complete between the Bedouin chief of the present day, and the Bedouin chief who came from Chaldea nearly four thousand years ago. " One of these " aspects " is complexion , and the Arab of Palestine and the Wilderness, is very like Frederick Douglass in this particular.
back to a "bright brown complexion" Bedouin woman
The Bedouin, are pastorally nomadic Arab tribes who have historically inhabited the desert regions in the Arabian Peninsula, North Africa, the Levant, and Mesopotamia (Iraq).
Haven goes on to say Dean Stanley ( an English Anglican priest and ecclesiastical historian who wrote History 'of the Jewish Church' and says Stanley describes Abraham as a "Bedouin sheik" and compares his complexion to Frederick Douglass who had formerly been a slave and whose father was European.
The same with my highlighting >>
quote: Anecdotal evidence
Anecdotal evidence is evidence based only on personal observation, collected in a casual or non-systematic manner.
When compared to other types of evidence, anecdotal evidence is generally regarded as limited in value due to a number of potential weaknesses, but may be considered within the scope of scientific method as some anecdotal evidence can be both empirical and verifiable,
The theme is at the start:
quote: The natives of Palestine, Jews and Arabs, except the few of the former imported from Germany, are of a brown complexion, almost the color of the bright brown mulatto
Highlighted above, theme, body and conclusion. The whole thing is speculative but particularly anecdotal is that the author sees a woman who he knowns nothing about, determines she is Jewish and says she has dark skin. Similarly he sees another woman he knows nothing about a Bedouin woman of "bright brown complexion". Conspicuously you leave that part out of the highlight. You would have us believe this is a scientific study. I would not highlight either of these two women he happens to take notice of. It proves nothing. If he had interviewed 40 people and asked them about their ancestry and taken note of their appearance, various traits not just skin, it would be (somewhat) closer to a scientific analysis.
He quotes another author, Dean Stanley, speculating the he thinks Abraham would have looked like a present day ( in his day, 1800s) Bedouin (Arab) sheik relating this to an American "mulatto", the great Frederick Douglass
He ends the notes on this page with the theme he started with, a description of mixed looking people and describes Jesus (a Jew) "midway between the complexions of man."... "The Asiatic is the solvent of the Caucasian and the negro, and his color is almost exactly reproduced in the mulatto of America, the amalgam of the two opposite complexions ."
So he is describing Jesus, Jews and Arabs as "Asiatic" (correct, the Levant is in Asia) and describes them as a mix of "Caucasian and the negro, and his color is almost exactly reproduced in the mulatto of America, the amalgam of the two opposite complexions."
It's all speculative remarks by Bishop Haven, Episcopal Bishop who also taught Greek and Latin about people who he saw in Bethlehem sometime around 1880 Some of what he's saying sounds, reasonable but there is no research here. What is being reiterated in this text? > Jews/Arabs being "midway", "mulatto", "bright brown" although he says one woman of unknowns background in Bethlehem who seemed to be darker, likened to an American slave in complexion. But he opens with a mixed theme and closes with it, It's the main theme.
you need to distinguish between research, where data is collected and analyzed and just opinion and anecdotal (weak) evidence
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
"The Scattered Nation and Jewish Christian Magazine" by Carl Schartz, page 214 (1867) University of Michigan
"Southern slaves", "black as the Ethiopian races", "negro type with black woolly hair".....
Sorry, none of those sources support your nonsensical claims or ideas. You literally typed all that for nothing as usual.
These are firsthand eyewitness accounts, some of the best evidence available in terms of what people look or looked like. The only time I've ever seen you complain about books being referenced is when they debunk your fantasies. Other than that you have no problem with them and even reference them yourself.
You need to stop being a racist, gaslighting troll...
The source you're trying so hard to skewer literally compared them to southern slaves in America. One would have to be an idiot to think that all or even the majority of southern slaves were mulattoes. One of the natives he spoke to was afraid to come to America out of fear of being sold into slavery. Yeah... that definitely sounds like an arab.
The author's opinion as to what Christ looked like is 100% irrelevant. What is relevant is how he witnessed the blackness of native Jews with his own eyes.
Lastly, a "midway" complexion is still frequently witnessed in those we would call negroes. "Negroes" are not crayon black. Of course you already know this, but you are allergic to representing information honestly when it comes to black people being something other than what you want them to be.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
Lastly, a "midway" complexion is still frequently witnessed in those we would call negroes. "Negroes" are not crayon black. Of course you already know this, but you are allergic to representing information honestly when it comes to black people being something other than what you want them to be.
Haven never says Jews and Arabs are negroes, read. He is specifies a mulatto bright brown complexion and a darker woman he saw pass by him in Bethlehem.
Here are some Jordanian Arabs
quote:Bishop Gilbert Haven:
The natives of Palestine, Jews and Arabs, except the few of the former imported from Germany, are of a brown complexion, almost the color of the bright brown mulatto.
These Arabs are darker than even the "bright brown mulatto" Haven describes, Obama's skin tone. Native Jews and Arabs vary in skin tone. Some ancient classical writers might call the above men black complexioned, so what's the problem? Hair type or any other trait is not mentioned by Haven. The only person being gaslighted is you by yourself. I am merely reading your source and not excluding the theme of it.
last paragraph:
quote:Rev. Dr. Summers, thus confesses the wrongfulness of that famous plea for American slavery: "The descendants of Ham's fourth son, Canaan were exclusively involved in Noah's malediction; but they were not negroes, nor, so far as appears, any darker in their hue than the Jews, to whom, as Shemites, they were brought into servitude, as they were afterwards to the Greeks and Romans, the descendants of Japheth. We do not doubt that the black races of Africa, including all the negroes, descended from Cush and Phut, two of the sons of Ham, with perhaps a little intermingling from the descendants of Mizraim, another of his sons, who settled in Egypt.
Gilbert Haven
Gilbert Haven (1821 – 1880) was a bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church, elected in 1872. He was consecrated a bishop on May 24, 1872 at the Brooklyn Academy of Music in New York. He was an early benefactor of Clark College (now Clark Atlanta University), visualizing it as a university of all the Methodist schools founded for the education of freedmen (former African American slaves).
In 1846 he graduated with honors from Wesleyan University and then taught Greek and Latin. He traveled widely, visiting the Holy Land, Africa, Mexico and Europe, and was an early proponent of equality of the sexes. He became a member of the New England Annual Conference in 1851 and served as bishop in Atlanta to a conference composed entirely of African Americans.
He believed in the absolute equality of all persons, and if they are equal in the eyes of God, he held that civil society would have to recognize their equality under law and in practice. He was absolutely opposed to the practice of any type of racial separation in churches. Due to his radical egalitarian views, shocking at the time, no Northern conference would have him as a bishop—hence, his appointment to an all black mission conference.
Among the books he wrote were The Pilgrim's Wallet (1864) on travel; National Sermons (1869), Sermons, Speeches and Letters on Slavery and its War, and Life of Father Taylor.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Yeah keep clinging to your failed argument in regards to that one source, and keep deflecting/ignoring the other sources that undeniably described the natives of Israel as being black or "negro" people (one of the sources literally calls them negroes with black and woolly hair).
Once again, his opinion on who the Hamites are is 100% irrelevant to what he saw and witnessed with his own eyes.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: Yeah keep clinging to your failed argument in regards to that one source, and keep deflecting/ignoring the other sources that undeniably described the natives of Israel as being black or "negro" people (one of the sources literally calls them negroes with black and woolly hair).
Once again, his opinion on who the Hamites are is 100% irrelevant to what he saw and witnessed with his own eyes.
So your view is that in the late 1880's Jews in Palestine were negroes? This seems to be your view, that Europeans writers of 150 years ago described Jews in Palestine as negroes
Your other book quote says that trustworthy travelers said
quote: "There are some Jews still lingering in the valleys of the Jordan, having been oppressed by the successive conquerors of Syria for ages, -a low race of people, and described by trustworthy travellers as being as black as any of the Ethiopian races."
That doesn't say they were negroes and it doesn't say they were of the Ethiopian race
The author also says:
quote: with man there are classifications of races varying from thirty to the three predominant ones which Blumenbach first clearly pointed out, -the Ethiopian, the Mongolian, and the Caucasian or Indo- European.
So he is using "Ethiopian" here as synonymous with "negro". With this in mind he did not say trustworthy travellers said some of the Jews in Jordan valleys were Ethiopians he said black ( in color) like Ethiopians (or the Jordanian Bedouins I pictured)
“Black Bedouins are a minority in Arab society and considered the lowest class that there is. My ancestors were kidnapped from Africa and became slaves"
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
I'm not posting these sources to convince you of anything, just in case you were unaware. This is for future readers to see. You're still playing dumb and completely ignoring the source that says the natives of Jericho (West Bank, Israel) are/were negroes with woolly black hair.
That alone shows your pseudo interpretation of these sources is 100% incorrect and that just because they aren't called "negroes" in every source, does not mean they do not resemble "negroes" or look exactly like "negroes".
Do "white" people need to referred to as "caucasoid" or "caucasian" in a source in order for them to be classified as white?
You seem to only have a problem and get confused when it's "negroes". If I were I were posting sources about native Jews being any other race/color, I would receive no pushback from you.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: I'm not posting these sources to convince you of anything, just in case you were unaware. This is for future readers to see. You're still playing dumb and completely ignoring the source that says the natives of Jericho (West Bank, Israel) are/were negroes with woolly black hair.
That alone shows your pseudo interpretation of these sources is 100% incorrect and that just because they aren't called "negroes" in every source, does not mean they do not resemble "negroes" or look exactly like "negroes" (and others)
Do "white" people need to referred to as "caucasoid" or "caucasian" in a source in order for them to be classified as white?
You seem to only have a problem and get confused when it's "negroes". If I were I were posting sources about native Jews being any other race/color, I would receive no pushback from you.
"black" is a vague term and in is used in different ways by different people and in different time periods. Some says it just means dark skinned others say it means negro and that negro includes hair type, facial features, skull type etc
You are posting sources using the word negro. So show us a source that that says Jews are negroes instead of some being dark ('black colored') like negroes. If you are showing books that say "negro" dozens times and also mention Jews then if you believe that these 1800s pre-state of 'Israel" authors thought Jews were negroes there should be a clear statement like "Negroes such as the Jews" or "Jews and other negroes" There should be a clear cut statement like that, not just comparison to complexion of certain individuals
There was a time period in America where he would be called a "Mulatto" Now he's called black though his mother was a European.
A man darker than Obama. Is he a black man? there is no right answer it's just opinion
The Mexican comedian George Lopez. He might be a little darker than Obama or LL Cool J. So is he black?
The term black is not consistently applied, it's a lot of opinion
"Negro" is more specific because it's used to describe more than skin
Tazarah, yes or no please Is he in your opinion black or not black ?
If you are going to use the term black you should be able to answer this. If you can't answer this I take it you want it to be vague purposely
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Yeah let's keep pretending I didn't already post a source identifying the natives of Jericho (West Bank, Israel) as being negroes with black woolly hair. Have a nice day
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Yes, and let's keep pretending there is no such thing as an afro-Bedouin
You quote describes a Bedouin village of 30 dwellings called Ribha
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
quote: A miserable village of some thirty poor hovels, more resembling cowsheds than human dwellings, alone remains ; here and there a black Bedouin tent and an old watch-tower, -such is the aspect of the present Jericho. The glorious groves of palms in whose cool shade once walked the rich inhabitants of Jericho, are dead, and the plantations of the sugar- cane and indigo have disappeared. The dwellers in Ribha (the Jericho of old-in Arabic Sidr) are of the negro type; they have black woolly hair, and their countenances are deficient in intelligence .
Open slavery existed in the region of Palestine until the 20th-century. The slave trade to Ottoman Palestine officially stopped in the 1870s
Palestine was close to the Red Sea slave trade, but also to the slave ports of the Mediterranean Sea, were slaves from the Trans-Saharan slave trade were imported via Libya and Egypt.
In the last decades of open slavery in Palestine, the origin of slaves appeared to have been similar to other Ottoman provinces at the time: a small minority were Caucasians (usually Circassians), but the vast majority of the slaves were of African origin, mostly from Ethiophia (Abyssinia) and the Sudan.
. In the British report to the League of Nations for 1924, they reported that slavery existed in Transjordan but had ended in Palestine in the early 20th-century after the import of slaves had stopped.[12] According to the British, the Palestina Bedouin tribes did own African servants called Abid, but that they now had the same rights as the rest of the tribe members and should be regarded as former slaves, and that the same term should apply to the African female domestic servants of the Arab noble families
Afro-Palestinians are Palestinians of black African heritage. A minority of Afro-Palestinians, who number around 350-400, reside in an African enclave around the Bab al-Majlis,[1] in the Muslim Quarter of Jerusalem.[2][3] Some of the community dwell in other areas of Jerusalem such as Beit Hanina and A-Tur.[3]
There are also Bedouin Palestinians outside Jerusalem who have descent lines linking them to people of African origin[4] such as in the West Bank of Jericho and Gaza.
There are some Palestinian communities that trace their origins to pilgrims from Sudan and Central Africa (mainly Chad) who are said to have reached Palestine as early as the 12th century. Their initial aim was to take part in the Hajj and reach Mecca, after which they visited Jerusalem to visit the al-Aqsa Mosque.[2] Many Afro-Palestinians also hail from forefathers who came to Palestine enslaved in service to the Ottomans.
People whose ancestors came from Nigeria, Sudan, Senegal and Chad make up most of the community, and most of these came to Palestine during the British Mandate.
The Jerusalem community of Afro-Palestinians, 50 families now numbering some 350 (or 450) members, reside in two compounds outside the Ḥaram ash-Sharīf (west of the Inspector's Gate): Ribat al-Mansuri and Ribat of Aladdin (Ribat al-Baseri/Ribat Aladdin al-Bassir/Ribat Al'a ad-Deen Busari). They were built between 1267 and 1382[2] and served as ribats (hostels for visiting Muslim pilgrims) under the Mamluks. This distinctive enclave has been called Jerusalem's Little Harlem.
These have close links with similar communities in Acre and Jericho, established when Africans came to work in the Umayyad sugar industry.[14] The community in northern Jericho have often been called "the slaves of Duyuk" even in modern times. ____________________________________
World’s Oldest City Retains Lure : Biblical Jericho: Winter Oasis for the West Bank
Jericho is also home to a unique group of black Palestinians whose roots are lost in history. The most common theories are that they are descended from Nubian slaves, possibly from the time of Herod, or from a Nubian regiment left behind by the retreating Egyptian commander Ibrahim Pasha early in the 19th Century.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
"Lioness", the wiki scholar. "Afro-palestinians" themselves claim to have been there for thousands of years and claim to be directly tied to the land.
I'm sure future readers will also notice how you repeatedly fail to link photos of these native black Jews who would resemble black slaves in america or black Ethiopians.
And that you instead choose to link photos of obama and arabs, with your childish markings on them.
The reason why you do this is obvious.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: You are posting sources using the word negro. So show us a source that that says Jews are negroes instead of some being dark ('black colored') like negroes. If you are showing books that say "negro" dozens times and also mention Jews then if you believe that these 1800s pre-state of 'Israel" authors thought Jews were negroes there should be a clear statement like "Negroes such as the Jews" or "Jews and other negroes" There should be a clear cut statement like that, not just comparison to complexion of certain individuals
Oh damn, would you look at that:
"Russia and the Negro: Blacks in Russian History and Thought" by Allison Blakely, page 11 (1986) Howard University Press
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: [ "Lioness", the wiki scholar. "Afro-palestinians" themselves claim to have been there for thousands of years and claim to be directly tied to the land.
I'm sure future readers will also notice how you repeatedly fail to link photos of these native black Jews who would resemble black slaves in america or black Ethiopians.
And that you instead choose to link photos of obama and arabs, with your childish markings on them.
The reason why you do this is obvious. [/QB]
I linked this twice >>
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Yes, and let's keep pretending there is no such thing as an afro-Bedouin
He have a man named Ali Jiddah. He first says he's an African, then he says he's a deeply rooted Palestinian African. Likely he's Muslim and he never identifies in the video as an Israelite, TEOTW Ministries, a religious organization is just titling the video that way
quote: TEOTW Ministries is a teaching ministry, chosen to be a part of awakening the true Hebrew Israelites to who they are both from a biblical and historical context. TEOTW Ministries believe that the Negros are the true biblical Israelites, and that the Negro fulfills all prophecies concerning the Israelites, as well as have been authenticated through historical texts.
can we stick to non-religious sources please, likely this is clipped from some other video
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
"Likely" in other words you can't support your claim with facts. Out of his own mouth, the man says the land belongs to him and his ancestors. I.E., native inhabitant.
Must just be a coincidence that he looks exactly the same way that these sources describe the native Jews as looking huh?
I also responded with a non-religious source and it says exactly what you demanded a source should say in this instance, so I'm now waiting to see how you will deflect and/or move the goalpost.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
I'm so used to dealing with racist idiots that this completely went over my head: I am just now realizing how completely white supremacist "the lioness" has been being with his comments in this thread.
According to his logic, the only way the black native Jews being spoken of in these sources can actually look like african-americans, is if they are called "negroes" verbatim. They absolutely NEED to be called negroes, otherwise the sources aren't talking about people with "negro" phenotypes.
Yet he's constantly posting photos of arabs and other people he wishes these sources are talking about.
ROFL!!! Thank you for once again exposing yourself, you true negro idiot.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: "Likely" in other words you can't support your claim with facts. Out of his own mouth, the man says the land belongs to him and his ancestors. I.E., native inhabitant.
Somebody claiming land belongs to them is not a fact either, look at all the fools here in American claiming they are Aboriginal and the land belongs to them. Anybody can claim anything.
A terrorist-turned-tour guide who offers clients a somewhat different view of the city talks to Abraham Rabinovich about his work - and his past....
the View of Jerusalem he offers his clients may be unique: that of an ex-terrorist, Marxist- Leninist, Moslem-born atheist..
His business card introduces him as an alternative tour guide” in English, 'French or Hebrew...
Ali Jiddah is a resident of the “African Quarter'' of the Old City, a small enclave just west of the Temple Mount containing 70 families of sub-Saharan descent. His father, from Chad, was among a group of African Moslems .who came in 1936 on pilgrimage and remained. Because Chad was a French colony, the Reach consulate subsidized Jiddah’s tuition to the prestigious Collège des Frères a Catholic high school near Jaffa Gate. He was 17 when the Six Day War opened the gate. ,
“T began to experience life under occupation, being stopped by soldiers and told to stand against a wall with hands up"
Ali Jiddah One of the best-known Afro-Palestinians from history is Ali Jiddah, a former Palestinian resistance fighter. He is of Chadian descent; his father hailed from the Salamat tribe and settled in Palestine after making a pilgrimage there.
Ali Jiddah is best known for his involvement with the organization the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. In response to the Israeli occupation of Jerusalem, in 1968 he planted four hand grenades on Strauss Street in Jerusalem which injured nine Israelis. Ali Jiddah was sentenced to 25 years in prison, but was released in 1985 after serving 17 years.
Following his release, Jiddah worked as a journalist before offering tours of the Old City in Jerusalem, teaching people about life in the area under Israeli occupation. Today he lives in Beit Hanina in East Jerusalem, and has two sons.
Mahmud Jiddah and his cousin Ali Jiddah both served seventeen years in Israeli jail for a 1968 bomb attack when they were members – Mahmud aged twenty, Ali aged eighteen – of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Both, now in their seventies, are freelance political tour guides, explaining Palestinian perspectives to visitors, and are well-known Jerusalem characters.
“I’m an Arab and I’m an African,” says Mahmud Jiddah. “At the same time, for example, my mother has two sisters, one is a villager, one is a Bedouin – so I am from the city, the village and [the desert]. I live these three things.”
“The Jiddah family and the Qaws family are both from the Salamat tribe in Chad. The first generation [who came to Jerusalem] used to speak [Hausa and other] African languages. But because our mothers are Palestinian, we – the second generation – didn’t learn these languages, only Arabic. There’s a hidden conflict between them and us. They considered themselves to be the originals, and said that we were not pure. They called us muwallad [meaning, in this context, a person with one African and one non-African parent]. With the intermarriage with the Palestinian community, little by little in fifty years’ time you won’t find a Black person here.”
______________________________________
According to Ali Jiddah, in his own words in 2022:
quote: first of all my name is Ali Mohammed. I am an Afro-Palestinian, third generation. My father is from Chad. My mother is a second generation, the father from Nigeria, my grandfather. My grandmother is a Palestinian
___________________________________________
So the "thousands of years" pertains to the side of his Palestinian mother as opposed to his African father
This is what one finds out in perusing deeper research
His a known figure in Jerusalem and has interviews and a documentary Let us know where he says he is an Israelite or admit it's made up. The claim is made my a Hebrew Israelite youtube, they go by the father and here he is saying his father is Chadian
unless you come up with some theory that all Chadians are Israelites, lol
or for that matter all Palestinians are Israelites
__________________
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
According to her logic, the only way the black native Jews being spoken of in these sources can actually look like african-americans, is if they are called "negroes" verbatim. They absolutely NEED to be called negroes, otherwise the sources aren't talking about people with "negro" phenotypes.
Why would one even expect Jews of the 1800s to look like African Americans?
In the past few decades "negro" is considered obsolete or offensive even but these old books you like to show are not going to be updated to the favored terms of today
"Black complexioned" is not synonymous with "looks like an African American"
You are bringing up old books and they say "negro" all over the place. Thus when the same books talk about Jews if they looked like negroes one would expect some of these 1800s books to say that Jews native to Palestine are negroes or say Jews are of the 'negro race'
> that they ARE negroes
OR that native Jews in Palestine generally look like Africans, a general statement with some research behind it, meaning systematically recording data on multiple individuals and asking each one what their ancestry is Not just describing one person who passes by in the street and without knowing anything about them noting their dark skin
there should be hundreds of writers saying this and old photos if it was the case
Jews at wedding in Yemen
- the one on the left as dark as many African Americans. Even the one on the right to some degree. Similarly two Jews, people who vary in looks, two Jews only, from a a particular place, not enough people to draw conclusions on a general population. Similarly Gilbert Haven noticing two people in the street. That's not a study. We deal with studies here
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
When did I say he claimed to be an Israelite?... that's right, never. You clueless idiot. The argument is about what his ancestors looked like. Now do us a favor and show us what his palestinian grandmother looked like since you're asserting they had different phenotypes.
Nobody is going to read all that bs -- you're still gaslighting and dodging the source that uses the exact wording you demanded in regards to negroes/Jews. Your retarded line of reasoning has just fallen flat on it's face and you've been debunked.
Racist idiot
From now on, no sources are talking about white Jewish people unless it calls them caucasoid or caucasian.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
You're such a racist idiot that you've turned this thread into "jEwS aRe NoT nEgRoEs!!!" simply because I referenced sources showing the known black phenotype of native Jews in conrast to that of iraqi Jews, or other Jews being spoken of in this thread.
Let that sink in, you probably don't even realize how majorly you expose your own racist motives.
What a damn loser with a losing strawman argument.
Afro-palestinians only have a population of 350-400:
And the majority of them do not even live in Jericho, but in a section(s) of Jerusalem.
Yet this deceptive pseudo would have us believe the source about the natives of Jericho being negroes with woolly hair is only speaking solely of afro-palestinians.
/FAIL.
Jericho is not an "afro-palestinian" territory. Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Here's another bomb you pseudo idiot.
Jericho is located in the Jordan [river] valley.
quote: JERICHO: A city in the Jordan valley, opposite Nebo (Deut. xxxii. 49), to the west of Gilgal (Josh. iv. 19). Owing to its importance, the part of the Jordan near Jericho was called "the Jordan of Jericho" (Num. xxii. 1, Hebr.).
The writer in the source described the inhabitants of Jericho as negroes with woolly hair.
And the writer in the other source I referenced says that Jews who never left the Jordan river valley (where Jericho is) are as black as the Ethiopian races.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: OR that native Jews in Palestine generally look like Africans, a general statement with some research behind it,
"The Scripture Gazetteer: A Geographical, Historical, and Statistical Account... Volume 1" by William Fleming, page 479 (1837) Edinburgh Printing and Publishing Company
Thats secondary. Any writing that would be primary to support that statement, we would have to look at the ancient writers quotes that this 1837 writer is interpreting
and as well look at the date of whichever ancient writer is being referred to. Thus if he is mentioning Tacitus, Josephus and other writers, that is what you should be quoting
More from your source, William Fleming of the Scripture Gazaetter, 1837 >>
quote: p 479
Some say that they were Ethiopians who were compelled to change their habitations in the reign of a king called Cepheus, although it is strange that Tacitus could suppose that the Ethiopians, who are known to be blacks, could be the ancestors of the Jews, who are known to be whites. There are those, continues Tacitus, who report that the Jews were Assyrians, who, wanting a territory, obtained a part of Egypt, and soon after settled in cities of their own in the country of the Hebrews, and the districts of Syria which lay nearest to them; while others claim for them an origin more eminent, alleging that they are the people celebrated by Homer under the name of Solymi, who founded the nation, and gave the name Hierosolyma to its capital city. The former of these opinions is nearer the truth, and both of them Tacitus might have borrowed from Josephus himself, who mentions the latter notion in the Seventh Book of his Antiquities. From the above particulars, extravagant as they are, some facts can be easily adduced ; the first, that many foreigners were obliged to quit Egypt with the Israelites, and that therefore the latter were often confounded with a race with whom they had no connection ; the second, that the Israelites were often taken for Ethiopians or Cushites, who, like themselves, became the objects of hatred to the Egyptians ; and the third, that a tribe of Ethiopians was expelled from Egypt about the time of or with the Israelites. " It need scarcely be
p 374
CUSH, Ethiopians, or black, or Chus, a people or region so called from Cush, the eldest son of Ham and grandson of Noah. In the Vulgate and Septuagint, and by various interpreters, ancient and modern, Cush is very generally rendered Ethiopia. The Land of Cush was properly that district of Arabia in which the sons of Cush first settled, but it is often taken largely for a great tract of country, comprehending much more than the proper territory of the Cushites, extending east as far as the Tigris, and having for its western boundary the Nile. Josephus says that Cush was the father of the Ethiopians, who in his time were styled Cusheans, not only by themselves, but by all the inhabitants of Asia. Others conjecture that Cush located in that part of Persia still called Chusistan or Khuzistan, or the Land of Chus, whence his posterity might have passed into other countries. It appears from the Scriptures that a part of Arabia near the Red Sea was anciently named Cush ; that Cushan and Midian are frequently mentioned as dwelling together in tents ; and that in other places the Arabians are spoken of as bordering on the Cushites, who cannot therefore be viewed as the Ethiopians. Bruce informs us that the Abyssinians have a tradition, which is equally received by Jews and Christians, that immediately after the Deluge Cush passed with his family through the low country of Egypt, and proceeded to the high lands which border the mountainous district of Abyssinia, where they settled, and their descendants built the city of Axum in the days of Abraham. It is impossible to decide on a subject the most of which is mere conjecture. It appears that there were four countries named Cush in the Scriptures, and inhabited by Cushites, who by frequent removals dwelt widely separated from each other.-1 . Cush in the vicinity of the river Indus. This is said to have been the original Ethiopia in the East. Strabo says that the Ethiopians are a two fold people, who lie extended in a long tract from the rising to the setting of the sun. The Syriac version of 2 Chron. xvi. 8, reads Indians for Ethiopians, and both the Syriac and Chaldee in Isa. xi . 11 , and Zeph. iii . 10, read India for Cush.-2. There was a Cush in Assyria, west of the Caspian. St Jerome mentions that St Andrew preached the gospel to that people, whom he calls Ethiopians or Cushites.-3. Cush in Arabia Petræa, bordering on Egypt.— 4. Ethiopia, south of Egypt, in Africa, is designated by the name of Cush. The reader will find more particulars concerning the Cushites in various parts of the present work.
The author here is simultaneously saying
"it is strange that Tacitus could suppose that the Ethiopians, who are known to be blacks, could be the ancestors of the Jews, who are known to be whites."
(and referring here to ancient Jews)
but also saying
"the Israelites were often taken for Ethiopians or Cushites,"
Then he speaks elsewhere in the book about Strabo says that "the Ethiopians are a two fold people" and "the Arabians are spoken of as bordering on the Cushites, who cannot therefore be viewed as the Ethiopians."
-not exactly consistent remarks, both on page 479
He is talking about all the varying interpretation in historical writing as to exactly what is being referred to when the ancient writers referred to "Ethiopians" and "Cush" and in the bible (which could also vary according to chapter)
It's far from consistent and in reading Tacitus, Tacitus says:
The Jews are said to have been refugees from the island of Crete who settled in the remotest corner of Libya in the days when, according to the story, Saturn was driven from his throne by the aggression of Jupiter...
A few authorities hold that in the reign of Isis the surplus population of Egypt was evacuated to neighboring lands under the leadership of Hierosolymus and Judas.note Many assure us that the Jews are descended from those Ethiopians who were driven by fear and hatred to emigrate from their home country when Cepheus was king.note There are some who say that a motley collection of landless Assyriansnote occupied a part of Egypt, and then built cities of their own, inhabiting the lands of the Hebrews and the nearer parts of Syria. Others again find a famous ancestry for the Jews in the Solymi who are mentioned with respect in the epics of Homer:note this tribe is supposed have founded Jerusalem and named it after themselves...
Whatever their origin, these observances are sanctioned by their antiquity. The other practices of the Jews are sinister and revolting, and have entrenched themselves by their very wickedness.
So when we look at the actual ancient sources we see how sketchily and speculative it all is. Tacitus follows his accounting of various theories about Jewish origins by saying "Whatever their origin" .
Again, this is all sketchy speculation not research data facts and Tacitus was born 56 AD about 1,200 years after the Israelites time period, similarly Josephus born 37 AD.
quote: Scripture Gazaetter, 1837
Tacitus might have borrowed from Josephus himself, who mentions the latter notion in the Seventh Book of his Antiquities.
There is a lot of text here, see if you can find anything relevant to the above mention of Josephus and quote it
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Fleming was pointing out how it's a known historical fact that the Jews/Israelites were often mistaken for cushites/ethiopians (black africans).
In other words, this isn't "BHI" rhetoric that Tazarah is pulling out of his ass.
His observation does not hinge on what Tacitus said (although Tacitus listed several "Ethiopian" nations that Jews were believed to descend from). Of course you deflect and move the goalpost like how I foretold you would.
His statement about modern Jews being white is irrelevant and you're now clinging to that as a crutch to save face.
I've also referenced a source that you've yet to address that says multiple ancient slave-trading civilizations classified negroes as Jews.
Every pseudo argument/request you've made has been thoroughly dealt with. Have several seats.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
I suggest you stop embarrassing yourself and do some actual research into the term "negro" and it's usages. During the time period that these old books were written in, there were qualifications for who would or wouldn't be called a negro even if they looked exactly like a "negro".
Europeans didn't just go around calling all black people negroes simply because they were black. Even if they looked exactly like negroes and checked all the physical "negro" boxes. That's not how it worked.
"The term negro is confined to slave Africans, (the ancient Berbers) and their descendants. It does not embrace the free inhabitants of Africa, such as the Egyptians, Moors, or the negro Asiatics, such as the Lascars."
"The Negro Law of South Carolina" by John Belton O'Neall, page 5 (1848) J.G. Bowman
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: Fleming was pointing out how it's a known historical fact that the Jews/Israelites were often mistaken for cushites/ethiopians (black africans).
quote us the historical fact source
I'll wait
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Quote a source saying that Jews/Israelites were never known to look like "negroes" or "africans".
When's the last time you posted an actual source? All you do is wait for other people to post sources so you can twist them and make shit up.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
I quoted numerous sources on Ali Jidda's background
As for quoting a source saying that Jews/Israelites were never known to look like "negroes" or "africans".
it is a ridiculous request asking for a source on what some ancient group di not look like
It's like saying quote a source saying the ancient Celts did not look like Eskimos
> there's a source saying 50 million things that XYZ population did NOT look like ??
these books you post have numerous mention of "negroes" and mention Jews SO if your theory that Jews were negroes or resembling West Africans then you should be able to find one of these old books saying Jews are a type of negro OR "we came upon Jews of Bethlehem and their appearance was no different than that of a Senegalese or inhabitant of the Congo"
You should be able to find some writer, pre-state of Israel finding it remarkable how Jews in Palestine looked like West Africans.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
So in other words, you're only going to type gibberish and twist the sources I've posted (or not address them at all) instead of supplying sources that back up your fantasies.
And you keep moving the goalpost like a desperate idiot. You can't even provide a source that says what you are demanding.
I also notice that you keep going back and editing your comments hours after posting them...
I rest my case
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: I suggest you stop embarrassing yourself and do some actual research into the term "negro" and it's usages. During the time period that these old books were written in, there were qualifications for who would or wouldn't be called a negro even if they looked exactly like a "negro".
Europeans didn't just go around calling all black people negroes simply because they were black. Even if they looked exactly like negroes and checked all the physical "negro" boxes. That's not how it worked.
"The term negro is confined to slave Africans, (the ancient Berbers) and their descendants. It does not embrace the free inhabitants of Africa, such as the Egyptians, Moors, or the negro Asiatics, such as the Lascars."
Lascars
"The Negro Law of South Carolina" by John Belton O'Neall, page 5 (1848) J.G. Bowman
I've seen this before. It's by John Belton O'Neall
John Belton O'Neall (1793–1863) was an American judge who served on the precursor to the South Carolina Supreme Court. He is remembered for writing the digest The Negro Law of South Carolina.
As we see at the top of the page above:
in 1848 to summarize the South Carolina laws governing slaves and free people of color, a prominent South Carolina judge, John Belton O’Neall, cited the Negro Act of 1740 :
"The Act of 1740, section I, declares all Negroes and Indians (Free Indians in amity with this Government, Negroes, mulattoes and mestizoes, who are now free excepted) to be slaves — the offspring to follow the condition of the mother; and that such slaves are chattels personal."
From its earliest days South Carolina affirmed that to be a person of color was to be a slave and the notion of a free person of color was both a legal and social contradiction in terms. Belton O’Neall stated that, “my experience as a man, and a Judge, leads me to condemn the Acts of 1820” and later restrictions imposed in 1841. “They ought to be repealed and the Act of 1800 restored. The State has nothing to fear from emancipation, regulated as that law directs it to be.” __________________
O'Neall summarized the 1740 South Carolina law when he stated:
"A slave may, by the consent of his master, acquire and hold personal property. All, thus required, is regarded in law as that of the master."
____________________________
In South Carolina, there was an exception to the law stating slaves could own property with permission of their master. Anything necessary for their work, such as a boat, or livestock raised by them, could be seized by anyone, though only if the slave took it off the plantation.
Judge John Belton O'Neall saw the law in 1848 as a cruel relic of the past, but his humanitarianism included a healthy dose of self-interest, as he thought better-treated slaves would be less apt to escape....
Belton O’Neall’s 1848 discussion confirmed that racial identity must sometimes be determined by jury when in question
_____________________________________
In judge O'Neall's ""The Negro Law of South Carolina" he makes this peculiar statement:
"the term negro is confined to slave Africans, (the ancient Berbers) and their descendants. It does not embrace the free inhabitants of Africa, such as the Egyptians, Moors, or the negro Asiatics, such as the Lascars."
Lascars _________________________________________ Lascars were probably the largest group of South Asian workers in Victorian Britain. The majority were Muslim, although there were significant Hindu (Suratis) and Catholic Goan minorities. They came principally from East Bengal (Bangladesh), particularly Chittagong and Sylhet, and were recruited from the port of Calcutta. The port of Bombay recruited seamen from along the Malabar Coast of Western India. The introduction of railways to India enabled recruitment from inland areas such as the Punjab. During the Age of Sail, many European nations employed sailors from the Indian Ocean region. These men were known as ‘lascars’, a broad term often used to describe South Asian seafarers but also applied to Arab, Burmese, Malay, Javanese and even Filipino men. Lascars are an important part of both British history and global history. Britain’s colonization of South Asia and development of shipping networks created a huge demand for lascars. Lascars worked on many different types of sailing ship during the 1700s and 1800s.
___________________________________
So Judge O'Neall In " Negro Law of South Carolina" is calling South Asians "Negro Asiatics"
"The term negro is confined to slave Africans, (the ancient Berbers) and their descendants. It does not embrace the free inhabitants of Africa, such as the Egyptians, Moors, or the negro Asiatics, such as the Lascars.
he says:
"The term negro is confined to slave Africans"... and then..
"It does not embrace the free inhabitants of Africa, such as the Egyptians, Moors, or the negro Asiatics, such as the Lascars"
So, negro applies to slave Africans but not "negro Asiatics" (make it make sense) and what is it making these Asians "Negro Asiatics" ? and what do these people with Bangladeshi and Indian names, etc, South Asian workers in Victorian Britain have to do with South Carolina laws on slaves?
quote:according to slave trader Henry Laurens, colonial South Carolina planters initially preferred to purchase Africans from the Senegambia region. Despite these preferences, more Angolans were imported to the Lowcountry in the early colonial period than any other African nationality because of trade access in that region. British slave traders did, however, attempt to appease Carolina preferences for Senegambians. Overall, by the end of the colonial period, African arrivals in Charleston primarily came from Angola (40 percent), Senegambia (19.5 percent), the Windward Coast (16.3 percent), and the Gold Coast (13.3 percent), as well as the Bight of Benin and Bight of Biafra in smaller percentages.
"The term negro is confined to slave Africans, (the ancient Berbers) and their descendants. It does not embrace the free inhabitants of Africa, such as the Egyptians, Moors, or the negro Asiatics, such as the Lascars."
^^ It is not clear what he's saying here note where the comma is after "slave Africans" and the parenthesis on "the ancient berbers" > why the parenthesis ?
so if we take one of those out like the parenthesis we get
"The term negro is confined to slave Africans, the ancient Berbers and their descendants."
This would mean slave African AND Berbers are negros yet the term negro is usually not applied to the Berbers (or even brought up as per slaves in America).
of if we take the comma out of he original statement:
"The term negro is confined to slave Africans (the ancient Berbers) and their descendants."
Then it would mean slave Africans ARE descendants of "the ancient Berbers" when the vast majority are West Africans of the Senegambia region and Angola, not Berbers who are associated with North Africa
So however you try to interpret this mention of Berber it's some nonsense. Try to find something analogous in other legal writing of the American slave era, or historical account
Typically Moorish Science adherents like to use the above quote to claim they are not "negro" slaves but instead "Moors" who are not to be slaves (and thus they have some kind of special nationality status) (that Moorish Science foolery)
So this statement from S.C. law here is basically a misinformed arbitrary application of terminology on the part of slave owner Judge O'Neall on page 1 of 50+ Negro Laws of South Carolina (read the whole thing I guess for more wacky and offensive slave laws)
(but who am I to question this "scholarly" slave era Southern Judge?)
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Crazy (but not shocking) how "the lioness" still has not addressed the relevant source he demanded I post in regards to negroes being classified as Jews. He outright refuses to acknowledge that such a source exists, and instead types novels of bullshit in an attempt to gaslight and deflect.
Nor is he capable of supplying any sources of his own that substantiate any of his pseudo fantasies. This entire thread consists of you pretending to be an expert on sources that other people have posted, and trying to cause confusion as usual.
What else is to be expected of a racist idiot who believes black people need to be classified as "negroes" in order to have a certain phenotype.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
who but me would spend all these hours uncovering the actualities on all this stuff you are posting. After I expose what one really means I am supposed to go following behind you as you post another outdated non-fact speculation anecdotal remark derailing a thread about Jesus?
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Damn you're really trying your hardest to ignore the source that says numerous ancient civilizations classified "negroes" as Jews aren't you?
Yes the thread is about Jesus, but other posters in here shared info about Iraqi Jews and how they are supposedly the closest to what Jesus would have looked like.
You had no problems with that and nothing to say about that and of course only start to b*tch and moan and make accusations of "derailing" when I start posting info about how Jesus's first images depict him as black, and how native Jews are/were black. Like how you always do.
Like I always say; there's an undeniable and consistent pattern of you displaying your hatred for black people and it's reached a point where you're too f*cking stupid to realize how majorly you are exposing yourself.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: numerous ancient civilizations classified "negroes" as Jews
So ancient civilizations classified Africans as Jews and used the word negro
OK, you win
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: Jesus's first images depict him as black, and how native Jews are/were black. Like how you always do.
so post some of these early images of Jesus where he's resembling an African
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: So ancient civilizations classified Africans as Jews and used the word negro
OK, you win
So you finally address the source I've been begging you to address (although you misrepresented it). This shows that you have been well aware of the source for all this time but chose to play games and intentionally ignore it until getting backed into a corner because you knew it completely disproves the bullsh*t pseudo narrative you've been trying to push.
The "negroes" that source is talking were Jews ethnically, by "race". We know this because of the surrounding context which also explains how "negroes" were classified as Arabs. Arab is an ethnicity, not a religion or faith. You cannot convert to being an Arab. Thus, the source is speaking about the race/ethnicity of these so-called negroes.
Long story short, there is historical documentation that Jews were indeed viewed as "negroes".
With that being said I'm not taking anything you say seriously unless you explain why you only started to b*tch and moan when I started posting sources about black native Jews and Jesus being black, but had absolutely nothing to say when other users were posting info about Iraqi Jews and saying that Jesus would have looked like them.
I think we all deserve to know the reasoning behind your anti-black behavior especially since it's been proven to be a consistent pattern spanning over the years and not an isolated incident.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: there is historical documentation that Jews were indeed viewed as "negroes".
what document is it? lets' take a look
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: you only started to b*tch and moan when I started posting sources about black native Jews and Jesus being black, but had absolutely nothing to say when other users were posting info about Iraqi Jews and saying that Jesus would have looked like them.
"Black" is vague. Some people say it means "any dark skin person"
other says it means " a dark skinned person with afro type hair"
Others say "no, dark skinned Indians and Indians with bone straight hair are black"
>> It's all opinion, I explained this already
So instead of using this vague subjective term "black"
you should say (according to your opinion) that> ancient native Jews (or prior to the Israeli state) and Jesus could not be distinguished in physical appearance from Africans
rather than hiding behind this vague, move the goal post term "black"
Herbrew Israelites and Noble Drew following "Moors" often even reject being identified as "black"
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
So now that you've been debunked and once again exposed as a gaslighting pseudo, care to explain why there is no pushback from you in regards to the claims made by other users about Jesus supposedly looking like an Iraqi Jew? Even though they provided virtually zero evidence to support this claim?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: So now that you've been debunked and once again exposed as a gaslighting pseudo, care to explain why there is no pushback from you in regards to the claims made by other users about Jesus supposedly looking like an Iraqi Jew? Even though they provided virtually zero evidence to support this claim?
You've posted that Gilbert Haven thing dozens of times in various thread when somebody goes to they lengths on the Iraqi Jew theory then maybe I'll address it
My position is that nobody knows what Jesus looked like assuming he existed
I questioned that woman's book "What Did Jesus look Like? "
and then having an image of Jesus on the front
I am not that interested in the Iraqi Jew theory although as for Jew that Ur of the Chaldees, biblical quotes as to Abraham thing that came in the other thread is believed to be in the Iraq vicinity
I have to confess I did not watch the Metatron video did you? Also the "looked like an Iraqi Jew" theory does not have a nation wide religious movement behind it preaching on the streets
"Looked like" is superficial anyway you could look like an angel and still be a thief
Speak to Archeopteryx about the Iraqi thing he's the one bringing it up Go to the Metatron video get his Iraqi quotes, get some quotes from that woman's book and try to debunk it, I can't do all the research around here. I haven't even been charging you
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Why do you always deflect? I don't have a problem with archeotypery or djehuti posting anything about Iraqi Jews. I'm asking why you only obsess and engage 24/7 when someone posts info about black Jews, and do not show the same energy to people who post info about Jews of other colors/races.
I don't expect you to admit "because I'm an anti-black racist who can't stand the thought of Jews being black"
I'm honestly just having fun with you, it's entertaining watching you expose yourself while at the same time trying to pretend that you aren't a full of sh*t closet racist
I actually wouldn't even call you a closet racist because at this point it's all out in the open. It's been out in the open
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
because it's a bizarre theory and has a cult movement intruding the streets yelling at people
The first place I would be looking for what ancient Jews looked like would be in Israel and nearby regions, people there Jews and Palestinians who purport to be from families who never left there
> find us a video clip, a person from Israel resembling an African but says they are a native deep rooted Jew not an "Afro-Israeli" That does not mean what they are claiming is true but at least show us this, not Ali Jiddah who said his father was from Chad and he was born Muslim That would be a starting point
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
"Because it's a bizarre theory"
Even though a plethora of sources over millenia from non-"BHI" sources confirm that Jews were black and often resembled Africans.
...in simpler words you're a black-hating idiot
Cope harder
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
what do you mean "black" ?
Do you mean "anybody with medium to dark brown skin" ?
or do you mean
"somebody resembling phenotypically an African (but not necessarily of African decent)" ?
I know you will not answer that because you are playing gaslighting semantic games, so there is no point in talking further about this
I know what your theory is motivated by, not anthology but instead interpretation of Deuteronomy as prophesy which you then attempt to justify with weak hearsay, vague stuff from old history books
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
The fact that you still have to pretend not to know what I mean even after I've provided a handful of sources and explained everything ad nauseum just goes to show what a trolling fool you are
You act like we haven't discussed this topic hundreds of times over the years, and you act like you haven't been beaten over the head with historical sources each time
Just say you disagree with the sources and move the F on
Forgive me for no longer wanting to entertain your complete and utter retardation
It's clear that you hate black people and are also bored with your life. A recipe for internet idiocy
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
People who refuse to define the terms they use are bullshitters
I don't have to guess what people mean and wink
they are required to state it clearly rather than play games
"black" is a political term, not observational. It's used to purposely switch meanings according to the convenience of a conversation
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Nobody is asking you to guess anything you damn psycho. Keep pretending that you don't know what's going on... it's a real good look for you. You got slapped so hard in the face with these sources that you're now trying to act as though I'm "not being clear" even though we've discussed this multiple times over the years. I've explained everything clearly in this thread more than once and I can link multiple other threads you've derailed where I also explained everything to you and you totally understood what was being said.
Feel free to keep crying about how I'm not going to repeat myself for you
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
what you call "psycho" is my ability to understand your psychological and speak above your head
instead of using this vague subjective term "black"
you should confirm (according to your opinion) that> ancient native Jews (or prior to the Israeli state) and Jesus could not be distinguished in physical appearance from Africans
thus we can exclude any interpretations, for instance that some Indian person is "black" or some dark skinned Thai, etc. unless you are one of this people like some in this forum who defines black as including them, that is is why clarification is needed you bonehead (if not, why is there such a reliance on having to use this ambiguous term)
It's as simple as verifying a clear statement like that But because you are a religious fanatic and want to separate your self from even looking like an African, if not purposely want to not commit to a simple definition and instead purposely keep things blurry
you want to use this term "black" which is fine for every day use on the street but anthologically it has no standardized agreed upon meaning and is infused with a lot of politics That is above your head and understanding, thus you call this "psycho", thus I am wasting my time interacting with you
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
You still going? You act like inqusitive readers won't be able to read everything I've posted for themselves and easily see how full of sh*t you are... that's usually what happens most of the time.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
There are some forensic reconstructions of people who lived in what is today Israel in the centuries around Jesus time
A Skull from En Gedi in Israel 3d century BC, and "Ancestral Whisperers" facial reconstruction
A 2000 years old skull from Galilee and a facial reconstruction based on the skull
A video where Israeli anthropologist Professor Israel Hershkovitz tells about the 2000 years old skull from Galilee. The video is a part of a longer film from National Geographic.
quote:0:05 Professor Israel Hershkovitz meets with forensic artist Victoria Lywood to begin reconstructing the Galilean man's face Hershkovitz points out the unique characteristics of a skull: Look at the orbital, very small and not large, square-shaped and not rounded, those are all important morphological features which again tells you that you deal with what we call Eastern Mediterranean a population very much like the people who are living in this area today."
^ This is the same thing you guys do with "population genetics" and "DNA". Can you provide evidence stating that A) that skull belonged to an actual ethnic Jew/Israelite? B) that skull and its morphological features represented the population as a whole?
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Maybe you should ask the people who excavated and examined the skulls. In the video you can see the anthropologist Professor Israel Hershkovitz talk about the skull from Galilee. And regarding the remains which are compared with Iraqi Jews in Joan Taylors book, that information is based on her communication with Yossi Nagar who has excavated and examined many skulls. They are both anthropologists working in Israel who have seen many human remains. They ought to know the circumstances around the findings. They also know what type of remains are common in a certain period or place.
For example Yossi Nagar has written about The human osteological database which was created in Israel in 1994. From such a database much information can be gleaned.
Often archaeologists draw conclusion about eventual ethnicity of people in a tomb out of the context of the find, ie where it is found, from which period, the type of tomb and grave goods. That knowledge can be combined with knowledge received from the human remains themselves, from osteology, DNA if such is present, sometimes from analysis of stable isotopes and similar. The researchers also compare the remains with other remains.
When it comes to remains one can only go after the remains which are found. All people who die do not get preserved. That is a dilemma in anthropology and archaeology everywhere, not only in Israel.
Here is another skull, from Wadi Qumran. The findings there are usually thought to be associated with a special sect or group of Jews.
Skull from Wadi Qumran ca 150 BC - 70 AD
Here is the famous reconstruction which are based on three different skulls from Jesus time. Additional details like hair and skin tone are also based on art from the centuries around Jesus time.
I think it is not always easy to dismiss the knowledge and experience of anthropologists working in the area and who actually has seen and examined human remains from ancient Israel. They would also know how representative these finds are.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Those were yes or no questions. You typed a lot but were unable to give a precise and concise answer. Most likely because the answer to both of those questions would be no.
If you're now saying that not enough remains will be "found" to provide an accurate idea of what the population looked like as a whole (or to prove that the remains even belonged to the actual people in question) then perhaps you should stop cherrypicking.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Here are four reconstructions made for a TV documentary. They are all from what is now Israel. From left to right they are based on skulls which are 2000 years, 6000 years, c 3000 years and 6000 years. The woman is based on a skull who is thought to be a Philistine.
The TV series the reconstructions were made for is in four parts and is called Biblical Forensics: Real Faces of the Bible.
quote:The skulls were reconstructed for the show by an Israeli forensic anthropologist, Israel Hershkovitz of Tel Aviv University, with the help of technicians using 3D imaging equipment. Victoria Lywood, the forensic artist, then produced clay renderings of what the four might have looked like when they were alive. The reconstructed faces, which Lywood called “facial approximations” in a nod to the rather inexact business of drawing conclusions about a face based only on a skull, “are made in the same manner that you would use if you found unidentified skeletal remains and the police needed to identify the person,” she said.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: [QB] Those were yes or no questions. You typed a lot but were unable to give a precise and concise answer. Most likely because the answer to both of those questions would be no.
I have not worked in Israel, I can just go on what the anthropologists who work there say and write. If you want definitive answers I recommend you to contact them.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote: originally posted by Tazarah
If you're now saying that not enough remains will be "found" to provide an accurate idea of what the population looked like as a whole (or to prove that the remains even belonged to the actual people in question) then perhaps you should stop cherrypicking.
When it comes to your theory: If someone will try to prove that the old Judeans were black people or "negroes" then he/she will have to:
- Find ancient human remains with afro hair in Israel, preferably from a Jewish tomb.
- Show us that the majority of human remains (for example skulls) from Israel in the centuries around Jesus time belonged to "negroes".
- Show us that the majority of the DNA found in Israel from the time of Jesus show DNA profiles consistent with Sub Saharan Africans or other "negroes"
- Find depictions of black Jews from Jesus time, or from the centuries after Jesus (like in the ancient synagogues in Syria and Israel, or on Roman coins depicting captive Jews)
- Find really convincing written evidence not only anectotal tales ----------------- Steps in Ancestral Whispers reconstruction of the skull from En Gedi
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Ah, look at how the goalpost moves! Let's see you satisfy all those requirements in regards to the people who you believe fit what they would have looked like. Can you do that? Or does that only need to be done for those who demonstrate that ancient Jews were known to be black.
Sounds like you're upset about being called out for cherrypicking information when you know full well that:
You can't prove A) your skulls belonged to an actual ethnic Jew/Israelite or B) the skulls and their morphological features represented the population as a whole.
I've posted plenty of source material in this thread demonstrating what they would have looked like. Agree with it, disagree with it -- I could care less. Just don't pretend it doesn't exist.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
As I said, I do not work in Israel (and neither do you) so I can of course not be hundred percent sure. But for example the Qumran skull seems to be regarded as Jewish, same with the Tomb of the Shroud. When comes to the Galilean man I have not the actual report about the excavation.
And about being sure: Archaeologists and anthropologists rarely deal in absolutes. They often talk about probabilities. For example regarding the "race" of ancient Judeans one can ask which is more likely, judging from available data, that they were "Mediterranean" (relatively similar to today's peoples in the Levant or other parts of the Middle East) or that they were more like Subsaharan Africans in morphology (and maybe genetics too?).
But for a couple of those questions:
We have ancient Jewish hair from the first century and it is not wolly afro hair.
At least I have not seen any information that a majority of skulls from graves in Israel from Jesus time are negroid. But to be sure you have to consult people like Yossi Nagar or Israel Hershkovitz, they will know it better than both you and me.
When it concerns Jewish DNA from 1th century we so far have only mtDNA haplogroups which did not originally come from Subsaharan Africa.
I have in another thread posted depictions from the centuries around Jesus time, for example from synagogues and Roman coins from the 1th century AD showing Jewish captives.
Written documents can be tricky and sometimes contradictory. We have a couple of ancient statements of people not describing ancient Hebrews or Jews as being Black, like Rabbi Ishmael who said they were neither Black or White. Genesis Apocryphon we have already discussed in another thread, and I think Genesis Rabbah too (which is younger).
When it comes to evidence one has to weigh different kinds of evidence against each other, so physical evidence must be weighed against written statements (which are not always contemporary) or artistic representations. Only by sound methodology one can approach the truth.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx There are some forensic reconstructions of people who lived in what is today Israel in the centuries around Jesus time
- A Skull from En Gedi in Israel 3d century BC, and "Ancestral Whisperers" facial reconstruction
- A 2000 years old skull from Galilee and a facial reconstruction based on the skull
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: ^ This is the same thing you guys do with "population genetics" and "DNA". Can you provide evidence stating that A) that skull belonged to an actual ethnic Jew/Israelite? B) that skull and its morphological features represented the population as a whole?
He didn't say those skulls belonged to actual ethnic Jew/Israelites or represented the population as a whole, stop
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: Ah, look at how the goalpost moves! Let's see you satisfy all those requirements in regards to the people who you believe fit what they would have looked like. Can you do that? Or does that only need to be done for those who demonstrate that ancient Jews were known to be black.
Sounds like you're upset about being called out for cherrypicking information when you know full well that:
You can't prove A) your skulls belonged to an actual ethnic Jew/Israelite or B) the skulls and their morphological features represented the population as a whole.
I've posted plenty of source material in this thread demonstrating what they would have looked like. Agree with it, disagree with it -- I could care less. Just don't pretend it doesn't exist.
why are you crying? he already posted this black dude below >
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
Here is the famous reconstruction which are based on three different skulls from Jesus time. Additional details like hair and skin tone are also based on art from the centuries around Jesus time.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Arch, stop rambling and prove your position according to the detailed requirements you listed out for me in your previous comment above.
List your evidence(s) in order and make sure to not cherrypick inaccurate items like how you already admit to doing with the skulls.
Please also refrain from citing items that do not claim to be representative of the population as a whole.
Thanks
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
I just told you the evidence. I am sure that even if I put the skulls in front of you, you would still not accept the evidence just because it contradicts your beliefs. It is like talking to a flat Earther, you can take him up in a plane and show him the Earths curvature he still will not accept that the Earth is round. Or a staunch young Earth creationist, you can show him the whole fossil record (or other evidence of evolution) and he will still think the Earth is 6000 years old. Meaningless.
When it comes to be representative for the population in whole, even here in Sweden if I find 50 skulls from a certain period I can never be 100% sure that they are representative for the population as a whole, because then we would to have nearly every skull of every person who died during that period.
For more questions about skulls I would again recommend you to contact Yossi Nagar or Israel Hershkovitz. But you are not interested in facts, you are only interested to find things that support your beliefs. Just like the flat Earther.
I will maybe later show some artwork made by Jews themselves, but you will undoubtedly dismiss that too.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
I don't see any links or references from you in your previous comment, and certainly not in the format that you demanded my evidence be in. I guess at this point it's safe to say that not even you can satisfy your own requirements.
But anyway, thanks for admitting that none of the "evidence" you have appealed to claims to be representative of the larger portion of any Jew/Israelite population, or of the population as a whole. Or of any actual ethnic descendants of said population.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: I suggest you stop embarrassing yourself and do some actual research into the term "negro" and it's usages. During the time period that these old books were written in, there were qualifications for who would or wouldn't be called a negro even if they looked exactly like a "negro".
Europeans didn't just go around calling all black people negroes simply because they were black. Even if they looked exactly like negroes and checked all the physical "negro" boxes. That's not how it worked.
"The term negro is confined to slave Africans, (the ancient Berbers) and their descendants. It does not embrace the free inhabitants of Africa, such as the Egyptians, Moors, or the negro Asiatics, such as the Lascars."
"The Negro Law of South Carolina" by John Belton O'Neall, page 5 (1848) J.G. Bowman
Tazarah makes a valid point. In fact this reminds me of that famous scene in the movie 'Malcolm X' where Malcolm X and his friend dressed up as West African Moors with white robes and white turbans and feigning accents actually went into a 5 star restaurant in the South where they were seated and served. That never made sense to me as to why whites would only discriminate against American blacks but not foreign blacks. This shows how crazy the American system of 'race' truly is.
But getting back to the topic..
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: Here's another bomb you pseudo idiot.
Jericho is located in the Jordan [river] valley.
quote: JERICHO: A city in the Jordan valley, opposite Nebo (Deut. xxxii. 49), to the west of Gilgal (Josh. iv. 19). Owing to its importance, the part of the Jordan near Jericho was called "the Jordan of Jericho" (Num. xxii. 1, Hebr.).
The writer in the source described the inhabitants of Jericho as negroes with woolly hair.
And the writer in the other source I referenced says that Jews who never left the Jordan river valley (where Jericho is) are as black as the Ethiopian races.
Has it not occurred to you that these Jews of the Jordan Valley and other areas to the south of Judaea were not ethnic Judaeans but rather Gerim (converts) since the Nabateans were converted to Judaism by successors of John Hyrcanus who converted the Edomites??
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
@Djehuti
I'm not denying that conversions took place but what leads you to believe these black Jews being written about were converts? The context of the source is ethnic Jews.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Tukuler has already shown that Levantine peoples were diverse in appearance with some looking black while others fair skinned and whatever in between. Even the Greeks wrote about Leuco-Syrioi (White Syrians) in contradistinction to other Syrians who were darker. The topic of this thread is not so much what the original Judeans looked but how Jesus looked. Jesus was a Judean from the Galilee region of northern Israel. The skulls of that area look quite different from those of southern Judea and especially the Negev and Jordan. While I'm definitely not arguing Jesus to be the lily white either Greek (Byzantine) or Italian (Vatican or Florentine) looking, I'm not going to go so far as to say he looked like a black Jew of Hejaz or Yemen. But if that's your claim you are free to prove it.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
I agree that the Israelite spectrum is diverse when it comes to phenotype and yes this thread is about Jesus specifically. Others in here started posting information about Iraqi Jews and how they would supposedly be the closest in regards to what Jesus looked like. So I shared sources demonstrating that native Jews were known to be black and resembled black africans.
If the Israelite spectrum being diverse is enough to nullify my position then that would also have to mean it nullifies all other positions as well...
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote: The Exiled and the Redeemed by Itzhak Ben-Zvi, President of Israel 1961-01-01 Jewish Publication Society of America
Page 141
THE JEWS OF KHAIBAR
Page 141
Between the land (and the people) of Israel and the land (and the people) of the Arabian Peninsula direct and constant relations have existed since very ancient times. The beginnings of such contacts are traceable to the days of the conquest of Canaan by the Israelite tribes. One aspect of that close relationship is described in the biblical accounts of the marriage of Moses to a daughter of Jethro, the priest of Midian in northern Arabia. Jethro’s influence on the leader and legislator of Israel must have left its mark on some of the laws of the Israelites.
S. I. Rappaport,! one of the nineteenth-century pioneers of Jewish historical research, sought an etymological connection between “Heber the Kenite,” father-in-law of Moses, and Khaibar—on the one hand, and between Khaibar and “the Rechabites”—on the other. Taking his theory a step further, Rappaport sought in the passage on “the city of palm trees,” the seat of the Kenites, an allusion not to Jericho, as most Bible commentators hitherto understood that expression, but to Khaibar, the city of palm trees.
Page 143
We have records of a number of tribes who were either themselves Hebraic or of Hebraic origin: Bani Karama, Bani Ta‘aleba, Bani Mahmar, Bani Za‘urah, Bani Zaid, Bani Nadhir, Bani Kuraitha, Bani Bahdal, Bani ‘Auf and Bani Kasis, and lastly, the redoubtable Bani Kainuka‘. In the city of Yathreb there were no less than twenty purely Jewish clan-communities. From the tops of their fortified mansions the Jews could successfully defend themselves against any aggression from raiding Arab tribes
Page 146
3. The Scattered Remnants
Information available to us from a variety of sources* reveals that some of the Khaibar Jewish exiles settled in Teimah, while a number settled in Palestine, primarily in Jericho, together with Jews from other tribes, including the Nadhir. The Kainuka‘* exiles settled mainly in Trans-Jordan, especially in Dera‘a. The existence in the seventh century of a Jewish community in Jericho, strengthened, or perhaps founded, by the exiles from Khaibar, is reported in Wagidy’s records, the chronicles of Bukhary, and the travel journal of Mujir Eddin al-Hinbaly. There are also other references to Jewish communal life in Jericho as late as the ninth century.Some believe that the Bedouin tribe now known as Anserat, whose habitat is near Jericho, is no other than the Jewish tribe of Nadhir who were deported under the Prophet’s decree together with the people of Faddak and Khaibar. These tribesmen are regarded with a kind of religious respect by other Bedouin tribes who often, when in distress, come to them for advice or medicine. Their position in the general Bedouin community may be said to be comparable to that of the Levites among the ancient people of Israel.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:We know more particularly by the most valuable mode of testing influences which derive from the peculiarity of the Jewish race. For 1800 years that race has been dispersed in different latitudes and climates, and they have preserved themselves distinct from intermixture with other races of mankind. There are some Jews still lingering in the valleys of the Jordan having been oppressed by the succesive conquerers of Syria for ages, a low race of people, and described by thrustworthy travellers as being as black as any of the Ethiopianraces.
The quote from Richard Owen above does not really tell us what the inhabitants looked like in Jesus time. And a description by "thrustworthy people" does not sound so very exact. Who were the thrustworthy people? Did Owen himself see these Jews? ------------- The notion about ancient Judeans having similarities with peoples like todays Iraqi Jews comes from Yossi Nagar and is mentioned in Joan Taylor's book (p 161). It ought to be based on observations of skeletons and skulls that he has examined. Quite so tangible. So it is nothing that I made up. Israel Herkovitch says in the video that the skull he examines there is of an Eastern Mediterranean type.
One can wonder though how many of all skulls from what is today Israel could be classified into categories like "Mediterranean" or "negroid"? I think for example Nagar could tell since he has worked with the Human osteological database at the Israel Antiquities Authority. So he should have a good overview of the Israeli skeletal material.
In an article about The Human osteological database he addresses the problem with discerning which tombs are Jewish in the centuries around Jesus time:
quote:During the Hellenistic (332–63 BCE), Roman (63 BCE – 324 CE), and Byzantine (324–638 CE) periods, the land of Israel was initially divided between Jews and Pagans, and later between Jews and Christians. Differentiating between these populations is relatively easy based upon their burial practices (e.g., Stern & Getzov 2006).
The source from Owen does indeed describe what native Jews looked like (he said like black Ethiopians) and I also provided other sources describing them in a similar manner.
Arch, you have not provided your evidence in the same way that you demanded I provide mine. Please refer back to your list of demands and provide evidence according to the format you demanded.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
He said it, but did he himself see them? Did he himself see how they looked like 1800 years earlier? Did he have any physical proof? Did he visit that place himself? Which demands can one have on a historical source? I know he was a famous anatomist and paleontologist, but how well had he studied physical remains of 2000 years old Jews? What source critical aspects can one apply on that kind of source material?
At least I have provided some physical evidence, or at least statements by people who themselves handled physical remains from the time in question.
I already showed you Jewish hair and DNA from a Jewish tomb which was on the list. I sent references for those findings. How you choose to interpret them is of course up to you.
I also sent a reference about it being possible to discern Jewish tombs from other tombs from the actual time discussed in the OP.
One must weigh different types of evidence against each other. Which weigh heaviest, physical evidence or claims by people living in the 1800s, or early 1900s a time when they did not have all the anthropological or archaeological facts they have today? Archaeologists, anthropologists, art historians, genetists and many others have made several discoveries since the 1800s, new facts and knowlege that were unknown at that time.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
When concerning pictorial evidence we have Roman coins from the 1th century which shows Jewish captives, here are two examples from AD 71 and AD 79, just about 40 years after the death of Jesus. So much closer do we not come in time regarding pictorial evidence. Of course coins do not show skin color, but it show facial features and hair.
Even Joan Taylor included such depictions in her book and video.
Tazarah, I want to ask you something: We can of course discuss how the ancient Jews might have looked like, or how they did not look like forever. But maybe for clarity, have you some picture of some people in todays world who might look like the ancient Jews during Jesus time? I suppose you have some notion of how they looked like (you have already stated their color)?
I already showed a picture of Iraqi Jews, going by Dr Nagars assessment.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
I've shared numerous other sources (including firsthand eyewitness accounts) that all said the same thing about native Jews being black and Israelites often being mistaken for black africans.
This is the list of demands that you gave me. Can you satisy these demands when it comes to your own theory about what ancient Jews would have looked like?
Remember to exclude information that does not claim to be representative of the population at large, as well as information that does not claim to be discussing bloodline/ethnic Jews.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: When it comes to your theory: If someone will try to prove that the old Judeans were black people or "negroes" then he/she will have to:
- Find ancient human remains with afro hair in Israel, preferably from a Jewish tomb.
- Show us that the majority of human remains (for example skulls) from Israel in the centuries around Jesus time belonged to "negroes".
- Show us that the majority of the DNA found in Israel from the time of Jesus show DNA profiles consistent with Sub Saharan Africans or other "negroes"
- Find depictions of black Jews from Jesus time, or from the centuries after Jesus (like in the ancient synagogues in Syria and Israel, or on Roman coins depicting captive Jews)
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
So far you have not presented any physical evidence just quotes from old books from a time when the knowledge of anthropology, archaeology, genetics, and other fields of knowledge were not as good as today. But regarding the list
Find ancient human remains with afro hair in Israel, preferably from a Jewish tomb.
I showed a study and other articles which tells about a Jewish tomb with preserved hair from the 1th century. It seems not to be afro hair.
Show us that the majority of human remains (for example skulls) from Israel in the centuries around Jesus time belonged to "negroes".
Since I have not seen all skulls in Israel I can not prove that most skulls look a certain way, I can just go by experts who have examined and excavated a lot of skulls. They ought to know and they based their statements on their own experience and knowledge. If typical negroid skulls were the norm, experts like the ones I quoted surely would have mentioned it.
Show us that the majority of the DNA found in Israel from the time of Jesus show DNA profiles consistent with Sub Saharan Africans or other "negroes"
I posted the study with DNA from the Tomb of the shroud. You can read it and see what kind of DNA they sequenced.
Find depictions of black Jews from Jesus time, or from the centuries after Jesus (like in the ancient synagogues in Syria and Israel, or on Roman coins depicting captive Jews)
I showed pictures of Jews from the first century on coins. Regarding synagogues from the centuries after Christ I can ask you to go back to this thread and take a look. You have seen those pictures already.
As I suspected you have not posted any photo yet of people in todays world who you think resemble the ancient Jews in phenotype.
So I answered the questions on the list, which you have not.
I will maybe post more ancient images later.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
The books I reference are based on physical evidence -- claiming that this is not the case is dishonest and deceptive. Regarding the "evidence" you are referencing, I will once again ask:
Are you claiming that the "evidence" you are referencing is both:
A) 100% and undoubtedly from an ethnic/bloodline Jew/Israelite
B) representative of the entire Jew/Israelite population as a whole
?
quote:Originally posted by Archeotypery: Since I have not seen all skulls in Israel I can not prove that most skulls look a certain way,
You realize that you are basically admitting to not being able to prove the skulls you referenced were representative of the entire population as a whole. Correct?
In other words, you were asking me to prove something that not even you yourself could prove.
Do you see the problem here?
Your demands and arguments are disingenous.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: The books I reference are based on physical evidence
The books you posted were based on zero physical evidence of ancient Jews and zero physical evidence of ancient people of the Levant region
and even zero physical evidence of a community of Jews in the 1800s AD ______________________
Physical evidence is something you can hold in you hand or touch, in this case it would be a skull or ancient art
hearsay is not physical evidence
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
This is why I ignore you, you beg for attention and then start lying when you realize I'm ignoring you.
Other than the source that mentioned ancient negro slaves being classified as Jews, I never claimed anything about the "ancient Levant" you lying idiot. We were originally discussing more contemporary Jewish populations (i.e., Iraqi Jews, then the sources I referenced).
Not only did I reference a source that cited physical slave records in which ancient Jews were classified as negroes, I also referenced firsthand eyewitness accounts where the native Jews were decribed as black, negro, similar to ethiopians, etc.
Archeotypery can't even meet his own burden of proof yet you only cry and inerject @ me because you're a racist loser who is obsessed with black people.
If you want to cry about physical evidence then go cry @ him for continuously referencing information that he can't prove is releveant to ethnic Jews and information that he can't prove represents the entire Jew/Israelite population as a whole.
Until then stop begging for my attention.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: The books I reference are based on physical evidence
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
Not only did I reference a source that cited physical slave records in which ancient Jews were classified as negroes, I also referenced firsthand eyewitness accounts where the native Jews were decribed as black, negro, similar to ethiopians, etc.
A record is not physical evidence > but you have not shown any records either
physical evidence is an object that can be identified handled
quote: Plantation inventory of the enslaved people on Waterhouse & Tunbridge Plantation, British West Indies, entitled 'A list of slaves on Waterhouse & Tunbridge', taken on 1 January 1797. Inventory including 62 men, 65 women, 10 boys, 8 girls, 6 male 'invalids', 9 female 'invalids', 13 male children, 25 female children, and increase/ decrease in numbers for 1796. The plantation was in St Andrew, Jamaica.
This a record. Something written down at the time that you can refer to. Some records had further information, brief physical description, etc
Even the ancient Egyptians had some records like this where tribute items are listed including captives
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
"Lioness" has moved the goalpost multiple times and each time I responded with a source... In case you've forgotten, I do not take you seriously you trolling loser. You deflected for days talking about how I needed to provide a source showing Jews being called negroes. Then when I did, it took you another full day to even acknowledge the source. You tried to deflect your way out of even acknowledging it because you are not looking for the truth, you're a racist troll. The only reason I entertained that request of yours was to demonstrate how you would move the goalpost yet again.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: I reference a source that cited physical slave records in which ancient Jews were classified as negroes
people, this is nowhere to be found. He made it up, the Most High be my witness
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah
The books I reference are based on physical evidence -- claiming that this is not the case is dishonest and deceptive.
No they are not, it is mostly just this 19th century or early 20th century author X says he saw black Jews or this author Y claims thrustworthy people saw black Jews. Or some author Z said that he saw very old art which depicted black people. No information about how old that art was. Or this author B says Jews were black. No actual physical remains are presented. Do they have photos on actual remains? Do they show photos or drawings of the old art they saw? Are there many drawings or photos of the Black Jews they talk about?
And I must remind you again that these old authors did not have access to the knowledge we have today in terms of anthropology, archaeology, art history and more. And of course they didn't have access to DNA, strontium isotopes and the like.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah Regarding the "evidence" you are referencing, I will once again ask Are you claiming that the "evidence" you are referencing is both: A) 100% and undoubtedly from an ethnic/bloodline Jew/Israelite
The blood line is not written on the skulls. For that DNA is needed, so we can just wait for more DNA samples. Then we can better entangle who was related to who. What we can know is if a person is buried in a certain way and in a certain cultural context and what morphological traits the human remains have. If one finds inscriptions in the grave which tells about the buried person it would of course be of extra great help.
Bloodlines can be invented or manipulated For example many old European kings listed a lot of imagined ancestors which never existed to give their family glory or to create some legitimacy for their royal family.
There is actually an Azkhenazi family who claims to be able to trace their lineage back all the way to King David. I made a thread about those claims.
quote:B) representative of the entire Jew/Israelite population as a whole
I can only go by what experts like Yossi Nagar says. If the majority of the skulls he found from the time of Jesus were "negroid" then he would not have said that they mostly resembled Iraqi Jews. Wouldn´t he have said that they looked like the remains of for example Subsaharan Africans? Simple logic.
quote:In other words, you were asking me to prove something that not even you yourself could prove.
I have showed you reports of physical remains, I even showed photos. I have showed you articles about hair and DNA. I have showed you 1th century coins which depict captive Jews. I referensed you to a thread with several examples of ancient Jewish art. In that thread there are also many old photos depicting Jews in the late 1800s and early 1900s both in what is today Israel and also in other Middle Eastern countries and North African countries. I shall not do all the job. If you want to prove for the readers here that ancient Jews were black or even "negroid" it is not enough with some quotes from outdated books. You have to show several lines of evidence.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
-----------------
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
quote:Originally posted by lyinass: people, this is nowhere to be found. He made it up, the Most High be my witness
This is my last time addressing lyinass, for obvious reasons. He knows I referenced a source earlier that says research into Russian records states that from ancient times, slave-trading colonies in the black sea region had negro slaves that were frequently listed as Jews by tsarist officials according to their records.
Lyinass is a black-obsessed loser who moves the goalpost and then starts lying when he gets exposed and nobody wants to deal with him anymore. Also very pathetic how he uses God's name in vain. The Bible speaks about reprobates like him.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Arch, thank you for admitting that:
A) the "evidence" you have referenced does not claim or imply to represent any Jew/Israelite populations as a whole.
B) the "evidence" you have referenced does not claim or imply to be related to any ethnic/bloodline Jews/Israelites.
C) you yourself cannot even satisfy the outrageous list of evidenciary requirements that you have put forth and demanded that I satisfy in order to substantiate my position.
...what else is there to discuss? You're a pseudo hypocrite. Now you're just on a rant and rambling like lyinass does when he gets bonked over the head by rational logic.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: Arch, thank you for admitting that:
A) the "evidence" you have referenced does not claim or imply to represent any Jew/Israelite populations as a whole.
B) the "evidence" you have referenced does not claim or imply to be related to any ethnic/bloodline Jews/Israelites.
C) you yourself cannot even satisfy the outrageous list of evidenciary requirements that you have put forth and demanded that I satisfy in order to substantiate my position.
...what else is there to discuss? You're a pseudo hypocrite. Now you're just on a rant and rambling like lyinass does when he gets bonked over the head by rational logic.
In archaeology and history there are no absolute truths, just different degree of probability. Only in religion there are absolute truths, that field I leave to you.
The probability that the evidence I forwarded is closer to reality, and gives a more comprehensive picture about the phenotypes and ethnicity of ancient Jews, is much higher than for your outdated old written accounts. And I am fully sure that most archaeologists and other scientists who actually work with ancient Israelite material would agree with me.
If you forwarded a thesis claiming the ancient Judeans were "negroes" in a university, based on the quotes you posted so far, it would not be approved, that I can tell for sure based on my experience of the academic world.
If you have no clue about basic source criticism or evaluation of evidence I can not help you.
Just a little hint. Here are some lines of evidence to consider when trying to find out more about ancient Jewish phenotypes and ethnic relationships.
⦁ Forensic evidence ⦁ Ancient DNA ⦁ Recent DNA ⦁ Archaeological evidence ⦁ Art ⦁ Photos ⦁ Written accounts -------------------- And since you start name calling instead of discussing the topic at hand I hereby end the discussion with you since no one is served by pointless mudslinging.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
My previous comment still stands 100% true.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: I reference a source that cited physical slave records in which ancient Jews were classified as negroes
people, this is nowhere to be found. He made it up, the Most High be my witness
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
quote:Originally posted by lyinass: [qb] people, this is nowhere to be found. He made it up, the Most High be my witness
This is my last time addressing lioness, for obvious reasons. He knows I referenced a source earlier that says research into Russian records states that from ancient times, slave-trading colonies in the black sea region had negro slaves that were frequently listed as Jews by tsarist officials according to their records.
.
Wake up, this is not ancient
The tsarist period of Russia is 1547 AD to 1721 AD
Ivan the Terrible was the first tsar of Russia and was born 1530 AD.
The last tsar was Czar Nicholas II was Russia's last tsar who abdicated in 1917.
Lily Golden-Hanga (1934-2010)
the author mentioned at the top of the page. Her father was Oliver Golden an African American born in Mississippi. Oliver was fascinated with the anti-racist ideology of Communism and he decided to come to the Soviet Russia in 1924 by an invitation from a friend who held a high post in Comintern, the international organization that promoted world communism. Oliver enrolled in the prestigious Communist University for Oriental Workers in Moscow which recruited revolutionaries from Asia and Africa. Oliver received his degree in early 1928 and returned to the United States where he worked for the American Communist Party. He met his second wife Bertha Bialek in prison after both of them were arrested at a political demonstration. Bertha Bialek was born in Poland to a Jewish family and moved to the United States with her parents. Both the African American and Jewish communities were opposed to interracial marriage but Bertha and Oliver decided to get married to challenge this belief.
Oliver John Golden and his wife Bertha
In the 1930 approximately 2,000 American engineers were sent to the Soviet Union to help rebuild its war-ravaged economy. Oliver decided to take advantage of this opportunity but found that—of the specialists sent to the Soviet Union by 50 United States companies—no African Americans were included. Oliver enlisted the help of George Washington Carver to organize a team of African American agronomists who would travel to the Soviet Union.
In 1931, Oliver left United States with fourteen other African American cotton specialists from various universities and his wife, Bertha Bialek. They were invited by the Soviet government to serve as experts in the cultivation of cotton. They choose to come to Uzbekistan because it was a cotton-growing region and because it was the Soviet Republic of “national minorities” because Uzbeks had faced discrimination in Tsarist Russia because of their skin color.
Uzbek man
The western ancestry of Uzbeks includes a Caucasus component (~35–40%), and a (Northern) European component (~5–20%), the Uzbeks eastern ancestry includes an Eastern Asian component (~35%), and a (Central and East) Siberian component (~5–20%). The best proxy for their western ancestry are modern day Abkhaz people, while the best proxy for their eastern ancestry are Yakuts (or alternatively, Tuvans).
Lily Golden the daughter of Oliver and Bertha graduated from Moscow State University in 1957 as a historian majoring in African American History. She dedicated her life to teaching and researching that field. After graduating from Moscow State University, she worked for the Institute of Oriental Studies in a department that focused on African Studies. In 1959, the Soviet Academy of Sciences opened the African Institute where Golden worked for over 30 years, publishing books on Africans living in Russia, African music, and over a hundred articles.
In 1960 Golden married Abdul Kassim Hanga who was a former vice-president of Tanzania.
In 1988 Lily Golden moved to the United States and became famous as a black Russian activist, fighting for minority causes and racial harmony. In 1992 she began teaching at Chicago State University in Illinois, where she worked for more than 10 years. Throughout the remainder of her life Golden lectured in numerous European and Asian countries and in 2003 she published an autobiography about her life as a dark-skinned Russian struggling against changes in Soviet Union called My Long Journey Home.
Golden returned to Russia in 2003 to be closer to her newly-born granddaughter.
Until the 1720s, there were essentially no Jews in the Russian Empire except for travelers and migrant merchants, and the Russian state forbade Jews from settling in its interior, out of traditional Christian hostility.
It was only in the early decades of the eighteenth century, when the rulers of the Russian Empire started to expand westward, after more than a century of eastward inroads and annexation (into territories in which Jews did not live), that Jews began to move into areas of the Russian Empire—not Russia proper. Thus, after Peter the Great conquered the areas connecting Muscovy and the Baltic Sea, and especially after Catherine the Great colluded with Prussia and Austria to divide and annex the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (1772, 1793, 1795), the Russian Empire gradually included the largest Jewish population in the world—a reality that persisted until the division of this territory in the aftermath of World War I. In this century and a half, however, the vast majority of Jews did not live in ethnic Russia itself but in the Lithuanian, Belorussian, and Ukrainian provinces of the Russian Empire, and in the Kingdom of Poland, a region controlled by the tsars but not formally annexed to the empire. Throughout the nineteenth century, and especially in its latter half, Jews with special privileges settled legally in Saint Petersburg, Moscow, and other Russian cities, where they were joined by larger numbers of Jews living there illegally. In the Soviet period, at first hundreds of thousands and then millions of Jews migrated to the interior provinces of Russia, particularly to the capital cities of Moscow and Leningrad. The substantial presence of Jews in these cities (with Leningrad reverting to its imperial name of Saint Petersburg) and in other parts of Russia continued in the post-Soviet period.
___________________________
wikipedia:
Afro-Russians
The Metis Foundation estimates that there were about 30,000 Afro-Russians in 2013 There was never a high number of people of African descent in Russia, even after Western European colonization of the continent. For centuries Russia was too isolated to interact with Africa. Russia's non-involvement in the colonization of Africa or the Atlantic slave trade prevented it from developing significant relationships with African tribes or colonies. Despite this, Abram Petrovich Gannibal, a Russian of princely African descent, became a general and nobleman in the Russian Empire. After being kidnapped from Logone (in contemporary Cameroon) by Ottoman forces as a boy, he was sold to Russian diplomat Fedor Golovin[5] in 1704 and gifted to Tsar Peter the Great, who freed and adopted him.[5][6] As an adult, he rose to nobility, and served the Russian Empire in both civil and military capacities.[6] He is also a maternal great-grandfather to the famed Russian poet Alexander Pushkin.[5]
Abkhazians of African descent
Hypotheses The ethnic origin of the Afro-Abkhazians—and how Africans arrived in Abkhazia—is still a matter of dispute among experts. Historians agree that the settlement of Africans in a number of villages in the village of Adzyubzha in Abkhazia (then part of the Ottoman Empire) is likely to have happened in the 17th century. According to one version, a few hundred slaves were bought and brought by the Georgian Shervashidze princes (Chachba) to work on the citrus plantations.[3] This case was a unique, and apparently not entirely successful, instance of mass import of Africans to the Black Sea coast.
Afro-Abkhazians' or Abkhazians of African descent were a small group of people in Abkhazia. The ethnic origin of the Afro-Abkhazian descent and how Africans arrived in Abkhazia is still a matter of dispute among experts.
According to Sergey Arutyunov, the head of the Division of Caucasian Nations at the Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) and Professor at the Moscow State University, in the late 18th-early 19th century an Ottoman ship travelling wrecked near the Abkhazian coast with slaves -probably from Sudan or Somalia- who were brought up for sale.
Abkhazia was not yet a Russian possession, but Russian soldiers from some fortress on the coast seem to have saved the victims. They were released from slavery and settled among Abkhazians. Later, these people joined the local community, married Abkhazian girls and acquired Abkhazian names and surnames.
By the 19th century, Afro-Abkhazians spoke only Abkhazian and identified with Abkhazia.
Nutsa Abash with her daughter Naira Bobyleva who she had with her Russian husband
Nutsa Abash (left), her cousin Shamil Chanba (middle), and Tsiba Chanba. Ochamchira, Abkhazia (1936) Nutsa Abash was a sensation in the Soviet Union because she was a black person who was a native speaker of the Abkhaz language of this modern country. Nutsa explained what she had always heard from her father; that a Georgian prince from the Abashidze dynasty had brought her great-grandmother and her son to Abkhazia. Another theory speaks of labor imported from Africa by Prince Chachba to work in his citrus plantations in the 17th century,
The tsarist period of Russia is 1547 to 1721. In Lily Golden's 1966 booklet 'Africans in Russia' she says tsarist officials frequently listed Negroes as Arabs and Jews,(Page 10 is in references) The book page at the top of this post doesn't say if she documents this in her booklet and it doesn't say why they did this (assuming it's accurate) nor does it say these officials mistook Africans for Arabs and Jews. If that was the case many writers over the centuries would be saying it. They may have been lumping them together for bureaucratic purposes. Golden also mentions a lot of mixing going on, people of African decent and Russians in a radio interview she did in the 80s, blurring lines. As for Jews, the ones form the middle east sometimes already brown skinned and some with curly hair or even with the tightly curled "Jew-fro"
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
So now lyinass is accusing the source of being dishonest I guess, either that or he can't comprehend what it's saying. Clearly it is saying that according to historical documentation in Russia, there is evidence that ancient slave-trading colonies had negroes who were slaves and classified as Jews.
Keywords: from ancient times.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: This is my last time addressing lyinass, for obvious reasons. He knows I referenced a source earlier that says research into Russian records states that from ancient times, slave-trading colonies in the black sea region had negro slaves that were frequently listed as Jews by tsarist officials according to their records.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
According to the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew lexicon, Aaron's grandson Phinehas was a "negro".
Aaron was a Levite, and the brother of Moses. Which would also make his grandson Phinehas a Levite as well.
NUMBERS 25:7
"7 And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand;"
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: Clearly it is saying that according to historical documentation in Russia, there is evidence that ancient slave-trading colonies had negroes who were slaves and classified as Jews.
She notes that the tsarist officials frequently listed the Negroes as Arabs and Jews.
The tsarist period of Russia is 1547 AD to 1721 AD
quote:
The Tsardom of Russia,[a] also known as the Tsardom of Muscovy,[b] was the centralized Russian state from the assumption of the title of tsar by Ivan IV in 1547 until the foundation of the Russian Empire by Peter the Great in 1721.
This is not ancient stop lying.
she also said this
quote: she accepts the interpretation of Vradii and the other Russian scholars and adds that the presence of Africans there should not be surprising since, starting from ancient times, slave-trading colonies had been established on the Black Sea alternately by the Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Genoese, and Turks
Does she says any of these ancient colonizers listed Negroes as Arabs and Jews?
No, that is just you lying, stop it All that statement is saying is that African slaves were in the Black Sea region from ancient times
And even if tsarist officials (somewhere between 1547 AD to 1721 AD) >> not in ancient times, listed the Negroes as Arabs and Jews in your source it does not says why they did that.
Stop the endless bullshit and damage control attempts
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
What does "from ancient times" mean you damned idiot?
Rofl. Go cope and stop trying to gaslight someone who can't be gaslit.
If it says "from ancient times" then that means they are speaking on evidence that allows them to make definitive statements regarding the ancient times being spoken of.
If you have a problem with the book then reach out to the author, it was published by Howard University. Something tells me you won't do that though because you know just like I know that your bullsh*t will be exposed.
It says what it says and it ain't rocket science.
Sh*t like this is literally the reason why I ignore your remedial ass
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Modern Egyptologist define the Egyptian name Panehesy (Pa-Nahesi) as derived from Nehesy (or Nehesi) meaning "Nubian" not negro. The Egyptians have no text defining various traits which comprise that which are called "negro" in modern times. The word is considered equivalent to various peoples to the south of Egypt
As we can see above origin of the name Phineas is uncertain, it could mean "mouth of brass", "mouth of serpent" or "Nubian" (assuming it is derived from this Egyptian word)
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Obviously the Lexicon is translating and putting things into a modern context with contemporary terms and phrases. You know that's what Lexicons do right? Now lyinass knows more than the linguistic scholars and experts who compile lexicons.
Rofl!!!
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Is this something you do with other people, when you get debunked you call it gaslighting ?
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Now he's trying to gaslight me into believing I'm not being gaslit. I've provided a plethora of sources, you've provided zero. All you do is wait for me to post a source and then come up with some BS excuse as to why it doesn't actually mean what it literally says. If you've truly debunked me then why are you so intent on going back and forth with me 24/7 instead of being satisfied with "debunking me"?
Rofl
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: According to the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew lexicon, Aaron's grandson Phinehas was a "negro".
Aaron was a Levite, and the brother of Moses. Which would also make his grandson Phinehas a Levite as well.
NUMBERS 25:7
"7 And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand;"
If this is the case that would mean the Levites were not negroes generally, that it was not a given, that they called Phinehas a negro because he was an exception to the norm
In a community of pygmies it would make sense to name an exceptional person "the tall one" but it would not make sense to name one "the short " since they are almost all short
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Oh so now since you can't deny that it's actually referring to him as a "negro" you come up with this new BS argument. You realize this is the grandson of Aaron we are talking about right? The time period where this writing took place was after the exodus from Egypt when the Israelites were living amongst themselves and only intermarrying with each other. So where did he get his negro characteristics from?
And let me further demonstrate how pseudo your logic is.
Exodus 4:14 refers to Aaron as "the Levite". Does this now mean Aaron was the only Levite?
EXODUS 4:14
"14 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Moses, and he said, Is not Aaron the Levite thy brother? I know that he can speak well. And also, behold, he cometh forth to meet thee: and when he seeth thee, he will be glad in his heart."
....
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
For the interested here is the content of Joan Taylors book
She goes through the ethnic aspect in chapter 10. Here is a short excerpt where the skin tone of Judaeans and of Jesus is discussed (p 161).
quote:...Yossi Nagar specialist biohistorian in the Israel Antiquities authority it is the Iraqi Jewish community that should approximate best (though of course not totally) what Judaeans looked like at the time of Jesus [34]. This is because they are closest to Jews of the second Temple period biologically. There are numerous descendants of Iraqi Jews living all over the world today, and their appearance is consistent with what we find in other Middle Eastern Jewish communities. In terms of coloration, then one can be fairly certain that Jesus was honey/olive skinned, with brown eyes and black hair, much as the Judaeans in the Egyptian papyri. Honey is of course of different colours but one should imagine a darker hue consistent with the skin tone of people of the Middle Eastern Jewish communities. His coloration would probably have been much as in the mummy portrait of Artimodorus, now in the British Museum.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Here is some art that shows how Jews could be depicted in the centuries before and after Jesus time. Maybe the art also can illuminate ancient Jewish phenotypes, even if artworks of course also have to be scrutinized and subjected to source criticism.
Here are four pictures from different centuries which still show a certain continuity in how Jewish men were depicted. They are all created by ancient Jews or people who most probably saw ancient Jews
1. Jehud coin from 4th century BC. Perhaps depicting Yahweh
2. Roman coin with captive Jew, 1th century AD
3. Depiction of Moses in the 3d century AD Synagogue at Dura Europos in Syria
4. A carpenter from a mosaic in the 5th century synagogue at Huqoq in Israel
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
1) You just referenced a book that merely gives a writer's opinion. Crazy how the author of your book references no evidence yet when I cite sources of a similar nature like firsthand eyewitness acounts describing native Jews as being black and sources that say Jesus's first images depict him as black, it's "not good enough" according to you.
2) There's no evidende that the "Jews" on your coins are ethnic Jews.
3) That photo of Moses at the bottom left looks like me when I go a few weeks without a haircut.
4) The "carpenter" is not a Jew, Israelite or Hebrew.
Seems as though you're just throwinng anything at the wall at this point and hoping something will stick.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: you can't deny that it's actually referring to him as a "negro"
No it means your reading comprehension continues to be lacking I said "if" Phinehas means "negro" (which it doesn't).
The keyword is "if". That means it's a hypothetical. If hypothetically it meant "negro" then to call a person this as their name would be redundant if everybody of this group were negroes so it would suggest the person was a rare exception.
It might mean "mouth of brass" or "mouth of serpent"
or it might mean Nubian if, keyword if Phineas derives from the Egyptian name (Pa-Nahesi) which is a name form of Nehesy which refers to people in Sudan
Intermarriage with non-Hebrew individuals did occur, especially during their wanderings. For instance, Moses himself married Zipporah, an Ethiopian woman (also known as a Cushite), who was not of Hebrew descent
So even before the Jews went into the desert they could have mixture with non-Hebrews. So Phinehas could potentially have had mixed ancestry
Phinehas (if he existed) and IF.. If his name did derive from the Egyptian name Panehsy may have resembled one of these individuals:
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
More about the coins showing captives from Judaea. These coins were made to commemorate the Roman victory in he wars against the Judaeans in the first century AD. This is rather close in time to when Jesus lived.
Roman denarius depicting Titus, c. 79. The reverse commemorates his triumph in the Judaean wars, representing a captive kneeling in front of a trophy of arms.
quote:Judaea Capta coins (also spelled Judea Capta, and, on many of the coins, IVDAEA CAPTA) were a series of commemorative coins originally issued by the Roman Emperor Vespasian to celebrate the capture of Judaea and the destruction of the Second Jewish Temple by his son Titus in 70 CE during the First Jewish Revolt.
quote:The Judaea Capta coins were struck for 25 years under Vespasian and his two sons who succeeded him as Emperor - Titus and Domitian. These commemorative coins were issued in bronze, silver and gold by mints in Rome, throughout the Roman Empire, and in Judaea itself.
quote:Originally posted by Lyinass: For instance, Moses himself married Zipporah, an Ethiopian woman (also known as a Cushite), who was not of Hebrew descent
Moses married his Ethiopian wife while the Israelites were still captives in Egypt which was before the law was given to him and the Israelites by God at Sinai.
This was a rare case due to the fact that Moses ran away from Egypt found the Ethiopian wife at a distant location away from the other Israelites.
The time in which Numbers was written was well after that, when, like I already said, the Israelites were living amongst each other and marrying amongst each other.
Stop talking to me you clueless idiot, you never have any idea wtf you are talking about.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Arch is posting coins that he can't prove depict ethnic Jews, and also falsely attributing other depictions to Jews when they are not even Jews. And Lyinass is trying to pretend that he knows the Bible when he doesn't even have a grasp on the basics.
You two should be ashamed of yourselves.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
The pictures from Huqoq are interesting. It shows scenes from the Bible like when Jonah got swallowed by a fish or when the Red Sea drowned Egyptian soldiers. They also show the building of Babels tower. On top of that it is also interpreted as showing some scene from Alexander the Greats life.
Here is a scene with Israelite spies
quote:The 2018 season of excavation at a Late Roman synagogue at Huqoq revealed more fascinating mosaics, including this one referencing Numbers 13:23: two Israelite spies sent by Moses to scout out the land of Canaan carrying a pole with a cluster of grapes.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Um, the Huqoq synagogue is dated 5th century. Nice try though.
quote: Conversion to Judaism was common in Rome in the first centuries BC and AD. Judaism gained many followers among all ranks of Roman Society."
I notice that Tazarah has not posted any artwork from the centuries around Jesus time that depict any negroid Jews. It is always more easy to complain on other posters than posting anything self. Show us negroid Jews on coins from the 1th century. Show us a negroid Jew from a coin from the 4th century BC. Show all these "negroes" in Jewish synagogues from the second century even up to the 5th century. Where are they all? If most of the population was negroid there would be plenty of depictions, not to mention skulls, maybe even DNA.
I am sure that if I brought actual skulls from Jewish graves to Tazarah he would still complain that no one can prove that they are Jewish or which lineage they belonged to. Or that they were representative for the whole population.
I am just sitting reading some papers by Yossi Nagar, where he describes ancient skeletons from what is today Israel, and I notice he so far has not mentioned anything about "negroes" or "negroid" or "African" Seems all those "negroes" are a bit elusive.
But I will continue posting artworks, since Tazarah is a non expert who has never been in Israel, never partaken in archaeological work there and never conducted any anthropological work there. And he has so far in this thread not posted any tangible evidence of all these Black Jews that allegedly lived in Israel in the centuries around Jesus time.
I rather turn to the experts, with experience from Israel if I want to ask things about the ethnic composition of ancient Jews.
So back on track, more pictures.
Abraham, from Dura Europos
Moses Holding a Torah Scroll, Dura Europos synagogue, ca. 245 CE. Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
When it comes to claims about ancient black Jews one must also ask what does black mean? Does it mean SubSaharan African, or does it mean darkskinned as some Arab bedouins or like some Yemenite Jews? Or to ask a more pointed question, did the ancient allegedly black Jews look more like the Yemenite Jew in the picture or more like the African American man? Who of these two has the strongest ties to the ancient Jews, historically, culturally, morphologically or genetically?
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
As a comparison with the old art one can take a look at some people today living in the Middle East: Jews from Yemen, an Iraqi Jew, a Samaritan from Israel and a Bedouin from Negev.
Older photo of a Bedouin supposedly from Negev Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
known Judean historian Flavius Josephus
Roman banker of probable Judean ancestry Lucius Caecilius Iucundus from Pompey
By the way, Tukuler was correct that it is more accurate to call the so-called "Jewish nose" the "Hittite nose" or even more accurate than that the "Hurrian nose".
King Herod Agrippa
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
Didn't Romans often paint their sculptures? If we could find traces of pigment on those busts of Judaeans like the ones found on various other Roman sculptures, we could have a better idea of what their subjects' color would have been.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti
By the way, Tukuler was correct that it is more accurate to call the so-called "Jewish nose" the "Hittite nose" or even more accurate than that the "Hurrian nose".
It probably won't catch on with the general public since these peoples are not around us anymore (at least not under those names) while Jews are very much present in today's world. And some still have similar noses.
B t w nice find with the statues. The one depicting Josephus I had seen before, but especially the one with Lucius Caecilius Iucundus I can not remember seeing before.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Arch, you already got caught red-handed posting images and claiming they depicted Jews when that was not the case. You did not even acknowledge your error, you just kept posting as if nothing happened and it's no coincidence that you don't link the source of any of your images.
Some of the images you've shown even look like what we would call "african-americans".
I referenced sources and firsthand eyewitness accounts that describe what literal native Jews looked like, ancient Jews, and so on. Something you are unable to do.
So I don't need to cherrypick random images.
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
4) The "carpenter" is not a Jew, Israelite or Hebrew.
Seems as though you're just throwinng anything at the wall at this point and hoping something will stick.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah:
Some of the images you've shown even look like what we would call "african-americans".
so what about stopping crying then?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
The physical appearance of Egyptian Jews according to the Greek papyri. Main Author: Fikhman, I.F. Published: 1999.
The table shows that ten of the twelve Jews were of medium height (pecoc) and only two were tall (εὐμεγέθησ); eleven were light-skinned (μελΐχρωο) and only one dark-skinned (μελάγχρωο) (no one was of pale complexion - λευκόχρωσ); five of them were long-faced (μακροπρόοωποε), two were roundfaced (οτρογγυλοπρόοωποο), and only one was flat-faced (πλατυπρἀσωποο). There are few data concerning the form of the nose: two are recorded as having a flat nose (evcLpoc), one with a straight nose (εὐθὐρριν). There are also three individuals with bold foreheads (άναφάλαντοο), two with hollow eyes (κοιλόφθαλμοο), one with light blue eyes (γλαυκόο, a very rare mention in the papyri12), and one with a thin beard (σπανοπῶγων), also a rare occurrence in the
The texts published in C.P.R. XVIII are important for another reason. Despite the fragmentary character of the second scroll, they permit us to try to compare the data concerning Jews (12 individuals in all) with the data concerning non-Jews (a total of 91 individuals), among whom, as noted, there were no Egyptians. These data are grouped in Table 2. I took account for this purpose of 24 different components, but here I shall discuss only those which are more commonly encountered. Thus 21 tall individuals among the non-Jews (21%) correspond to 2 among the Jews (17%); 45 non-Jews of medium height (49%) to 10 (83%) Jews; 10 dark-skinned nonJews (11%) to 1 Jew (8%); 46 light-skinned non-Jews (56%) to 11 Jews (92%); 30 long-faced non-Jews (33%) to 5 Jews (42%); 26 round-faced non-Jews (29%) to 2 Jews (17%); 11 non-Jews with bold foreheads (12%) to 3 Jews (25%). As to other characteristics, we should note the absence among the Jews of individuals with pale complexions, whereas among the non-Jews there were 9 (10%), the absence among the Jews of people with a hooked nose (ἐπΐγρυποο) and a sharp nose (όξὐρριν), whereas among the non-Jews there were 6 (7%) and 1 (1%) respectively with these characteristics. Only among the Jews do we find a single individual with light blue eyes (8%), 2 hollow-eyed people (17%), 1 shortsighted individual (8%) and 1 with a scanty beard (8%).
The texts published in C.P.R. XVIII are important for another reason. Despite the fragmentary character of the second scroll, they permit us to try to compare the data concerning Jews (12 individuals in all) with the data concerning non-Jews (a total of 91 individuals), among whom, as noted, there were no Egyptians. These data are grouped in Table 2. I took account for this purpose of 24 different components, but here I shall discuss only those which are more commonly encountered. Thus 21 tall individuals among the non-Jews (21%) correspond to 2 among the Jews (17%); 45 non-Jews of medium height (49%) to 10 (83%) Jews; 10 dark-skinned nonJews (11%) to 1 Jew (8%); 46 light-skinned non-Jews (56%) to 11 Jews (92%); 30 long-faced non-Jews (33%) to 5 Jews (42%); 26 round-faced non-Jews (29%) to 2 Jews (17%); 11 non-Jews with bold foreheads (12%) to 3 Jews (25%). As to other characteristics, we should note the absence among the Jews of individuals with pale complexions, whereas among the non-Jews there were 9 (10%), the absence among the Jews of people with a hooked nose (ἐπΐγρυποο) and a sharp nose (όξὐρριν), whereas among the non-Jews there were 6 (7%) and 1 (1%) respectively with these characteristics. Only among the Jews do we find a single individual with light blue eyes (8%), 2 hollow-eyed people (17%), 1 shortsighted individual (8%) and 1 with a scanty beard (8%).
Did the Jews of Graeco-Roman Egypt differ from other ethnic groups living in Egypt? Shaye J.D. Cohen studied this question on a larger scale in an important article, published very recently: Those who say they are Jews and are not: How do you know a Jew in antiquity when you see one?’. In his opinion, with the exception of circumcision which is normally not visible, ‘not a single ancient author says that Jews were distinctive because of their looks, clothing, speech, names and occupations’.15 Undoubtedly, the appearance of the Jews, especially of the hellenized Jews, did not differ radically from that of their neighbours. In any case, the anti-Jewish feelings of the ancient world, despite their intensity, did not create that negative image of the Jew which came into being in the Middle Ages and later. This can be explained by the fact that the population of Egypt in antiquity consisted of southern ethnic groups with shared physical characteristics. There is little doubt that the Jews may have been individually recognizable in antiquity, but, as we have noted, the signalments did not describe ethnic characteristics of individuals in the documents but served only to provide an assured legal identification of individuals. The signalments considered here, despite their small number, do perhaps permit us to say that Egyptian Jews were generally of medium height, light-skinned and long-faced; but such a result is not too impressive. Moreover, additional information, from a larger number of such sources, would probably not change the picture very much, given what we have seen of the nature and function of these documents.
Shaye J.D. Cohen, ‘Those Who Say They Are Jews And Are Not’: How Do You Know A Jew In Antiquity When You See One?” Shaye J.D. Cohen and Ernest S. Frerichs, eds., The Diasporas in Antiquity (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), 1-45
Not a single ancient author says that Jews are distinctive because of their looks. The Romans, and the Greeks before them, noted that foreign peoples often looked different from themselves: they were peculiarly tall or short, hairy or smooth, dark or fair. The Romans also noted peculiar styles of hair and beard.^ But not a single ancient author comments on the distinctive size, looks, or coiffure of the Jews. The rabbis prohibited a certain type of haircut because in their estimation it was quintessentially gentile, an "Amorite custom," and in one rabbinic legend a rabbi adopts this haircut precisely in order to be able to pass as a gentile, infiltrate the councils of state, and thwart some anti-Jewish decrees; perhaps we might conclude that (some) rabbis followed this prohibition, but we surely cannot conclude that nonrabbinic Jews did. ’ *^ In any case even the rabbis do not enjoin a distinctive Jewish hair style. Apparently Jews looked "normal." The only possible corporeal indication of Jewishness was, of course, circumcision, which I shall discuss below.
Romans can pass as Jews without difficulty Jews and gentiles in antiquity were corporeally, visually, linguistically, and socially indistinguishable. Even the sages of the rabbinic academy could not discern Romans in their midst. The story is from the Sifre on Deuteronomy:
quote:Once the (Roman) government sent two soldiers and said to them. Go and make yourselves Jews, and see what is the nature of their Torah. They went to R. Gamaliel in Usha, and they read Scripture, and they studied the Mishnah, midrash, laws and narratives. When the time came for them to leave, they (the soldiers) said to them (the school of R. Gamaliel), All of the Torah is fine and praiseworthy, except for this one matter which you say. An object stolen from a gentile is permitted (to be used), but (an object stolen) from a Jew is prohibited, but this matter we shall not report to the government.
"Make yourselves Jews" probably means not "convert to Judaism" but "pretend to be Jews" or "disguise yourselves as Jews." It is hard to imagine Romans pretending to be Jews, entering a rabbinic academy, there to study the entire rabbinic curriculum, without once blowing their cover or revealing their true identity. Their accents, their looks, their initial ignorance of things Jewish and rabbinic (an ignorance which we may freely assume must have been quite impressive) - did none of this give them away? Apparently not. Some medieval copyists had such difficulty with this that they understood "make yourselves Jews" to mean "pretend to be converts" (or, less likely, "make yourselves converts""^’ ) and substituted gerim ior yehudim.^'^ According to this "correction," the Romans presented themselves to R. Gamaliel as converts, and R. Gamaliel would have had no difficulty in accepting them as such. If my analysis is correct, this story, as redacted by the editor of the Sifre, told of Roman soldiers pretending to be Jews and successfully surviving the scrutiny of R. Gamaliel and his colleagues. If you knew what to say and do, apparently it was easy to pass as a Jew...
If you knew what to do and say, it must have been easy to pass as a Roman citizen, public registers or no public registers. If a person in antiquity claimed to be a Roman citizen apparently he was believed without investigation. In Acts' story of Paul's arrest and trial, Paul merely has to declare that he is a Roman citizen and he is immediately believed; he produces no documentation and is never asked to prove his status. There must have been many people who said they were Romans but were not.'^^And there may well have been many people who said they were Jews but were not.
If you knew what to do and say, it must have been easy to pass as a Roman citizen, public registers or no public registers. If a person in antiquity claimed to be a Roman citizen apparently he was believed without investigation. In Acts' story of Paul's arrest and trial, Paul merely has to declare that he is a Roman citizen and he is immediately believed; he produces no documentation and is never asked to prove his status. There must have been many people who said they were Romans but were not.'^^And there may well have been many people who said they were Jews but were not...
31 Jewish by observance You might reasonably conclude that people you see observing Jewish laws are Jews. The Romans understood that the observance of Jewish laws was an essential aspect of Jewishness. Thus in 49/8 BCE the proconsul L. Lentulus granted special privileges to Roman citizens in Ephesus who were Jews, and defined the category "Jews" to mean "those who have and observe Jewish sacred things," or "whoever seem to me to have and observe Jewish sacred things." I am not sure exactly what these phrases mean, but it is clear that if someone wanted to be treated as a Jew by the state he had to behave as a Jew, that is, observe Jewish laws. ’ ^ According to Dio Cassius, a historian of the early third century CE, "from that time forth [that is, after 70 CE] it was ordered that the Jews who continued to observe their ancestral customs should pay an annual tribute of two denarii to Jupiter Capitolinus." ’ 27 Only Jews who observed the ancestral customs were, at least at first, subject to the tax; it was the wicked Domitian who tried to extend the tax even to those who did not observe the laws (see above). Thus the Jewishness of Jews expressed itself primarily, at least in the eyes of outsiders, via the observance of Jewish practices.
A contemporary of John of Patmos, the philosopher Epictetus, writes:
quote: Why, then, do you call yourself a Stoic [if you are a student of Epicurus], why do you deceive the multitude, why do you act the part of a Jew when you are Greek? Do you not see in what sense men are severally called Jew, Syrian, or Egyptian? For example, whenever we see a man facing two ways at once,^^ we are in the habit of saying, "He is not a Jew, he is only acting the part." But when he adopts the attitude of mind of the man who has been baptized and has made his choice, then he both is a Jew in fact and is also called one (tote kai esti twi onti kai kaleitai loudaios). So we also are counterfeit "Baptists," ostensibly Jews, but in reality something else (houtws kai hemeis parabaptistai log;wi men ioudaioi ergwi d'allo ti).
...Acts 28:21: the Jews of Rome know nothing of Paul or his message, but accept him immediately as a Jew. He is also immediately believed when he declares himself to be a Roman citizen to their fellow Jews or to prove their Jewishness. In antiquity you did not know a Jew when you saw one, but if someone said he or she was a Jew, that statement alone apparently sufficed to establish the fact. A Jew is anyone who declares himself/herself to be one. In this respect as in so many others antiquity anticipates modernity.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Lyinass, the troll who cries about anytime sources depicting Jews/Israelites as being black are posted, is ironically telling me to "stop crying".
You know zero about the Bible and now you are referencing information that is once again opinion instead of eyewitness information.
Actual firsthand eyewitness accounts of Israelites in Egypt describe them as being indistinguishable from native black Africans.
quote: "Know that the land of Egypt, when the mussulmans entered it, was full of Christians, but divided among themselves in two sects, both as to race and religion... ...The other portion was the whole people of Egypt, who were called Qibt, and were of mixed descent; among whom one could not distinguish Copt from Abyssinian, Nubian or Israelite; and they were all Jacobites."
"A Short History of the Copts and of Their Church" by The Rev. S.C. Malan, M.A., page 72 (1873) D. Nutt
One must remember that many of those who made the pictures in ancient synagogues were eye witnesses to how the Jews around them looked like during different times. Also the Roman coins were probably made by people who actually saw the ancient Jews, especially the coins made in what is now Israel.
For a much later time from the second half of the 1800s and in the early 1900s we have many photos of Jews in Israel but also in surrounding countries in the Middle East, and from North Africa. Those who took those pictures are of course also eye witnesses. We have also painters in the 1800s who painted portraits of Jews for example in North Africa. They are also eye witnesses who saw the people they painted. -------------------------------------- One thing one can see with the depictions on the coins and the pictures from the synagogues is that there is a likeness between many of the pictures. One can also see that the majority of the people depicted look more like Mediterranean and Middle eastern people than they look like for example Subsaharan African people or Scandinavian people (there are some exception though).
quote:You did not even acknowledge your error, you just kept posting as if nothing happened and it's no coincidence that you don't link the source of any of your images.
Since you do not post any pictures from any coins or synagogues or anything, someone has to do it.
Also Djehuti posted depictions from ancient times of people who supposedly were Jews or part Jews. Which phenotypes did those people have?
Maybe some more eye candy?
The Roman Empire. Vespasian augustus, 69 – 79 IVDAEA – CAPTA Jewess seated r. on cuirass under palm tree in attitude of mourning; behind palm, Jew standing r., hands tied behind his back. Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
More images of "Jews" from the Roman period even after I've already shared a source that explained the mass conversion of Roman citizens to Judaism during the Roman era? Yawn
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Well, since you have not posted any pictures I maybe will continue to post some more pictures later, not for you, since you will never acknowledge any pictures I post, but maybe for some other readers who actually are interested.
About the male Jewish hair found in the Tomb of the shroud (together with DNA). It can give a hint of male hairstyles and hygiene.
The tomb is from the first century
quote:One of the more fascinating finds in this tomb, one that has not received much attention, was the preservation of a sample of Jewish male hair. The hair was lice-free, and was trimmed or cut evenly, probably indicating that the family buried in this tomb practiced good hygiene and grooming. The length of the hair was medium to short, averaging 3-4 inches. The color was reddish.
As I mentioned in some other threads one can even compare ones own mtDNA with the individuals in the tomb. Sounds mostly like a ploy but can be somewhat fun anyway.
I've addressed your photos and even responded with something better than photos -- firsthand eyewitness accounts. I've also pointed out how you are misrepresenting photos that don't even depict Jews.
Now you're going back to posting information that you have already admit: A) cannot be proven as being related to ancient Jews B) does not represent the entire ancient Jew/Israelite population as a whole
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
If you mean the ancient paintings and mosaics, they are not photos, the camera was not invented in the centuries around the birth of Christ.
One can know if a tomb is Jewish or not based on grave type and context, which I quoted Yossi Nagar on earlier in the thread. He ought to know that much better than you.
When Yossi Nagar says that his research suggests that ancient Jews were rather biologically similar to todays Iraqi Jews I will believe him, and not in Tazarah who never held an ancient Jewish skull in his hands in his whole life.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The physical appearance of Egyptian Jews according to the Greek papyri.
Very interesting articles. The information about phenotype which one of the authors compiled from ancient Papyri was very intriguing, and also the other article about how to discern a Jew in antiquity.
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Let us know when you get 100% concrete evidence like how you were requiring of me. Until then everything you present is speculation
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Big props to Lioness with that Greek papyrus source! Tazarah, note how the source never said there were no black Jews, but rather Jews looked no different from their neighbors. This sentence is somewhat a loaded one because Jews were known to make converts of neighboring peoples. We know there were black peoples living next to Judea (see Cushites in the Hebrew Bible) as well as non-blacks. But judging by the description given in that papyrus the presumably 'original' Jews were neither black nor pale (white) but of medium complexion and yes there were white Jews as well likely converts from the north (Leuko-Syrians?).
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote: Originally posted by The Liones
quote:Shaye J.D. Cohen studied this question on a larger scale in an important article, published very recently: Those who say they are Jews and are not: How do you know a Jew in antiquity when you see one?’. In his opinion, with the exception of circumcision which is normally not visible, ‘not a single ancient author says that Jews were distinctive because of their looks, clothing, speech, names and occupations’.15 Undoubtedly, the appearance of the Jews, especially of the hellenized Jews, did not differ radically from that of their neighbours.
This is rather interesting. According to Yossi Nagar ancient Jews do not differ so much when it comes to non-metric cranial traits from neighboring peoples either.
quote: A summary of non-metric traits of Jews, Nabateans, and other local populations (Pagan or Christian) during the classical periods is presented in Table 4. A matrix of relative distances, published and discussed by Nagar (1999:79-85), did not show significant differences between these three population groups.
Based on how many skulls/samples? Enough to represent an entire population actually? Can you prove these skulls/samples belonged to ethnic Jews/Israelites? I believe we already know the answers to those questions.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
The post I made above was not directed to you, it was for the Lioness.
You are not really interested in how many skulls or samples they analysed or what they found out. You are only here to obstruct. If you were genuinely interested you could read Nagars articles or even better, you could ask him yourself.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
In the Nagar quote from the post above the Nabateans are briefly mentioned. As a sidenote one can mention that recently a facial reconstruction was made based on the 2000 years old remains of a Nabatean woman. Information about different peoples in the area is always interesting for comparison and to get a context.
quote:
Abu Dhabi, UAE
CNN
Saudi Arabia is unveiling a reconstruction of the face of an ancient Nabataean woman after several years of work by historians and archaeologists.
The reconstruction, which is the first of its kind, is modeled on the remains of Hinat, a Nabataean woman who was discovered in 2015 in a 2,000-year-old tomb in Hegra, an archaeological site located in the ancient oasis city AlUla, northwestern Saudi Arabia.
Funded by the Royal Commission for AlUla, the reconstruction of Hinat began in the United Kingdom in 2019.
A multidisciplinary team of experts rebuilt bone fragments found in the tomb to reconstruct an image of her appearance using anthropological and archaeological data. A sculptor then used a 3D printer to bring her face to life.
The Nabataeans were an ancient Arab civilization that inhabited northern Arabia and the Levant over 2,000 years ago. The ancient Jordanian city of Petra was the capital of their kingdom, which became a vibrant and commercial international trading hub for spices, medicine and fabric, facilitated by the Nabataeans.
Starting Monday, history buffs will have the opportunity to meet Hinat on display at the Hegra welcome center in AlUla.
Once a thriving hub for international trade and home to the Nabataeans, Hegra, a UNESCO World Heritage site, was opened in 2020 as a tourist site.
The Nabataean civilization didn’t leave significant historical texts, and information about it comes from inscriptions on tombs and on rocks throughout the Middle East, or from archaeological discoveries.
“The Nabataeans are a bit of a mystery: We know a lot, but at the same time we know very little because they didn’t leave any literary texts or records,” Lebanese-French archeologist Laila Nehme, the director of the project, told National Geographic. “Excavating this tomb was a wonderful opportunity to learn more about their idea of the afterlife.”
According to Nehme, the Nabataeans’ alphabet evolved into modern-day Arabic.
“This tomb has a very nice inscription carved on its facade, which says it belonged to a woman called Hinat,” added Nehme.
But not everyone believes this historical breakthrough is necessarily an accurate representation of the ancient Nabataeans.
Laurence Hapiot, an archaeologist at the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology in Saudi Arabia, tweeted that “there is still some non-scientific interpretation in face reconstruction.”
The AlUla Royal Commission didn’t respond to CNN’s request for comment.
The facial reconstruction of the Nabatean woman Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
How am I not interested if I literally asked you and gave you an opportunity to explain? The reality is that you know you are being pseudo and just want to cherrypick info that you believe fits your narrative, regardless of how accurate or relevant it is.
If this is "obstructing" then you are guilty of obstructing threads I've created in the past about Jews being black.
You know damned well that those skulls do not represent the Jews as an entirety nor do they claim to be or have evidence of being the skulls of ethnic Jews.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: How am I not interested if I literally asked you and gave you an opportunity to explain? The reality is that you know you are being pseudo and just want to cherrypick info that you believe fits your narrative, regardless of how accurate or relevant it is.
If this is "obstructing" then you are guilty of obstructing threads I've created in the past about Jews being black.
This describes you, cherry picking quotes you think support your theory that the Israelites could not be distinguished in physical appearance from West Africans. Your motivation to do this is your religious belief and desire to be in a superior, God preferred tribe of people
and it should be noted people who have Israelite ancestry would be far below 1% of the world population and there is no way of even confirming such ancestry at this time but it's reasonable to guess that the best place to look for people who may have descended from the Israelites is in or in neighboring nations, either modern people who live in isolated villages or ancient skulls
You should understand that for people studying anthropology to suggest looking at West Africa for descendants of the Israelites would be a peculiar idea to them when it seems more likely to look for such people in or near Israel.
The was also was a time when some historians liked the idea of being in some remote pat of the world and discovering a "lost tribe" of Jews, so back then there were various legend but none of them panned out. You basically need an old burial with Hebrew writing in it for strong evidence of it being a Judean burial site. Even today it's not uncommon for researchers to hype their theories in the conclusions of their articles, make things seem more definitive then the limits of the actual evidence. But the good thing about a scientific article is you can look at the data and come to your own conclusion. And good quality data is not hearsay or opinion, not "they looked like" this or that, instead things like DNA test results, skull and skeleton measurements and sometimes the researchers spending some days, week or months inside a community, collecting data and taking notes.
I don't have much faith in the accuracy reconstructions and don't post them a lot but occasionally I do and make commentary. If a skull is on good shape a reconstruction might have some accuracy on the structure of the face, but it it's a bare skull they are working with, skin color and hair type are speculations and not part of information you can get from the skull (although DNA might have some implications)
I think comparatively Archaeopteryx is presenting information as Jesus or ancient Jews "may have" looked like this or that but you present your sources as if they are proof of something and then posting the same image dozens of times That's why have to look deeper into these sources and when I do they are far from proof, this is what you should be admitting to
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
A Roman statue depicting a hawk-nosed figure in the collection of the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek in Copenhagen, and acquired in 1891 from Princess Piombino, lacked an inscription in Latin identifying the subject but was presented by the museum in 1925 as Josephus, an identification defended by Robert Eisler (1882–1949) The grounds for Eisler's inference were simply that a notice in Eusebius stated that Josephus, the most famous Jew of his time, had a statue erected in his honour, and this bust, he thought, corresponded to a "crooked", "broken" "Jewish nose" as distinct from the classic aquiline Roman nose. The identification is still widely used online despite the fact that modern scholarship definitively rejects the claim.[15][16][17][18] Hebrews in ancient Near Eastern art, like other peoples, Canaanites for example, who lived to the west of the Assyrian empire, have straight protruding noses.
Art historian Sarah Lipton traces the association of a hooked nose with Jews to the 13th century.[19] Prior to that time, representations of Jews in art and iconography showed no specific facial features. "By the later thirteenth century, however, a move toward realism in art and an increased interest in physiognomy spurred artists to devise visual signs of ethnicity. The range of features assigned to Jews consolidated into one fairly narrowly construed, simultaneously grotesque and naturalistic face, and the hook-nosed, pointy-bearded Jewish caricature was born
While the hooked nose became associated with Jews in the 13th century, the Jewish nose stereotype only became firmly established in the European imagination some centuries later. One early literary use of it is Francisco de Quevedo's A un hombre de gran nariz (To a man with a big nose) written against his rival in poetry, Luis de Góngora. The point of his sonnet was to mock his rival by suggesting his large nose was proof he was, not a 'pure blooded Spaniard', but the descendant of conversos, Jews who had converted to Catholicism to avoid expulsion. In particular, the reference to una nariz sayón y escriba (Spanish for 'a nose of a hangman and scribe') associates such a nose maliciously with the Pharisees and the Scribes responsible for Christ's death according to the New Testament.[20][21] In his History of the Indies, (1653), Francisco López de Gómara argued for the thesis that the native population of the Americas must have descended from the Israelites, whom, a decade earlier, Antonio de Montezinos/Aharon Levi had claimed were the lost tribes of Israel, by citing the size of their noses.[22]
George Mosse, describing negative stereotypes about various parts of a Jewish body, wrote: "The so-called Jewish nose, bent at the top, jutting hawk-like from the face, existed already as a caricature in the sixteenth century […] It became firmly established as a so-called Jewish trademark only by the mid-eighteenth century, however, and soon became a foil for the straight nose of Greek beauty."[23]
The hooked nose became a key feature in antisemitic Nazi propaganda. "One can most easily tell a Jew by his nose," wrote Nazi propagandist Julius Streicher in a children's story. "The Jewish nose is bent at its point. It looks like the number six. We call it the 'Jewish six.' Many Gentiles also have bent noses. But their noses bend upwards, not downwards. Such a nose is a hook nose or an eagle nose. It is not at all like a Jewish nose."[24]
Kabbalistic Rabbi Aharon Leib Biska wrote in 1888 that Jews have "the eagle's nose". "A nose that is curved down […] with a small hump in the middle attests to a character that seeks to discover the secrets of wisdom, who shall govern fairly, be merciful by nature, joyful, wise and insightful."[
A Tall Order, Writing the Social History of the Ancient World: Essays in Honor of William V. Harris 3598778287, 9783598778285 Publisher : Walter de Gruyter; 1st ed. edition (November 23, 2005)
37
Distinguishing Jewishness in Antiquity Jonathan P. Roth
The notions of race and ethnicity have stood at the center of the historical project for the past century and a half, and have had an enormous, if not always recognized, impact on ancient studies. The Jews, whether identified as a race, a people, a nation or an ethnic group have been a focus of such study from its inception, and continue to be so, even as Jews are increasingly subsumed into the category of 'white'.1 Ethnicity is a notoriously fluid and complex notion, combining various elements of both self- and otheridentification. Indeed, there have been numerous 'Jewish' ethnicities, many of which have existed simultaneously.2 Terms such as 'Hebrew5, 'Israelite' and 'Jewish' were not always synonymous, and in Antiquity Jews were identified, and not merely mistakenly, as Canaanites, Palestinians and Syrians. In its original meaning 'Jews' (Yehudim, Ioudaioi, Judei) referred only to the inhabitants of Judah, and thus is not strictly speaking, correct for most Israelites or Hebrews (whatever this latter term meant) in the first millennium B.C.E. There is indeed, a great deal of debate on exacdy what was meant by the term 'Jew" in ancient times.3 Various groups such as Samaritans, Gnostics, God-fearers and even Christians might be self- or other-identified as Jews.4 In nineteenth- and twentieth-century Europe, Jewishness was considered a distinguishable, indeed a conspicuous, trait. This was to some extent because of a distinctly Jewish form of dress, custom and language, but it was widely believed to be a function of the Jewish body itself. One sees this in illustrations and descriptions of Jews, particularly, but not exclusively, in the anti-Semitic tradition. European racial theory taught that Jews were not merely, or even primarily a separate religion, but a distinct race.5 Thus they had characteristic physiognomies even if they converted to Christianity or assimilated in some other way. It should be noted that the conventional image of the Jew in European thought derives primarily from the distinct Yiddish culture in Eastern Europe that grew up in the late Middle Ages and moved into Central and Western Europe in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. This Yiddish-speaking culture was quite distinct in dress and custom from the societies in which it functioned. This distinctiveness was, however, atypical of the Jewish experience through time. In general, one finds that Jews were and are generally difficult to distinguish by dress and behavior from their non-Jewish neighbors, especially by outsiders. It is clear, however, that many of the stereotypical attributes of Jews are post-antique and characteristic of Europe and not other parts of the world. Naturally, in ancient times as in modern ones, Jews were certainly distinguishable by custom and practice from non-Jews. Both Peter Schäfer and Benjamin Isaac have made powerful arguments for the prevalence and power of ancient anti-Semitism (or anti-Jewishness) the latter even using the term 'proto-racism'.6 Neither, however, proves, or even claims, that this was based on the way that Jews looked or that others thought they looked. All our evidence suggests that Jews in Antiquity were more like than unlike their neighbors in appearance. With some exceptions, it would not have been possible to instandy distinguish a Jew walking down an ancient street. All ethnic markers can be divided into the private and public. A private indicator may indeed be used or displayed outside one's home, but it would be used among and with members of one's own ethnic group. Public indicators are ones that are displayed, whether voluntarily or not, with members of other ethnicities and in open spaces. Thus, it is important to remember that many Jewish cultic practices mentioned in our sources, such as pork abstention, were not apparent outside the home. Images of Jews in Antiquity It is remarkable how few images we have of ancient Jews.7 This is particularly striking in contrast to the thousands and tens of thousands of images we have of Greeks and Romans. The Jews, like other Canaanites, had a remarkably Mosse 1978; Nikipowetzky 1979; Yerushalmi 1982; Wistrich 1999; Marvin and Schweitzer 2002; and Isaac 2004, 27-28. Poliakov 1993, 82-83 notes that the idea is still apparent in some academic circles. 6 Schäfer 1997; and Isaac 2004. 7 Edwards 1994,158, n. 15; and Roussin 1994, 182. Pictorial evidence of costume always has to be judged critically, as it does not necessarily reflect contemporary, or even real, dress; cf. Goldman 2001,165. 5
39
iconoclastic culture. While there are some images of Canaanite (and perhaps Hebrew) gods and goddesses up to the Roman period there is no tradition of the painted vases, funerary reliefs or palace frescoes that one finds in other cultures, and that tell us so much about costume and appearance.8 We do have illustrations of Canaanites in Egyptian art, and the Assyrian palace reliefs give us a view, albeit a foreign one, of how people specifically identified as Jews looked in the eighth century B.C.E. After the fall of Israel though, we have no unambiguous illustrations of Jews for some 800 years.9 Indeed, there is not a single illustration of an identifiable Jew in any Greek vase painting, although as noted above they might be subsumed in the category of 'Phoenicians'. The bust or head portrait was widely adopted around the Mediterranean world, particularly among Hellenized and Romanized elites. There is only a single possible example of a bust of a Jew of Roman times, despite the fact that many Jews belonged to exactly this class, (cf. infra). Even among the many busts of members of the Syrian-Roman elite, which often have Aramaic inscriptions, I know of no example of anyone Jewish. The tiny number of identifiable Jews in vase paintings, busts, reliefs and frescoes is remarkable, particularly when we recall that there were distinct representational conventions for various ethnicities, such as Ethiopians and Scythians. The absence of such a convention strongly suggests that neither Greeks nor Romans considered Jews visually 'different'. The fact is, that despite their ancient reputation for misanthropy, many Jews—though it is impossible to say how many—were integrated into Graeco-Roman socio-political institutions. The details of the dispute over Jewish citizenship at Alexandria are complex and controversial.10 What is clear, however, is that the Jews there, and presumably elsewhere, were anxious to take part in civic life, even though it would have involved them being in close interaction with non-Jews. Many Jews had become Roman citizens by the first century B.C.E. (mainly through manumission), and participated in the assemblies.11 Under the Empire, Jews served in local city councils as decurions, and there were a substantial number of Jewish equestrians, one of whom, Tiberius Julius Alexander rose to the rank of prefect of Egypt, the second highest post for this order. St. Paul was probably wealthy enough to be an equestrian, and may well have been one—he was friendly with the There was a highly developed Canaanite ivory carving industry, but it relied on Egyptian motifs, and tells us litde about Canaanite dress, cf. Winter 1976. The Hebrews themselves, while they used these ivories, never made them. 9 A possible exception is a Persian coin of the fourth century which may illustrate the Jewish God— a bearded figure who may be intended to look like a Jew, Meshorer 1982. 10 Fraser 1972, 54ff.; Zuckerman 1985-1988; Ben Zeev 1998; and Schäfer 1997, 145ff. 11 Cie., Flac. 66. The role of the Jewish Roman population in Late Roman politics remains understudied. 8
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
"Lioness", I promise I didn't read any of your wall of text and I doubt anyone else will either.
You don't know sh*t about the Bible or history and you've already admit in this thread that you intentionally try to discredit all sources that speak to the blackness/"african" quality of Jews due to the fact that black people worldwide are starting to uncover this information.
Arch has already admit at least twice that none of the information he references can be proven as being relevant to ethnic Jews/Israelites or relevant to the entire Jew/Israelite population as a whole or on a large scale.
On the other hand, I reference primary sources, firsthand eyewitness accounts, etc., that describe ethnic Jews/Israelites and speak to the population as a whole.
What else is there to say? 🤷🏾♂️
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:A possible exception is a Persian coin of the fourth century which may illustrate the Jewish God— a bearded figure who may be intended to look like a Jew,
Interesting article and also pictures. I notice they mention the Yehud coin from the 4th century BC. But they seem not to mention the Roman Judea capta coins from the 1th century AD
Detail from a Judea capta coin from 71 AD
Detail from Judea capta coin from 79 AD
Yehud coin from 4th century BC Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Speaking of features, as Lioness pointed out one should not make any conclusions based on nose shape.
Yemenis
Is it me or does the Yemeni below look like a black version of Rabbi Tovia Singer?
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Always interesting to see how Jews vary in looks and clothes and culture. Here are a couple of pictures of some Jews and a Samaritan
1 Jews from Yemen
2 Old photo with Iraqi Jews
3 Egyptian Jew, 20th century
4 Samaritan (in what is today Israel) photo from 1905
5 Moroccan Jew, 1930s
A young Mizrahi Jew in todays world
quote:My family is Mizrahi, meaning my Jewish ancestors lived in Western Asia and North Africa. I can trace my roots back to Bukhara, Persia, and Yemen.
I can't help but notice the avoidance and/or twisting of sources that describe what actual native Jews look like (black as ethiopians, negro with woolly hair, complexion of southern slaves, mistaken for ethiopians/cushites)... and the focus is instead on external Jewish communities that have lighter skin.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: I can't help but notice the avoidance and/or twisting of sources that describe what actual native Jews look like (black as ethiopians, negro with woolly hair, complexion of southern slaves, mistaken for ethiopians/cushites)... and the focus is instead on external Jewish communities that have lighter skin.
Nobody ignored or twisted it. I just question whether that one source you provided described original Judeans or Gerim (converts). Speaking of slaves. After the defeat of the Judean Revolt in A.D. 70 and the destruction of the 2nd Temple, many Judeans were enslaved by the Romans. Which actually fulfilled the prophecy of the Jewish people becoming slaves in foreign lands. Does anyone have any Roman sources on these slaves and as to how they looked??
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: But to put more context, the Nabateans were generally described as darker in color than Judeans.
Do you recall any sources making such comparisons?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: [QB] Always interesting to see how Jews vary in looks and clothes and culture. Here are a couple of pictures of some Jews and a Samaritan
1 Jews from Yemen
2 Old photo with Iraqi Jews
3 Egyptian Jew, 20th century
4 Samaritan (in what is today Israel) photo from 1905
5 Moroccan Jew, 1930s
pic 1
your stuff is too small
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
This book seems rather interesting, it takes up different aspects of color, race and slavery connected with Judaism, Christianity and Islam
From the book The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (2003)
by David M. Goldenberg
quote:Chapter seven
The Colors of Mankind
A rabbinic text commenting on the skin diseases mentioned in the Bible (Leviticus, chs. 13–14; Deut 24:8), states: “An intensely bright white spot [baheret] appears faint on the very light-skinned[germani], while a faint spot appears bright on the very dark-skinned[kushi]. Rabbi Ishmael said: ‘The Jews—may I be like an expiatory sacrifice for them [an expression of love]—are like the boxwood tree [eshkeroaG],neither black nor white, but in between.’”This statement records a second-century (R. Ishmael) perception that the skin color of Jews is midway between black and white. More precisely it is light brown, the color of the boxwood tree. This early perception of the intermediate, light-brown shade of the Jewish complexion is corroborated by a number of papyri from the Ptolemaic period in Egypt that describe the complexion of various Jews as “honey-colored.”A similar self-perception is found among other Mediterranean peoples, the Greeks and Romans of antiquity, who saw their skin color as midway between the dark African and the fair German, internigrum et pallidum.“The Mediterranean type of ‘Caucasian’ physiognomy with palebrown (albus) skin . . . represented the Roman somatic norm image. R. Ishmael’s expression of love was for the Jews, not their skin color. Nevertheless, we may assume that he, and the Jews in general, were partial to the color of their own skin, for such partiality is a universal phenomenon and is found in all cultures and at all times. As Sextus Empiricus (ca. 200 C.E.), the Greek philosopher put it when speaking of feminine beauty, all men agree that beautiful women exist but disagree about what constitutes beauty, “the Ethiopian preferring the blackest and most snub-nosed,and the Persian approving the whitest and most hook-nosed, and someoneelse declaring that she who is intermediate both in feature and in coloringis the most beautiful of all.”9
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: I can't help but notice the avoidance and/or twisting of sources that describe what actual native Jews look like (black as ethiopians, negro with woolly hair, complexion of southern slaves, mistaken for ethiopians/cushites)... and the focus is instead on external Jewish communities that have lighter skin.
Nobody ignored or twisted it. I just question whether that one source you provided described original Judeans or Gerim (converts). Speaking of slaves. After the defeat of the Judean Revolt in A.D. 70 and the destruction of the 2nd Temple, many Judeans were enslaved by the Romans. Which actually fulfilled the prophecy of the Jewish people becoming slaves in foreign lands. Does anyone have any Roman sources on these slaves and as to how they looked??
I was not referring to you specifically. But who is to say that the photos of other Jewish people being posted are not converts? The source I shared about native Jews being black as ethiopians was contextually speaking about ethnic Jews and not converts.
If the Romans enslaving the Jews after 70 AD, how does that equal a fulfillment of the prophecies that speak about the Jews being enslaved in foreign lands? Rome was not a foreign land to them, the Jews were already living in Rome during and before the time of Christ. The prophecies also speak about the Jews being in a worldwide captivity and also say they will still be in the lands where they were captives upon the arrival of the Messiah.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: This book seems rather interesting, it takes up different aspects of color, race and slavery connected with Judaism, Christianity and Islam
From the book The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (2003)
by David M. Goldenberg
quote:Chapter seven
The Colors of Mankind
A rabbinic text commenting on the skin diseases mentioned in the Bible (Leviticus, chs. 13–14; Deut 24:8), states: “An intensely bright white spot [baheret] appears faint on the very light-skinned[germani], while a faint spot appears bright on the very dark-skinned[kushi]. Rabbi Ishmael said: ‘The Jews—may I be like an expiatory sacrifice for them [an expression of love]—are like the boxwood tree [eshkeroaG],neither black nor white, but in between.’”This statement records a second-century (R. Ishmael) perception that the skin color of Jews is midway between black and white. More precisely it is light brown, the color of the boxwood tree. This early perception of the intermediate, light-brown shade of the Jewish complexion is corroborated by a number of papyri from the Ptolemaic period in Egypt that describe the complexion of various Jews as “honey-colored.”A similar self-perception is found among other Mediterranean peoples, the Greeks and Romans of antiquity, who saw their skin color as midway between the dark African and the fair German, internigrum et pallidum.“The Mediterranean type of ‘Caucasian’ physiognomy with palebrown (albus) skin . . . represented the Roman somatic norm image. R. Ishmael’s expression of love was for the Jews, not their skin color. Nevertheless, we may assume that he, and the Jews in general, were partial to the color of their own skin, for such partiality is a universal phenomenon and is found in all cultures and at all times. As Sextus Empiricus (ca. 200 C.E.), the Greek philosopher put it when speaking of feminine beauty, all men agree that beautiful women exist but disagree about what constitutes beauty, “the Ethiopian preferring the blackest and most snub-nosed,and the Persian approving the whitest and most hook-nosed, and someoneelse declaring that she who is intermediate both in feature and in coloringis the most beautiful of all.”9
I myself have often quoted Goldenberg's book in many threads in this forum. Unfortunately, I've only read excerpts from certain chapters in google books and have yet to read the whole book.
Still the book is invaluable when it comes to how Jews traditionally viewed themselves and those peoples of darker skin color.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Something one often sees when it comes to photos of ancient and old art is that different versions of the pictures can vary in color. Especially in relatively dark spaces like Roman catacombs or Egyptian tombs this is rather evident. There can probably be many reasons for that, for example how the camera was set up, what lighting was used and post-editing. Sometimes it feels like you have to go there yourself to see the artwork with your own eyes to really know its true colors.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote: Originally posted by Djehuti I myself have often quoted Goldenberg's book in many threads in this forum. Unfortunately, I've only read excerpts from certain chapters in google books and have yet to read the whole book.
I also have to read the whole book. I also came upon a site with more articles by the same author. Rather Interesting.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Something one often sees when it comes to photos of ancient and old art is that different versions of the pictures can vary in color. Especially in relatively dark spaces like Roman catacombs or Egyptian tombs this is rather evident. There can probably be many reasons for that, for example how the camera was set up, what lighting was used and post-editing. Sometimes it feels like you have to go there yourself to see the artwork with your own eyes to really know its true colors.
I call BS. Lyinass went and found the most lightest colored version, which clearly has to have been an edit of some sort. The darker versions do not show the same features and it looks like the face in the lighter version has been cleaned up and altered.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
I call BS on people who are ignorant bullshitters A lighter version of a photograph compared to a darker version of a photograph may or may not be the most accurate version. Somebody could have an agenda and pick the darkest version they found or the lightest version they found but if they have an agenda that does not determine if the photo they picked is the most accurate or not.
If a person was not in front of the art in person they don't know for sure how the art actually looked. Yet we post pictures of art we have to do our best to guess which one is most accurate even if it might be the one we don't like as much.
I posted the official version from the catacomb website and you can see it bigger here
A lot of tombs open to tourists are not brightly lit. Similarly sometimes museum exhibits are in dimly lit rooms with spotlights on the art which are not at full intensity. This give the environment a more mysterious and natural effect. In ancient time you would have to use a torch to walk thorough a large tomb or catacomb and the art is more protected more from the fading if they don't keep it under full lighting for all the tourist coming in and out. Some professional photographers might like to keep the photo a little dimly lit to make it resemble these lighting conditions as if you were there. Others might prefer to to have it well lit like art in a modern gallery with more color accuracy and they may have special permission to use full lighting with their own spotlights.
So if you see three different versions of a tomb painting the differences could be due to many factors. It could be due to lighting conditions. It could be due to the settings on the camera. It could be due to photo editing. It could be due to the photo being taken before or after a cleaning or restoration. There are many variables. A lot of these tomb photos make the art look darker then if it was in a well lit gallery because the person taking it is not always concerned with the color and lighting accuracy, not thinking about if somebody is trying to do a racial analysis from it
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Excuses, excuses. Doesn't matter what website it's from. Whenever darker images are posted on this website, you heavily scrutinize them and try to discredit them or make it seem as though the images are not depicting what they look like. But as we can see in this thread, you have no problem not only accepting but also promoting the lightest colored image of Christ being displayed even though there are other versions of the same image that look drastically different.
Anyways, here is the "earliest image" of the apostles Peter and Paul.
It's hard to tell which version is more accurate on color or if the more accurate color is somewhere in between but regardless, with these old icons the technique involves layers of paint. Darker pigments are first used to establish the shadow and definition of the face. After that dries and they put on a lighter layer on top which is thin and semi-opaque and some the darker modeling underneath shows through. Over the centuries this top final layer can fade and then it looks darker. In addition many of these icons were in Churches which have had hundreds of years of candle soot floating in the air which can be another element. In other parts of the painting, that are not the flesh, the garments and so on, they may not use the same layering methods. We see Jesus here looking lighter than Peter and Paul and since he is much smaller they might have used a less complex rendering method. Another variant is that different pigments in the same painting can change over time according to the particular chemistry of each pigment
One of the tell tale signs that a painting like this has changed in appearance over time due to age and conditions is the whites of the eyes not being white. If the painting in it's original condition was depicting dark brown people then the eyes would still be pure white apart from the pupil.
We can't be sure just by looking at these photos the original appearances of all the colors but look at the facial features and decide if you think they look especially African or having distinctly "black features" (if you think that is a valid term)
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: Whenever darker images are posted on this website, you heavily scrutinize them
Regardless of your misrepresentation of what I do, just on on GP: what you should be doing is heavily scrutinizes everything.
Instead with things you like you don't scrutinize, in hopes not to find inconvenient or less pleasant realities
Sometimes I research things expecting verifications of my assumptions but sometimes find something unexpected that might even call into question something else I already posted I post it anyway
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Now after dark images of the Israelite apostles are posted, Lyinass trying to "explain" how paintings change over time. But he was not taking this position when he was posting his pale Jesus paintings. Rofl! Like I said, lyinass always has an issue and excuse when dark imagery is posted.
And yes -- I know plenty of black or "african" men (even in my own family) who have features + skin complexions exactly like that.
Sorry.
🤷🏾♂️
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
[/QB]
dark skinned Jews right here The one on the right could pass for Ethiopian
It's tiresome having to post the same image I already posted on the same page to accommodate the the stubborn and inattentive
Diptych with Mary and Her Son Flanked by Archangels, Apostles and a Saint, Ethiopia, 15th century, tempera on wood, left panel: 8 7/8 x 7 13/16 x 5/8 inches (The Walters Art Museum)
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Yes, keep cherrypicking images of your "dark-skinned Jews"! As if those "dark-skinned Jews" are the majority and represent the entire Jewish population they come from, when we all know they don't. Good luck finding "dark-skinned Jews" like that who resemble Nubians (like one of the firsthand eyewitness accounts said the Israelites did).
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Oh, I see that you already posted the same pictures as I was going to post.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Similarities
Both:
Peter with full hair and beard
Paul balding with long tapering beard
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
And of course the images you've introduced from the "4th century" are completely faded with no visible skin pigmentation... yet you still post them, as if to say "look they're not black".
Hilarious. It's too bad that firsthand eyewitnesses not only described native Jews as being black and "negroes", but an eyewitness in Rome also described the first images of Christ as depicting him as a black man.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
17th c depiction of the image of Jesus Christ miraculously appearing on a cloth: the Image of Edessa also known as the 'Mandylion'
Here's a Russian black Jesus icon
My question is a a few hundred years ago were most Russians black or were they white and just depicting Jesus and the saints as black?
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
When it comes to depictions of Jesus this is said to be one of the oldest. It is from St. Callisto catacomb in Rome, 3d century.
One of the oldest depictions of Jesus with a beard comes from the catacomb of Domitilla, 4th century.
One must remember though that both images are done after his death by painters who can not have seen him in real life.
Interesting. This painting seems to follow the same pattern. It is from 4th century and was painted in the Catacomb of Sts. Marcellinus and Peter on the Via Labicana in Rome. It shows Jesus between St Paul and St Peter.
The artists are often copying basic appearance of an individual from an earlier artist
detail from above wall painting , Jesus
Again
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ One problem with some of the so-called depictions of Jesus that I tried to tell Tukuler about when he posted images of 'Jesus' with a magic wand, is the simple fact that before the time of Jesus of Nazareth there were many popular religious figures including Jewish messiah figures but not all, which were also miracle workers. In fact most of these figures were not Jews but Greeks from Anatolia or Egypt and used instruments like magic wands for some of their miracles. Perhaps the most famous of the Greek religious figures was Apollonius of Tyana who himself was often compared to Jesus. Then there were those Jewish messiah figures many of whom acutally had the name Yeshua (Jesus) which means 'Salvation'.
In fact I think it's possible if not highly likely that the earliest images of Jesus were actually based on Apollonius of Tyana.
For those who want to know more about the backdrop into which Jesus of Nazareth was born into I suggest you read these articles from the section of Dr. James Tabor's website: Jewish Roman World of Jesus Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
There have even been speculations that Jesus himself should have had a Roman father. One candidate for the speculations has been a man named Pantera.
Wikipedia has a summary of some of the discussions around him.
quote:Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera (/pænˈtɛrə/; c. 22 BC – AD 40) was a Roman-Phoenician soldier born in Sidon, whose tombstone was found in Bingerbrück, Germany, in 1859. A historical connection from this soldier to Jesus has long been hypothesized by numerous scholars, based on the claim of the ancient Greek philosopher Celsus, who, according to Christian writer Origen in his "Against Celsus" (Greek Κατὰ Κέλσου, Kata Kelsou; Latin Contra Celsum), was the author of a work entitled The True Word (Greek Λόγος Ἀληθής, Logos Alēthēs).
Celsus' work was lost but, in Origen's account of it, Jesus was depicted as the result of an affiliation (non-consensual or consensual) between his mother Mary and a renowned Roman figure in a time of great upheaval. He said that for this reason she was "accused of adultery but had the child by the leader named Panthera".[1] Biblical scholar James Tabor claimed that Tiberius Pantera could have been serving in the region at the time of Jesus's conception,[2] but more recent scholarship has shown this claim to be greatly doubtful. Christopher Zeichmann goes so far as to say: "Where precisely Pantera's unit was located during the years leading up to Jesus' conception is uncertain, but it is beyond doubt that it was not Judaea or Galilee."[3]
Both the ancient Talmud and medieval Jewish writings and sayings reinforced this notion, referring to "Yeshu ben Pantera", which translates as "Jesus, son of Pantera". Tabor's hypothesis is considered highly unlikely by mainstream scholars given that there is little other evidence to support Pantera's paternity outside of the some Greek and Jewish texts. Some scholars and religious figures postulate Pantera was a Roman ancestor of Jesus but not his father. [4][5]
Historically, the name Pantera and Yeshu were not unusual in the region and were in use among Jews and Gentiles.[4][6]
James Tabor has also a couple of articles about Pantera on his blog
Pantera Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
A rather odd representation of Jesus (or a more allegorical depiction of Christianity) is a mocking graffito of a crucified figure with a donkey head, made in 1th century Rome
quote:Alexamenos graffito, 1st century
This “graffito,” representing a person looking at a donkey-headed man being crucified, was carved in plaster on a wall in Rome during the 1st century. If you are feeling confused or offended by its content, that’s because it was not created as a celebration of Jesus but rather as a mockery. During the 1st century, Christianity was not an official religion and most Romans citizens looked at its practitioners with suspicion and skepticism. This graffiti was probably created to make fun of “Alexandros,” a Christian, by implying that he worshiped a “donkey-headed” God. The inscription that accompanies the image indeed reads: “Alexandro worshiping his god.” And the fact that “Alexandro’s God” is being crucified makes it even worse, as during the 1st century crucifixion was a punishment reserved for serious crime offenders.
^ Even the name Pantera causes confusion because Panthera was the actual family name of Jesus of Nazareth. Panthera is Greek for 'big cat' and was likely a Greek translation of a Hebrew name which makes sense because the family of Joseph (Jesus's father) comes from the tribe of Judah whose totem was a lion. What many don't realize is that there are actual Jewish texts calling Jesus's whole family the family of 'Panthera'.
The Talmud mentions at least 3 persons called Yeshua (Jesus). One lived decades before Jesus of Nazareth and was charged with sorcery he learned in Egypt called Yeshu ha Notzri; Jesus of Nazareth himself who was mentioned in passing, and finally Yeshu ben Panthera whose mother was Mary Magdelena and Yose Panthera, the latter was the youngest son of Yosef Panthera by a prior wife to Jesus's mother Mary. Thus Yeshu ben Panthera is the nephew of Jesus and likely named after him! He too was a false messiah who proclaimed himself to be the successor to Jesus (despite James the Just in Jerusalem).
Not just Josephus but even the Roman Tacitus mentions that multiple Jewish messiahs called 'Iesus' involved in religious uprisings.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Interesting coin in gold with Jesus face on it found in Norway. It is rather late in time (from Byzantine time) so it would not really tell us how the real Jesus looked like but it can always be interesting to see how he has been depicted through the years and in different countries.
quote:A metal detectorist discovered a 1,000-year-old gold coin depicting Jesus Christ while exploring the mountains in Vestre Slidre, a municipality in southern Norway.
Known as a "histamenon nomisma," this type of small coin was first introduced around A.D. 960. It shows Jesus holding a Bible on one side and the images of Basil II and Constantine VII, two brothers who both ruled the Byzantine Empire, on the other
It is interesting though that the bearded image of Jesus can be seen much earlier in a roman catacomb from the 4th century.
The Nordic countries were Christianized rather late so for most of the Nordics the image of the bearded Jesus was the first representation of Jesus they saw.
[/QB]
[/IMG] 
