posted
Hello I'm a newcomer to ES and my question is,
Who was the Angel of the Lord that killed 185,000 Assyrians in 701 B.C.E according to the Bible, was it
A.Tirhakah, King of Ethiopia, as the Bible says
B.Was it a army of field mice, as Herodotus says
C.Was it a plague, as Berosus says.
Well, my answer is A, Tirhakah, King of Ethiopia, because it makes the most sense of all and I find it impossible for 185,000 most ruthless Assyrian army to be killed in one night by a Plague or by field mice, it makes no sense and the Bible makes no mention of it, but I want to know what you think, please anyone feel free to provide your opinion or historical proof, thanks.
Posts: 10 | From: Los Angeles, CA | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
First and foremost, No man here on earth could had slain 185,000 men in a single night with just a sword and spear. Therefore, the most plausible answer is God's angel. However, The Bible doesn't mentions the angel's name who slaughtered 185,000 Assyrians in one night. As for historic proof, The Assyrian King (Sennacherib) wouldn't documented such a humiliating defeat.
Posts: 98 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Khufu: First and foremost, No man here on earth could had slain 185,000 men in a single night with just a sword and spear. Therefore, the most plausible answer is God's angel. However, The Bible doesn't mentions the angel's name who slaughtered 185,000 Assyrians in one night. As for historic proof, The Assyrian King (Sennacherib) wouldn't documented such a humiliating defeat.
Thanks for your insight but Tirhakah, King of Ethiopia also known as Taharka, Pharaoh of Egypt commanded a powerful army that was equal to the might of the Assyrians and I am not saying that it was Tirhakah by himself but I am saying that it was Tirhakah and his Kushite Egyptian army that killed 185,000 Assyrians in one night.So in conclusion, I would say it was more likely the arrows, swords, spears and a bloody battle sparked by the Kushite army, that killed 185,000 Assyrians, Tirhakah was no chump but a powerful King of Egypt and Ethiopia, just keeping it realistic.
Posts: 10 | From: Los Angeles, CA | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Battle of Alesia Julius Cesar is reported to have killed 90.000 men in one battle and capturing 40.000 Battle of Cannae Hannibal forces killed almost 50,000,It could have been a combination of factors such as did they stampeded each other in a surprise move were Bowmen present in Taharka's forces we have no information on this particular Battle however but an army of mice nawing their way through the Bow strings of the Assyrian force seems farfetched unless they were stored in a sing room or place.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Battle of Alesia Julius Cesar is reported to have killed 90.000 men in one battle and capturing 40.000 Battle of Cannae Hannibal forces killed almost 50,000,It could have been a combination of factors such as did they stampeded each other in a surprise move were Bowmen present in Taharka's forces we have no information on this particular Battle however but an army of mice nawing their way through the Bow strings of the Assyrian force seems farfetched unless they were stored in a sing room or place.
Thanks for your reply and insightful information but there is information stating that bowmen were present in the army of Tirhakah and it is from the annals of Sennacherib, known as the Sennacherib prism and here it is,
"And they called upon the Egyptian Kings, the bowmen, chariots and horses of the King of Ethiopia, a countless host"...
(Sennacherib Prism, column 2)
This provides evidence for the Biblical account but it is also nothing more than royal Assyrian propaganda, because Sennacherib claims he defeated the Egyptians and Ethiopians in his annals but he never conquered Egypt nor Ethiopia, so this battle against the Ethiopians was in actuallity a humiliating defeat for the Assyrians and they twisted it into a victory.
Posts: 10 | From: Los Angeles, CA | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Khufu: First and foremost, No man here on earth could had slain 185,000 men in a single night with just a sword and spear. Therefore, the most plausible answer is God's angel. However, The Bible doesn't mentions the angel's name who slaughtered 185,000 Assyrians in one night. As for historic proof, The Assyrian King (Sennacherib) wouldn't documented such a humiliating defeat.
Thanks for your insight but Tirhakah, King of Ethiopia also known as Taharka, Pharaoh of Egypt commanded a powerful army that was equal to the might of the Assyrians and I am not saying that it was Tirhakah by himself but I am saying that it was Tirhakah and his Kushite Egyptian army that killed 185,000 Assyrians in one night.So in conclusion, I would say it was more likely the arrows, swords, spears and a bloody battle sparked by the Kushite army, that killed 185,000 Assyrians, Tirhakah was no chump but a powerful King of Egypt and Ethiopia, just keeping it realistic.
I guess one of God's angles coming down to earth and slaying 185,000 Assyrians soldiers in one night isn't realistic but King Tirhakah and his army is...? The Bible just states at 2 Kings 19:35, 36 that in one night an angle slain 185,000 Assyrians soldiers. Nowhere does it mentions it was King Tirhakah's doing.
Posts: 98 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kufu I will refer you to this book Aubin sets himself the task of explaining why the rout of Sennacherib's army, by an Egyptian force under Kushite (Nubian, and therefore black) command, has been largely overlooked by history. Basing his analysis on close readings of the relevant passages in the Bible and on extensive research into several centuries of scholarship, Aubin turns the denial of the African presence into a psycho-historical drama. His interpretation faces a number of obstacles. While the Bible records the very words of the Assyrian envoys as they demand Jerusalem's surrender, its authors say nothing about an Egyptian-Kushite force. They attributed the sudden decimation and decamping of Sennacherib's army to the miraculous intervention of Yahweh's angel. Archaelogical evidence for an Egyptian, which should have been found on a Kush monument or stele, was either lost or destroyed. (Another source of information - the Assyrian annals - often failed to record military embarrassments.) The elisions of the ancient records have made Aubin's thesis dependent on deductive reasoning. http://www.aelaq.org/mrb/article.php?issue=9&article=202&cat=4
Take note this particular battle or incident involves Shabaka's forces Taharka's uncle not Taharaka himself.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Khufu: First and foremost, No man here on earth could had slain 185,000 men in a single night with just a sword and spear. Therefore, the most plausible answer is God's angel. However, The Bible doesn't mentions the angel's name who slaughtered 185,000 Assyrians in one night. As for historic proof, The Assyrian King (Sennacherib) wouldn't documented such a humiliating defeat.
Thanks for your insight but Tirhakah, King of Ethiopia also known as Taharka, Pharaoh of Egypt commanded a powerful army that was equal to the might of the Assyrians and I am not saying that it was Tirhakah by himself but I am saying that it was Tirhakah and his Kushite Egyptian army that killed 185,000 Assyrians in one night.So in conclusion, I would say it was more likely the arrows, swords, spears and a bloody battle sparked by the Kushite army, that killed 185,000 Assyrians, Tirhakah was no chump but a powerful King of Egypt and Ethiopia, just keeping it realistic.
I guess one of God's angles coming down to earth and slaying 185,000 Assyrians soldiers in one night isn't realistic but King Tirhakah and his army is...? The Bible just states at 2 Kings 19:35, 36 that in one night an angle slain 185,000 Assyrians soldiers. Nowhere does it mentions it was King Tirhakah's doing.
Thanks again for your insight but the Angel of the Lord can come in many forms and can also come in human form (Judges 13:16, Zechariah 4:1) and no were in the Bible it says anything about a angel with wings coming out the sky slaying 185,000 Assyrians but God used the might of Tirhakah, King of Ethiopia, to SMITE the Assyrians and save Jerusalem, Tirhakah was the Lord's sent Angel, do you feel me.
Posts: 10 | From: Los Angeles, CA | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Kufu I will refer you to this book Aubin sets himself the task of explaining why the rout of Sennacherib's army, by an Egyptian force under Kushite (Nubian, and therefore black) command, has been largely overlooked by history. Basing his analysis on close readings of the relevant passages in the Bible and on extensive research into several centuries of scholarship, Aubin turns the denial of the African presence into a psycho-historical drama. His interpretation faces a number of obstacles. While the Bible records the very words of the Assyrian envoys as they demand Jerusalem's surrender, its authors say nothing about an Egyptian-Kushite force. They attributed the sudden decimation and decamping of Sennacherib's army to the miraculous intervention of Yahweh's angel. Archaelogical evidence for an Egyptian, which should have been found on a Kush monument or stele, was either lost or destroyed. (Another source of information - the Assyrian annals - often failed to record military embarrassments.) The elisions of the ancient records have made Aubin's thesis dependent on deductive reasoning. http://www.aelaq.org/mrb/article.php?issue=9&article=202&cat=4
Take note this particular battle or incident involves Shabaka's forces Taharka's uncle not Taharaka himself.
I haven't read that book but I will soon and the reign of Shabaka was in 721-705 B.C.E and this battle took place in 701 B.C.E, so it couldn't have been Shabaka present at the battle, so maybe Shebitku, successor of Shabaka was the king in 701 B.C.E and Taharka was the commander of the forces but the Bible says Taharka was the present King.
Posts: 10 | From: Los Angeles, CA | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks again for your insight but the Angel of the Lord can come in many forms and can also come in human form (Judges 13:16, Zechariah 4:1) and no were in the Bible it says anything about a angel with wings coming out the sky slaying 185,000 Assyrians but God used the might of Tirhakah, King of Ethiopia, to SMITE the Assyrians and save Jerusalem, Tirhakah was the Lord's sent Angel, do you feel me. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Now you're saying that King Tirhakah was one of the son's of God who came down from the heavens and took the form a human? What evidence do the Bible offer on this issue? 2 Kings 19:35 says: And it came about on that night that the angel of Jehovah proceeded to go out and strike down a hundred and eighty-five thousand in the camp of the Assyrians. When people rose up early in the morning, why, there all of them were dead carcasses.
There you have it directly from the Bible stating exactly so. If this was an result of battle between the Assyrians and Tirhakahs army, they would've awoken from the sound of the alarm warning of the attack of Tirhakahs invading army. But the fact that they woke up the following morning surprise to see hundreds of thousands of dead soldiers leaves one plausible answer, that God's angle struck them down dead while they were asleep.
Like I said earlier, this may be the reason why the King Sennacherib never documented this incindent because it was too humiliating.
Posts: 98 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Khufu: Thanks again for your insight but the Angel of the Lord can come in many forms and can also come in human form (Judges 13:16, Zechariah 4:1) and no were in the Bible it says anything about a angel with wings coming out the sky slaying 185,000 Assyrians but God used the might of Tirhakah, King of Ethiopia, to SMITE the Assyrians and save Jerusalem, Tirhakah was the Lord's sent Angel, do you feel me.
Now you're saying that King Tirhakah was one of the son's of God who came down from the heavens and took the form a human? What evidence do the Bible offer on this issue? 2 Kings 19:35 says: And it came about on that night that the angel of Jehovah proceeded to go out and strike down a hundred and eighty-five thousand in the camp of the Assyrians. When people rose up early in the morning, why, there all of them were dead carcasses.
There you have it directly from the Bible stating exactly so. If this was an result of battle between the Assyrians and Tirhakahs army, they would've awoken from the sound of the alarm warning of the attack of Tirhakahs invading army. But the fact that they woke up the following morning surprise to see hundreds of thousands of dead soldiers leaves one plausible answer, that God's angle struck them down dead while they were asleep.
Like I said earlier, this may be the reason why the King Sennacherib never documented this incindent because it was too humiliating. [/QB][/QUOTE]
And were in that verse, or anywere does it mention anyone or anything coming down from the heavens, that is conjecture on your behalf but the reality is that no one came down from no heavens, that is pure myth but the truth is, Tirhakah, King of Ethiopia was coming on his chariot along with his mighty army to crush the Assyrians and that is the reality, everything else you thinked happen, is pure conjecture.
Posts: 10 | From: Los Angeles, CA | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:I haven't read that book but I will soon and the reign of Shabaka was in 721-705 B.C.E and this battle took place in 701 B.C.E, so it couldn't have been Shabaka present at the battle, so maybe Shebitku, successor of Shabaka was the king in 701 B.C.E and Taharka was the commander of the forces but the Bible says Taharka was the present King.
You are correct Ambition 101 in 701 BCE Shabataka deploys a Kushite army under the command of Prince Taharka (not yet King) to save Jerusalem under the Judean king Hezekiah.
Well if you can get your hands on the book it explains a lot for instance the shifting of policies under the next dynasty
Both Psammetikhos I and his father, Necho I of Sais were originally involved with an intrigue associated with the Kushite ruler, Taharqo against Assyria, but were then captured, held and indoctrinated by the Assyrians. Psammetikhos I was even given the Assyrian name, Nabu-shezibanni, before finally being returned to Egypt where his father assumed power in the Delta.
Upon the death of Necho in 664, Psammetikhos was recognized by his Assyrian overlords as King of Egypt, but this was a title at first without substance. He had rule over Memphis and Sais, but mostly the country was controlled by the old advisories of the Nubian Kings, who had been driven back to their own land. His was tasked with the responsibilities of controlling not only the unruly princes and petty kings of the Delta, but also to reconcile with the power center at Thebes. http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/psamtik1.htm
According to the book the later Hebrew scribes would not look on with favor anything coming out of the Nile ,for at the time of the writing they were now enemies so a miracle was needed to explain the sudden defeat of the Assyrian forces and the 11th hr saving of Jerusalem that crucial 11th hr miracle then found it's way into the bible and picked upon by Greeks such as Herodotus.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
''.Tirhakah, King of Ethiopia, as the Bible says'' =====
The 'ethiopia' of the Bible sat in Arabia. It should not be confused with the african ethiopia known in modern times.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Khufu: Thanks again for your insight but the Angel of the Lord can come in many forms and can also come in human form (Judges 13:16, Zechariah 4:1) and no were in the Bible it says anything about a angel with wings coming out the sky slaying 185,000 Assyrians but God used the might of Tirhakah, King of Ethiopia, to SMITE the Assyrians and save Jerusalem, Tirhakah was the Lord's sent Angel, do you feel me.
Now you're saying that King Tirhakah was one of the son's of God who came down from the heavens and took the form a human? What evidence do the Bible offer on this issue? 2 Kings 19:35 says: And it came about on that night that the angel of Jehovah proceeded to go out and strike down a hundred and eighty-five thousand in the camp of the Assyrians. When people rose up early in the morning, why, there all of them were dead carcasses.
There you have it directly from the Bible stating exactly so. If this was an result of battle between the Assyrians and Tirhakahs army, they would've awoken from the sound of the alarm warning of the attack of Tirhakahs invading army. But the fact that they woke up the following morning surprise to see hundreds of thousands of dead soldiers leaves one plausible answer, that God's angle struck them down dead while they were asleep.
Like I said earlier, this may be the reason why the King Sennacherib never documented this incindent because it was too humiliating.
And were in that verse, or anywere does it mention anyone or anything coming down from the heavens, that is conjecture on your behalf but the reality is that no one came down from no heavens, that is pure myth but the truth is, Tirhakah, King of Ethiopia was coming on his chariot along with his mighty army to crush the Assyrians and that is the reality, everything else you thinked happen, is pure conjecture. [/QB][/QUOTE]
I guess the Genesis account where the sons of God saw the duaghters of men and begin to take them as wifes is also "pure myth" because that verse doesn't mention anyone or anything coming down from the heavens right?
I'm going to tell you right here and right now that your belief that King Tirhakah's army invading the Assyrian camp and killing 185,000 Assyrian soldiers in one night is ludicrous. I'm not here saying that King Tirhakah did not at one time fight the Assyrian army but that incindent that involved 185,000 soldiers slain in one night was divine intervention not man's doing.
Posts: 98 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
The answer is clearly A, one only has to use process of elimination. Reexamining said history isn't even necessary based on the fact that we know that A corresponds to an actual event around the same time under a general Taharqa of Egypt/Kush.
quote:Originally posted by Khufu:
I'm going to tell you right here and right now that your belief that King Tirhakah's army invading the Assyrian camp and killing 185,000 Assyrian soldiers in one night is ludicrous. I'm not here saying that King Tirhakah did not at one time fight the Assyrian army but that incindent that involved 185,000 soldiers slain in one night was divine intervention not man's doing.
Well, historically we know that Taharqa fought the Assyrians in Israel while he was still a general. This is known from Egypto-Nubian and Assyrian accounts, not the Bible. Also, that 185,000 Assyrians were slain in one night seems like an exaggeration but if true, it's more likely that an army (Taharqa's army) or some kind of natural occurrence did it as opposed to divine intervention. I don't think the OP was being literal in his questioning, it was more like, "according to the Bible", what happened at so and so date, not 'what actually happened at so and so date'.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
[/QUOTE]Well, historically we know that Taharqa fought the Assyrians in Israel while he was still a general. This is known from Egypto-Nubian and Assyrian accounts, not the Bible. Also, that 185,000 Assyrians were slain in one night seems like an exaggeration but if true, it's more likely that an army or some kind of natural occurrence did it as opposed to divine intervention. I don't think the OP was being literally in his questioning, it was more like, "according to the Bible", what happened at so and so date, not 'what actually happened at so and so date'. [/QB][/QUOTE]
I would really like to know what natural occurrence could've taken out 185,000 healthy men in a single night! If you read 2 Kings 19: 35, that following morning people was surprise to have seen hundreds of thousands of dead soldiers. Now, ask yourself, why would they been surprise if this was due to an invading army?
Posts: 98 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
You guys are still thinking that spears arrows and swords could not acccount for the high numbers but I gave the examples of Julius Caesar vs the Gauls and Hannibal vs Romans unusual thought it maybe it's not unheard of.
Anglo_Pyramidologist I hope you are not our old troll Abaza of a thousand names but really Arabia??? iF Kush had anything to do with Arabia it was probably under some kind of colonial status but noo the "Ethiopia" being talked about was Kush south of Kemet where these Kings in question were buried at Kurru in the Sudan
Wall paintings in the tomb of King Tanwetamani show the ancient Kushite king (nephew of Taharqa) being led to his burial, wearing Kushite cap and ureaus (royal cobra), pictured on Tuesday, March 27, 2007. The tomb is part of the royal cemetery at El Kurru of which little is known. The earliest tombs date from the 9th century BC, it is thought that El Kurru was an early capital of Kush before moving to nearby Jebel Barkal. ..The ancient kingdom of Kush emerged around 2000 BC in the land of Nubia, what is today northern Sudan. At their height the Nubians ruled over ancient Egypt as the 25th Dynasty between 720 BC and 664 BC (known as the Black Pharaohs) and saw their borders reach to edges of Libya and Palestine. The Kushite kings saw themselves as guardians of Egyptian religion and tradition. They centered there kindgom on the Temple of Amun at Napata (modern day Jebel Barkal) and brought back the building of Pyramids in which to inter their kings - there are around 220 pyramids in Sudan, twice the number in Egypt. After Napata was sacked, by a resurgent Egypt, the capital was moved to Meroe where a more indigenous culture developed, Egyptian hieroglyphics made way for a cursive Meroitic script, yet to be deciphered. The Meroitic kingdom eventually fell into decline in the 3rd century AD with the arrival of Christianity.[/IMG] http://andrewmcconnell.photoshelter.com/gallery-image/Sudan-Kingdom-of-Kush/G0000j_tm5qFApvw/I0000c6.ZCPJIdgUPosts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Kush or ethiopia of Genesis and the rest of the Old Testament is located outside of Africa.
The Kush of Gen. 10: 8-12 sat in Mesopotamia and appears in Babylonian tablets as 'Kassu' - it is connected to the Kassites.
No connections to black africans.
Once again, blacks are just trying to claim something which was never theirs and its laughable that they think modern place names must always be those of the past (despite the fact there were many places called Kush or ethiopia outside of Africa).
The other ethiopia or kush was in Yemen. The historic kingdom of Sheba sat in southern Arabia (Yemen) not Africa.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
I guess the Genesis account where the sons of God saw the duaghters of men and begin to take them as wifes is also "pure myth" because that verse doesn't mention anyone or anything coming down from the heavens right?
I'm going to tell you right here and right now that your belief that King Tirhakah's army invading the Assyrian camp and killing 185,000 Assyrian soldiers in one night is ludicrous. I'm not here saying that King Tirhakah did not at one time fight the Assyrian army but that incindent that involved 185,000 soldiers slain in one night was divine intervention not man's doing.
quote:
Like it or not, it was the action of Tirhakah, King of Ethiopia that saved Jerusalem that night in 701 B.C.E and also name me one plague or disease that can kill someone in one night and name me one mice that can kill someone in one night, it makes no sense but I know for sure that an arrow from a bow, thrust of a spear and strike of a sword can kill someone in seconds, that's reality.
Posts: 10 | From: Los Angeles, CA | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist: The Kush or ethiopia of Genesis and the rest of the Old Testament is located outside of Africa.
The Kush of Gen. 10: 8-12 sat in Mesopotamia and appears in Babylonian tablets as 'Kassu' - it is connected to the Kassites.
No connections to black africans.
Once again, blacks are just trying to claim something which was never theirs and its laughable that they think modern place names must always be those of the past (despite the fact there were many places called Kush or ethiopia outside of Africa).
The other ethiopia or kush was in Yemen. The historic kingdom of Sheba sat in southern Arabia (Yemen) not Africa.
Well that is your opinion but not the truth, because you are confusing Cush with Kish, which is mentioned in the later period but the Cush that was the son of Ham is the Ethiopian African Cush, because the Land of Ham was in Africa, as it says in Psalms 105:23 and it is also true that Cush had colonies in Arabia but the original Cush was in Africa.
Posts: 10 | From: Los Angeles, CA | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anglo-Pyramidologist is confused. Saba for example, was in Arabia and was a son of Cush, but was NOT Cush. Even according to the passages from genesis 10:8-12 that he relies on, the asiatic polities were established by Nimrod, a descendant of Cush, but not Cush! It does NOT identify CUSH as a territory outside of Africa. He clearly doesn't know how to read. Ezekiel 29:10 CLEARLY identifies CUSH as a territory that bordered southern Egypt.
quote:Originally posted by Khufu:
I would really like to know what natural occurrence could've taken out 185,000 healthy men in a single night! If you read 2 Kings 19: 35, that following morning people was surprise to have seen hundreds of thousands of dead soldiers. Now, ask yourself, why would they been surprise if this was due to an invading army?
All that I'm saying is that this is more likely than divine intervention. I happen to believe personally that the number is exaggerated but based on the historical fact that Taharqa defeated the Assyrians in Israel around this time in the battle of Eltekh.
quote: Originally posted by Brada-Anansi:
You guys are still thinking that spears arrows and swords could not acccount for the high numbers but I gave the examples of Julius Caesar vs the Gauls and Hannibal vs Romans unusual thought it maybe it's not unheard of.
I'd never think that, I'm simply considering our historical source here (the Bible) and the propaganda that may have been involved with the account.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think you understand Biblical ethnography. The authors of the Old Testament had a very limited ethnographic knowledge.
In fact during the antideluvian history in Genesis, it only concerns a land surface area of a few hundred miles.
As the archaeologist Leonard Woolley summed up the extreme limited geographical knowledge of the early Mesopotamians:
‘‘… 400 miles long and 100 miles wide; but for the occupants of the valley that was the whole world’’ (Ur of the Chaldees, p. 31).
The flood of Genesis therefore covered the entire known 'world' at the time, but today since the whole planet has been mapped this surface area amounts to a tiny portion in mesopotamia.
You can easily reconstruct a map of this limited ancient near eastern geography by using Biblical references.
Although the geography increases over time of the Biblical writers, they had no knowledge of sub-sahara africa, nor america, polynesia, australia etc.
So basically in a nutshell - the Bible has absolutely nothing to do with blacks, nor eskimos etc. These races are not indigenous to the parts of Mesopotamia most of the early Old Testament was written in, nor did the writers encounter or communicate with them.
Oddly people today think 5,000 or so years ago there was great migration and mixing of different races. Yet the truth is the opposite. Races were homogenous and lived isolated in tribal socities. Even as late Roman times we have the writer Pliny the Elder noting that 'no one would believe a black african would exist, until they see one with their own eyes'. This is because to the ancient Romans and Greeks the Sub-Saharan africans looked so different, because of their isolation no one could work out why other races looked different.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^This is ignorant babble. No one here even mentioned "race" until you began trolling. As shown, you misrepresent your own passage so no one is to even take you seriously. Your blabber about "sub-Saharan" Africa makes absolutely no difference to the fact that the biblical account describes a territory bordering southern Egypt. No competent scholar has ever associated this "Cush" with Mesopotamia as this is the same "Kush" in modern Sudan that was also written about by the Egyptians and the Assyrians. Get over it. Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anglo-Pyramidologist great is your ignorance of the subject Kush is directly south of Kemet and that was the primary state baring that name the O.T authors knew very well where Kush lays it was after all one of the major players of their day. Empire of Kush 700B.C
The land of Kush was located southeast of ancient Egypt, in what is known today as Sudan. The Egyptians called Kush Nubia, from the Egyptian word for gold, which was prevalent in the region. The Greeks and Romans called it Aethiopia, "land of the burned faces," because the people of Kush were black. The Kushites were seminomadic people who settled in the region as early as 4,000 B.C.E. One of the first large settlements in Kush was at Kerma. There, archeologists have discovered the remains of brilliantly painted tombs filled with gold, bronze, and ivory.
this is the area called Kush if this was not Kush then name the civilization immediately south of Kemet proper. And for your information Africans made colonies outside the African continent Ethiopians according to the Greeks simply meant Blacks whether Asiatic or African.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:The land of Kush was located southeast of ancient Egypt, in what is known today as Sudan. The Egyptians called Kush Nubia, from the Egyptian word for gold
With this even being inaccurate as the Egyptians referred to a Kush but never to a Nubia. I would say the author has it backwards, but noting the incongruence in application that wouldn't even be proper. Far too many people blindly confuse, rather than contribute to the understanding of this history.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
True Sundjata the Romans called it Nubia but never the Kemites that but I am struck by the raw ignorance of some in this day and age when so much information is at hand is like having a conversation with a flat Earther.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
While absolutely true that the sons of Cush were all imagined to have settled in Asia after the disembarkment of Noahs ark - more specifically, the Mesopotamian and Arabian areas - and none of them in Africa, Anglo clearly didn't do his homework, because he apparently doesn't even know the meaning of the term ''Cush'', and the contexts in which it was used.
Aside from that the fact that the Hebrews envisioned them as having settled in Southwest Asia, Cush was also applied to African entities. If not, I'll leave it to Anglo_Pyramidologist to explain where there existed kingdoms with female rulers called Kandakes ruling over them, in Asia.
quote:Then the Angel of the Lord said to Philip, Start out and go south to the road that leads down from Jerusalem to Gaza, which is desert. And he arose and went: And behold, a man of Ethiopia, an Eunuch of great authority under Candace, Queen of E-thi-o’pi-ans, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem to worship. Acts 8: 26-27
quote:Although the geography increases over time of the Biblical writers, they had no knowledge of sub-sahara africa, nor america, polynesia, australia etc.
^Notice that he leaves Europe out. LOL.
Greeks don't count; they are known to have migrated from the Middle East. That only leaves you with Romans, as Cretans and Cypriots were alligned with Africans. So who were really obscure to the writers of the bible, Europeans or Africans?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
While absolutely true that the sons of Cush were all imagined to have settled in Asia after the disembarkment of Noahs ark - more specifically, the Mesopotamian and Arabian areas.....Aside from that the fact that the Hebrews envisioned them as having settled in Southwest Asia, Cush was also applied to African entities.
I agree but feel the above statement should place more emphasis on Africa's primacy as opposed to Arabia as we are discussing Cush as opposed to his descendants. Cush is always associated with a distinct land/polity to the south of Egypt and he is only confusing the issue by bringing up his descendants, who according to Hebrew ethnography, can simply be interpreted as having left Kush for Arabia, as one thing I'd agree with in Anglo's statement is that the ancient Hebrews had a limited geographical knowledge. Even then however, Goldenberg, in his book "the curse of Ham" points out that all of Cush' descendants did not leave since Seba, or "Sheba" has been associated with a polity to the south of Cush, or "somewhere beyond the rivers of Ethiopia" in the book of Isaiah, where they are also grouped with the Egyptians and Kushites (as Africans). This is confirmed by the writings of Josephus and Strabo who identify Sheba, a descendant of Cush, again with Africa, Cush and Egypt. Furthermore, he points out that most of Cush' descendants did NOT settle in the Mesopotamian area but the others are usually always associated with polities in southern or southwestern Arabia where he entertains the idea that the Hebrews noted genealogical relationships between these groups because they WERE actually related. This finds some confirmation in the archaeology where contacts across the red sea were extensive.
As a matter of fact, and this is mainly for Anglo-Pyramidologist, Goldenberg directly addresses the misrepresented citation that was alluded to:
quote:Finally, there is yet one other Kushite people whose echo is found in the Bible: "Kush also begot Nimrod.... The mainstays of his kingdom were Babylon, Erech, Accad" (Gen 10:8--12). It is unlikely that this Kush, who is associated with the lands of Mesopotamia, is related to either an African or Arabian Kush. Most scholars feel, rather, that Nimrod Kush is associated with the Kassites (Kassu/Kussu in the cuneiform, Greek Kassaioi) of Mesopotamia who overthrew the first Babylonian dynasty in 1595 B.C.E. and ruled Babylon for the next 450 years.
--Goldenberg
P.S. As far as its actual meaning, yea, the idea that Kushi literally denotes "Blackness" has been popular among many writers but Goldenberg points out that this comes from an old translation based on ancient Greek etymology for "dirt, dust" and thus can't/shouldn't be used to transcribe the word obviously as it is from Hebrew, not Greek.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: True Sundjata the Romans called it Nubia but never the Kemites that but I am struck by the raw ignorance of some in this day and age when so much information is at hand is like having a conversation with a flat Earther.
The flat earthers were upholding the establishment of the church, the Eurocentrists are upholding the establishment of white supremacy. Same sh1t, different year.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
It is likely that any extremely dark person would have been a Cushite to the Hebrews, whether African or otherwise.
The African Cush is only more visible because it denoted a state, with recognizable and distinct traits such as the one I mentioned, and others such as that they lived in a land divided by a river, as you said, and that they made boats out of plants – which is still practiced by Africans today – per Jesaia (Isaiah 18). People have trouble accepting that blacks existed in South West Asia, associated with achievements that they perceive to be well above the standards of what black people can achieve, and being implicated in the lineage of biblical characters, so they prefer to just ‘’give’’ a select few passages to African that are consistent with a far away Nilotic Cush, and be done with it. Other passages, such as that Moses’ wife and her folk were described as a Cushites as well, are subject to all sorts of acrobatics, and the reason is obvious: her father is credited with teaching Moses the laws of Yahweh. We find such ‘’keep those blacks in Africa’’ attitudes in early anthropology as well, where they tried to deny that the Natufians who lived in the ‘’holy land’’ were blacks, and when they did admit that they were blacks, they said they were primitive cannibals. Others, like Anglo_Pyramidologist suffer from similar biases in their angst that the high regards that the Hebrews generally had for the peoples they termed Cushite could actually pertain to African people, but they go a step further and deny any association of it with blacks altogether.
Geographic tells in the texts (Gen 2:10-14) are clear about Cushite lands around the Mesopotamian area, and that such peoples can’t be interpreted as being migrants from Africa to Southwest Asia, can be gleaned from the fact that we’re dealing with antediluvian times, and that some of the sons of Cush, and Cush himself, are associated with geographic areas in the referenced passages eg lands of Havilah, Cush, are the same as Cush and his immediate descendants named elsewhere (Genesis 10:7).
Out of curiosity, how did Goldstein arrive at his conclusion regarding the Greek etymology of Cush as a word that denotes blackness? Kushi is used to this day as a derogatory term to refer to dark skinned people in Israel, meaning, that a Greek etymology for such associations is not needed. Is Goldstein arguing that it is simply a coincidence that skeletal anthropology and Greek and Assyrian accounts corroborate that those termed Cush in the bible were among the darkest people in the world?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:The African Cush is only more visible because it denoted a state, with recognizable and distinct traits such as the one I mentioned, and others such as that they lived in a land divided by a river, as you said, and that they made boats out of plants – which is still practiced by Africans today – per Jesaia (Isaiah 18). People have trouble accepting that blacks existed in South West Asia, associated with achievements that they perceive to be well above the standards of what black people can achieve, and being implicated in the lineage of biblical characters, so they prefer to just ‘’give’’ a select few passages to African that are consistent with a far away Nilotic Cush, and be done with it. Other passages, such as that Moses’ wife and her folk were described as a Cushites as well, are subject to all sorts of acrobatics, and the reason is obvious: her father is credited with teaching Moses the laws of Yahweh. We find such ‘’keep those blacks in Africa’’ attitudes in early anthropology as well, where they tried to deny that the Natufians who lived in the ‘’holy land’’ were blacks, and when they did admit that they were blacks, they said they were primitive cannibals
Not that I wish to contribute to the "keep blacks in Africa" sentiment (even though my primary concern IS Africa and her contemporary diaspora), but even from the example you cited Moses' wife was from southern Egypt which bordered Cush. It is perfectly reasonable that his wife and her people were from Africa (in fact it is certain).
quote:Geographic tells in the texts (Gen 2:10-14) are clear about Cushite lands around the Mesopotamian area, and that such peoples can’t be interpreted as being migrants from Africa to Southwest Asia, can be gleaned from the fact that we’re dealing with antediluvian times, and that some of the sons of Cush, and Cush himself, are associated with geographic areas in the referenced passages eg Havilah, Cush, are the same as Cush and his immediate descendants named elsewhere (Genesis 10:7).
You are confusing polities. As shown above via Goldenberg, the Mesopotamian Kush is the land of the Kassites (the ebook can be found here, in this excellent book pack, btw). Even granting that this is somehow a different Mesopotamian Kush (requiring two different Kushite polities in Mesopotamia), as Ambition points out scholars have often confused African Kush with Sumerian Kish as well. However, your citation Gen. 10:7 directly precedes Gen. 10:8, which was addressed directly via quotation in that only the descendants of Nimrod were said to settle Mesopotamia and that these were actually Kassites, having no relation to the Kushites in Kush proper (South of Egypt) and across the red sea. On pg 17 he cites, like you, Gen. 10:7 but notes again that most scholars associate these descendants with south Arabian and Southwest Arabian tribes except Sheba who stayed in Africa with Cush, as noted in the previous post.
quote:Out of curiosity, how did Goldstein arrive at his conclusion regarding the Greek etymology of Cush as a word that denotes blackness? Kushi is used to this day as a derogatory term to refer to dark skinned people in Israel, meaning, that a Greek etymology for such associations is not needed. Is Goldstein arguing that it is simply a coincidence that skeletal anthropology and Greek accounts corroborate that those termed Cush in the bible were blacks?
See pg 206. That may be a modern connotation as opposed to denotation since he also provides several examples where Kushi is used with respect to non-African polities in Yemen and Cochin (India). He attributes the earliest mistranslations to Origen and such was reinforced by the religious orthodoxy. This is similar to how the Talmud connotes Ham with "Blackness" when literally it denotes "hot/burnt". He provides other examples. For instance, Kushi was not in the ancient Hebrew term "shehorei ro'sh", meaning Black heads, so if this is correct, it would indeed be a connotation as opposed to denotation.
Also, I'm not sure we should invoke anthropology to reaffirm a subjective observation anyways, as Keita says, the ancient writers were not doing population biology (this was a common mistake of Frank Snowden). In addition to this it would be easy for anyone to argue that those not referred to as "Kushi" weren't "Black", including Mizraim and Put (Punt).
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not that I wish to contribute to the "keep blacks in Africa" sentiment (even though my primary concern IS Africa and her contemporary diaspora), but even from the example you cited Moses' wife was from southern Egypt which bordered Cush. It is perfectly reasonable that his wife and her people were from Africa (in fact it is certain).
What cited example says she was from Egypt? Why is it certain that Moses' wife and her people were from Africa?
quote:You are confusing polities. As shown above via Goldenberg, the Mesopotamian Kush is the land of the Kassites (the ebook can be found here, in this excellent book pack, btw). Even granting that this is somehow a different Mesopotamian Kush (requiring two different Kushite polities in Mesopotamia), as Ambition points out scholars have often confused African Kush with Sumerian Kish as well.
^Nimrod couldn't have been a Kashite in the minds of the Hebrews, because people hadn't even dispersed back then according to the bible. I'm not saying I'm buying into biblical chronology, just saying that such interpretations have no textual basis. Since I'm not buying into biblical chronology, and Im sure you're not a proponant of biblical chronologgy, why would you even try to correlate the biblical account of the creation (yes, it says creation, not conquering) of Sumerian states with historical facts? This specific biblical account shows mythical characteristics (confusion of languages and disembarkment of Noahs ark), and is different from the other passages that we know we can correlate with historical fact, with more confidence.
Goldsteins reading of Kassites into the text is unsupported by anything brought to my attention so far, and most likely a remnant of the old notions I mentioned in my previous post, regarding academic esteem of the capacity of blacks.
He also goes on to talk about the unrelatedness of these Cushites to those in Africa and Arabia, but the very section he is basing his interpretation on says otherwise, ie ''Cush begat''.
We need to make a distinction here about what the Hebrews thought about ethnic groups vs correlating historical events with biblical accounts.
quote:See pg 206. That may be a modern connotation as opposed to denotation since he also provides several examples where Kushi is used with respect to non-African polities in Yemen and Cochin (India). He attributes the earliest mistranslations to Origen and such was reinforced by the religious orthodoxy. This is similar to how the Talmud connotes Ham with "Blackness" when literally it denotes "hot/burnt". He provides other examples. For instance, Kushi was not in the ancient Hebrew term "shehorei ro'sh", meaning Black heads, so if this is correct, it would indeed be a connotation as opposed to denotation.
I will look into it.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: What cited example says she was from Egypt? Why is it certain that Moses' wife and her people were from Africa?
Because Moses lived and spent nearly all of his life in Egypt, where he met her. You'd have to be the one to actually show that her and her people were NOT Cushites from Egypt, hence, show that her and her family migrated to Egypt from somewhere else (other than Sudan of course). Being in Egypt this entire time, where else would he have found a Cushite woman?
quote:^Nimrod couldn't have been a Kashite in the minds of the Hebrews, because people hadn't even dispersed back then according to the bible.
Back when? Granted you say you don't buy into the biblical chronology, to address the point still it must be emphasized that none of this is literal nor are these events dated with any chronological accuracy. I find Goldenberg's explanation perfectly reasonable, as in the minds of the Hebrews, or anyone else for that matter, Kassu sounds very similar to Kushi. As stated, most scholars of Jewish tradition seem to agree with him so I don't understand why this "couldn't" have been the case. Especially since Kush wasn't a real person and the Hebrews are simply making sense of names and supposed geanologies.
quote:I'm not saying I'm buying into biblical chronology, just saying that such interpretations have no textual basis. Since I'm not buying into biblical chronology, and Im sure you're not a proponant of biblical chronologgy, why would you even try to correlate the biblical account of the creation (yes, it says creation, not conquering) of Sumerian states with historical facts? This specific biblical account shows mythical characteristics (confusion of languages and disembarkment of Noahs ark), and is different from the other passages that we know we can correlate with historical fact, with more confidence.
Goldsteins reading of Kassites into the text is unsupported by anything brought to my attention so far, and most likely a remnant of the old notions I mentioned in my previous post, regarding academic esteem of the capacity of blacks.
It is Goldenberg, not Goldstein (I gave you a link to the book) and his sources are actually cited, this being an oft repeated view by scholars of Jewish tradition. I cannot confirm what you have or have not read but certainly I've never read that Mesopotamian Kush and Nubia Kush ever described the same entity or genealogy. Clearly I am not equating a creation myth with historical fact since I've cited my source. The authors however, are keen to observe that these polities actually correspond to ancient states/kingdoms. Hebrews are simply incorporating existing historical knowledge into their religious lore. I actually wasn't sure if you weren't confusing this historiography with creation myths and modern anthropology to argue for an actual presence of blacks in Mesopotamia (otherwise, I wouldn't understand your reasoning for invoking anthropology).
P.S. By you noting that the passage is different only strengthens my point that it is less authentic and would be the worse source to use for an etymology or origin of Kush.
quote:He also goes on to talk about the unrelatedness of these Cushites to those in Africa and Arabia, but the very section he is basing his interpretation on says otherwise, ie ''Cush begat''.
We need to make a distinction here about what the Hebrews thought about ethnic groups vs correlating historical events with biblical accounts.
What you propose is tricky, especially when trying to untangle what "the Hebrews thought" from a creation myth. Reading into this that the Hebrews thought the Mesopotamians were Black for example, has no support for it. What does have support for it, is that the people across the southern red sea may have been related and that Kush was in Africa. Hence, why do you suppose Ezekiel 29:10 is wrong when it locates the land of Cush in Africa? What exactly did the Hebrews "think"? Was it here or there?
quote:I will look into it.
Fair enough.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
after fashioning the Black-headed people the God...Enki? went to Meluhha and perfusely blessed it. Magan and Meluhha being Kemet and Kush respectivly. from SN Kramer.
After An, Enlil, Enki and Ninhursaja had fashioned the black-headed people, they also made animals multiply everywhere, and made herds of four-legged animals exist on the plains, as is befitting.
Then he proceeded to the land of Meluha. Enki, lord of the Abzu, decreed its fate:
Black land, may your trees be great trees, may your forests be forests of highland mes trees! Chairs made from them will grace royal palaces! May your reeds be great reeds, may they ......! Heroes shall ...... them on the battlefield as weapons! May your bulls be great bulls, may they be bulls of the mountains! May their bellowing be the bellowing of wild bulls of the mountains! The great powers of the gods shall be made perfect for you! May the francolins of the mountains wear cornelian beards! May your birds all be peacocks! May their cries grace royal palaces! May all your silver be gold! May all your copper be tin-bronze! Land, may all you possess be plentiful! May your people ......! May your men go forth like bulls against their fellow men!"
Curtasy of C.A Winters In many text written by Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal the terms Kashi and Meluhha interchange repeatedly (see: W.F. Albright, “Magan,Meluha and the synchronism between Menes and Naram-Sim, The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, vol.7, pp.80-87). The Assyrians frequently referred to the Meluhha as salmuti ‘black’. The Meluhhaites according to the inscriptions of Sargon II (c. 712 BC) mention the “bowmen, chariots and horses of the king of Meluhha”, together with the Egyptians fought the Assyrians in Palestine. Later the Assyrian king Assurbanipal of Assyria, noted in his inscriptions that he “ marched against Magan (Egypt) and Meluhha (Kush) in order to defeat the armies of Tarku (Taharqa), king of Egypt and Kush (D. Potts, “The road to Meluhha”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 41(4) (1982) pp.279-288)
The point of the above is the folks living at the time were well acquainted with both Kush "African" and areas out side of Africa called Kish enough to have an understanding that they were contacts given Lord Enki's journey to the land of Meluhha aka Kush or some say Punt to bless it with blackmen.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because Moses lived and spent nearly all of his life in Egypt, where he met her. You'd have to be the one to actually show that her and her people were NOT Cushites from Egypt, hence, show that her and her family migrated to Egypt from somewhere else (other than Sudan of course).
I think you misunderstand the story. It is never said that he met her in Egypt I suggest you read the relevant portions of the bible and contrast what your source, I believe Josephus, says with other material, in particular, available material about her people; the Midianites.
quote:Back when? Granted you say you don't buy into the biblical chronology, to address the point still it must be emphasized that none of this is literal nor are these events dated with any chronological accuracy.
The bible posits the kingdom of Nimrod prior to the confusion of languages, and the subsequent exodus of all mentioned sons of Noah. The bible also says that the people after the flood settled Mesopotamia from the West, which directly undermines any Kassite migration. You'd have to ignore the bible to make it work, but then, if you're going to that, you're already doubting its accuracy, which makes any attempts by that same author to correlate it with historical events questionable, and inconsistent per that earlier commitment to question that text. That would be like hanging your coat (historical event) to what you perceive to be a crippled hatstand (the myth)
quote:I find Goldenberg's explanation perfectly reasonable, as in the minds of the Hebrews, or anyone else for that matter, Kassu sounds very similar to Kushi.
How do any of the Kashites kings fit the characteristics of Nimrod? Do they fit the hunter archetype, survivor of a flood, rebellion to the sender of the flood, builder of Sumerian cities etc etc like the indigenous Sumerian hero Gilgamesh, and other Mesopotamian characters do? Nimrod was a widely known mythological character, and his existence as such, or at least his characteristics, that also made it into the bible, precedes the Kassite invasion, and is supported independently from the bible.
Another point that I'd like to make, is that it is not unthinkable that the Kassites themselves didn't apply that name to themselves because they viewed themselves as blacks, which is corroborated by Josephus, who says the various Cushite groups also called themselves Cushites.
Having said that, every available line of evidence, other than name similarity (which isn't even evidence) suggest these folks are different, and as I've alluded to earlier; the Kassite explanation is more likely a remnant of racist thinking that intended to keep blacks out of the ''civilized'' centers of Southwest Asia.
quote:I actually wasn't sure if you weren't confusing this historiography with creation myths and modern anthropology to argue for an actual presence of blacks in Mesopotamia (otherwise, I wouldn't understand your reasoning for invoking anthropology).
I’m not sure what you mean here, but yes, I do see a strong correlation between skeletal analysis of various peoples and the peoples that were described as Cushites and Aethiopians per Hebrews/Arabs/Assyrians and Greeks respectively. While I agree with what you said earlier when you paraphrased Keita, the correlation still stands.
quote:I cannot confirm what you have or have not read but certainly I've never read that Mesopotamian Kush and Nubia Kush ever described the same entity or genealogy.
For biblical evidence that says they had the same common ancestor, look no further than that Goldenberg quote you posted, where he quotes a passage of the bible that says Cush begot Nimrod. It is also directly implied by the fact that the Hebrews saw Noah as the most recent common ancestor of all people; there was no other Cushite patriarch to be talking about separate lineages. The various people who were deemed Cushite in the bible should therefore be seen as people who were imagined to be descendants of this Cushite patriarch.
This is also confirmed by later Arab writers who, equipped with a more extensive ethnographic writings compared to the ancient Hebrews, lumped various Indian and Arabian peoples together as descendants of Cush because of their physical characteristics. In fact, Josephus does this as well.
'Time has not at all hurt the name of Cush; for the Ethiopians, over whom he reigned, are even at this day, both by themselves and by all men in Asia, called Cushites.'
quote:What you propose is tricky, especially when trying to untangle what "the Hebrews thought" from a creation myth. Reading into this that the Hebrews thought the Mesopotamians were Black for example, has no support for it.
If you say it has no support, you'd have to explain why the biblical application of Cush to peoples matches Greek ascriptions of Aethiopians to various peoples, Asian and African. You'd also have to explain why the Greeks translated the Hebrew Cush with ''Aethiopian'', if such a proposal is so unsupported. You'd also have to explain why Arab writers continued to ascribe the term ''Cush'' to peoples that were known to be dark skinned.
When I said ''what the Hebrews thought'', I was specifically referring to our earlier discussion, regarding whether there is an African primacy whenever Cush is mentioned, and contrasting that part of the discussion with your subsequent invocation of Goldenbergs and others correlation of Nimrod with Kassites. The two discussions are inherently different, the former allows both parties to keep in mind that they are simply discussing how the Hebrews conceptualized things, and doesn't see their writings as right or wrong. Invocation of the latter inevitably leads to the exact opposite.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: I think you misunderstand the story. It is never said that he met her in Egypt I suggest you read the relevant portions of the bible and contrast what your source, I believe Josephus, says with other material, in particular, available material about her people; the Midianites.
Edit: Whilst acknowledging intense debate surrounding the issue of who the Cushite woman is, I will concede to the Egyptsearch orthodoxy for now as I'm not prepared to debate otherwise or linger on this one point. I see that I was wrong about the "meeting her in Egypt" thing after double checking. The disconnect really again seems to be that you are confounding polities though. In this case, Midianites are Shemites, not Cushites so the argument indeed relies on some connotation with dark skin , which does support PART of your argument.
quote:The bible posits the kingdom of Nimrod pior to the confusion of languages, and the subsequent exodus of all mentioned sons of Noah.
So why do you support the notion that Nimrod was a son of Kush who was a son of Noah? I don't get it?
quote:How do any of the Kashites kings fit the characteristics of Nimrod? Do they fit the hunter archtype, survivor of a flood, rebellion to the sender of the flood, building of cities etc etc characteristics like the indigenous Sumerian hero Gilgamesh does? Nimrod was a widely known mythological character, and his existence as such precedes the Kassite invasion, and is supported independantly from the bible.
These are myths. How long ago do you think the Hebrew scriptures were written? Before the Kassite invasion?
quote:]Im not sure what you mean here, but yes, I do see a strong correlation between skeletal analysis of various peoples and the peoples that were desribed as Cushites and Aethiopians per Hebrews/Arabs/Assyrians and Greeks respectively. While I agree with what you said earlier when you paraphrased Keita, the correlation still stands.
I'd like to see the data on this "correlation" because you cite Kush in Midian, Mesopotamia, South Arabia, all the way to Nubia Kush. Also, if Kushi when not referencing Sudan simply describes people with dark skin, then I'm not sure how skeletal remains can or have shed light on such a superficial relationship between peoples.
quote:Look no further than that Goldenberg quote you posted, where he quotes the bible. It is also directly implied by the fact that the Hebrews saw Noah as the most recent common ancestor of all people; there was no other Cushite patriarch to be talking about seperate lineages. The various people who were termed Cushite in the bible should therefore be seen as people who were imagined to be descendants of this Cushite patriarch.
Goldenberg states succinctly that they were DIFFERENT entities. Looking to his work for support towards that end would be inappropriate. Nimrod isn't mentioned in Cush' lineage at Gen. 10:7. Why?
quote:This is also confirmed by later Arab writers who, equipped with a more extensive ethnographic writings compared to the ancient Hebrews, lumbed various Indian and Arabian peoples together as descendants of Cush because of their physical characteristics. In fact, Josephus does this as well.
'Time has not at all hurt the name of Cush; for the Ethiopians, over whom he reigned, are even at this day, both by themselves and by all men in Asia, called Cushites.'
You can't use Arabic ethnography to put Hebrew ethnography into context. Why you'd prefer Arab writers over Josephus, or pick and choose what you like from Josephus, is beyond me. However, anthropology doesn't seem to confirm a relationship (linguistic, cultural, or biological) stretching from India to Sudan (Clyde, if you're reading, we can respectfully disagree on this).
quote:If you say it has no support, you'd have to explain why the biblical application of Cush to peoples matches Greek ascriptions of Aethiopians to various peoples, Asian and African.
Aren't we only talking about Mesopotamia here? Wouldn't the Greeks have to describe Mesopotamians as melas for your position to hold water? Also, I'm not sure if you're aware but the Greeks made a distinction between Aethiopians and eastern Aethiopians. They weren't considered the same people according to the Greeks. Of course, you keep going outside of your primary sources for evidence, I thought we were trying to understand the Hebrews and what THEY thought.
quote: You'd also have to explain why the Greeks translated the Hebrew Cush with ''Aethiopian'', if such a proposal is so unsupported.
No I wouldn't because it is only translated that way when referring to Cush in Africa.
quote: You'd also have to explain why Arab writers continued to ascribe the term ''Cush'' to peoples that were known to be dark skinned.
Arabs are again, irrelevant to what the Hebrews thought. Nor are we even using the Arabic word Sudan as you insist Cush connotes Black. What was the etymology of Cush in Arabic and if it connoted Black why didn't Arabs just write Sudan like they always do when describing "Blacks"?
quote:When I said ''what the Hebrews thought'', I was specifically referring to our earlier discussion, regarding whether there is an African primacy whenever Cush is mentioned, and contrasting that part of the discussion with your subseuent invocation of Goldenbergs and others correlation of Nimrod with Kassites. The two discussions are inherently different, the former allows both parties to keep in mind that they are simply discussing how the Hebrews conceptualized things, and doesn't see their writings as right or wrong. Invocation of the latter inevitably leads to the exact opposite.
Invocation of the latter is necessary because it is the only way to understand what the Hebrews thought out side of their religious myths. The primary focus should not be the myths or even what the Hebrews necessarily thought, but the observations they made based on what they thought. We can't possibly know what they thought without context. So I presented you with a dilemma that you didn't seem to catch.
The Hebrews state that the land of Cush was in Mesopotamia but they also state the land of Cush bordered Egypt and was in Africa. The passage that you cited was a direct argument to suggest that Cush was considered a territory in Mesopotamia. But how can it be a bordered territory in Africa south of Egypt but also a territory in North Arabia (apparently it jumps borders)? Either there are two Cush' according to what the Hebrews "thought", or the writer was confusing one Cush with something else. I believe either way it goes against your argument. I commend you if you can find a way around that problem.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Kalonji. After you respond, can you summarize your argument (main points) in a paragraph or two, so I can get a better idea of what you're actually saying. I want to be sure I'm not confusing your argument for something else.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where did the earliest branch of the Hebrews hail from? the Sumerian city of Ur correct? so the traditions of that culture as shown above would have been some what familiar to them keeping in mind Sumer was also a place of Black men. and Heroes and Hero gods of protection like Horus-Kemetic,Heracles-Greek,Nimrod-Sumerian have all the same attributes as mighty hunters who tame the wild. see Bernal..
And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Put, and Canaan. And the sons of Cush; Seba, and Havilah, and Sabtah, and Raamah, and Sabteca: and the sons of Raamah; Sheba, and Dedan. And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth. He was a mighty hunter before the LORD: wherefore it is said, Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the LORD. And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. Out of that land he went forth into Assyria, and builded Nineveh, and Rehoboth-Ir, and Calah, and Resen between Nineveh and Calah (the same is the great city). And Mizraim begat Ludim, and Anamim, and Lehabim, and Naphtuhim, 14 and Pathrusim, and Casluhim (whence went forth the Philistines), and Caphtorim. Sinnar a city on the Nile does not make things easier especially when followed by Biblical statements like this And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^This passage was cited by Kalonji and Ethiopia indeed seems to be a mistranslation since the geography is Asian (it should read "the whole land of Cush"). A lot of this has been discussed before by alTakuri and others but I never bothered to join those discussions so we may be needlessly rehashing a lot of things. Looking back on the archives, the opinion seems to be that Kushi was indeed applied to Kush proper in the Nile Valley, but also dark-skinned people in general which is why I said that supported Kalonji's argument in part. I am only confused when he refers to these places as a continuum of the same entity, which is contradicted by passages we just went through concerning Taharqa, "King of Egypt and Cush". Cush was clearly thought of as a polity in the lower Nile valley, dark-skinned Arabian descendants of a mythical son of Noah (and/or Kassites) notwithstanding.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:How are you so convinced that Zipporah and the "Cushite" woman refers to the same person?
^That argument is just another example of what I said earlier, regarding the tendencies to ‘’keep those blacks in Africa’’. I think it is a shame that we can’t get on common grounds regarding this, since it’s one of those notions that we all fight against here on ES. To get back on topic: I can never prove that, that is exactly why the debate is still waging. What I can show you, is that there is nothing that suggest that they are different, because the Midianites are still aligned with the Cushites elsewhere (Habakkuk 3:7).
quote:Not only are there Mesopotamian, South Arabian, and Nile Valley Kushites, but you are proposing that Cushites were also a polity and people in Israel proper.
What I said, is that they were all deemed to have common ancestry in Cush, the son of Noah. I’ve never said anything about polities, some groups could and would have been tribes.
quote:All of the writers interpret Cush to be equivalent to "Ethiopia" and this is how it was translated in the Greek rendition as well. Josephus' need to associate the Cushite wife with Ethiopia testifies to what the Hebrews thought.
If you mean ‘’Ethiopia’’ as exclusively Africa, this is untrue, as everyone knows who has read Josephs identification of Cush’s sons.
quote:So why do you support the notion that Nimrod was a son of Kush who was a son of Noah? I don't get it?
This is why I told you to read the relevant portions of the bible; there is nothing contradictory in what I said. Noah and his first generation > flood > disembarkment of ark > settlement in the land of shinear from the west > Nimrod builds cities > the tower of Babel is erected > confusion of tongues > exodus of each patriarch to their respective lands that they Hebrews found them in. No place for later nations such as Kassites to embody Nimrod and his followers.
quote:These are myths. How long ago do you think the Hebrew scriptures were written? Before the Kassite invasion?
About a millennia bc, so yes, after the Kassite invasion, but this is irrelevant. Nimrod and his characteristics are indigenous to Sumer proper, as opposed to Iran. This directly undermines any identifications of the biblical Nimrod with the later Kassites conquerors
quote:I'd like to see the data on this "correlation" because you cite Kushites in Midian, Mesopotamia, South Arabia, all the way to Nubia Kush. This sounds more and more like a Clyde Winters theory, sorry to say.
That skeletal analysis of various peoples deemed Cushite in ancient times are closely related doesn’t mean that they were closely related genetically, which is where Clyde and I differ.
quote:Goldenberg states succinctly that they were DIFFERENT entities. Looking to his work for support towards that end would be inappropriate. Nimrod isn't mentioned in Cush' lineage at Gen. 10:7. Why?
You want to know why? Because he is mentioned in Cush’s lineage in the next verse; Genesis 10:8. Note; if you’re going to imply that the Hebrews purposefully didn’t put Nimrod in Cush’s lineage, you’re directly undermining your earlier notion that the Hebrews confused Kassites with Cushites by mistake.
quote:You can't use Arabic ethnography to put Hebrew ethnography into context.
The Arab writers are used as a supplement to show what the Hebrews didn’t write explicitly (although a hint is given in Jeremiah 13:23); that Cushites of the bible were all grouped as such because they were dark skinned, and deemed to be descendants of the biblical patriarch Cush. So yes, I can.
quote:Why you'd prefer Arab writers over Josephus, or pick and choose what you like from Josephus, is beyond me.
Josephus supports me, so I can’t have ulterior motives for not citing him. Like I said earlier, he traces all sons of Cush to Arabian groups, directly opposing any talks about unrelated lineages of African and Asian Cushites in the mind of the Hebrew.
quote:Aren't we only talking about Mesopotamia here? Wouldn't the Greeks have to describe Mesopotamians as melas for your position to hold water?
“the Ethiopians were considered as occupying all the south coasts of both Asia and Africa, divided by the Red Sea into Eastern and Western Asiatic and African.” - Ephorus ‘’if the moderns have confined the appellation Ethiopians to those only who dwell near Egypt, this must not be allowed to interfere with the meaning of the ancients.” - Strabo
quote:Also, I'm not sure if you're aware but the Greeks made a distinction between Aethiopians and eastern Aethiopians. They weren't considered the same people according to the Greeks.
Again, this is irrelevant. The Greeks and the Arabs were used to corroborate that those termed Cush were called Aethiopians as well. If the Greeks thought, in contradiction to the Hebrews, that some Aethiopians came not from Cush, but from Bruce Springsteen, that would be irrelevant to the correlation that I’m getting at here. It is notable that even some Greeco-Romans thought that Ethiopians descended from Aethiops.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:No I wouldn't because it is only translated that way when referring to Cush in Africa.
That directly undermines your claim above that the Greeks recognized eastern and western Aethiopians, in Asia and Africa, respectively. What happened to this Greek recognition, when the Greek version of the bible was penned down, did it simply disappear?
The rhetorical question "Can the Cushite change his skin?" in Jeremiah 13:23 implies people of a markedly different skin color from the Israelites, probably an African people; also, the Septuagint uniformly translates Cush as Αἰθιοπία "Ethiopia."
quote:Arabs are again, irrelevant to what the Hebrews thought.
You’re not getting the point. See above.
quote:Invocation of the latter is necessary because it is the only way to understand what the Hebrews thought out side of their religious myths.
I edited my previous post before you replied, it is applicable to what you write above:
quote: Posted by me: The bible posits the kingdom of Nimrod prior to the confusion of languages, and the subsequent exodus of all mentioned sons of Noah. The bible also says that the people after the flood settled Mesopotamia from the West, which directly undermines any Kassite migration. You'd have to ignore the bible to make it work, but then, if you're going to that, you're already doubting its accuracy, which makes any attempts by that same author to correlate it with historical events questionable, and inconsistent per that earlier commitment to question that text. That would be like hanging your coat (historical event) to what you perceive to be a crippled hatstand (the myth)
AND
quote: Posted by me: Another point that I'd like to make, is that it is not unthinkable that the Kassites themselves didn't apply that name to themselves because they viewed themselves as blacks, which is corroborated by Josephus, who says the various Cushite groups also called themselves Cushites.
Having said that, every available line of evidence, other than name similarity (which isn't even evidence) suggest these folks are different, and as I've alluded to earlier; the Kassite explanation is more likely a remnant of racist thinking that intended to keep blacks out of the ''civilized'' centers of Southwest Asia.
quote: Originally posted by Sundiata: The Hebrews state that the land of Cush was in Mesopotamia but they also state the land of Cush bordered Egypt and was in Africa. The passage that you cited was a direct argument to suggest that Cush was considered a territory in Mesopotamia. But how can it be a bordered territory in Africa south of Egypt but also a territory in North Arabia (apparently it jumps borders)? Either there are two Kush' according to what the Hebrews "thought", or they are confusing one Kush with something else. I believe either way it goes against your argument. I commend you if you can find a way around that problem.[/b]
It is not against my argument. I have stated from the get go that this was because they were viewed as descendants of Cush. The Habbakuk passages that I cited shows that there was another land of Cush, so it doesn’t really matter how much ‘’Cushite’’ entities there are, there are plenty.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
But Guys there is room for overlap for if Meluhha is indeed African Kush as suggested by the Assyrians the successor state to the Sumerian/Babylonians in regards to Taharka and non less than a chief god of Sumer lord Enki showed much favor to Meluhha as to go from Sumer immediately there to bless it with Blackmen and all kinds of goodies then the linking is perhaps more ancient than before ancestors of the Hebrews ever leave Sumer itself. And that brings into question ancient migrations and contacts between the area of the Persian gulf and the Nile, keeping in mind that the immediate successors to the Sumerians were Semitic speakers from East Africa or nearby.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Finally ES is working, couldn't get it to new stuff nor edit previous posts for spelling errors.
Anyway, Brada, when I started out learning about black history I was confused about Magan an Melluhha and couldn't pin point them to the same entities, as there was alway some scholar who would say something else (Indus Valley etc). I'm going to look into the matter again. What I can say is that the Assyrians used Kushu/Kushiya and they called Egypt Musur/Musri. Don't know about Melluha, will check it out later.
EDIT
This text, is unclear in what is meant with its translation of Meluhha (Ethiopia), as this author, and perhaps, the words used suggests it is different from Kush. The author translates Meluhha a page above the page the link directs to, as both Ethiopia, Nubia and Kush. On the page the link directs to, he translates Meluhha as Nubia, and Kush as Kush, showing that inconsistencies are at work here, either by the author, or perhaps by the hands of the Assyrians themselves, who used the words interchangeably. If translated correctly, we can see the author also uses two different names for Egypt, Musur and Magan. This is a topic for further exploration.
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: ^Kalonji. After you respond, can you summarize your argument (main points) in a paragraph or two, so I can get a better idea of what you're actually saying. I want to be sure I'm not confusing your argument for something else.
If you have questions after my last post - which should sum up my points - let me know.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kalonji I think some times scholars even good ones are often hobbled by something Bernal referred to as temporal bias,that is people way back could not engaged in international commerce and contacts like us moderns so the pressure to link with near by locations becomes great after all India and or even Bahrain seems much more attractive than far-off Nile valley,but as far as I know which is little, nothing written by the Sumerians places Meluhha in India but we do have their successors placing both Magan and Meluhaa on the Nile I think someone once posted a correspondence of one Milkulu a Canaanite vassel to Akhenaten begging him for troops from Meluhha be sent to rescue him or punish rebels..so the tradition would push Meluhha's location on the Nile even further back in time than the 25th dyn.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^@ Kalonji. Cool. I'll just respond to the main points then, and apparently you also responded to a post that I'd edited some time ago conceding the whole "Cushite in Egypt" thing.
quote:What I said, is that they were all deemed to have common ancestry in Cush, the son of Noah. I’ve never said anything about polities, some groups could and would have been tribes.
This isn't true of course since the Midianites were Shemites. Yet you say the Cushite reference was literal and referred to Zipporah. The Israelites couldn't have "thought" them to be the "same people" as the Cushites through lineage hence, why some prefer to see the wife mentioned in Numbers as an actual Cushite from Africa. I edited my post because I don't feel like going on and on about that in particular since that particular issue has been beaten to death.
quote:If you mean ‘’Ethiopia’’ as exclusively Africa, this is untrue, as everyone knows who has read Josephs identification of Cush’s sons.
Read Josephus closely. He claims that Moses married twice, traveling to Ethiopia and THEN to Midian. Your argument would rely on his locating some other Ethiopia IN Midian (the land of Shem). Furthermore, he specifically says he traveled south across the desert. So in that instance Josephus did mean exclusively Africa.
quote:This is why I told you to read the relevant portions of the bible; there is nothing contradictory in what I said. Noah and his first generation > flood > disembarkment of ark > settlement in the land of shinear from the west > Nimrod builds cities > the tower of Babel is erected > confusion of tongues > exodus of each patriarch to their respective lands that they Hebrews found them in.
Ok, I got you. I misunderstood you at first.
quote:That skeletal analysis of various peoples deemed Cushite in ancient times are closely related doesn’t mean that they were closely related genetically, which is where Clyde and I differ.
^How else can a population of people be closely related as inferred through skeletal remains if not genetically? In what way were they related and how does this speak to African Cushites relation to non-Cushite Africans like the Egyptians? Did the Hebrews see a closer relationship between Nubia Kush and Nimrod Kush than with Nubia Kush and Mizraim?
Mind you, in answering this question I'm more concerned about the anthropology which shows all people referred to as Cushites to be related.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:You want to know why? Because he is mentioned in Cush’s lineage in the next verse; Genesis 10:8. Note; if you’re going to imply that the Hebrews purposefully didn’t put Nimrod in Cush’s lineage, you’re directly undermining your earlier notion that the Hebrews confused Kassites with Cushites by mistake.
We went over Gen. 10:8, the point was to show that for some reason he is treated distinctly and my aim wasn't to imply that Nimrod was purposely omitted, my point has always been that the Hebrews were making sense of names and genealogies that already existed. Hence, they associated Kassu with Kush similar to how the Greeks associated Egyptian Gods with their own. In my opinion the Hebrews didn't necessarily think they were related by default but were struck by the phonemic correspondence to the word Cush.
quote:Josephus supports me, so I can’t have ulterior motives for not citing him. Like I said earlier, he traces all sons of Cush to Arabian groups, directly opposing any talks about unrelated lineages of African and Asian Cushites in the mind of the Hebrew.
Josephus is the one who thought Zipporah was African based on her appellation so I'm not sure why you assume that Josephus all of a sudden supports you? I myself also told you that the sons of Cush, besides Sheba left for southern Arabia (Josephus agrees, calling the Queen of Sheba the "Queen of Ethiopia and Egypt"). So how is it that this doesn't agree with me when it's exactly what I'd stated and that people across the red sea DID evince close relationships, an argument put fourth by Goldenberg. I thought perhaps you went too far when invoking Mesopotamia. I'm wondering where exactly Josephus does this.
quote:“the Ethiopians were considered as occupying all the south coasts of both Asia and Africa, divided by the Red Sea into Eastern and Western Asiatic and African.” - Ephorus ‘’if the moderns have confined the appellation Ethiopians to those only who dwell near Egypt, this must not be allowed to interfere with the meaning of the ancients.” - Strabo
Since when has Mesopotamia straddled the South Coast? Also, you need to be careful about quoting out of context. Ephorus mentioned what I have and Herodotus puts that into context by describing the Eastern Ethiopians as different in language and hair morphology. Strabo later describes the Southern Indians as "looking like Ethiopians". In the quote you provided, he doesn't even mention Asia, we should understand that Strabo described "Ethiopians" much further south beyond the capital of Meroe (no where "near Egypt"). Could there have been related people along the southern coast of the red sea? I've already stated so. Mesopotamia and India however, is another can of worms.
You are also making a serious error by equating Greek Aethiopia with Hebrew Cushi, as one is only translated to represent the other when there is overlap and much of the time there isn't any.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:That directly undermines your claim above that the Greeks recognized eastern and western Aethiopians, in Asia and Africa, respectively. What happened to this Greek recognition, when the Greek version of the bible was penned down, did it simply disappear?
The rhetorical question "Can the Cushite change his skin?" in Jeremiah 13:23 implies people of a markedly different skin color from the Israelites, probably an African people; also, the Septuagint uniformly translates Cush as Αἰθιοπία "Ethiopia."
This is not just a claim of mine, you'd have to take this up with Herodotus, and a careful reading of your own quote from Ephorus again would seem to refute your point.
quote:Another point that I'd like to make, is that it is not unthinkable that the Kassites themselves didn't apply that name to themselves because they viewed themselves as blacks, which is corroborated by Josephus, who says the various Cushite groups also called themselves Cushites.
Since when has Kassu meant the same thing as Cush etymologically? What gave you the idea that they named themselves according to a biblical passage that was written after they were already settled and established in 1595 BCE? These stories were written well after the Kassites appeared on the scene so this is an anachronistic argument.
quote:Having said that, every available line of evidence, other than name similarity (which isn't even evidence) suggest these folks are different, and as I've alluded to earlier; the Kassite explanation is more likely a remnant of racist thinking that intended to keep blacks out of the ''civilized'' centers of Southwest Asia.
Racism is a strong charge. The whole idea of Goldenberg's book is to refute and explore the racist ideas associated with the curse of Ham, so where you get off making that claim I have no idea. People can disagree with out thinking blacks are genetically inferior and prone to chattle slavery.
quote:It is not against my argument. I have stated from the get go that this was because they were viewed as descendants of Cush. The Habbakuk passages that I cited shows that there was another land of Cush, so it doesn’t really matter how much ‘’Cushite’’ entities there are, there are plenty.
It would be helpful to summarize what your position is. For instance, what is an entity here if not a polity/state/nation (?), yet you have already claimed that Cush was associated with geography in Mesopotamia. The contradiction is that it is associated with geography in Africa. Either the land of Cush represents people or geography, you can't have your cake and eat it too. I believe what we are missing here is context and I figured people like Goldenberg could provide it.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: But Guys there is room for overlap for if Meluhha is indeed African Kush as suggested by the Assyrians the successor state to the Sumerian/Babylonians in regards to Taharka and non less than a chief god of Sumer lord Enki showed much favor to Meluhha as to go from Sumer immediately there to bless it with Blackmen and all kinds of goodies then the linking is perhaps more ancient than before ancestors of the Hebrews ever leave Sumer itself. And that brings into question ancient migrations and contacts between the area of the Persian gulf and the Nile, keeping in mind that the immediate successors to the Sumerians were Semitic speakers from East Africa or nearby.
Thanks Brada. Def. Something to think about. Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:This isn't true of course since the Midianites were Shemites.
Going by that logic, why not reason that Joshua, king David, Solomon, and Jesus are all Hamites because they had immediate maternal and paternal Hamite ancestry, as well as a little more distant Hamite ancestry, as many Egyptians partook in their exodus, according to the bible (Exodus 12:37-38). The only Shemite ancestry that is ascribed to the Midianite peoples, is that of their patriarch (Midian), and even that was only paternal. There are many generations between Abraham and Moses, and the Midianites settled in a region that was described several times in the bible, as well as Assyrian records (the latter even mention a decidedly African, and non-Abrahamic cultural trait ie, the presence of queens), as Cushite territory. It should be noted that by the time when Genesis, and thus the paternal account of Midian, was written, Abraham was already a distant memory. That is to say, that they would have been well aware that the Midianites were Cushites by the time they conceptualized Abrahamic paternal origins for the Midianites. Together with (Habakkuk 3:7), there is no other explanation other than that they were assigned to the lineage of Cush.
quote:Read Josephus closely. He claims that Moses married twice, traveling to Ethiopia and THEN to Midian. Your argument would rely on his locating some other Ethiopia IN Midian (the land of Shem).
Yes, my argument relies on that; and it is supported by the evidence. Midian is never described as the land of Shem, in fact, Midian is surrounded by Kushite territory to their West and their South, as well as their east, since the Medjay lived there.
quote:^How else can a population of people be closely related as inferred through skeletal remains if not genetically? In what way were they related and how does this speak to African Cushites relation to non-Cushite Africans like the Egyptians? Did the Hebrews see a closer relationship between Nubia Kush and Nimrod Kush than with Nubia Kush and Mizraim?
Common skeletal traits do not necessarily reflect phylogenetic history. You ask me questions that were already answered; I don’t see how the Hebrews could have been aware of particularly close biological relationships between Egyptians and other Nilotic peoples, other than those that are observable from the surface eg common cultural features. Is it not obvious that they couldn’t have conceived of significant biological differences between intra patriarchic groups, if they believed that everyone in their time had a common ancestor around 2500bc?
quote:Mind you, in answering this question I'm more concerned about the anthropology which shows all people referred to as Cushites to be related.
If you mean in physical traits, I can give you the following: see Hannihari on Bronze age Iranians (1996), see Buxton and Rice on Sumerians, see Coon on his belief that the ancient Arabians would have been similar in appearance to Tutsi, see Mahmoud Y. El-Najjar, "An Anthropological Study of Skeletal Remains from Tomb A, Hili North", see ‘’The Anthropomorphic Content of the Rock Art, " in Journal of Oman Studies 2, 1976 Keith Preston.
A famous rock art scene in the mountains of Oman shows a towering round-headed black/Africoid figure holding a mace next to a shorter man with a hat and breastplate. There are several other tall black men portrayed in the rock art in this article. I haven't been able to see R. Jackli, The Rock Art of Oman, 1980, to see if he gave them airplay or, by some oversight (!) ignored them. I can't find my xerox of the text of this article, only the pictures, to see with which culture in Oman this art may be associated. But rock art is difficult to date, and these pictures might stand in isolation were it not for the skeletal evidence.
^Portions directly quoted from my very first post and thread here on ES in 2009, too bad it got slept on.
quote:We went over Gen. 10:8, the point was to show that for some reason he is treated distinctly and my aim wasn't to imply that Nimrod was purposely omitted, my point has always been that the Hebrews were making sense of names and genealogies that already existed.
Ok.
quote:Josephus is the one who thought Zipporah was African based on her appellation so I'm not sure why you assume that Josephus all of a sudden supports you? I myself also told you that the sons of Cush, besides Sheba left for southern Arabia (Josephus agrees, calling the Queen of Sheba the "Queen of Ethiopia and Egypt").
There is no evidence that the Hebrews thought that any son of Cush left Africa for Southern Arabia. If the people settled in Shinear after the flood, and we find Genesis (Genesis 2:10) ascribing Arabian/Mesopotamian lands to Cush and his sons, before any Shemites are even mentioned as inhabiting Arabia, there can be no other explanation than that Cush and his sons moved to Africa from Arabia, per the Hebrews. Another point that I left untouched the previous time you said that, is that Josephus doesn’t place Sheba in Africa. The queen you’re referring is Makeda, per the Abyssinnians, Bilqis per the Arabs, she is not Sheba.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic