posted
Although an off topic subject there can be no doubt that Ancient Israel is deeply linked to Ancient Egypt especially through scripture.
Most people are familiar with the story of Exodus, that the Ancient Hebrew texts record that they were enslaved in Egypt and that through the Prophet Moses who was raised in Pharaoh's court the Hebrew fled Egypt to settle in the promised land.
This thread isn't about the historical accuracy of Exodus but rather the biological affinities of people within the state of Israel from 1 A.D. - 100 A.D. (or C.E. if you prefer).
What did the Israelites of this era look like?
And, if there was a historic Jesus, what would he have looked like or a man of his status looked like?
There are a plethora of images of what people think he looked like or what they'd like for him to look like. This is one of the most commonly accepted images of how Jesus Christ (Yeshua ben Yoseph) is portrayed in mainstream Christianity:
Most images in European art of Jesus are based off the original painting by Michaelanglo who used his cousin as a model.
In modern times the image of Jesus has also changed to fit the ethnic identity of the artist in various cultures.
Examples:
African Jesus
Chinese Jesus
This particular portait is the most scientific attempt I have seen at depicting what Jesus may have looked like:
The image, hosted on the BBC special Jesus: The Complete Story, is based off a British reconstruction of a 1st Century Israelite that would have lived during Jesus's time period, so while as random picking a single man from a Modern population to represent all men of that time period it is a forensice attempt at portraying the people of the time:
Reconstruction
The hair style is based off images of Ancient jews from the same time period and the skin tone is based on a Biblical passage about Jesus's family fleeing to Egypt to escape persecution from Herod.
The historians who were referenced for this section of the reconstruction concluded that Israelites must not have looked very different from Egyptians at this time period if an Israelite family could have so easily blended into the Egyptian population.
This webpage also uses scripture to make a paralell between the physical appearance of the Israelites with that of the Egyptians:
With all that being said I'd like to know if there are any recent peer-reviewed anthropological studies on this group of people during this time period.
Posts: 1203 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You need only look at egyptian depictions of the Hysoks to know what Hebrews originally looked like. Yemeni Jews are a good reference point for this as well since they could not intermarry with the Muslims of the area and have been living their for over 2500 years.
Interestingly, they do look a bit like the reconstruction you showed:
Moses lived at a time when the Egyptians had become a mixed people (the New Kingdom). They had just regain dominance from a Semitic people (the Hysoks) and as a result intermarrying had occurred resulting in a people that no longer appeared as Africoid. Also, many of the Hysok females would have become concubines and so on.
Moses could easily have appeared to look Egyptian because Egyptians of that time period would have included a significant number Semitic people and Egyptians of mixed ancestry. I would go further and say that Semitic people appearance in Egyptian history goes back to the dawn of the Egyptian civilization.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Moses lived at a time when the Egyptians had become a mixed people (the New Kingdom). They had just regain dominance from a Semitic people (the Hysoks) and as a result intermarrying had occurred resulting in a people that no longer appeared as Africoid. Also, many of the Hysok females would have become concubines and so on.
This seems to be a generalization. True, by the New Kingdom the number of foreign communities was great but they were still a minority. Most of these communities were confined around the eastern Delta and could be compared to some foreign communities in New York. While no doubt there was intermarriage between Egyptians and Asiatics I don't know how common it was but I don't think it was something like a mass miscengenation.
quote:Moses could easily have appeared to look Egyptian because Egyptians of that time period would have included a significant number Semitic people and Egyptians of mixed ancestry. I would go further and say that Semitic people appearance in Egyptian history goes back to the dawn of the Egyptian civilization.
There were Asiatic women among the Pharaoh's harem and many Asiatics in the royal court so Moses being an adopted son of Pharoah is not that surprising.
As far as Semitic people being present from the dawn of Egyptian civilization, again we have evidence of trade between cities in the Delta and the Levant but we still don't know much on the atual ethnic makeup of the populations living in the Delta.
I hope you still aren't proposing your theory of a Jewish pre-dynastic civilization in the Delta!
Besides, according to scriptures the first contact with Egyptians was with Abraham, his family and people. It is assumed that this was already into dynastic times since it was said he was given an audience with the pharaoh.
Posts: 26243 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have never proposed a Jewish pre-dynastic civilization in the Delta. I do, however, believe that there is evidence that Jewish ancestry is of Chaldean extraction and that they did have trade routes established with Egyptians. Clearly Egyptian civilization is of African development and not Asiatic which is clearly evidenced in the cultural differences. However, it doesn't mean Egypt was born in isolation. Civlizations need trade in order to advance!
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now, Mansa Musa, we all know you like to present Mrs. Doubtfire with "facts" A historical Jesus is NOT a fact that you or anyone else can prove with one slightest tit of evidence.
Now, really, my dears, you are going too far when you try to discuss what a person could have looked like who did not even exist! That is looking at history through the tube of a toilet roll. On the other hand we could call it delusionism, tunnel vision or even wishful thinking. Now where is your proof to substantiate first of all that Jesus existed, then perhaps we can begin to discuss what he might have looked like dependent upon his origin, which up to the present is not known (in the factual sense if there could be one).
Can we please try to keep to facts before we are asked to conjur up images of God in the mind. Nobody knows what God Looks like, and the pictures kindly presented here are naught but imaginary ones conjured up in the mind of individuals who seek an "Idol" for an unseen and invisible God because they simply do not have the intellect, and cannot "imagine" a god without face nor form. Posts: 304 | From: egypt | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Djhuti, there is no proven connection between the Hyksos and the Hebrew or Semetic people of the Bible. The FACT is they had totally different religions and God/Gods. This, alone, is sufficient to disprove any connection. Posts: 304 | From: egypt | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mrs. Doubtfire: Djhuti, there is no proven connection between the Hyksos and the Hebrew or Semetic people of the Bible. The FACT is they had totally different religions and God/Gods. This, alone, is sufficient to disprove any connection.
Hysoks were semitic speaking people.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mrs. Doubtfire: Djhuti, there is no proven connection between the Hyksos and the Hebrew or Semetic people of the Bible. The FACT is they had totally different religions and God/Gods. This, alone, is sufficient to disprove any connection.
I never said there was any direct connection other than that both groups were Semitic speaking peoples from the Levant!
Do you have anything to contribute?? Perhaps stories of how Egyptians ate Hyksos or Hebrew babies??
I didn't think so! Posts: 26243 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mrs. Doubtfire: Now, Mansa Musa, we all know you like to present Mrs. Doubtfire with "facts" A historical Jesus is NOT a fact that you or anyone else can prove with one slightest tit of evidence.
Now, really, my dears, you are going too far when you try to discuss what a person could have looked like who did not even exist! That is looking at history through the tube of a toilet roll. On the other hand we could call it delusionism, tunnel vision or even wishful thinking. Now where is your proof to substantiate first of all that Jesus existed, then perhaps we can begin to discuss what he might have looked like dependent upon his origin, which up to the present is not known (in the factual sense if there could be one).
Can we please try to keep to facts before we are asked to conjur up images of God in the mind. Nobody knows what God Looks like, and the pictures kindly presented here are naught but imaginary ones conjured up in the mind of individuals who seek an "Idol" for an unseen and invisible God because they simply do not have the intellect, and cannot "imagine" a god without face nor form.
Doubtfire, I have structured this thread to remain neutral on religious beliefs.
There are many beliefs on who Jesus was including that he may have been God, the son of god, messiah, prophet, mystic or an average joe and even others like yourself do not even belief he existed at all.
And there is disagreement with what others believe on all sides.
This thread is not about the qualities of Jesus as a diety or historical figure.
It is about what the people during this time period that Jesus is alleged to have lived in looked like. And as a further subject what someone of Jesus's gender and age would have looked like.
Also your contentions are what is known as an appeal to ignorance . Just because there is no concrete proof that a historical figure existed does not mean that they did not.
An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Now if I were claiming that Jesus did infact exist and you were skeptical then that would justify you asking for evidence.
But I did not and I'd appreciate if we stuck with what is relevant to the thread.
Posts: 1203 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mrs. Doubtfire: Djhuti, there is no proven connection between the Hyksos and the Hebrew or Semetic people of the Bible. The FACT is they had totally different religions and God/Gods. This, alone, is sufficient to disprove any connection.
I never said there was any direct connection other than that both groups were Semitic speaking peoples from the Levant!
Do you have anything to contribute?? Perhaps stories of how Egyptians ate Hyksos or Hebrew babies??
I didn't think so!
What we have are the Hysoks and the Hebrews. Two groups that are geographically and linguistically related, however, they are not culturally related. It is quite likely that Hysoks being Asiatics like the Hebrews, speaking the same language as the Hebrews and coming from the same Area as the Hebrews are essentially genetically related to the Hebrews just as the Palestinians are.
So do we have a direct connection between the Hysoks and the Hebrews? They are unquestionably related but they are not culturally the same people. However, they need not be culturally the same people to have developed a close relationship. The Hysoks ruled Egypt and allowed Jews (who were racially the same as the Hysoks) to settle in various areas of Egypt. The Jews flourished and moved into the hierarchy of the Hysok government. The Hysoks were in Egypt long enough to have significantly intermarried with Egyptian elite families. By the time of the New Kingdom, people of the Levant would have had changed the face of what it meant to be Egyptian!
Point: The need to rationalize a Black Moses is not necessary and is counter-productive. Evidence suggests otherwise.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So really then my dears, it was not necessary to post up a lot of imaginary pics of "Jesus" was it? Your thread then really ought to be "did the Jews of the first century look anything like the Hyksos.?" You might as well ask "Did the Jews of lst century AD look anything like the Jews of today?"
In fact why do you even use the Bible at all when you have more or less confirmed that it has no historical relevance to - well - anything!
There is no proof of a historical Adam, Moses, Noah, Seth, Jesus, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, or indeed any of the Saints or Patriarchs. Nor is there the slightest tissue of evidence of an Exodus from Egypt of Hebrew slaves coming out of bondage, nor any place called Sodom and Gomorrah, The Garden of Eden, Nazareth, or indeed any of the places or people who have a Biblical allegorical significance.
So, perhaps, before you go off on a tangent in the wrong direction altogether, I suggest you try to sort out in the Biblical sense what is historical fact and what is allegorical myth. And that I might add, unless you have suitable training, you will find quite impossible.
I will consider the above posts and will let you have a more positive contribution as things develop. Of course you do realize that Abraham was into child sacrifice as were most of his kinsmen of the time, and child sacrifice was a huge problem with the Israelites/Hebrews, a habit they may have purloined from their imagined stay in Egypt perhaps, nowadays transposed into the Christian Eucharist, and for the Muslims and Jews the sacrifice of animals to their god. Posts: 304 | From: egypt | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mrs. Doubtfire: So really then my dears, it was not necessary to post up a lot of imaginary pics of "Jesus" was it? Your thread then really ought to be "did the Jews of the first century look anything like the Hyksos.?" You might as well ask "Did the Jews of lst century AD look anything like the Jews of today?"
In fact why do you even use the Bible at all when you have more or less confirmed that it has no historical relevance to - well - anything!
There is no proof of a historical Adam, Moses, Noah, Seth, Jesus, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, or indeed any of the Saints or Patriarchs. Nor is there the slightest tissue of evidence of an Exodus from Egypt of Hebrew slaves coming out of bondage, nor any place called Sodom and Gomorrah, The Garden of Eden, Nazareth, or indeed any of the places or people who have a Biblical allegorical significance.
So, perhaps, before you go off on a tangent in the wrong direction altogether, I suggest you try to sort out in the Biblical sense what is historical fact and what is allegorical myth. And that I might add, unless you have suitable training, you will find quite impossible.
I will consider the above posts and will let you have a more positive contribution as things develop. Of course you do realize that Abraham was into child sacrifice as were most of his kinsmen of the time, and child sacrifice was a huge problem with the Israelites/Hebrews, a habit they may have purloined from their imagined stay in Egypt perhaps, nowadays transposed into the Christian Eucharist, and for the Muslims and Jews the sacrifice of animals to their god.
You seem to contradict yourself. First you say that Abraham didn't exist and then you claim he was into child sacrifice. You also make the claim that the Bible has no historical significance.
Fact: Archaelogist have long used to the Bible to help locate cities in the Middle East from antiquity. The historical relevance of the Bible has been well shown.
The Bible does contain legends which are clearly based on some historical events. Jericho is a great example of this. Evidence has surfaced showing an earthquake damaged wall at the location of Jericho.
The story of the Exodus is like the story of the Trojan war. Both are legends based on an actual historical event.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mrs. Doubtfire: ...In fact why do you even use the Bible at all when you have more or less confirmed that it has no historical relevance to - well - anything!
There is no proof of a historical Adam, Moses, Noah, Seth, Jesus, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, or indeed any of the Saints or Patriarchs. Nor is there the slightest tissue of evidence of an Exodus from Egypt of Hebrew slaves coming out of bondage, nor any place called Sodom and Gomorrah, The Garden of Eden, Nazareth, or indeed any of the places or people who have a Biblical allegorical significance.
Well science has proven there was a historical Eve as well as an Adam, and recently on the discovery channel they aired a program about strong evidence supporting the exodus and that the Hebrews were a warrior nomadic tribe.
quote:So, perhaps, before you go off on a tangent in the wrong direction altogether, I suggest you try to sort out in the Biblical sense what is historical fact and what is allegorical myth. And that I might add, unless you have suitable training, you will find quite impossible.
I suggest you get with FACTS and not some old invalid rumors and propaganda spun by racist European explorers and colonists!
quote:I will consider the above posts and will let you have a more positive contribution as things develop. Of course you do realize that Abraham was into child sacrifice as were most of his kinsmen of the time, and child sacrifice was a huge problem with the Israelites/Hebrews, a habit they may have purloined from their imagined stay in Egypt perhaps, nowadays transposed into the Christian Eucharist, and for the Muslims and Jews the sacrifice of animals to their god.
If you read the Bible, the child sacrifice was a test of Abraham's loyalty put forth by God. Other than Abraham's test, could you provide evidence that child sacrifice was rampant? Why should we believe you when you have a bad habit of making claims to which you can never prove, deary. Posts: 26243 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't want to get into this subjective definition of "race", but knowing the history of the levant it is a good chance that some of the people at the time still resembled the african/egyptian. Why do you think in such simple minded terms; "ALL OR NONE". Even today, those people do not have one single phenotype!
quote:Originally posted by osirion: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Djehuti: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Mrs. Doubtfire: [qb]
Point: The need to rationalize a Black Moses is not necessary and is counter-productive. Evidence suggests otherwise.
Posts: 318 | From: PA. USA | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic