...
EgyptSearch Forums Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» EgyptSearch Forums » Egyptology » Question on the Pirke de R. Eliezer (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Question on the Pirke de R. Eliezer
africurious
Member
Member # 19611

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for africurious     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hey,
I've noticed that Takruri and Dana have posted a quote form the Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer where it is said:
quote:
Shem was especially
blessed black and beautiful, Ham was blessed black like the
raven, and Yapheth was blessed white all over

see an earlier discussion with quote here

This Pirke came up in some research I was doing and I'm wondering if anyone knows of any other early Jewish (or islamic, christian) sources where one of Noah's progeny, aside from Ham and his descendants, is mentioned as being black. I find it strange that the Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer would be the only early source to mention something like this.

I'd appreciate if responses include approx dates of the sources (and quotes if possible).

Note: It has already been demonstrated that the OT was not talking about the races of the world or anything like that when it mentioned Noah's 3 sons and their descendants, so I'm not interested in any race debate. Please take such debate to another thread.

Posts: 214 | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tukuler   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's the only one I know of and seemingly written
by Palestinians not Babylonians. The "black and
beautiful" concept extends from the era of the
Song of Songs which is Solomon's up until at
least the late medieval times of Europe.

The Mishnah clearly delimits colour ranges of
Judaeans as midway between that of pale white
Germans and dark black Sudanese where it details
the laws of leprosy finally deciding all cases to
be judged by the intermediate Israelite tone else
all Germans be lepers and any Sudani with a light
spot/blotch likewise be declared a leper.

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by africurious:
I find it strange that the Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer would be the only early source to mention something like this.

Agree. What's also curious is that Shem in this scenario would be black, while all the major patriarchs that are allocated to him are historically known as light skinned Eurasian types.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^ But then we have Elam who is included in the progeny of Shem, and we all know how Elamites looked. So what are we to make of this?
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The black Elamites you're referring to are a distinct subset of ancient Elamites, just like the blacks in Southern Iraq are a distinct subset of the Chaldeans. In the bible, both are discussed separately from Shem's progeny.

*Susians, aka Ancient Khuzistanis (note: Khuzistan is an obvious vestige of the mythological patriarch ''Cush'') are mentioned here as being encircled by a river, which is to be identified as the Karun river:

quote:
The name of the second river is GIHON; it is the one which encompasses the whole land of Cush.
--Genesis 2:13

*Black (Southern) Iraqis:

quote:
Now Cush became the father of Nimrod; he became a mighty one on the earth. He was a mighty hunter before the LORD; therefore it is said, “Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the LORD.” The beginning of his kingdom was Babel and Erech and Accad and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. From that land he went forth into Assyria, and built Nineveh and Rehoboth-Ir and Calah, and Resen between Nineveh and Calah; that is the great city.

--Genesis 10:8-14
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
The black Elamites you're referring to are a distinct subset of ancient Elamites, just like the blacks in Southern Iraq are a distinct subset of the Chaldeans. In the bible, both are discussed separately from Shem's progeny.

This is false. How can the Black Elamites, be a subset of Elamites when all the Elamites were Kushites?

The Kushites were all Blacks.

.

Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The bible is clear; the Gihon encircles all of the land of Cush. The Karun river doesn't extend over the entire land of Elam. Everyone knowledgeable knows that there were several kingdoms in Elam and that the Susians were a distinct people within the larger Elamite nation.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Elamites

 -
 -


 -

Clyde these Elamites appear to have large scale curls rather than kinky hair,
no prognothis, narrow noses with narrow slit nostrils and little bitty lips,thick beards, what's up with that? -not very Olmec-like
They are not the blacks I am familiar with

Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^Supertroll. They had all the features you're saying they did not have. Early anthropologists compared some of the early skeletal remains from Susa with negritos (link).

quote:
Originally posted by Lioness,:
no prognothis, narrow noses with narrow slit nostrils and little bitty lips

Where is the scientific report that corroborates this?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^^^^ look at this Swenet character

quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
There is no 'clue' or 'mystery' that needs to be solved, because there is no a priori evidence that there was a high prevalence of kinky hair among Ancient Egyptians in the first place.

He says kinky hair was not prevalent amoung AE's and that the Elamites of what is now called Iran resembled pygmies


That's like saying the Nordic people are linked to the Berbers

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1199377/

Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
Where is the scientific report that corroborates this?

Its non-existent. Thought so.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
africurious
Member
Member # 19611

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for africurious     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
It's the only one I know of and seemingly written
by Palestinians not Babylonians. The "black and
beautiful" concept extends from the era of the
Song of Songs which is Solomon's up until at
least the late medieval times of Europe.

The Mishnah clearly delimits colour ranges of
Judaeans as midway between that of pale white
Germans and dark black Sudanese where it details
the laws of leprosy finally deciding all cases to
be judged by the intermediate Israelite tone else
all Germans be lepers and any Sudani with a light
spot/blotch likewise be declared a leper.

Tx for your response Takruri. This does seem to be the only instance of shem being labeled black (or dark rather) in jewish sources. There are muslim sources and at least one christian source where shem is described this way. I have done some more research on this and will post my findings later.
Posts: 214 | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
africurious
Member
Member # 19611

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for africurious     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
C'mon, lioness, do me a favor and don't detract from my thread. Let me have at least an iota of respect for you. There are many other threads where you can take your race trolling err... I meant debate.
Posts: 214 | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
O.K. everybody no more talk about Elamites, let's get back to religion
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by africurious:
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
It's the only one I know of and seemingly written
by Palestinians not Babylonians. The "black and
beautiful" concept extends from the era of the
Song of Songs which is Solomon's up until at
least the late medieval times of Europe.

The Mishnah clearly delimits colour ranges of
Judaeans as midway between that of pale white
Germans and dark black Sudanese where it details
the laws of leprosy finally deciding all cases to
be judged by the intermediate Israelite tone else
all Germans be lepers and any Sudani with a light
spot/blotch likewise be declared a leper.

Tx for your response Takruri. This does seem to be the only instance of shem being labeled black (or dark rather) in jewish sources. There are muslim sources and at least one christian source where shem is described this way. I have done some more research on this and will post my findings later.
So, if I'm understanding you properly, there are three instances of this description? Are they simply parroting/influenced by each other, or are they all saying it independent of each other?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
africurious
Member
Member # 19611

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for africurious     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by africurious:
I find it strange that the Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer would be the only early source to mention something like this.

Agree. What's also curious is that Shem in this scenario would be black, while all the major patriarchs that are allocated to him are historically known as light skinned Eurasian types.
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ But then we have Elam who is included in the progeny of Shem, and we all know how Elamites looked. So what are we to make of this?

From what I’ve researched, the notion that Noah’s 3 sons refer to races or pseudo-racial ethnicities or color groups of peoples has been conclusively shown to be false. The earliest instance of assignment of darkness/blackness to Ham or his progeny is the 4th century CE, which is at least 900 yrs after what we know as the old testament was cobbled together. It is based on this labeling Ham as dark/black that later on Shem and Japhet too were assigned their individual color groupings.

However, Ham was labeled black/dark because, centuries after the OT was written, scholars in their exegises figured that the name Ham came from a root word in Hebrew that meant burnt or hot. This opinion has been held ever since.

However, in Hebrew the 1st letter in Ham can be 2 different sounds based on the word used (in the olden days when ancient Hebrew was spoken as an everyday lang it was easy to tell which sound was meant, similar to how in afroasiatic languages they didn’t write the vowels of the words because every native speaker at the time knew the sound that was meant). The sound for the 1st letter of the root word “burnt” or “hot” is a pharyngeal fricative (this would be that last sound after the “a” in the name “Noah”). While the other sound that could be meant is a velar fricative (this would be similar to the “g” sound in “Gaza”). Over time, the 2 sounds were confused because they begin with the same hebrew letter. Therefore, Ham doesn’t mean dark (and shem and japhet have no color bearings either as linguists simply tried to make them fit a color based on their belief that Ham meant black/dark). The meaning of the 3 names have yet to be demonstrated. So we shouldn’t be very concerned with what complexion grouping a mythical patriarchal head falls under since there were no complexion groupings.

Linguists very late in the last century demonstrated the correct sound for the 1st letter in Ham by looking at Greek translations of Hebrew. The velar and pharyngeal fricatives of the Hebrew letter in question are differentiated in the Greek alphabet.

Back to Shem's darkness:
I’ve found that the complexion of shem that is meant in the Pirke R. Eliezer is “dark” as in dark brown. The Hebrew word “Shehor” is used and it often means black but can mean a dark that approaches black or even a very deep shade of a color (these uses are actually identical to how the greek “mauros” ended up being used in romance languages). This is apparently why when it comes to Ham even though the same word “shehor” is used, the author added the qualifier “like the raven”, as in “dark like the raven” i.e. black.

Furthermore, the Pirke that all current versions are based on is ultimately from the 8th-9th centuries and is written in a land controlled by muslims (apparently Palestine). It seems this early muslim influence is why the Pirke assigns shem a dark complexion as opposed to something like off-white or tan. The only other sources which assign shem dark complexions are all under early Islamic influence (most are Islamic and the 1 christian source was written by a christian living in Islamic territory). Arabic seems to have more words for color variation than Hebrew and in arabic “sumra” (dark brown) is used to describe shem while “sudan” (black) or another word meaning black is used to describe ham. The Arabs ultimately got the notion of color grouping Noah’s sons from christian and jewish sources. However, I believe the reason we have these descriptions of Shem as being dark brown in sources written in early Islamic lands is that the Arabs were originally dark (i.e. ranging from brown to black as they themselves state) and since they wanted to be descendants of Shem in order to cement their special status then they quite naturally described Shem in a way that was more similar to them as opposed to the off-white or tan descriptions that would later be prevalent in islam and the other 2 abrahamic religions.

Posts: 214 | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
africurious
Member
Member # 19611

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for africurious     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by africurious:
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
It's the only one I know of and seemingly written
by Palestinians not Babylonians. The "black and
beautiful" concept extends from the era of the
Song of Songs which is Solomon's up until at
least the late medieval times of Europe.

The Mishnah clearly delimits colour ranges of
Judaeans as midway between that of pale white
Germans and dark black Sudanese where it details
the laws of leprosy finally deciding all cases to
be judged by the intermediate Israelite tone else
all Germans be lepers and any Sudani with a light
spot/blotch likewise be declared a leper.

Tx for your response Takruri. This does seem to be the only instance of shem being labeled black (or dark rather) in jewish sources. There are muslim sources and at least one christian source where shem is described this way. I have done some more research on this and will post my findings later.
So, if I'm understanding you properly, there are three instances of this description? Are they simply parroting/influenced by each other, or are they all saying it independent of each other?
There are several instances of this description: 1 each in jewish and christian authors, and several from muslim authors. Scholars do say that they are all influenced from same source and I believe their argument for that is tight-- the descriptions are just too similar and all are written under islamic rule (see what I wrote above on shem's darkness if you haven't already).
Posts: 214 | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tukuler   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Hebrew passage in question does not use
the word for dark it uses the word for black.

Muslim and Christian views are not Hebrew ones.

To know Judaean ideology Hebrew texts are what's
relevant. Because other peoples based their
religions on ancient Hebrew texts doesn't make
these others views legitimate Hebrew tenet.

What I mean is Shem is a creation of the ancient
Israelites and what later peoples who adopted the
character made of him is hardly what the originals
made up unless directly borrowed from a Hebrew text.


quote:
Originally posted by africurious:
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
It's the only one I know of and seemingly written
by Palestinians not Babylonians. The "black and
beautiful" concept extends from the era of the
Song of Songs which is Solomon's up until at
least the late medieval times of Europe.

The Mishnah clearly delimits colour ranges of
Judaeans as midway between that of pale white
Germans and dark black Sudanese where it details
the laws of leprosy finally deciding all cases to
be judged by the intermediate Israelite tone else
all Germans be lepers and any Sudani with a light
spot/blotch likewise be declared a leper.

Tx for your response Takruri. This does seem to be the only instance of shem being labeled black (or dark rather) in jewish sources. There are muslim sources and at least one christian source where shem is described this way. I have done some more research on this and will post my findings later.
It's obvious by the lands allotted to each lineage
that its Noahhic progenitor was either light or dark.

Look at the Hham lands. What colour are people there?

Same for Shem and Yapheth. What colour are the peoples there.

I seriously doubt Israels had to wait hundreds of
years for
Xtian and Muslim views to see that peoples east and south of
the Mediterranean were much darker than those north of it.

At a certain point academic presumption equals foolishness.
But of course it seems everybody knows more about Hebrew
concepts than the Hebrews know themselves.

I mean come on. Israelites and Judahites looked at
Kushites (Sudanese and east/south Arabian) and at
Egyptians and somehow never thought of Hham, their
mythic progenitor as black until the 4th century CE
and only then due to influence of other people?

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lyinass,:

O.K. everybody no more talk about Elamites, let's get back to religion

^^ translation: My lyinass got busted once again so let's change the subject.

LOL [Big Grin]

 -

 -
quote:

...They are not the blacks I am familiar with

Yeah you said that the very first time your lyinass showed up in this forum and we showed you pics of East Africans and even Fulani nomads of West Africa. LOL

Apparently your lyinass in black face is not familiar with black people much are ya? [Wink]

Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 14 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
The Hebrew passage in question does not use
the word for dark it uses the word for black.

Muslim and Christian views are not Hebrew ones.

To know Judaean ideology Hebrew texts are what's
relevant. Because other peoples based their
religions on ancient Hebrew texts doesn't make
these others views legitimate Hebrew tenet.

What I mean is Shem is a creation of the ancient
Israelites and what later peoples who adopted the
character made of him is hardly what the originals
made up unless directly borrowed from a Hebrew text.


quote:
Originally posted by africurious:
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
It's the only one I know of and seemingly written
by Palestinians not Babylonians. The "black and
beautiful" concept extends from the era of the
Song of Songs which is Solomon's up until at
least the late medieval times of Europe.

The Mishnah clearly delimits colour ranges of
Judaeans as midway between that of pale white
Germans and dark black Sudanese where it details
the laws of leprosy finally deciding all cases to
be judged by the intermediate Israelite tone else
all Germans be lepers and any Sudani with a light
spot/blotch likewise be declared a leper.

Tx for your response Takruri. This does seem to be the only instance of shem being labeled black (or dark rather) in jewish sources. There are muslim sources and at least one christian source where shem is described this way. I have done some more research on this and will post my findings later.
It's obvious by the lands allotted to each lineage
that its Noahhic progenitor was either light or dark.

Look at the Hham lands. What colour are people there?

Same for Shem and Yapheth. What colour are the peoples there.

I seriously doubt Israels had to wait hundreds of
years for
Xtian and Muslim views to see that peoples east and south of
the Mediterranean were much darker than those north of it.

At a certain point academic presumption equals foolishness.
But of course it seems everybody knows more about Hebrew
concepts than the Hebrews know themselves.

I mean come on. Israelites and Judahites looked at
Kushites (Sudanese and east/south Arabian) and at
Egyptians and somehow never thought of Hham, their
mythic progenitor as black until the 4th century CE
and only then due to influence of other people?

Excellent point.
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by africurious:
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by africurious:
I find it strange that the Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer would be the only early source to mention something like this.

Agree. What's also curious is that Shem in this scenario would be black, while all the major patriarchs that are allocated to him are historically known as light skinned Eurasian types.
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ But then we have Elam who is included in the progeny of Shem, and we all know how Elamites looked. So what are we to make of this?

From what I’ve researched, the notion that Noah’s 3 sons refer to races or pseudo-racial ethnicities or color groups of peoples has been conclusively shown to be false. The earliest instance of assignment of darkness/blackness to Ham or his progeny is the 4th century CE, which is at least 900 yrs after what we know as the old testament was cobbled together. It is based on this labeling Ham as dark/black that later on Shem and Japhet too were assigned their individual color groupings.

However, Ham was labeled black/dark because, centuries after the OT was written, scholars in their exegises figured that the name Ham came from a root word in Hebrew that meant burnt or hot. This opinion has been held ever since.

However, in Hebrew the 1st letter in Ham can be 2 different sounds based on the word used (in the olden days when ancient Hebrew was spoken as an everyday lang it was easy to tell which sound was meant, similar to how in afroasiatic languages they didn’t write the vowels of the words because every native speaker at the time knew the sound that was meant). The sound for the 1st letter of the root word “burnt” or “hot” is a pharyngeal fricative (this would be that last sound after the “a” in the name “Noah”). While the other sound that could be meant is a velar fricative (this would be similar to the “g” sound in “Gaza”). Over time, the 2 sounds were confused because they begin with the same hebrew letter. Therefore, Ham doesn’t mean dark (and shem and japhet have no color bearings either as linguists simply tried to make them fit a color based on their belief that Ham meant black/dark). The meaning of the 3 names have yet to be demonstrated. So we shouldn’t be very concerned with what complexion grouping a mythical patriarchal head falls under since there were no complexion groupings.

Linguists very late in the last century demonstrated the correct sound for the 1st letter in Ham by looking at Greek translations of Hebrew. The velar and pharyngeal fricatives of the Hebrew letter in question are differentiated in the Greek alphabet.

Back to Shem's darkness:
I’ve found that the complexion of shem that is meant in the Pirke R. Eliezer is “dark” as in dark brown. The Hebrew word “Shehor” is used and it often means black but can mean a dark that approaches black or even a very deep shade of a color (these uses are actually identical to how the greek “mauros” ended up being used in romance languages). This is apparently why when it comes to Ham even though the same word “shehor” is used, the author added the qualifier “like the raven”, as in “dark like the raven” i.e. black.

Furthermore, the Pirke that all current versions are based on is ultimately from the 8th-9th centuries and is written in a land controlled by muslims (apparently Palestine). It seems this early muslim influence is why the Pirke assigns shem a dark complexion as opposed to something like off-white or tan. The only other sources which assign shem dark complexions are all under early Islamic influence (most are Islamic and the 1 christian source was written by a christian living in Islamic territory). Arabic seems to have more words for color variation than Hebrew and in arabic “sumra” (dark brown) is used to describe shem while “sudan” (black) or another word meaning black is used to describe ham. The Arabs ultimately got the notion of color grouping Noah’s sons from christian and jewish sources. However, I believe the reason we have these descriptions of Shem as being dark brown in sources written in early Islamic lands is that the Arabs were originally dark (i.e. ranging from brown to black as they themselves state) and since they wanted to be descendants of Shem in order to cement their special status then they quite naturally described Shem in a way that was more similar to them as opposed to the off-white or tan descriptions that would later be prevalent in islam and the other 2 abrahamic religions.

I didn't know that you saw saw the notion of skin colouration assignments as falling under ''race debate'', otherwise I wouldn't even have posted, because I simply have nothing to add outside of what I said. That being said, I don't base my view of Ham being associated with dark skinned peoples on some of the etymological suggestions, but rather, with the common denominator that binds all these groups. Its an inference. So, I agree with Tukuler in this regard. The grouping of numerous black (light brown to very dark skinned) people in the Southern Iraq (Cushites), Arabia (both Mizraimites [Ishmaelites] and Cushites), Crete (Mizraimites), Africa (both Mizraimites and Cushites) just seem too strong of a correlation to just disregard. Canaan, too, has numerous black people, although light skinned populations were present and also allocated to Canaan's progeny. But yeah, like I said, I never meant to stray from what you explicitly said you didn't want to discuss in this thread.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
africurious
Member
Member # 19611

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for africurious     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^It's ok. I mentioned the "race debate" because I wanted to avoid trolls and afronuts jumping in the thread with their squabbling but that didn't work. Big L and big C jumped in with their crap anyway.

Btw, I noticed you mentioned "mizraimites" in regard to arabia [ishmaelites] and crete--how come?

Posts: 214 | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
africurious
Member
Member # 19611

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for africurious     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
The Hebrew passage in question does not use
the word for dark it uses the word for black.

From what I've read it would seem better to translate "shehor" in this instance of this Pirke as dark because the author was obviously talking about 2 different shades of a color and "shehor" was sometimes used to describe non-black (but dark) things such as kinds of wine and citron. It seems "shehor" may've originally denoted black but was eventually used to also describe very dark things that weren't black.

quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
Muslim and Christian views are not Hebrew ones.

To know Judaean ideology Hebrew texts are what's
relevant. Because other peoples based their
religions on ancient Hebrew texts doesn't make
these others views legitimate Hebrew tenet.

What I mean is Shem is a creation of the ancient
Israelites and what later peoples who adopted the
character made of him is hardly what the originals
made up unless directly borrowed from a Hebrew text.

We are in agreement that the views of Noah’s son’s held by Christians and Muslims are separate from the Jewish view when it was written. You seemed to have misunderstood me. I mention the chris/muslim views because I was interested in earlier (i.e. around 1,000ce or prior) views of Noah’s son.

quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
Look at the Hham lands. What colour are people there?

Same for Shem and Yapheth. What colour are the peoples there.

I seriously doubt Israels had to wait hundreds of
years for
Xtian and Muslim views to see that peoples east and south of
the Mediterranean were much darker than those north of it.

At a certain point academic presumption equals foolishness.
But of course it seems everybody knows more about Hebrew
concepts than the Hebrews know themselves.

I mean come on. Israelites and Judahites looked at
Kushites (Sudanese and east/south Arabian) and at
Egyptians and somehow never thought of Hham, their
mythic progenitor as black until the 4th century CE
and only then due to influence of other people?

I never said the jewish tradition called Ham black in the 4th century because of others influence. It was under their own influence, specifically due to their confusion of the 1st phoneme in the name Ham.

As to whether it’s obvious that Noah’s sons were a certain color based on the descendants assigned to them, that’s what I’m wondering i.e. is it obvious? I haven’t looked into that enough to have a strong opinion as you do. The thing with this too is that then we’d have to verify the colorings of the various descendants, which leads to 2 issues: A) Do we know conclusively who all the descendants mentioned are? B) Do we know conclusively what was the color of each? It seems we’d have a problem answering those 2 questions sufficiently for all descendants, but idk. This is something I’d want to look into at some point.

Posts: 214 | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by africurious:
^It's ok. I mentioned the "race debate" because I wanted to avoid trolls and afronuts jumping in the thread with their squabbling but that didn't work. Big L and big C jumped in with their crap anyway.

Btw, I noticed you mentioned "mizraimites" in regard to arabia [ishmaelites] and crete--how come?

I was going to stay out of this thread. It had been proceeding without further comment from me or Clyde
But my name or initial keeps being brought up. I don't play that


quote:
Originally posted by africurious:

"sources where one of Noah's progeny, aside from Ham and his descendants, is mentioned as being black".....

"the OT was not talking about the races of the world or anything"


yeah right, the thread is not about race I just want to know who they said was black.

Oh, and when you check off "white" on a census form you don't mean race.


 -

 -

 -

anybody who wants me out of here don't mention me, my initial or implication of any type of me


lioness productions 2013

Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
zarahan aka Enrique Cardova
Member
Member # 15718

Icon 1 posted      Profile for zarahan aka Enrique Cardova     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Africurious said"
The earliest instance of assignment of darkness/blackness to Ham or his progeny is the 4th century CE..

^^Based on what source do you get a 4th century CE date?
Says who? Please list your scholarly citation. One detailed source
I have seen, (The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism,
Christianity, and Islam, 2005, By David M. Goldenberg) lists several
instances before that. ANd he shows that Moses pronounced no "curse"
on Ham. The "curse" relates to Caanan, (denizens of the Palestine, Lebanon
area) a son of Ham, who were to become servant of servants- which is
what happened when the Hebrew ex-slaves from Egypt, overran Palestine.
The so-called "curse of Ham" is a lot later invention by Jews, Arabs and
Christians, not Moses. This Diop himself notes in African Origin of Civ,
contradicting assorted racist writings bout any bogus "curse of Ham."

In the meantime, the other (bogusly) labeled "accursed" sons of Ham went
on to do rather well, according to the writings attributed to Moses. Let's see:
Moses lists as other sons of Ham:

--Egypt or Mizraim
--Kush
--Phut

We all know the greatness of Egypt, but in the Genesis narrative, Kush is held
to have founded the first large scale civilizations- under one Nimrod, son of
Kush. If anything Moses gave "the bothas" credit where credit was due.

Even as to Caanan, Moses notes that the Hebrew ex-slaves iherited a windfall from
the elaborate and more advanced civilizations of the "accursed" Caananites. quote:

".. great and good cities which thou buildedst not, and houses full of everything good
which thou filledst not, and wells digged which thou diggedst not, vineyards and oliveyards
which thou plantedst not, and thou shalt have eaten and shalt be full.."

--Deut 6: 10-11

In short, Moses, who himself married a Kushite, in a sense, had insight into the
patterns linking peoples of the Nile Valley /Sinai/Palestinian zone. And indeed Diop
quotes approvingly from Moses's writings, and notes the Hebrew lawgiver saw the
Egyptians as indigenous Africans- that the name "Ham" is derived from Egyptian sources,
which Moses used because he himself spent time in Egypt. Diop has no problem with
the Biblical narrative on this score and gives the thumbs up to Moses.

--------------------
Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began..

Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by africurious:
^It's ok. I mentioned the "race debate" because I wanted to avoid trolls and afronuts jumping in the thread with their squabbling but that didn't work. Big L and big C jumped in with their crap anyway.

Btw, I noticed you mentioned "mizraimites" in regard to arabia [ishmaelites] and crete--how come?

Caphtorim and I believe another descendant of Mizraim (don't remember which one right now) are associated with the Sea Peoples. The bible explicitly states that the Philistines originate from Caphtorim. It is widely known that Cretans were one of the most important source populations for the Philistines. The bible also mentions Kerethites as being in close association with Philistines. The Kerethites are often identified with Cretans among modern scholars and bible commentators. I was going to tell you that the Egyptian brown skinned delegates from Keftiu were Cretans, but just now I've read that this direct identification is problematic. The Keftiu still would have come from Aegean territory and they'd still be closely affiliated with Cretans, as evidenced by the links that have been made between the depicted brown skinned ambassadors from Keftiu and the Cretan/Aegean things that accompany them.

As for Ishmaelites, they, or a fraction of them, are called Hagarites in the bible, after their maternal ancestor (Hagar). Assyrian and other sources testify to the presence of Egyptians (various variations of 'Mizraim', e.g., ''Musur'') in the same portions of Northern Arabia that the Ishmaelites were known to inhabit.

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
africurious
Member
Member # 19611

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for africurious     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wow, Zarahan, it seems you weren't paying proper attention to the thread or the sources you cite. There is no discussion of any curse here so we need not go into that further, but as far what you say below...

quote:
Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
Africurious said"
The earliest instance of assignment of darkness/blackness to Ham or his progeny is the 4th century CE..

^^Based on what source do you get a 4th century CE date?
Says who? Please list your scholarly citation. One detailed source
I have seen, (The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism,
Christianity, and Islam, 2005, By David M. Goldenberg) lists several
instances before that.

^You cited a source for me in what you wrote. See pg 155 of Goldenberg's book where he says the idea of a dark Ham cannot be dated with confidence before the 4th century, where it appears in the Palestinian Talmud. He does mention the possibility that a black ham may stem from tannaitic traditions in the 2nd century. In any case, both these sources are 800-1,000 yrs after the OT was put together.

quote:
Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
And indeed Diop
quotes approvingly from Moses's writings, and notes the Hebrew lawgiver saw the
Egyptians as indigenous Africans- that the name "Ham" is derived from Egyptian sources,
which Moses used because he himself spent time in Egypt. Diop has no problem with
the Biblical narrative on this score and gives the thumbs up to Moses.

I don't accept a claim by any scholar just because I respect him and he said so--his reasoning must be sound. To do otherwise is hero worship. Several scholars before Diop had made the same claim and all are wrong. Diop (and others) argued that ham derived from the AE word for black (km) whose root word is "burnt". However, this cannot be so since the 1st phoneme in the hebrew spelling of Ham makes one of 2 possible sounds, neither of which is the same as that for the AE "km" (see my earlier post for sound details or consult Goldenberg's book that you cited).
Furthermore, no other religion's mythical tales are treated as historical unless demonstrated so there's no reason to do that for abrahamic religions i.e. the whole moses/slavery in egypt/exodus religious doctrine is not accepted as historical by the general biblical scholarship due to severe lack of evidence. Therefore what Diop or anyone claims Moses did in Egypt is irrelevant to verified history.

Posts: 214 | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 3 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:

Caphtorim and I believe another descendant of Mizraim (don't remember which one right now) are associated with the Sea Peoples. The bible explicitly states that the Philistines originate from Caphtorim. It is widely known that Cretans were one of the most important source populations for the Philistines. The bible also mentions Kerethites as being in close association with Philistines. The Kerethites are often identified with Cretans among modern scholars and bible commentators. I was going to tell you that the Egyptian brown skinned delegates from Keftiu were Cretans, but just now I've read that this direct identification is problematic. The Keftiu still would have come from Aegean territory and they'd still be closely affiliated with Cretans, as evidenced by the links that have been made between the depicted brown skinned ambassadors from Keftiu and the Cretan/Aegean things that accompany them.

^ The nation you forgot was Casluhim. It was Casluhim who begot the Philistines.

Genesis 10 (13-14): And Mizraim begat Ludim, and Anamim, and Lehabim, and Naphtuhim, And Pathrusim, and Casluhim, (out of whom came Philistim,) and Caphtorim..

It's not certain, but many Biblical scholars identify Casluhim with the island of Cyprus. Note that the earliest known cultures in Cyprus which date to the neolithic bear some resemblances to those of neolithic Crete. Note the description the ancient Greeks gave to the native Cypriots (before Greek colonization) when he compared the Libyan Danaids to Cyprians.

quote:
As for Ishmaelites, they, or a fraction of them, are called Hagarites in the bible, after their maternal ancestor (Hagar). Assyrian and other sources testify to the presence of Egyptians (various variations of 'Mizraim', e.g., ''Musur'') in the same portions of Northern Arabia that the Ishmaelites were known to inhabit.
We know the Egyptians had an outpost in Tayma Oasis north of Medina during the New Kingdom. Though there's no evidence of any Egyptian matriarchs founding a tribe. The legend may be based on various things such as tribes who resemble the Egyptians in appearance and/or practices as well as the alleged matriarch having some ties to Kemet (Egypt) either in trade or what have you.
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
africurious
Member
Member # 19611

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for africurious     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
quote:
Originally posted by africurious:
^It's ok. I mentioned the "race debate" because I wanted to avoid trolls and afronuts jumping in the thread with their squabbling but that didn't work. Big L and big C jumped in with their crap anyway.

Btw, I noticed you mentioned "mizraimites" in regard to arabia [ishmaelites] and crete--how come?

Caphtorim and I believe another descendant of Mizraim (don't remember which one right now) are associated with the Sea Peoples. The bible explicitly states that the Philistines originate from Caphtorim. It is widely known that Cretans were one of the most important source populations for the Philistines. The bible also mentions Kerethites as being in close association with Philistines. The Kerethites are often identified with Cretans among modern scholars and bible commentators. I was going to tell you that the Egyptian brown skinned delegates from Keftiu were Cretans, but just now I've read that this direct identification is problematic. The Keftiu still would have come from Aegean territory and they'd still be closely affiliated with Cretans, as evidenced by the links that have been made between the depicted brown skinned ambassadors from Keftiu and the Cretan/Aegean things that accompany them.

As for Ishmaelites, they, or a fraction of them, are called Hagarites in the bible, after their maternal ancestor (Hagar). Assyrian and other sources testify to the presence of Egyptians (various variations of 'Mizraim', e.g., ''Musur'') in the same portions of Northern Arabia that the Ishmaelites were known to inhabit.

Thanks for the detailed response.
Posts: 214 | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^Hope that helped out..

quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:

Caphtorim and I believe another descendant of Mizraim (don't remember which one right now) are associated with the Sea Peoples. The bible explicitly states that the Philistines originate from Caphtorim. It is widely known that Cretans were one of the most important source populations for the Philistines. The bible also mentions Kerethites as being in close association with Philistines. The Kerethites are often identified with Cretans among modern scholars and bible commentators. I was going to tell you that the Egyptian brown skinned delegates from Keftiu were Cretans, but just now I've read that this direct identification is problematic. The Keftiu still would have come from Aegean territory and they'd still be closely affiliated with Cretans, as evidenced by the links that have been made between the depicted brown skinned ambassadors from Keftiu and the Cretan/Aegean things that accompany them.

^ The nation you forgot was Casluhim. It was Casluhim who begot the Philistines.

Genesis 10 (13-14): And Mizraim begat Ludim, and Anamim, and Lehabim, and Naphtuhim, And Pathrusim, and Casluhim, (out of whom came Philistim,) and Caphtorim..

It's not certain, but many Biblical scholars identify Casluhim with the island of Cyprus. Note that the earliest known cultures in Cyprus which date to the neolithic bear some resemblances to those of neolithic Crete. Note the description the ancient Greeks gave to the native Cypriots (before Greek colonization) when he compared the Libyan Danaids to Cyprians.

quote:
As for Ishmaelites, they, or a fraction of them, are called Hagarites in the bible, after their maternal ancestor (Hagar). Assyrian and other sources testify to the presence of Egyptians (various variations of 'Mizraim', e.g., ''Musur'') in the same portions of Northern Arabia that the Ishmaelites were known to inhabit.
We know the Egyptians had an outpost in Tayma Oasis north of Medina during the New Kingdom. Though there's no evidence of any Egyptian matriarchs founding a tribe. The legend may be based on various things such as tribes who resemble the Egyptians in appearance and/or practices as well as the alleged matriarch having some ties to Kemet (Egypt) either in trade or what have you.

Yes! Thanks for the correction. I've seen one commentator, as odd as it sounds, actually using the many associations of Mizraim in the Middle East in ancient documents as evidence that Mizraim is primarily associated with the Middle East, rather than Africa. This goes to show that Mizraim definitely wasn't exclusive to Africa, and that they were probably thought of as just as itinerant as the Cushites.

You bring up a good point about Egyptian fortresses. Note that faint memories of geopolitical ties between Egypt and Canaan during the Amarna period might have confused later Judean writers, and contributed to their linkage of Canaanites with Egyptians, Nubians and Libyans, rather than with themselves.

If the nomadic ''Shasu of Yahweh'' in Edom mentioned in Egyptian records are indeed proto-Israelites, later Judaeans may have also been M.I.A., during the time periods of Northeast African incursions into Canaan. These incursions would undoubtedly have left noticeable traces in the skin color of many Levantines, and other features. Indeed, when Egyptian depictions of nomadic (Shasu) and urban Southern Levantines are compared, the latter seem noticeably more dark skinned than the former.

 -

From left to right: Canaanite, Lower Egyptian, Lower Egyptian female, Canaanite (Jebusite), Canaanite (Jebusite).

 -

^Shasu

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^^^^^ I have to come back in this is a very interesting item you have found. if correct a key to indicate who's who in other scenes we often see. Tomb of Nakht etc.
On the other hand it looks like a modern illustration compiling some figures. It could have errors. What is the source?

 -
Canaanite or Jew______Lower Egyptian_____Lower Egyptian female_____Jebusite,_______Jebusite 2


comments

1) Canaanite,
-is it blonde or light brown hair? Looks odd for somebody to have that color hair and be that dark at the same time


2) Lower Egyptian,
-white hair or a white wig? that also seems odd but we see this in other scenes. There are hair stands indicated.


3) Lower Egyptian female,
Is her skin light because it's symbolic. maybe yes maybe no. You know how the brothers can be, even these days


4) Jebusite
-look below
this is strange. It looks like an error to me. The sidelock hangs down definately characteristically Libyan rather than Asiatic
yet the skirt has small dots on it as do the Syrian Caanites who would be similar or an alternate name for Jebusite.
The sidelock hair does not fit. It's Libyan
The Syrian Caananites have the headbands with the two straps hanging down (or with cap and two straps hanging down.
It looks like a Libyan/Syrian Cannaite hybrid


5) Jebusite 2
-this is an unusual type, I don't recall seeing

______________________

Jebusite
The Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) contains the only surviving ancient text known to use the term Jebusite to describe the pre-Israelite inhabitants of Jerusalem; according to the Table of Nations at Genesis 10, the Jebusites are identified as a Canaanite tribe, which is listed in third place among the Canaanite groups, between the biblical Hittites and the Amorites. Prior to modern archaeological studies, most biblical scholars held the opinion that the Jebusites were identical to the Hittites, which continues to be the case, though less so. However, an increasingly popular view, first put forward by Edward Lipinski, professor of Oriental and Slavonic studies at the Catholic University of Leuven, is that the Jebusites were most likely an Amorite tribe; Lipinski identified them with the group referred to as Yabusi'um in a cuneiform letter found in the archive of Mari, Syria.

As Lipinski noted, however, it is entirely possible that more than one clan or tribe bore similar names, and thus that the Jebusites and Yabusi'um may have been separate people altogether. In the Amarna letters, mention is made of the contemporaneous king of Jerusalem was named Abdi-Heba, which is a theophoric name invoking a Hurrian goddess named Hebat; unless a different ethnic group occupied Jerusalem in this period, this implies that the Jebusites were Hurrians themselves, were heavily influenced by Hurrian culture, or were dominated by a Hurrian maryannu class.

______________________________________________________________


2-Syrian (Caananite)______ 4-Nubian_____ 4-Libyan
 -
__________ Horus_________ 4-Egyptian____________ 2-Syrian


.

Faience tiles from the royal palace at Medinet Habu.
 -
Libyan___________ Nubian__________Syrian________Shasu Bedouin,________ Hittite.

.
 -
mislabeled by Swenet this is a
Syrian (Caananite)
notice the tell tale strips of cloth that hang down from the back of the headband/cap

.
 -
Shasu Bedouin
here the tell tale Shasu Bedouin hair is drawn back by the headband (which does not have the dangling two straps) It corresponds with the
fourth figure in the Faience tiles from the royal palace at Medinet Habu.(two pictures above)


________________________________________
 -
Nubian____________Nubian_________Philistine________Amorite___Syrain_______Hittite

.
 -
HIttite

.
 -
Ibscha Relief Chnumhotep II. (6th Year of Sesostris II)
A group of Asiatic peoples
(perhaps the future Hyksos) depicted entering Egypt c.1900 BC from the tomb of a
12th dynasty official Khnumhotep
under pharaoh Senusret II at Beni Hasan.

Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lioness,:
^^^^^ I have to come back in this is a very interesting item you have found. if correct a key to indicate who's who in other scenes we often see. Tomb of Nakht etc.

Tomb of Nakht? I don't remember any scenes from this tomb that would be relevant to the views expressed in my previous post. What about it?

quote:
Originally posted by lioness,:
On the other hand it looks like a modern illustration compiling some figures. It could have errors. What is the source?

You don't see the relevant tombs listed beneath the figures? The first Canaanite **LOOKS** like the Asiatic captives(?) who work alongside Egyptians in Rekhmire's tomb. The listed tomb (Ros-She-ra[?]) doesn't seem to refer to Rekhmire's tomb though. They could also be Nubians.

Asiatics in Rekhmire's tomb alongside Egyptians and possibly also Nubians

Different view

^You can distinguish the Canaanites from their dark greyish color on the lower register on the first pic, and the middle register in the second pic. The bald headed figures (first pic) with a reddish-brown color could also be non-Egyptians, presumably Canaanites, since they too, are differentiated from the Egyptians in the Upper register. That they're Nubians seems to be more plausible to me at this point.

quote:
Originally posted by lioness,:
mislabeled by Swenet this is a Syrian (Caananite)

A Shasu cannot be a Syrian Canaanite at the same time? How so?

quote:
Originally posted by lioness,:
Ibscha Relief Chnumhotep II

What they looked like on the real mural:

 -

Although darker than the facsimile you've posted, these nomadic Levantines (Shasu) seem to follow the pattern I've layed out earlier.

Even though this distinction between Shasu and Urban dwellers is somewhat problematic, due to the fact that settled societies since Natufian times wouldn't necessarily have remained settled throughout the Holocene. That makes it al the more interesting that this pattern still emerges.

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
 -

I don't see how this terrrible quality and low light photo has significant difference from this below modern illustration

 -


_____________________________________________________________


.

anyway on Shasu
 -

 -


Shasu were Semitic speaking pastoral cattle nomads who appeared in the Levant from the late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age or Third Intermediate Period of Egypt. They were organized in clans under a tribal chieftain, and were described as brigands active from the Jezreel Valley to Ashkelon and the Sinai.

The name evolved from a transliteration of the Egyptian word š3sw, meaning "those who move on foot", into the term for Bedouin-type wanderers. The term first originated in a fifteenth century list of peoples in Transjordan. It is used in a list of enemies inscribed on column bases at the temple of Soleb built by Amenhotep III. Copied later by either Seti I or Ramesses II at Amarah-West, the list mentions six groups of Shashu: the Shasu of S'rr, the Shasu of Lbn, the Shasu of Sm't, the Shasu of Wrbr, the Shasu of Yhw, and the Shasu of Pysps

Regarding the Shasu of Yhw, Astour has observed that the "hieroglyphic rendering corresponds very precisely to the Hebrew tetragrammaton YHWH, or Yahweh, and antedates the hitherto oldest occurrence of that Divine Name - on the Moabite Stone - by over five hundred years." Donald B. Redford thinks it reasonable to conclude that the demonym 'Israel' recorded on the Merneptah Stele refers to a Shasu enclave, and that, since later Biblical tradition portrays Yahweh "coming forth from Se'ir"the Shasu, originally from Moab and northern Edom, went on to form one major element in the amalgam that was to constitute the "Israel" which later established the Kingdom of Israel. Rainey has a similar view in his analysis of the el-Amarna letters.

The proposed link between the Israelites and the Shasu may, however, be undermined by the fact that in the Merneptah reliefs, the group later known as the Israelites are not described or depicted as Shasu. The Shasu are usually depicted hieroglyphically with a determinative indicating a land not a people.[8] Some scholars like Frank J. Yurco and Michael G. Hasel identify the Shasu in Merneptah's Karnak reliefs as a separate entity from Israel since they wear different clothing, hairstyles, and are determined differently by Egyptian scribes.[9] Moreover, Israel is determined as a people, though not necessarily as a socioethnic group.[10] Egyptian scribes tended to bundle up rather disparate groups of people under one 'artificial unifying rubric.'[ The most frequent designation for the "foes of Shasu" is the hill-country determinative.[Thus they are differentiated from the Canaanites, who are defending the fortified cities of Ashkelon, Gezer, and Yenoam. At the same time, the hill-country determinative is not always used for Shasu, as is the case in the "Shasu of Yhw" name rings from Soleb and Amarah-West. A common viewpoint (e.g. Dever) is that the proto-Israelites arose from the local Canaanite population as a process of large scale settlement of the highlands around the 12th century BCE. At most this would allow the Shasu to be a cultural and religious influence, rather than a significant ancestral population to the Israelites.


 -
About 13 years ago Anson Rainey suggested that Shasu pastoralists were depicted on a well-known relief of the Egyptian Pharaoh Merneptah (1209 BC) featured on one of the walls of the temples at Karnak in southern Egypt. He furthered noted that the Shasu pastoralists were active east of the Jordan River—from whence the Israelites entered Canaan—and that the Israelites may have been a sub set of these Shasu
Rainey, Anson F. “Shasu or Habiru — Who Were the Early Israelites?” Biblical Archaeology Review vol. 34, no. 6 (November/ December 2008): 51–55 and

Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^I'm done talking to you. That fat chunk of abstract text that you didn't even write yourself adds no value to my previous exchange with you and Djehuti. No one knowledgeable on the subject needs confirmation that the alleged ''Shasu of Yahweh'' lived outside Judea, that they were pastoralists or any of the other descriptions that were already implied in my previous post. You pop sh!t and when I ask you to explain what's inconsistent about my labelling a Syrian Canaanite a ''Shasu'', you respond with a blurb of copied text that proves you wrong. I have no interest in going back and forth with a Google scholar, who pretends to be knowledgeable on the subject, but who is actively googling everything I say just to keep up.

quote:
Originally posted by lioness,:
I don't see how this terrrible quality and low light photo has significant difference from this below modern illustration

Because you're a troll. Djehuti and Doug are right in that you always cherry pick the lightest examples you can find, even on the occasions when they're clearly purposefully white-washed. Only someone with a hidden agenda would pick, and then go on to defend, a lightened facsimile of a mural over the real one, when the sub discussion is explicitly about the skin colour of Canaanites and whether their skin colour was reason for Judaean authors to group them with Africans.

Bye Lioness.

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
zarahan aka Enrique Cardova
Member
Member # 15718

Icon 1 posted      Profile for zarahan aka Enrique Cardova     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Africurious said:
^You cited a source for me in what you wrote. See pg 155 of Goldenberg's book where he says the idea of a dark Ham cannot be dated with confidence before the 4th century, where it appears in the Palestinian Talmud. He does mention the possibility that a black ham may stem from tannaitic traditions in the 2nd century. In any case, both these sources are 800-1,000 yrs after the OT was put together.

^Fair enough but on page 155 Goldenberg notes the Palestinian version which originated no later than 220CE, and gives that equal potential weight with the Talmudian referenced version- with the Palestinian version in fact being more specific as to the "darkening" of Ham;s skin than the more vague Babylonian text. Hence, your statement that the "earliest assignment" was the 4th century CE seems a bit misleading. According to the more specific Palestinian version, the "assignment" was before that.

--------------------
Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began..

Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
^I'm done talking to you. That fat chunk of abstract text that you didn't even write yourself adds no value to my previous exchange with you and Djehuti. No one knowledgeable on the subject needs confirmation that the alleged ''Shasu of Yahweh'' lived outside Judea, that they were pastoralists or any of the other descriptions that were already implied in my previous post. You pop sh!t and when I ask you to explain what's inconsistent about my labelling a Syrian Canaanite a ''Shasu'',



because you didn't label it.

Somebody else mislabeld it on the internet and you merely copied the error.

Now you are not man enough to admit it even though it's a minor boo boo.
Am I the only one "man" enough to do occasional retractions?
Will somebody else step up to the plate and grow a testicle?
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:
That fat chunk of abstract text

you seem not to know the meaning of the word "abstract" It is not applicable to that very non-abstract text on Shasu


quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:

Because you're a troll. Djehuti and Doug are right in that you always cherry pick the lightest examples you can find, even on the occasions when they're clearly purposefully white-washed. Only someone with a hidden agenda would pick, and then go on to defend, a lightened facsimile of a mural over the real one, when the sub discussion is explicitly about the skin colour of Canaanites and whether their skin colour was reason for Judaean authors to group them with Africans.

Bye Lioness. [/QB]

Doug's highly parnoid at all times. Doug has nevr made a post without the word "Euroecentric" in it. He's obsessed with the pale man like Mike.
And Defruity has a high degree of little twirp tendancies so you can't go by them.


No I don't accept bad quality ameutur photos such as this to represent accurate color and light
 -

I put up many dark skinned AE pics from the Theban Mapping Project as well as a recent Siptah thread doing the same

^^^ the discussion is about Asiatics and in this poor qulaity photo it's hard to make out details in the hair and faces and so on. It's easier to see the costume differences as with the previous posts the Egyyptians often distinguished ethnic groups by their dress and hair/beard styles

That's why I put up this:


 -

Now I'm sorry that putting up this rang your skin alarm that you think these Asiatics aren't dark enough compared to that bad quality photo but skin is another topic.

 -

^^^^ I'm sorry that ypu feel that people of this skin tone are not Black but why don't you save that for your Paper Bag Test thread?


big ups to my high yella sistahs


 -
Mona Lisa Chinda, Nigeria

Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:

Yes! Thanks for the correction. I've seen one commentator, as odd as it sounds, actually using the many associations of Mizraim in the Middle East in ancient documents as evidence that Mizraim is primarily associated with the Middle East, rather than Africa. This goes to show that Mizraim definitely wasn't exclusive to Africa, and that they were probably thought of as just as itinerant as the Cushites.

Although now that you mention it, the more popular theory is that the Genesis passage from the Table of Nations may be based on a distant memory of colonization of the Mediterranean by the Egyptians. I have read from old books about Crete and Cyprus that the neolithic inhabitants do possess some connection to predynastic Egypt, specifically the Delta and judging by what we know about the spread of E-M78 in the Mediterranean during the neolithic we know this was likely the case. As for Canaan, it's interesting that the Canaanites were still distinguished as a sibling of Mizraim rather than offspring of Mizraim, but that both share the same parentage.

quote:
You bring up a good point about Egyptian fortresses. Note that faint memories of geopolitical ties between Egypt and Canaan during the Amarna period might have confused later Judean writers, and contributed to their linkage of Canaanites with Egyptians, Nubians and Libyans, rather than with themselves.
Though the problem with this idea is that such connections at least judging from the philological studies of the Genesis texts and the Table of Nations pre-date the New Kingdom and are dated to Bronze Age (Old Kingdom) times. There are some scholars who find the Arabian Mesra to be different from the Mizraim (Egyptians) proper. Dana is one of them, and I agree with her. For one, as Takuler pointed out, 'Mizraim' possesses a suffix for plurality, specifically a duality. The common theory is that it may signify Egypt consisting of two lands-- Lower Egypt and Upper Egypt. Mesra on the other hand is singular. My own personal theory is that the Mesra and perhaps some other closely related tribes in northern Arabia may in fact be direct descendants of the Harifians who originated in the Delta but migrated into the Sinai and Negev during the neolithic. This may explain the connection to Egyptians.

quote:
If the nomadic ''Shasu of Yahweh'' in Edom mentioned in Egyptian records are indeed proto-Israelites, later Judaeans may have also been M.I.A., during the time periods of Northeast African incursions into Canaan. These incursions would undoubtedly have left noticeable traces in the skin color of many Levantines, and other features. Indeed, when Egyptian depictions of nomadic (Shasu) and urban Southern Levantines are compared, the latter seem noticeably more dark skinned than the former.

 -

From left to right: Canaanite, Lower Egyptian, Lower Egyptian female, Canaanite (Jebusite), Canaanite (Jebusite).

 -

^Shasu

I agree. Note the traces of dark paint on the face of your Shasu picture.
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Swenet:

^I'm done talking to you. That fat chunk of abstract text that you didn't even write yourself adds no value to my previous exchange with you and Djehuti. No one knowledgeable on the subject needs confirmation that the alleged ''Shasu of Yahweh'' lived outside Judea, that they were pastoralists or any of the other descriptions that were already implied in my previous post. You pop sh!t and when I ask you to explain what's inconsistent about my labelling a Syrian Canaanite a ''Shasu'', you respond with a blurb of copied text that proves you wrong. I have no interest in going back and forth with a Google scholar, who pretends to be knowledgeable on the subject, but who is actively googling everything I say just to keep up.

quote:
Originally posted by lyinass,:
I don't see how this terrrible quality and low light photo has significant difference from this below modern illustration

Because you're a troll. Djehuti and Doug are right in that you always cherry pick the lightest examples you can find, even on the occasions when they're clearly purposefully white-washed. Only someone with a hidden agenda would pick, and then go on to defend, a lightened facsimile of a mural over the real one, when the sub discussion is explicitly about the skin colour of Canaanites and whether their skin colour was reason for Judaean authors to group them with Africans.

Bye Lioness.

So what's new? The lyinass hates blackness and anything to do with very heavy pigmentation or rich dark skin coloring.

Here are more pictures of bedouins from the southern Levant and Arabia.

 -

 -

 -

Of course the lyinass has seen this sh|t before but chooses to ignore these in favor of her lighter-is-better propaganda.

What's funny is that I've read many years ago from the same source Ausar and Tukuler read that suggested Tiye to be of Syrian descent due to the very dark appearance of her painted bust.

The lyinass is so negrophobic she only focuses on the lightest skinned African groups Khoisan.

quote:
Originally posted by the lyinass:

 -

^^^^ I'm sorry that you feel that people of this skin tone are not Black but why don't you save that for your Paper Bag Test thread?

Who said the above person isn't black? In the West, if mixed types like Halle Berry and Vanessa Williams are 'black' then certainly caramel complexioned Khoisan women who are PURE African most certainly are.

Your black-hatred is also why you choose to focus on the light-skinned anomalies among West Africans like the Nigerian actress below.
quote:
big ups to my high yella sistahs

 -
Mona Lisa Chinda, Nigeria

No insult to the Nollywood actress above but of course we know you fixate on her as well because she does not represent the majority of Nigerian actors let alone people in complexion.

And please no lightened up images of Chidi Mokeme or Wole Soyinka. LOL

Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
africurious
Member
Member # 19611

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for africurious     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
Africurious said:
^You cited a source for me in what you wrote. See pg 155 of Goldenberg's book where he says the idea of a dark Ham cannot be dated with confidence before the 4th century, where it appears in the Palestinian Talmud. He does mention the possibility that a black ham may stem from tannaitic traditions in the 2nd century. In any case, both these sources are 800-1,000 yrs after the OT was put together.

^Fair enough but on page 155 Goldenberg notes the Palestinian version which originated no later than 220CE, and gives that equal potential weight with the Talmudian referenced version- with the Palestinian version in fact being more specific as to the "darkening" of Ham;s skin than the more vague Babylonian text. Hence, your statement that the "earliest assignment" was the 4th century CE seems a bit misleading. According to the more specific Palestinian version, the "assignment" was before that.

I didn't post anything misleading. You didn't read carefully, again. See below quote from said pg:
quote:
Does the Palestinian version with the "black" etymology represent a variant tannaitic tradition, thus originating not later than 220 ce, or does it represent a later amoraic gloss of the original tannaitic statement (as recorded in the Babylonian Talmud) and therefore should be dated no later than 370 ce when the Palestinian Talmud was redacted? With the evidence before us today, we cannot say. It is possible that "Ham [ham] went forth darkened [mefuham]" goes back to the tannaitic period, but given the textual situation before us today we cannot establish a sure dating before the redaction of the Palestinian talmud.
And of course whether its 800 or 1,000 yrs after the OT doesnt change my point that an extreme amount of time passed since the Noah story appeared in the OT so how can one not question whether the Jewish scholar(s) who 1st came up with the black Ham bit completely understood the meaning of the story?
Posts: 214 | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tukuler   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This image is assumed to be Yehu king of Yisra'el himself.
 -

And here are the highest ranking Judahite officials of Lachish.
 -


If that's really Yehu (and the others on adjacent panels
of Shalmanessar's black obelisk are Yisra'eli) then
clearly Hebrews in Y*huda were more like southerners while
those in Yisra'el were more like northerners as would be
expected considering each kingdom's relative location.

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mena7
Member
Member # 20555

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for mena7   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Swenet nice rare picture of the Canaanite and lower Egyptian.Some say the Kana Anu/Canaanite were pre dynastic Egyptian. Beautiful glaze pictures of the Persian guards and the 9 bows enemy of Egypt.If an image is worth a thousand words like the Chinese stated the Hebrew of Lachish aka the original Hebrew were black.

--------------------
mena

Posts: 5374 | From: sepedat/sirius | Registered: Jul 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^Hey Mena, there certainly were pre/proto-dynastic fortresses in southern Canaan, in the time period when Lower Egyptian wasn't yet incorporated in the Upper Egyptian kingdom. These fortresses were built, as far as archaeologists are able to tell, exclusively by Upper Egyptians. Its not inconceivable that some of those Upper Egyptians didn't return and stayed.

quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
Although now that you mention it, the more popular theory is that the Genesis passage from the Table of Nations may be based on a distant memory of colonization of the Mediterranean by the Egyptians.

Agree. It is well known that many biblical stories contain vestiges of older events, and that younger events contain traces of older events. This is because large portions of the bible, especially biblical stories that are roughly contemporary with the Amarna period (king David, Solomon), weren't written down until much later.

quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
Though the problem with this idea is that such connections at least judging from the philological studies of the Genesis texts and the Table of Nations pre-date the New Kingdom and are dated to Bronze Age (Old Kingdom) times.

Yes, the biblical authors place those events in Old Kingdom times, but the Hebrews weren't around in those times. Their language probably didn't even exist back then as fully crystallized Hebrew, according to the most recent linguistic studies (e.g., Ehret), and they show no consistent awareness of (early) Bronze Age events (e.g., Egyptian kings that conducted raids and mined in the area, the introduction of writing from Egyptians, etc). The farthest they seem to be able to go back in time without venturing into the dreamy and mythological (Cham, Noah, the flood, giants, Egyptian slavery, ten plagues, Samson's super strength, etc) is way after the Amarna period (around 3kya), and even those recollections contain anachronistic errors (e.g., Goliath in Greek hoplite armour). This is not a stab at the bible or Christians, I'm just saying that the act of writing something that takes place during a certain time period, does not mean that those accounts were penned down by someone who lived in that time period.

quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
There are some scholars who find the Arabian Mesra to be different from the Mizraim (Egyptians) proper.

The Yemenite Mesra have little demonstrated ties to ancient West Asian & Northern African affairs, let alone Ancient Egyptians (maybe there are, but I haven't seen them yet). The ancient authors of West Asia (Egypt, Hebrews, Assyrians) knew little about Yemen. The bible, for example, quotes Jesus as saying that Yemen was near the end of the earth. The Middle Eastern Mizraim referred to in Ancient West Asian documents lived (as far as I know) in the area of Northern Arabia, where the Ishmaelites lived.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tukuler   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Luckily we can avoid euphemisms and
color apologies by looking to lexicons
and dictionaries for word meanings.
And in the case of the Hebrew TN"K
(Torah, Nebi'iym, Kethubiym) the
Greek Septuagint is an aid since
it's a translation of Tanakh made
by Greek speaking Jews. The few
mistranslations in it were noted
and discussed by the Tannaim who
listed why some deliberate wrong
words were substituted for actual
meanings.

The passage in Pirqe de Ribbi Eli`ezer
describing Shem as black and beautiful
is a direct allusion to Song of Songs
1.5 in the Kethubiym collection. The
Septuagint uses the Greek word melaina
which is why its English translation is
black and so remained in the King James
translation of the Hebrew scriptures.

In keeping with today's fabricated
confusion over the definition of a
black person (the true negro myth
vs the one drop negro legality and
social application) are attempts
to likewise alter the Hebrew word
sh*hhar from black to dark. But there
is no Hebrew textual justification as
Hebrew has six words denoting dark:
- aphel
- ashan
- dayah
- hhakhal
- hhashekh
- kamar.


Sh*hhorah w*na'wah is a pervading theme
in Isra'el self-identity from the Hebrew era
to modern Judaism's popular Friday night
song Shechora Ve'Nava and has always meant
"black and beautiful" in common parlance
whether among the Teimaniym, Mizrahhiym,
Mugrebhiym, Sepharadiym, or Ashkenazim.
And so Yemenite Jew Shimi Tavori uses
the English Black and Beautiful for
the translation of his popular song (link).

An examination of Sh*hhar in the Tanakh
and application to lexicons of biblical
Hebrew and dictionaries of targum through
midrash compilations are clear. With no
ambiguity they assign black not dark to
sh*hhar and its derivatives.

But the attempt to remove blackness from
Pirqe de Ribbi Eli`ezer's plain direct
appraisal of Shem is not wholly modern.
It began with 16th century Ashkenazi
deliberate distortion of the text with
the goal of pacifying white Europeans
whom Euro-Jews lived amongst as does
Jonathan Schorsch confess (below pg 184b).

 -
 -


In my opinion, rendering sh*hhora as dark
in either its original appearance in Song
of Songs from which it was borrowed by the
Pirqe de Ribbi Eli`ezer is but a coverup.

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:

Hebrew has six words denoting dark:
- aphel
- ashan
- dayah
- hhakhal
- hhashekh
- kamar.



are there any examples in ancient writing you can cite in which one of these words is applied to a person ?
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^ LOL @ doubting thomasina, the lyinass cat.

To Tukuler: I totally agree with your philological assessment of the word sh'hhar, even though many Biblical scholars today including Jewish ones obfuscate or distort the definition to mean 'dark' (whether unwittingly or not). I've noted that David Goldenberg too is guilty of this in his book, The Curse of Ham which I cite many times. The book is actually quite accurate with the exception that he translates sh'hhar to mean 'dark' instead of black which is why he mistranslates texts describing Egyptians as "dark" instead of black. Yet I've noted in extra-Biblical poetry such as that found in the Mishnah which makes use of the word sh'hhar to describe things like the late evening . Obviously if sh'hhar does mean 'dark' it describes a specific type of darkness to being that of a night sky.

To Swenet: I understand what you're saying. It's not just the Bible but virtually ALL religious texts that have stories based on old or ancient events yet were written down centuries after the events happened. The only reason why the stories survived before they were penned is through oral traditions. I am not all offended, as I'm not a religious person and I definitely don't take the Bible literally despite its historicity in certain things. By the way, are you aware of that scholars divide the Tanakh (Old Testament) scriptures into four traditions-- the Yahwist, the Elohist, the Deuteronomist, and the Priestly-- that is each individual book is actually a compilation of two or more traditions. Genesis for example is largely the compilation of Yahwist and Elohist. Many scholars think the Yahwist tradition is the oldest of them. Also, many scholars think the the book of Job is probably the oldest Hebrew story not derived from Mesopotamian myths if not oldest of the Biblical stories. In fact, many scholars think the setting of the book lay to the south of Judea in the Negev region probably in Jordan where he was an early pre-Israelite tribesman. In fact, I've read works from some Biblical writers to suggest the presence of early Hebrew or Hebrew ancestors as far south as northern Arabia around the Hejaz. This evidence comes in the form rock graffiti strikingly similar to those further north from the Sinai to Jordan and the Israeli-Palestinian area. There are even sacred areas atop high hills where there are large rocks (petra-worship) where the ground in the center has large indentations in the shape of feet like giant foot prints. Such features are typical of early Hebrew worship where the foot prints symbolize the ground where the god (Yahweh?) stood. Thus there may be truth to the Arab and even Islamic accounts of the enigmatic 'Hanif' religion. The Hanif was a pre-Islamic religion described as neither Jewish nor Christian but an even older tradition that goes back to Abraham.

Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swenet
Member
Member # 17303

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Swenet     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^While I know about the documentary hypothesis, I don't believe the authors were that far apart, temporally speaking. I appreciate the info, regarding background info on one of the authors and the Hanif religion you've mentioned.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
Y*huda were more like southerners while
those in Yisra'el were more like northerners as would be
expected considering each kingdom's relative location.

I see Y*huda's (Tribe of Judah) location does the term "Yisra'el" mean the specific tribes Dan, Asher, Naftali ?

 -

Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Tukuler   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In the context of that post Yisra'el refers to the
northern Hebrew kingdom and Y*huda the southern one.

Per their own records at this period in time Yisra'el
consisted of all tribes except Y*huda and benYamiyn.

After the fall of Yisra'el Y*huda absorbed its refugees.
This is how all Hebrews, Yisra'el and Y*hudiym became "Jews."

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
africurious
Member
Member # 19611

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for africurious     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
To Tukuler: I totally with your philological assessment of the word sh'hhar, even though many Biblical scholars today including Jewish ones obfuscate or distort the definition to mean 'dark' (whether unwittingly or not). I've noted that David Goldenberg too is guilty of this in his book, The Curse of Ham which I cite many times. The book is actually quite accurate with the exception that he translates sh'hhar to mean 'dark' instead of black which is why he mistranslates texts describing Egyptians as "dark" instead of black. Yet I've noted in extra-Biblical poetry such as that found in the Mishnah which makes use of the word sh'hhar to describe things like the late evening . Obviously if sh'hhar does mean 'dark' it describes a specific type of darkness to being that of a night sky.

I too agree with tukuler that there is a deliberate attempt to change the meaning of shehor. Some scholars are say it can mean dark as in a white person with a tan, and that is just plain nonsense. If it's meant to denote dark then it's a very dark color as is shown by the dark things to which it's applied, ex: late evening (as you point out) and wine.

I'd also point out that Goldenberg has it wrong with some of the early arabic quotes too. In a couple of the quotes where he shows the arabs to describe themselves as white and to glorify white complexion, they actually do no such thing. Scholars like to translate the arabic "bayad" as meaning white. However, as was pointed out in several esteemed arabic medieval sources, including the well-known classical arabic lexicon Lisan al-Arab, "bayad" as applied to complexion means black but connotes luminosity of complexion/clearness/purity (which is supposed to be a reflection of purity of character/morals/etc.). Whenever "bayad" is applied to whites, the word "humra" (literally "red") is always applied as a qualifier. This is not totally Goldenberg's fault as he takes the english quotes from other scholars like Bernard Lewis. And that's the issue--if there are highly respected scholars like Lewis incorrectly translating words then it's hard to buck that trend. These mistranslations are deliberate too. Many scholars cannot see how it could be that certain ancients are described as black or anything near it so they come up with various explanations to alter the meaning to reflect what they think is "right" (or they just say the person(s) described was a slave).

Posts: 214 | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by africurious:
I too agree with tukuler that there is a deliberate attempt to change the meaning of shehor. Some scholars are say it can mean dark as in a white person with a tan, and that is just plain nonsense. If it's meant to denote dark then it's a very dark color as is shown by the dark things to which it's applied, ex: late evening (as you point out) and wine.

I'd also point out that Goldenberg has it wrong with some of the early arabic quotes too. In a couple of the quotes where he shows the arabs to describe themselves as white and to glorify white complexion, they actually do no such thing. Scholars like to translate the arabic "bayad" as meaning white. However, as was pointed out in several esteemed arabic medieval sources, including the well-known classical arabic lexicon Lisan al-Arab, "bayad" as applied to complexion means black but connotes luminosity of complexion/clearness/purity (which is supposed to be a reflection of purity of character/morals/etc.). Whenever "bayad" is applied to whites, the word "humra" (literally "red") is always applied as a qualifier. This is not totally Goldenberg's fault as he takes the english quotes from other scholars like Bernard Lewis. And that's the issue--if there are highly respected scholars like Lewis incorrectly translating words then it's hard to buck that trend. These mistranslations are deliberate too. Many scholars cannot see how it could be that certain ancients are described as black or anything near it so they come up with various explanations to alter the meaning to reflect what they think is "right" (or they just say the person(s) described was a slave). [/QB]

quote:
Originally posted by Tukuler:
It's the only one I know of and seemingly written
by Palestinians not Babylonians. The "black and
beautiful" concept extends from the era of the
Song of Songs which is Solomon's up until at
least the late medieval times of Europe.

The Mishnah clearly delimits colour ranges of
Judaeans as midway between that of pale white
Germans and dark black Sudanese where it details
the laws of leprosy finally deciding all cases to
be judged by the intermediate Israelite tone else
all Germans be lepers and any Sudani with a light
spot/blotch likewise be declared a leper.

If I am understanding this correctly the word black is being used to describe Judaens who are a medium brown tone between the darkest and lightest ethnicities.

That is strictly color. There are people in Africa, the Mid East, India, Turkey, Mexico etc etc. who all could fit that description.

The common American definition of black however means someone of dark skin and specifically of of African descent.
This is the standard categorization used on U.S census forms and many other documents, in media and by the average American.
A Mexican or Indian person for instance might be darker than Obama but aren't called black generally in American society.
Yet Barak is called black because of his additional other traits, his features and hair which people interpret as African (although he is only half African)

africurious given this when you look at the quote:

"Shem was especially
blessed black and beautiful"

Do you interpret that as meaning someone of medium brown or darker skin or
someone of medium brown or skin of primarily African descent specifically?

Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | EgyptSearch!

(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3