quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^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.
I agree. If say the Yahwist tradition truly is older than the Elohist tradition than it is only by a short span. In fact, one could likely argue that the Yahhwist stories were likely documented first before the Elohist stories which were then added to the former. As for the Hanif religion, unfortunately most if not all the info that exists on it comes from Islamic sources as the Hanif were completely wiped out if not assimilated into the dominant Islam.
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).
^ You're right. I forgot about the part about Arabs. I've discussed this with Dana as well. What's interesting is that there are many Anatolian (Turkish) and European texts that describe 'Saracens' and other Arabian groups as overtly black. Funny how the Arab invaders supposedly called themselves 'white' but the Anatolians and Europeans called them 'black'. Goldenberg's explanation was that the descriptions of Arabians as black was merely an "exaggeration" and "semantic" in that the Arabs were relatively "darker" than the peoples to their north whom they invaded but not "really black". LOLPosts: 26344 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
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.
Yes, to tan black (the) Shulamiyth the beloved in Song of Solomon must've been very brown to start with. People in a black community living in temperate zones who are avid outdoorsmen do in fact blacken from activity in the summer sun.
quote: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.
This is analogous to what a Rabbi Natan Offizel wrote c.1250CE in what today is northern France
quote: Apostate You are uglier than all men that are on earth, while the people of our kind [Christians] are very beautiful.
R. Nathan The wild plums that grow on the hedgerows [and are black], what flower do they come from?
Apostate From a white flower
R. Nathan Well, we Jews come from a pure, white source. That is why our faces are black; but you, you come from a red, impure source. That is why you have a fair and rosy complexion.
Abraham Melamed The Image of the Black in Jewish Culture
BTW in mishnaic times the rabbis when discussing Judaean's average complexion compared it to honey from dates and/or camwood aka African sandalwood.
Similar to camwood is boxwood. AEs imported it from Palestine.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic