I wrote: originally an ethnic group of Graeco-Africans (much like the 'coloreds' of South Africa)
Ausar responded: "Really you see the Copts in that manner? Please explain more your views. I have never honestly seen a Coptic Christain who looks like any of the sculpture nor arrwork in the tombs. Most I have seen look Syrian or Greek. This is why I asked you originally Wally where you got that picture of the Copt because he certainly does not look like most I have seen.
My belief is most of them are Syrians and Greeks who lived amungst the indigenous Fellahin or Jews who converted to Christainty to stay in Egypt. Most people don't realize that during the Ptolomeic period many pockets of foreginers lived within Middle Egypt. Lots of refugees from Judea came into Egyptand Syrians served in Ptolomeic armies were awarded plots of land in Egypt particular around Faiyum. Even during the Middle Ages Faiyum has a couple of Jews."
My Response:
I think, perhaps, that we are both correct, simply because there is great confusion as to who or what exactly is a Copt.
My first image of an Egyptian Copt was when I was studying the history of modern Ethiopia. I became aware that at one time, the head of the Ethiopian Coptic church had to be an Egyptian, an Egyptian who incidentally looked very much like this gentleman...
"His Holiness Shenouda III is considered by Copts to be the 117th patriarch of Alexandria in direct succession to Saint Mark the Evangelist, author of the second Gospel..."
He certainly resembles a description of the Copts as you stated above. Here's a picture of some Cairene Copts. I couldn't get images of Upper Egyptian Copts, but I imagine that they would resemble the people of Upper Egypt, as the Ethiopian Copts look Ethiopian...
This ambivalence about the Copts can also be seen in this definition from the WorldBook Encyclopedia:
Copts is a term first used to refer to certain native residents of ancient Egypt. The Copts spoke a version of the ancient Egyptian language enriched by many Greek words and written with a modified Greek alphabet. The name Copts also refers to members of the Coptic Orthodox Church in modern Egypt, who use the Coptic language in their church service. However, like other Egyptians today, Copts speak Arabic.
What did Volney see?
In his writings, Count C.F.C. de Volney describes the modern Egyptian Copts whom he encountered as resembling a mulatto race, as a combination of Greeks and Blacks...
(That is why my comparison to the 'coloreds' of South Africa; which is a political description - biologically speaking they are simply a Black people mixed with other races -- We learned dominant and recessive genes in Middle School biology)...
There is definite confusion here. What we do know for certain is that the Coptic language is a direct descendant of Kemetian. That's really all that's important.
Purest Descendants of the Pharaohs?
This has been a constant slogan of Egypt's Coptic church (the Greek elite?) but it is of course nonsense. The purest descendant's of the Pharaohs are the Egyptian fellaheen or Rural Egyptians, especially those of the Nile Valley. Because of this, and because of the confusion surrounding "Copts," I have updated a page on my website:
Virtually all Egyptologists and anthropologists agree that the Ancient Egyptians belonged to the same ethnic sub grouping, usually referred to as 'Hamites,' as the Somali, Galla (Oromo), Beja, Afar (Danakil), etc. - peoples of northeast Africa. We would also include the Wolof of Senegal, and of course modern Egyptians of the Nile Valley, especially the Fellaheen or Rural Egyptians, and the Nubians. http://www.geocities.com/wally_mo/people.html
As far as the Wolof of Senegal, If anyone wants to get a clear view of a Kemetian people, I would recommend the movie "Saraaba"(Utopia)by Amadou Seck. It conveys,in my opinion, a real "feel" of Ancient Kemet. Besides, it's also a good movie, and it's available on Video...
[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 06 July 2004).]
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by mightywolf: These are pics from Coptic Egyptian people. The young woman with the white veil and the man in the first pic, strongly resemble the people from the Fayum depictions. The man also has a similar phenotype as these Abusir guys.
May I ask you, do you think that these Copts in the posted pics are the direct descendants of the Ancient Egyptians or not? Keep in mind, that Copts are mostly from Upper Egypt.
By the way, I do believe that some Ancient Egyptians were what is deemed as black, but they were a minority.
Copt is a Christian denomination NOT an ethnic group! Copts vary in phenotype and even culture depending on the region of Egypt. Copts in Alexandria for example are largely descended from Greeks and other Balkan people as well as from Italy from the Greco-Roman Empire. Whereas there are darker [black] Copts who reside in Upper Egyptian cities like Sohag, Minya, and Luxor.
By the way, your assessment of ancient Egypt is wrong! In ancient Egypt black people who were the indigenous population were always the majority until Medieval times when they began mixing with foreigners. Even today, there is a distinction between the darker indigenous Egyptians called Baladi (indigenous) and the fair-skinned upper classes called Afrangi (foreign).
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Copts in Alexandria for example are largely descended from Greeks and other Balkan people as well as from Italy from the Greco-Roman Empire.
Is there any evidence for this? I can buy that it was probably Greco-Roman (and maybe Judean as well) immigrants who first introduced Christianity into Egypt, but how do we know that the majority of Christians in Alexandria today can trace their roots to these immigrants?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Well it's a well established historical fact that has been taken for granted. Alexandria was a colonial city established by Alexander the Great and served as capital from the Ptolemies, the Roman conquest, and Byzantine times. It was a port city that received further immigrants from the Balkan and Roman world and in fact, many Alexandrians to this day speak Greek in their own communities and not Coptic except for church liturgy, whereas the very rural Baladi still speak Coptic which is peculiarly interesting.
Archaeology of Early Christianity in Egypt The historical roots of Christianity in Egypt are often linked to Alexandria in the first century. Although there is scant physical and documentary evidence for this period, later tradition identifies St. Mark the Evangelist as the first patriarch of Alexandria and the apostle attributed with introducing the religion. The first fully developed account of Egypt’s Christianization does not appear until the fourth-century history of Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, who tells the story about Mark the Apostle establishing churches in Alexandria and the later episcopal successors to Mark (Hist. Eccl. 2.16, in Davis 2004). There is in fact growing support to see Alexandrian Christianity spawning from the missionary activity of Palestinian Jewish Christians, who first evangelized the Hellenized Jews in Alexandria (Davis 2004, 6–8). Whether based upon the presence of Jews in Jerusalem during Pentecost (Acts 2:10, 6:9) or the natural transmission of ideas between the two major cities, Christianity does appear to have taken hold in the Greek-speaking, urban center of Alexandria and other cities before spreading to the countryside or chōra (Papaconstantinou 2012).
^ Usama Dakdok, Egyptian Copt who is a Christian apologist and evangelist here in the US who is always mistaken for black American.
Posted by mightywolf (Member # 23402) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Well it's a well established historical fact that has been taken for granted. Alexandria was a colonial city established by Alexander the Great and served as capital from the Ptolemies, the Roman conquest, and Byzantine times. It was a port city that received further immigrants from the Balkan and Roman world and in fact, many Alexandrians to this day speak Greek in their own communities and not Coptic except for church liturgy, whereas the very rural Baladi still speak Coptic which is peculiarly interesting.
Archaeology of Early Christianity in Egypt The historical roots of Christianity in Egypt are often linked to Alexandria in the first century. Although there is scant physical and documentary evidence for this period, later tradition identifies St. Mark the Evangelist as the first patriarch of Alexandria and the apostle attributed with introducing the religion. The first fully developed account of Egypt’s Christianization does not appear until the fourth-century history of Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, who tells the story about Mark the Apostle establishing churches in Alexandria and the later episcopal successors to Mark (Hist. Eccl. 2.16, in Davis 2004). There is in fact growing support to see Alexandrian Christianity spawning from the missionary activity of Palestinian Jewish Christians, who first evangelized the Hellenized Jews in Alexandria (Davis 2004, 6–8). Whether based upon the presence of Jews in Jerusalem during Pentecost (Acts 2:10, 6:9) or the natural transmission of ideas between the two major cities, Christianity does appear to have taken hold in the Greek-speaking, urban center of Alexandria and other cities before spreading to the countryside or chōra (Papaconstantinou 2012).
^ Usama Dakdok, Egyptian Copt who is a Christian apologist and evangelist here in the US who is always mistaken for black American.
Well, Dakdok looks mixed. I thought he was Puerto Rican. However, he can also pass for African American since biracial and quarter black Americans are considered African Americans, too. In addition, it's actually not true that all Copts have only a minor SSA admixture. What is more remarkable is the fact, that their SSA ancestry is rather old and basically exclusively East African-like. In contrast, their Muslim fellow country men also harbor West African/Yoruba-like DNA. I was told by a Christian Egyptian that there were Christian Nubians that were absorbed by the Coptic population.
In contrast to Dakdok, some people thought that Rami Malek who is a Copt, ( albeit 1/8th Greek and 7/8 Coptic Egyptian) is "white".
Sci Rep. 2015; 5: 9996. Published online 2015 May 28. doi: 10.1038/srep09996 PMCID: PMC4446898 PMID: 26017457
The genetics of East African populations: a Nilo-Saharan component in the African genetic landscape Begoña Dobon,1,
The North African/Middle Eastern genetic component is identified especially in Copts. The Coptic population present in Sudan is an example of a recent migration from Egypt over the past two centuries. They are close to Egyptians in the PCA, but remain a differentiated cluster, showing their own component at k = 4 (Fig. 3).Copts lack the influence found in Egyptians from Qatar, an Arabic population. It may suggest that Copts have a genetic composition that could resemble the ancestral Egyptian population, without the present strong Arab influence.
________________________
According to Y-DNA analysis by Hassan et al. (2008), around 21% of Copts in Sudan carry the E1b1b clade
Regions with significant populations
Traditional areas of Coptic settlement: 5–20 million Egypt 5–20 million (estimates vary) Sudan c. 500,000 Libya 60,000
Diaspora: 1–2 million (estimates vary) United States c. 200,000 – 1 million Canada c. 200,000 Australia c. 75,000 (2003) France c. 45,000 (2017) Italy c. 30,000
quote:Originally posted by mightywolf: Well, Dakdok looks mixed. I thought he was Puerto Rican. However, he can also pass for African American since biracial and quarter black Americans are considered African Americans, too..
That's because most modern Egyptians ARE mixed, in contrast to their ancient ancestors who for the most part were not.
A more famous Egyptian American
Hoda Kotb
quote:In addition, it's actually not true that all Copts have only a minor SSA admixture...
Nobody said otherwise. Again Copt is accurately a religious label not an ethnic one. You have Copts in Alexandria who have no African ancestry whatsoever whereas there are Copts in Aswan who are overwhelmingly SSA in ancestry. The same is true with the Muslim populace.
quote:..What is more remarkable is the fact, that their SSA ancestry is rather old and basically exclusively East African-like. In contrast, their Muslim fellow country men also harbor West African/Yoruba-like DNA...
Not all SSA in modern Egyptians is East African. A minority of it is of West African affinity as well and is largely found in Upper Egypt but also has its highest frequency in the western oases. Interestingly it seems to highly correlate with the Benin HBS form of sickle-cell anemia.
quote:.. I was told by a Christian Egyptian that there were Christian Nubians that were absorbed by the Coptic population.
You mean Coptic Nubians being absorbed by Coptic Egyptians. That probably happened in some communities but the majority of Nubians and the majority of Baladi are very endogamous to the point that members of both communities would rather marry their own cousins before marrying those outside of their communities even though they may share the same religion!
quote:In contrast to Dakdok, some people thought that Rami Malek who is a Copt, ( albeit 1/8th Greek and 7/8 Coptic Egyptian) is "white".
Rami Malek is someone that here in America would be called "ambiguously white" or "vaguely white". And again "Coptic Egyptian" is not an ethnicity but a religion. The accurate term for indigenous ethnic Egyptian is Baladi.
Here is a rural Baladi man from Giza who is not a Copt but a Muslim.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Modern Egyptians,
under 3% E1b1a
......
mtDNA
L3 12.3% L2 3.6% L1 2.5%
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ According to the paper I just cited, yes E1b1a only amounts to just 2.8% but these results are only based on 63 samples from the capital city of Cairo. Even the authors said their results should not be taken as a complete assessment of the entire nation's population let alone reflect the genetic landscape in ancient times.
As for the mtDNA, the predominant clade in Egypt especially Upper Egypt is M1 which ties the Egyptian population to the Horn region.
So let's not be dishonest. Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
You can double check the Arredi for details I just looked at it briefly according to the above Southern and Northern Egyptians zero E1b1a (Mansoura and Luxor)
Sometimes haplotype IV (and the M2 lineage) is seen as being associated with the "Bantu expansion" (~2000-3000 bp), but this does not mean that it is not much older, since expansion and origin times cannot be conflated. Haplotype IV has substantial frequencies in upper Egypt and Nubia, greater than VII and VIII, and even V. Bantu languages were never spoken in these regions or Senegal, where M2 is greater than 90 percent in some studies.
It's been touched on several times in this forum how E-M2 is older to North and East Africa than was previously thought.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] ^ Why no reference to the 2005 Keita & Boyce study?
Because Keita et al didn't do the DNA sampling in that chart was Lucotte and Mercier in 2003 who said the following before the nomenclature haplogroup E1 was used:
_______________________________________
Lucotte, G., & Mercier, G. (2003).
Brief communication: Y-chromosome haplotypes in Egypt. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 121(1), 63–66. doi:10.1002/ajpa.10190
frequencies of haplotype V are 51.9% in the Delta (location A), 24.2% in Upper Egypt (location B), and 17.4% in Lower Nubia (location C).
On the other hand, haplotype IV is a typical southern haplotype, being almost absent in A (1.2%) and preponderant in B (27.3%) and C (39.1%).
Haplotype XI also shows a preponderance in the south (in C, 30.4%; B, 28.8%) compared to the north (11.7% in A) of the country. __________________________________________ .
.
^^ here is that 27.3% figure and Keita references
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Haplotype IV is identified as E1b1a-E-M2
Where is a credible reference that states Haplotype IV is identified as E1b1a?
The above Lucotte and Mercier is from 18 years ago. In light of other much more recent articles I am not convinced that Southern Egypt is of 27% E1b1a ancestry
________________________________
According to Cruciani, 2007 (yes only 4 years later but I covered more recent articles in the wiki chart, previous post) - but around this time 2007-2011, Cruciani was doing some of the fundamental research on E clades in Africa
Tracing Past Human Male Movements in Northern/Eastern Africa and Western Eurasia: New Clues from Y-Chromosomal Haplogroups E-M78 and J-M12 Fulvio Cruciani, Molecular Biology and Evolution, Volume 24, Issue 6, June 2007, Pages 1300–1311, https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msm049 Published: 10 March 2007
_________________________________
Be honest, it's dubious to assume 27.3% E1b1a in Southern Egypt and it's not even when they were not even using that nomenclature. Why so much EM2 be there when there are East African haps there
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Because Keita et al didn't do the DNA sampling in that chart was Lucotte and Mercier in 2003 who said the following before the nomenclature haplogroup E1 was used:
I never said Keita & Boyce did the sampling themselves but you're right, I should have been more specific since the chart I borrowed from Zarahan cites Keita and Boyce.
I also should have been more clear about the nomenclature. Instead of E-M2, I should've wrote E-V38. I know paranoid Euros like your mistress Mathilda and yourself are more on top of African haplogroup nomenclature than I am since you like to keep track of African ancestry among your people.
quote:The above Lucotte and Mercier is from 18 years ago. In light of other much more recent articles I am not convinced that Southern Egypt is of 27% E1b1a ancestry
________________________________
According to Cruciani, 2007 (yes only 4 years later but I covered more recent articles in the wiki chart, previous post) - but around this time 2007-2011, Cruciani was doing some of the fundamental research on E clades in Africa
Tracing Past Human Male Movements in Northern/Eastern Africa and Western Eurasia: New Clues from Y-Chromosomal Haplogroups E-M78 and J-M12 Fulvio Cruciani, Molecular Biology and Evolution, Volume 24, Issue 6, June 2007, Pages 1300–1311, https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msm049 Published: 10 March 2007
_________________________________
Be honest, it's dubious to assume 27.3% E1b1a in Southern Egypt and it's not even when they were not even using that nomenclature. Why so much EM2 be there when there are East African haps there
You're likely right that E1b1a is not as high as nearly 30% even in Upper Egyptians but I believe it's still higher than 2%. I recall Trombetta in more than one study say that E-V38 as stretched from Egypt to Morocco with the latter having almost 10% frequency. And there is till the issue of Ramessu III carrying E1b1a and thus that hg being a Ramesside lineage. But if you want to discuss the provenance of E1b1a in Egypt or North Africa in large we can do so in your thread here.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I know paranoid Euros like
No need to be racist, that is not valid argument.
"paranoid" ?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
I also should have been more clear about the nomenclature. Instead of E-M2, I should've wrote E-V38.
Haplogroup E-V38 = E1b1a1 + E1b1a2
"IV" is obsolete and where is a reference that says that = E1b1a1 ? Go by "Haplotype IV" 2003? No articles since then have relevant E clade data for Egypt ?
E1b1a2 aka E-M329 is the East African branch of aE-V38 and found in Mota man, Ethiopia
E-P2 (Trombetta et al35) and its two basal clades E-M2 and E-M329, which are believed to be prevalent exclusively in Western Africa and Eastern Africa, respectively.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
As an aside, does anyone know who the subjects of the Fayyum portraits would be? They always looked more Greek or Roman to me, yet I've seen Eurocentrics pointing to them as evidence of how AE would have looked (and then there's that Joel Irish study claiming their dental affinities were more Egyptian). Perhaps they represent a "creole" class of mixed ancestry?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: I've seen Euros pointing to them as evidence...
Is this how you talk to your fellow people "Eurors" ?
come on look in the mirror
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: No need to be racist, that is not valid argument.
"paranoid"?
The definition of 'racist' is someone who believes one's race or another is superior to another. What I said wasn't racist but an observation I've noticed about some Euros being paranoid about the African ancestry in their heritage.
quote:Haplogroup E-V38 = E1b1a1 + E1b1a2
"IV" is obsolete and where is a reference that says that = E1b1a1 ? Go by "Haplotype IV" 2003? No articles since then have relevant E clade data for Egypt ?
E1b1a2 aka E-M329 is the East African branch of aE-V38 and found in Mota man, Ethiopia
E-P2 (Trombetta et al35) and its two basal clades E-M2 and E-M329, which are believed to be prevalent exclusively in Western Africa and Eastern Africa, respectively.
As I said, I'll be happy to discuss the provenance of E1b1a--E-V38 elsewhere. For now I want to get back to the topic of this thread.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb] No need to be racist, that is not valid argument.
"paranoid"?
The definition of 'racist' is someone who believes one's race or another is superior to another. What I said wasn't racist but an observation I've noticed about some Euros being paranoid about the African ancestry in their heritage.
This term you used "Euros" is baiting. It's like someone coming in and calling black people "Afros" The word isn't innately racist but when you call people words that they don't call themselves it's disrespect -not to mention applied to a person that it doesn't even match with And now you have Brandon using it which is quite ridiculous
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Euros refers to Eurocentrics and yes I would use the word Afros as well. There is nothing intrinsically negative or racist about those words but if a Euro like yourself feels offended, I'll just use 'white' then if that makes you feel better.
Getting back to the topic. Wally asks "Just who are the Copts?" and then presumes they are Greco-Egyptians. It is a common mistake to assume the Copts represent a separate ethnic identity when in fact they are merely a religious denomination of Christianity.
Because Copts are a religious group and not an ethnic one, Coptic people vary in looks depending on the region and even on the family since some Copts from wealthy Afrangi elite families do intermarry with foreign Christains as discussed before.
The common assumption that Copts somehow represent the "purest" Egyptian stock stems from the simple fact that they best preserved the indigenous language. Nevertheless this hasn't stopped anthropologists especially in the past from touting the Copts as exemplar par excellence of Baladi (indigenous Egyptians).
https://copticliterature.wordpress.com/2013/03/04/how-they-saw-the-copts-the-meyers-konversations-lexikon-or-meyers-lexikon/ The Meyers Konversations-Lexikon (or Meyers Lexikon) is a famous German encyclopaedia that was published in various editions from 1839 to 1984.[2] The work was inaugurated by the dynamic Joseph Meyer (1796 – 1856). The monumental work included, inter alia, a survey of the Völker (peoples or nations) of the world, with plates displaying figures of African peoples, Asiatic peoples, American peoples, etc., and with individual notes of each nation. The Copts (Kopten) he included with the African nations (Afrikanische Völker), as indeed their geographical position dictates. I have published the relevant plate at the top. Below, I publish an inset that shows the figures of the Coptic man and woman (figures 6 and 7 in the plate), which, I believe, have not done justice to the Copts, and cannot be taken as representative of them (but it must be stressed there is a spectrum in the physiognomy of the Copts):
Figure 2: Inset from Fig. 1 showing the Coptic man and woman (number 6 & 7).
A tribe in Egypt, the Christian descendants of the ancient Egyptians. While, in Lower Egypt, from the time of the Mohammedan conquest, they have not remained unmixed, in Middle and Upper Egypt, their main region of distribution, they remained quite pure (although it seems that some Negro blood was infused in the veins of the ancient Egyptians, as we can see from figures, especially in the lower classes). They still show in their body composition the Egyptian type: a wide, mostly low forehead; black, slightly curly hair; mostly straight, sharply cut nose; in addition the eyes which are oblong, but large and black always strangely beaming. The skin colour changes from Yellowish to brown (see panel “African nations“, 6 and 7).
The problem of course is that there is no discernable difference between Copts and the majority Muslims of Egypt. In fact, even before the Islamic period or Arab invasion Copts have always varied in appearance depending on locality an family heritage.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Euros refers to Eurocentrics and yes I would use the word Afros as well. There is nothing intrinsically negative or racist about those words but if a Euro like yourself feels offended, I'll just use 'white' then if that makes you feel better.
you think you're superior to most Europeans
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Wally asks...
Wally hasn't posted for ten years
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
As an example of the diversity of Coptic people here are two icons of Coptic saints:
Saint Catherine of Alexandria
Saint Maurice of Thebes (Upper Egypt)
St. Maurice was discussed in various threads but he was a 3rd Century Egyptian who served in an all Christian Roman legion based in Thebes and was martyred for his faith sometime in the year 287. Maurice is among the most famous of the 'black saints' and a patron saint of soldiers fighting for their faith and country.
In the very year of Maurice's death was born St. Catherine who was the daughter of Constus governor of Alexandria and therefore a member of the Greco-Roman elite. She was martyred in the year 305. Traditions say she she had reddish blonde hair and was obviously white.
Both individuals are Copts and yet they are of entirely different backgrounds while both being Egyptian. Maurice was obviously a Baladi while Catherine obviously was not and hails from the colonialist powers while Maurice was the colonized native.
However this begs the question then of just how the Coptic faith came to be? That is how did Christianity enter Egypt and into the lives of its denizens?
This has been somewhat of a mystery since the seeds of Christianity were being planted in the Roman imperial realm which was still largely pagan and the earliest descriptions of Christians were simply that of a strange Judaean sect.
It has been taken for granted per the traditions that the city of Alexandria was an episcopal see (ecclesiastical seat) of with its first bishop being none other than the Apostle Mark who founded the first church there. That Alexandria should be a center of Christianity is not surprising considering that Christianity originated as a Judean sect and that Alexandria had the largest population of Judeans in the country of Egypt during Imperial Rome.
However as the source I cited, Archaeology of Early Christianity in Egypt shows, there very few traces of early Christianity in Alexandria. This is no doubt due to the persecution not only from the pagan Roman authorities at large but also from the anti-Christian members of the Judaean community, not to mention competition with the various Gnostic sects. It's very likely that these first churches were none other than private homes. The earliest archaeological evidence of churches in Egypt is found at Kellis, a Roman village in Dakhla Oasis (Aravecchia 2015). The oasis settlement has three churches. Based upon the dating of numismatic and ceramic evidence recovered during the excavation of the churches, the earliest church is a converted domus ecclesiae (Small East Church), built in the early fourth century. Next to this church a later, Constantinian, large three-aisle basilica was built, which was also dated by numismatic and ceramic material. Side chambers (pastophoria) flank a raised apse. The presence of the side rooms became a common feature in Egyptian churches. On the west edge of the village a third church sits amidst an impressive Christian cemetery. These early Egyptian churches illustrate the importance of an east-west axis, the placement of the east sanctuary, and the swiftness with which new church construction followed Constantine’s patronage of Christian institutions. A fourth-century church at nearby Ain el-Gedida in Dakhla also demonstrates the speed with which even oasis settlements began building churches (Aravecchia 2015).
Although no early churches are preserved in Alexandria, the southern city at Antinoopolis, the capital of the Lower Thebaid province, provides the best and earliest example of a monumental basilica built in the late fourth century, like those that may have existed in Alexandria. The church is a five-aisle basilica located in the south cemetery of the city. With an east apse the church measures 20 by 60 meters; it is highlighted by applied columns (McKenzie 2007). Two other churches date to the later fifth century and contain features such as baptismal fonts, painted panels, and cruciform plan. The examples from the Dakhla Oasis and Antinoopolis represent how architects modified the Roman civic basilica plan into a form conducive for Christian liturgical events.
Interesting how the first Church buildings were found outside Alexandria and other major cities of power and in smaller more rural towns. Also is the fact that Thebes turns out to be an early center of Christianity as well considering this was the home area of St. Maurice.
Posted by Big O (Member # 23467) on :
There was a study referenced on a Meme on IG that points to a common gene between the Yoruba of Nigeria.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: However this begs the question then of just how the Coptic faith came to be? That is how did Christianity enter Egypt and into the lives of its denizens?
Couldn't that have something to do with Christianity becoming the official religion of the Eastern Roman Empire? I don't think the pagan Roman emperors, or all the earlier colonial overlords, did much to force the Egyptian people away from their indigenous traditions. Some like the Ptolemies even pandered to them instead. Before the Eastern Empire's Christianization, the Egyptians seem to have clung to their traditional religion even after foreigners took over the country.
EDIT: I saw your edit and I see that you were talking about the earlier establishment of Christian communities in Egypt prior to the religion taking over the Eastern Roman Empire. My bad.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Yes, I am referring to the development of Christianity before its acceptance by the Roman Empire let alone established as the imperial state religion.
I think the key is looking first at the Judaean communities in Egypt where those seeds of Christianity was first planted. I think a common mistake of many scholars is focusing solely on Alexandria and Mark the Apostle establishing the episcopal see there. In fact there's a common conception that the first church in Egypt is in Alexandria when there's really no evidence or even tradition that Mark didn't establish a church elsewhere in Egypt before he arrived in Alexandria.
Besides Alexandria, there were 6 other cities that were centers of Judaean communities since the Ptolemaic period and even before then: Tahpanhes (bordering the Sinai), Migdol (somewhere in the eastern delta), Leontopolis (in the east-central delta in modern Damietta), Memphis, Oxyrhyynchus (in middle Egypt near Abusir el-Melek), and Antinoopolis (in Upper Egypt near Thebes).
Also, while St. Mark the Apostle was the most prominent evangelist to bring Christianity to Egypt there's no tradition or evidence that he was the first person to do so. In fact the earliest tradition of the first evangelist to the African continent comes from the Book of Acts in the form of the Ethiopian Eunuch called in popular traditions 'Simeon the Black' who was baptized by Philip the Evangelist after receiving the Gospel. Simeon was said to be a courtier of Candace the Nubian Queen and is credited by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church with introducing Christianity to Ethiopia via Nubia. But who's to say he didn't spread it first to any communities in Egypt.
What's interesting also is how the Christian Church in its development begin to schism and divide into multiple churches. Most are familiar with the division of the Imperial Church into Eastern/Greek Orthodoxy and Western/Roman Catholicism. However even within the Eastern Orthodox there was variance and some division. The Syriac Orthodox Church is perhaps the Church that comes closest to the original church of Israel and the ministry of Jesus and his family. The Syriac Church uses Aramaic as their liturgy which differs from Greek liturgy of the greater Eastern Orthodoxy though they are still part of the same Church. This is in contrast to the Assyrian Orthodox or Nestorian Church which diverged due to the Nesotrian heresy and spread into Persia and further east. The Egyptian Orthodox or Coptic Church uses the native Coptic language as its liturgy which is very interesting since most Alexandrians at did not speak it Coptic but Greek. However, its split from main Eastern Orthodoxy stems from their monophysite heresy. The Coptic Church as we know spread further west into Libya and the Maghreb as well as south into the Sudan and Ethiopia. In fact, most people forget that before the Islamic conquest a third of Christendom was in Africa which was greater than that of Europe.
Aside from the use of Coptic as liturgy, there are other practices peculiar to the Copts that other Orthodox Churches or any Churches for that matter do not practice. For example, tattooing. Tattoos were forbidden among Judaeans per the Old Testament laws, but among the Greeks tattoos were a sign of slavery. It is only among the Baladi Egyptian community that tattoos held spiritual significance both in their ancient Egyptian religion as well as both for Egyptian Copts and Egyptian Muslims. The Copts would have tattoos of crosses on their wrists as a sign of faith. Ethiopian Christians wore tattoo crosses on their foreheads or necks. Another example is the musical liturgy. The Copts would in their rituals would use both tambourines and sistrums in ceremonies. Again both instruments were used in ancient Egyptian ceremonies by the sacred women musicians called khener but today is implemented by altar boys. There are probably other practices peculiar to the Copts which our old moderator Ausar is probably knowledgeable of.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
I just wanna interject to say when I use Euros its no different than how I employ Afrs --shothand.
Can either mean continentals only or the entire diaspora of either continent originating ppl.
BTW Actual continental Europeans have no qualms about Euro. Its a prefix same as Afro. Added controversy dispensable.
Posted by mightywolf (Member # 23402) on :
Some of the links you've sent show Ethiopian Coptic believers. I thought were are talking about Egyptian Copts only?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by mightywolf: Some of the links you've sent show Ethiopian Coptic believers. I thought were are talking about Egyptian Copts only?
The thread title doesn't say Egyptian Copts only.
Coptic presence in Sudan dates back more than 1,300 years, although many are descended from more recent Egyptian immigrants.
Egypt 5–20 million (estimates vary) Sudan c. 500,000 Libya 60,000 Diaspora: 1–2 million (estimates vary)
____________________
I don't know about in Ethiopia
Posted by mightywolf (Member # 23402) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by mightywolf: Some of the links you've sent show Ethiopian Coptic believers. I thought were are talking about Egyptian Copts only?
The thread title doesn't say Egyptian Copts only.
Coptic presence in Sudan dates back more than 1,300 years, although many are descended from more recent Egyptian immigrants.
OK.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by mightywolf: Some of the links you've sent show Ethiopian Coptic believers. [/QB]
which link?
Posted by mightywolf (Member # 23402) on :
Egyptian Copts have a range of looks as we can see from all kinds of pics. They are diverse to a degree, not super diverse, though. Some of them remind me of the so-called Hispanics or Latinos.
I removed the last pic since it couldn't be reduced, and replaced it.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
.
Posted by mightywolf (Member # 23402) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by mightywolf: Some of the links you've sent show Ethiopian Coptic believers.
it doesn't have the word "Ethiopian" anywhere [/QB]
The attire alone, which is the traditional clothing Ethiopian or Eritrean Churchgoers wear, tells you that they are not Egyptian or Sudanese. And I'm sure lioness you have seen enough pics of Ethiopians or Eritreans in this typical white traditional dress to know that these women are not Egyptian, Nubian or Sudanese,etc.
Posted by mightywolf (Member # 23402) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by mightywolf:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by mightywolf: Some of the links you've sent show Ethiopian Coptic believers.
it doesn't have the word "Ethiopian" anywhere [/QB]
Here is a link with the word "Ethiopian" there that shows Ethiopian Copts that attend a Church in Cairo. You can see that the women are, unlike the Egyptian Copts, dressed in the same white clothing like the women in the link that Djehuti has posted. Bear in mind, that there are Eritrean and Ethiopian people who live as migrants or residents in Egypt, and they go to the Coptic Church there.
quote:Originally posted by mightywolf: Some of the links you've sent show Ethiopian Coptic believers. I thought were are talking about Egyptian Copts only?
I haven't researched this but the caption of your link said those are
"Ethiopian Christian Orthodox women (L) attend an Easter mass led by of Egypt's Coptic Christian, Pope Tawadros II at the Saint Mark's Coptic Cathedral, in Cairo's al-Abbassiya district late on April 15, 2017. "
So perhaps they are not Copts at all > I though I think there are some Coptic churches in Ethiopia, I dont know much about these details
BUT that other photo says
Coptic Orthodox women attend an Easter mass, led by Pope ...
they seem to be at the Coptic church for Easter but not identified as Copts
I posted earlier Hassan on Sudanese Copts' YDNA
wikipedia on Copts mtDNA:
Maternally, Hassan (2009) found that Copts in Sudan exclusively carry various descendants of the macrohaplogroup N. This mtDNA clade is likewise closely associated with local Afroasiatic-speaking populations, including Berbers and Ethiopid peoples. Of the N derivatives borne by Copts, U6 is most frequent (28%), followed by the haplogroup T (17%)
Ethiopian Mitochondrial DNA Heritage: Tracking Gene Flow Across and Around the Gate of Tears Toomas Kivisild, 2004
All eight Ethiopian U6 samples descend from the major U6a1 founder (fig. 2B), which is spread from the Near East to northwestern Africa at appreciable frequencies (Maca-Meyer et al. 2003). Their absence in Yemen suggests that these U6 lineages have likely penetrated to Ethiopia from the north rather than by the sea route from Arabia.
The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church is the largest of Eastern Christianity's branch of Oriental Orthodox Christian churches. One of the few Christian churches in Sub-Saharan Africa originating before European colonization of the continent,[6] the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church dates back millennia, and has a current membership of about 36 million people,[2][3][4][5] the majority of whom live in Ethiopia.[7] It is a founding member of the World Council of Churches.[8] The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church is in communion with the Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church, the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, the Armenian Apostolic Church and the Syriac Orthodox Church, having gained autocephaly in 1959.
The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church had been administratively part of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria from the first half of the 4th century until 1959, when it was granted autocephaly with its own patriarch by Saint Pope Cyril VI of Alexandria, Pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria. It is one of the oldest Christian churches and Ethiopia is the second country historically, following only Armenia, to have officially proclaimed Christianity as its state religion (in AD 333).
Posted by Big O (Member # 23467) on :
These people have little to nothing to do with the ancient Ausarian principled people who created ancient Kemet. I think that you all are a group of people set out here to mislead Blacks seeking information about ancient Kemet.
"In Libya, which is mostly desert and oasis, t here is a visible Negroid element in the sedentary populations, and at the same is true of the Fellahin of Egypt,whether Copt or Muslim . Osteological studies have shown that the Negroid element was stronger in predynastic times than at present , reflecting an early movement northward along the banks of the Nile, which were then heavily forested. " (Encyclopedia Britannica 1984 ed. "Populations, Human")
Professor Ivan Van Sertima made it clear that these people in Egypt today even the Arabanized Blacks have nothing to do with the ancient civilization. It is their wet dream to have a linkage to the land that they stumbled upon. They have been there for over a thousand years AFTER the fall of the real dynastic race, which is found in inner Africa. You all seem to know this, but continue to post these non African folks (mentally) as having some sort of authentic linkage to ancient Kemet.
Posted by Big O (Member # 23467) on :
quote:Originally posted by mightywolf: Egyptian Copts have a range of looks as we can see from all kinds of pics. They are diverse to a degree, not super diverse, though. Some of them remind me of the so-called Hispanics or Latinos.
I removed the last pic since it couldn't be reduced, and replaced it.
Why do you keep posting these pasty little kids as though they have linage to ancient Kemet?
Priest for the Royal funerary religion, 6th Dynasty., -2400 B.C.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Big O: Why do you keep posting these pasty little kids as though they have linage to ancient Kemet?
They are not pasty stop being racist
The average black person in America is about 20% European
So a black person could be 20% Irish or 20% German Or some combination yet still be regarded in America as a black person and have dark skin
So say some black person is 15% Irish This black person could be more Irish than a white person from Russia
Similarly a Copt resembling a Hispanic might have ancestry going back to the dynastic Egyptians whereas a black person in some random location in Africa, say an Angolan may have no ancestors who were Egyptian
You might say maybe some people in Angola do but Africa is a large continent and most Africans do not have ancestors who were Egyptian
People living in or neighboring Egypt would be more likely to have some ancestry going back to ancient Egypt. This is obvious and I have already posted Coptic DNA which is further information
Posted by Big O (Member # 23467) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [QB]
quote:Originally posted by Big O: Why do you keep posting these pasty little kids as though they have linage to ancient Kemet?
They are not pasty stop being racist
The average black person in America is about 20% European
So a black person could be 20% Irish or 20% German Or some combination yet still be regarded in America as a black person and have dark skin
So say some black person is 15% Irish This black person could be more Irish than a white person from Russia
What on Earth are you talking about? Why are you talking about "Irish" as though it is a genetic reality? Idc about "European" ancestry, because I don't know my European ancestors. Nor do I do care to! I know my African ancestors, and my family's oral history of being "Blackfoot" Native American.
quote: Similarly a Copt resembling a Hispanic might have ancestry going back to the dynastic Egyptians whereas a black person in some random location in Africa, say an Angolan may have no ancestors who were Egyptian
Why are you bringing up far fetched scenarios? The peoples through inner Africa are the original people of Kemet. There are entirely too many threads on this forum from what I have seen that prove this, and yet you play dumb. Those Copts are white invaders to an African land. If they absorbed some of the remaining Africans who did not flee into the interior until as recently as a few centuries ago then that is all that they have. The cultural legacy of ancient Kemet is found only in inner Africa, and some remote peoples in the World.
Ausarian culture is what defined ancient Kemet, from the rest of the begotten World at the time. This culture is NOT practiced in the Copts today. Mummification and other traits of that Ausarian religion are only found in the living Black peoples of the African Continent and diaspora peoples.
quote: You might say maybe some people in Angola do but Africa is a large continent and most Africans do not have ancestors who were Egyptian
Lioness, I can reference a thread that I've read where you've been schooled on this topic. Now you want to play dumb about what you had to sit and accept.
quote:People living in or neighboring Egypt would be more likely to have some ancestry going back to ancient Egypt. This is obvious and I have already posted Coptic DNA which is further information
Ancient Egypt is not ancient Kemet.
"Ancient Egypt" refers to the land formerly known as Kemet after it was taken over by white an mulatto invaders afer the 4th century BC. Kemet refers to what was held in place by African up until that point.
You can NEVER show me an "Egyptian Copt" wearing a traditional ancient Kemetic leopard skin with it's societal implications like you find among the Bantu states in Southern/Central Africa and West Africa as well. You need to stop lying, by pretending that those light skinned pale people have anything to do with the legacy of ancient Kemet.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Big O you are destroying this thread.
It is about Copts and you are posting other Africans and artifacts that are not Copt
Posted by Big O (Member # 23467) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Why no reference to the 2005 Keita & Boyce study?
Haplotype IV is identified as E1b1a-E-M2
Sometimes haplotype IV (and the M2 lineage) is seen as being associated with the "Bantu expansion" (~2000-3000 bp), but this does not mean that it is not much older, since expansion and origin times cannot be conflated. Haplotype IV has substantial frequencies in upper Egypt and Nubia, greater than VII and VIII, and even V. Bantu languages were never spoken in these regions or Senegal, where M2 is greater than 90 percent in some studies.
It's been touched on several times in this forum how E-M2 is older to North and East Africa than was previously thought.
Something that no one talks about is how do we know that the Arabs who swept across Northern Africa were not E1b1 carriers predominantly, with some J in the mix??? There are studies that have been presented on here that show that populations that carry E1b1 (Horn Africans) have been in the Arabian peninsula since the Neolithic.
How do we know that this migration was not a spread of E1b1 across Northern Africa, not only haplogroup J? That's why when people have made the argument using this data from Keita I've always looked at it funny. Yes E1b1 IS African, BUT the CONTEXT to how it came into the North has never really been broken down. We know that some of this spread northward initially with other groups of Africans from the Horn. How did it spread into the Maghreb from that point? The only migration of peoples from an E1b1 carrying region into the Maghreb is the Arab invasion. I think that the bulk of these Arabs were Cushitic, and we find evidence that this is the only scenario possible. Especially when we look at how recently the area was almost completely dominated by these Cushitic Africans;
“Mr. Baldwin draws a marked distinction between the modern Mahomedan Semitic population of Arabia and their great Cushite, Hamite, or Ethiopian predecessors . The former, he says, ‘are comparatively modern in Arabia,’ they have ‘appropriated the reputation of the old race,’ and have unduly occupied the chief attention of modern scholars. ”-- Charles Hardwick (1872)
As recently as 150 years ago. I think that the E1b1a carriers, Nilotic Africans based on multiple lines of ancient DNA were the primary constitutes of ancient Nile Valley civilization. Dr. Winters points to Dravidans also being a factor particularly in Nubia and early ancient Kemet.
Posted by Big O (Member # 23467) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Big O you are destroying this thread.
It is about Copts and you are posting other Africans and artifacts that are not Copt
I'm refuting lying implications that these pale people are inheritors of ancient Kemet's legacy.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Big O:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Big O you are destroying this thread.
It is about Copts and you are posting other Africans and artifacts that are not Copt
I'm refuting lying implications that these pale people are inheritors of ancient Kemet's legacy.
The are people who may have some genetic ancestry going back to the dynastic Egyptians as well mixed with later foreigners They are Christians and thus not particularly interested in the legacy of the dynastic Egyptians which was largely buried under sand and forgotten about until the Europeans started excavating it and discovering royal tombs
Posted by Big O (Member # 23467) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Big O:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Big O you are destroying this thread.
It is about Copts and you are posting other Africans and artifacts that are not Copt
I'm refuting lying implications that these pale people are inheritors of ancient Kemet's legacy.
The are people who may have some genetic ancestry going back to the dynastic Egyptians as well mixed with later foreigners They are Christians and thus not particularly interested in the legacy of the dynastic Egyptians which was largely buried under sand and forgotten about until the Europeans started excavating it and discovering royal tombs
It's not just the fact that they are Christian Lioness. They have nothing to do with the ancient civilization, and they know that! Just like YOU do lol smh.
The only people who match with ancient Africans to the south, and some Native American Blacks according to these studies. Fake pale "Egyptian" Turkish Arabs have nothing to do with ancient Kemet, and you know that.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Please don't adulterate this thread into another 'race' argument. The topic of the thread is the identity of the Copts. It has been made apparent that Copt is NOT an ethnicity but a religious group that encompasses a variety of peoples. The very nature of the Copts is not based on phenotype but religious traditions. Thus the same is true for Egyptian Muslims. One is hard pressed to tell the difference between a Copt and a Muslim by physical appearance alone.
Native Egyptians when using ethnic differences usually use terms like Baladi for indigenous and Khawaga for foreigner or someone of foreign descent such as the Arabs or Alexandrians of Greco-Roman descent. The problem however is such distinctions are not always clear due to intermixing especially from ancient times since from the Middle Kingdom foreigners have been settling in parts of Egypt and becoming nationalized Egyptians.
Posted by Big O (Member # 23467) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Please don't adulterate this thread into another 'race' argument. The topic of the thread is the identity of the Copts. It has been made apparent that Copt is NOT an ethnicity but a religious group that encompasses a variety of peoples. The very nature of the Copts is not based on phenotype but religious traditions.
Any response to my post about that their genetic makeup that replied to your own?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ I don't have time at the moment, but I will in another thread.
Posted by Big O (Member # 23467) on :
Cool.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
When you talk of anything related to Coptic it is basically described as a mixture of Greek and Egyptian.
The Coptic Language is said to be a mixture of Demotic Egyptian and Greek alphabets and language.
quote: The earliest attempts to write the Egyptian language using the Greek alphabet are Greek transcriptions of Egyptian proper names, most of which date to the Ptolemaic Kingdom. Scholars frequently refer to this phase as pre-Coptic. However, it is clear that by the Late Period of ancient Egypt, demotic scribes regularly employed a more phonetic orthography, a testament to the increasing cultural contact between Egyptians and Greeks even before Alexander the Great's conquest of Egypt. Coptic itself, or Old Coptic, takes root in the first century. The transition from the older Egyptian scripts to the newly adapted Coptic alphabet was in part due to the decline of the traditional role played by the priestly class of ancient Egyptian religion, who, unlike most ordinary Egyptians, were literate in the temple scriptoria. Old Coptic is represented mostly by non-Christian texts such as Egyptian pagan prayers and magical and astrological papyri. Many of them served as glosses to original hieratic and demotic equivalents. The glosses may have been aimed at non-Egyptian speakers.
Under late Roman rule, Diocletian persecuted many Egyptian converts to the new Christian faith, which forced new converts to flee to the Egyptian deserts. In time, the growth of these communities generated the need to write Christian Greek instructions in the Egyptian language. The early Fathers of the Coptic Church, such as Anthony the Great, Pachomius the Great, Macarius of Egypt and Athanasius of Alexandria, who otherwise usually wrote in Greek, addressed some of their works to the Egyptian monks in Egyptian. The Egyptian language, now written in the Coptic alphabet, flourished in the second and third centuries. However, it was not until Shenoute that Coptic became a fully standardised literary language based on the Sahidic dialect. Shenouda's native Egyptian tongue and knowledge of Greek and rhetoric gave him the necessary tools to elevate Coptic, in content and style, to a literary height nearly equal to the position of the Egyptian language in ancient Egypt.
The Coptic Church is the result of the mixture of Greek religion and philosophy and ancient Egyptian Religion.
quote: Serapis is a Graeco-Egyptian deity. The cult of Serapis was pushed forward during the third century BC on the orders of Greek Pharaoh Ptolemy I Soter of the Ptolemaic Kingdom in Egypt as a means to unify the Greeks and Egyptians in his realm. A serapeum was any temple or religious precinct devoted to Serapis. The cultus of Serapis was spread as a matter of deliberate policy by the Ptolemaic kings. Serapis continued to increase in popularity during the Roman Empire, often replacing Osiris as the consort of Isis in temples outside Egypt.
Coptic people are basically the same thing and the earliest fathers of the Christian Church are the "Greek Fathers" from Alexandria.
quote: Those who wrote in Greek are called the Greek (Church) Fathers. In addition to the Apostolic Fathers, famous Greek Fathers include: Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons, Clement of Alexandria, Athanasius of Alexandria, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, the Cappadocian Fathers (Basil of Caesarea, Gregory Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa), Peter of Sebaste, Maximus the Confessor, and John of Damascus.
....
Origen, or Origen Adamantius (c. 185 – c. 254) was a scholar and theologian. According to tradition, he was an Egyptian who taught in Alexandria, reviving the Catechetical School where Clement had taught. The patriarch of Alexandria at first supported Origen but later expelled him for being ordained without the patriarch's permission. He relocated to Caesarea Maritima and died there after being tortured during a persecution. He was later anathematised and some of his writings condemned as heretical. Using his knowledge of Hebrew, he produced a corrected Septuagint. He wrote commentaries on all the books of the Bible. In Peri Archon (First Principles), he articulated the first philosophical exposition of Christian doctrine. He interpreted scripture allegorically and showed himself to be a stoic, a Neo-Pythagorean, and a Platonist. Like Plotinus, he wrote that the soul passes through successive stages before incarnation as a human and after death, eventually reaching God. He imagined even demons being reunited with God. For Origen, God was not Yahweh but the First Principle, and Christ, the Logos, was subordinate to him. His views of a hierarchical structure in the Trinity, the temporality of matter, "the fabulous preexistence of souls", and "the monstrous restoration which follows from it" were declared anathema in the 6th century.
The result of all of this is the Catechetical School of Alexandria which is the oldest school of Chrisitanity in the world and was founded in Alexandria. It is no coincidence that this is the location as that is also where the Greeks established many other schools of thought and philosophy based on study and interpretation of Greek, Babylonian, Egyptian, Hebrew, Syriac(Phoenician), Persian and other traditions. Which is to say it is a mixture of traditions. But of course the main elements came from the Nile Valley such as the concept of a soul (book of the dead, various ancient tomb and temple paintings and scrolls of the dead), the Word (ptah), the Sun (ra) and the divine trinity (man, woman, child... heru, ausar, auset). All of this was synchretized into a generic form of early Christian theology at the Catechetical school.
quote: It is probable that Christianity came to Alexandria in apostolic times, though the tradition that it was first brought by John Mark cannot be verified. The indications are that Christianity was well established in middle Egypt by A.D. 150 and that Alexandria was its port of entry and supporting base.
Clement of Alexandria became head of the Catechetical School about 190. A philosopher throughout his life, Clement saw Greek philosophy as a preparation for Christ, even as a witness to divine truth. Plato was a cherished guide. Sin is grounded in man's free will. Enlightement by the Logos brings man to knowledge. Knowledge results in right decisions. These draw a man toward God until he is assimilated to God (Stromata iv. 23). The Christian lives by love, free from passion. His life is a constant prayer. Clement set forth its pattern in minute detail in the Paedagogos. He took an optimistic view of the future of all men, but knowledge would be rewarded in the world to come. An allegorical exegesis of Scripture supported these views.
Around 202 Clement was succeeded in the Catechetical School by the much abler Origen. A biblical student and exegete of great ability, Origen produced the Hexapla text of the OT. He wrote commentaries, scholia, or homilies on all the biblical books; but they were based on three senses of Scripture, the literal, moral, and allegorical. The Bible was inspired, useful, true in every letter, but the literal interpretation was not necessarily the correct one. Indebted, like Clement, to the Greeks, Origen was not as admiringly dependent upon them.
His conception was of a great spiritual universe, presided over by a beneficent, wise, and personal being. Alexandrian Christology makes its beginnings with Origen. Through an eternal generation of the Son, the Logos, God communicates himself from all eternity. There is a moral, volitional unity between the Father and the Son, but an essential unity is questionable. The world of sense provides the theater of redemption for fallen creatures who range from angels through men to demons. By the incarnation the Logos is the mediator of redemption. He took to himself a human soul in a union that was a henosis.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: When you talk of anything related to Coptic it is basically described as a mixture of Greek and Egyptian.
The Coptic Language is said to be a mixture of Demotic Egyptian and Greek alphabets and language.
quote: The earliest attempts to write the Egyptian language using the Greek alphabet are Greek transcriptions of Egyptian proper names, most of which date to the Ptolemaic Kingdom. Scholars frequently refer to this phase as pre-Coptic. However, it is clear that by the Late Period of ancient Egypt, demotic scribes regularly employed a more phonetic orthography, a testament to the increasing cultural contact between Egyptians and Greeks even before Alexander the Great's conquest of Egypt. Coptic itself, or Old Coptic, takes root in the first century. The transition from the older Egyptian scripts to the newly adapted Coptic alphabet was in part due to the decline of the traditional role played by the priestly class of ancient Egyptian religion, who, unlike most ordinary Egyptians, were literate in the temple scriptoria. Old Coptic is represented mostly by non-Christian texts such as Egyptian pagan prayers and magical and astrological papyri. Many of them served as glosses to original hieratic and demotic equivalents. The glosses may have been aimed at non-Egyptian speakers.
Under late Roman rule, Diocletian persecuted many Egyptian converts to the new Christian faith, which forced new converts to flee to the Egyptian deserts. In time, the growth of these communities generated the need to write Christian Greek instructions in the Egyptian language. The early Fathers of the Coptic Church, such as Anthony the Great, Pachomius the Great, Macarius of Egypt and Athanasius of Alexandria, who otherwise usually wrote in Greek, addressed some of their works to the Egyptian monks in Egyptian. The Egyptian language, now written in the Coptic alphabet, flourished in the second and third centuries. However, it was not until Shenoute that Coptic became a fully standardised literary language based on the Sahidic dialect. Shenouda's native Egyptian tongue and knowledge of Greek and rhetoric gave him the necessary tools to elevate Coptic, in content and style, to a literary height nearly equal to the position of the Egyptian language in ancient Egypt.
In the previous page of this thread I gave a quick breakdown on the origins of the Christian Church. Christianity itself originated among Hellenized Jews. Although it originated among Jews, it spread to gentiles via the lingua franca of Koine Greek. So of course Greek was a significant language in the development of the early Coptic Church.
quote:The Coptic Church is the result of the mixture of Greek religion and philosophy and ancient Egyptian Religion.
quote: Serapis is a Graeco-Egyptian deity. The cult of Serapis was pushed forward during the third century BC on the orders of Greek Pharaoh Ptolemy I Soter of the Ptolemaic Kingdom in Egypt as a means to unify the Greeks and Egyptians in his realm. A serapeum was any temple or religious precinct devoted to Serapis. The cultus of Serapis was spread as a matter of deliberate policy by the Ptolemaic kings. Serapis continued to increase in popularity during the Roman Empire, often replacing Osiris as the consort of Isis in temples outside Egypt.
What does the pagan cult of Serapis have to do with the Coptic Church? The Coptic Church is simply the result of Egyptians ethnic Greek, Baladi, or Jew adopting the Christian sect that came from Hellenized Jews.
quote:Coptic people are basically the same thing and the earliest fathers of the Christian Church are the "Greek Fathers" from Alexandria.
quote: Those who wrote in Greek are called the Greek (Church) Fathers. In addition to the Apostolic Fathers, famous Greek Fathers include: Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons, Clement of Alexandria, Athanasius of Alexandria, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, the Cappadocian Fathers (Basil of Caesarea, Gregory Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa), Peter of Sebaste, Maximus the Confessor, and John of Damascus.
....
Origen, or Origen Adamantius (c. 185 – c. 254) was a scholar and theologian. According to tradition, he was an Egyptian who taught in Alexandria, reviving the Catechetical School where Clement had taught. The patriarch of Alexandria at first supported Origen but later expelled him for being ordained without the patriarch's permission. He relocated to Caesarea Maritima and died there after being tortured during a persecution. He was later anathematised and some of his writings condemned as heretical. Using his knowledge of Hebrew, he produced a corrected Septuagint. He wrote commentaries on all the books of the Bible. In Peri Archon (First Principles), he articulated the first philosophical exposition of Christian doctrine. He interpreted scripture allegorically and showed himself to be a stoic, a Neo-Pythagorean, and a Platonist. Like Plotinus, he wrote that the soul passes through successive stages before incarnation as a human and after death, eventually reaching God. He imagined even demons being reunited with God. For Origen, God was not Yahweh but the First Principle, and Christ, the Logos, was subordinate to him. His views of a hierarchical structure in the Trinity, the temporality of matter, "the fabulous preexistence of souls", and "the monstrous restoration which follows from it" were declared anathema in the 6th century.
Again. Greeks only comprise a part of the Coptic Church. The Coptic Church included all national citizens of Egypt who embraced Christianity including Egyptian Jews, Baladi Egyptians, Libyans, Nubians, etc. And yes while Origen was an early Church Father he was also a heretic that was such due to his Hellenic pagan philosophies such as Neo-Platonism and Pythagoreanism as your source shows. Such contradict Christian and early Judaic understandings of the divine.
quote:The result of all of this is the Catechetical School of Alexandria which is the oldest school of Chrisitanity in the world and was founded in Alexandria. It is no coincidence that this is the location as that is also where the Greeks established many other schools of thought and philosophy based on study and interpretation of Greek, Babylonian, Egyptian, Hebrew, Syriac(Phoenician), Persian and other traditions. Which is to say it is a mixture of traditions. But of course the main elements came from the Nile Valley such as the concept of a soul (book of the dead, various ancient tomb and temple paintings and scrolls of the dead), the Word (ptah), the Sun (ra) and the divine trinity (man, woman, child... heru, ausar, auset). All of this was synchretized into a generic form of early Christian theology at the Catechetical school.
Again, while Alexandria was an early center of Christianity in Egypt it wasn't the only one, plus all the pagan Egyptian concepts you pointed out don't have anything to do with Christianity or do you know anything about Christian doctrine? The New Testament concept of Logos which is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Dabhar whose meaning is elaborated here. It has nothing to do with the god Ptah or rather his power of Hu which means word or utterance of power. The sun is an important symbol but it's not the center of worship rather the God the son is. And the the trinity is Father, son, and Holy Spirit NOT mother, father, and child. The Black Madonna and child does derive from ancient depictions of Isis and her baby.
quote:
quote: It is probable that Christianity came to Alexandria in apostolic times, though the tradition that it was first brought by John Mark cannot be verified. The indications are that Christianity was well established in middle Egypt by A.D. 150 and that Alexandria was its port of entry and supporting base.
Clement of Alexandria became head of the Catechetical School about 190. A philosopher throughout his life, Clement saw Greek philosophy as a preparation for Christ, even as a witness to divine truth. Plato was a cherished guide. Sin is grounded in man's free will. Enlightement by the Logos brings man to knowledge. Knowledge results in right decisions. These draw a man toward God until he is assimilated to God (Stromata iv. 23). The Christian lives by love, free from passion. His life is a constant prayer. Clement set forth its pattern in minute detail in the Paedagogos. He took an optimistic view of the future of all men, but knowledge would be rewarded in the world to come. An allegorical exegesis of Scripture supported these views.
Around 202 Clement was succeeded in the Catechetical School by the much abler Origen. A biblical student and exegete of great ability, Origen produced the Hexapla text of the OT. He wrote commentaries, scholia, or homilies on all the biblical books; but they were based on three senses of Scripture, the literal, moral, and allegorical. The Bible was inspired, useful, true in every letter, but the literal interpretation was not necessarily the correct one. Indebted, like Clement, to the Greeks, Origen was not as admiringly dependent upon them.
His conception was of a great spiritual universe, presided over by a beneficent, wise, and personal being. Alexandrian Christology makes its beginnings with Origen. Through an eternal generation of the Son, the Logos, God communicates himself from all eternity. There is a moral, volitional unity between the Father and the Son, but an essential unity is questionable. The world of sense provides the theater of redemption for fallen creatures who range from angels through men to demons. By the incarnation the Logos is the mediator of redemption. He took to himself a human soul in a union that was a henosis.
Yes, that Christianity came to Alexandria via St. Mark is a legend that may or may not be true but what is certain is that its establishment came via a process of small missionary communities and the main ones occurred outside of Alexandria due to persecution. Again Origen was a great philosopher but his understanding of Christianity was tainted with Hellenic views that were more Gnostic than Christian which is why he was declared a heretic.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: In the previous page of this thread I gave a quick breakdown on the origins of the Christian Church. Christianity itself originated among Hellenized Jews. Although it originated among Jews, it spread to gentiles via the lingua franca of Koine Greek. So of course Greek was a significant language in the development of the early Coptic Church.
The mixture of Greek and Egyptian cosmology, along with Babylonian and Jewish mythology and the eventual development of formal theology took place in Alexandria among primarily Greek scholars. Jews didn't create this syncretization and formalization of religious thought into a discipline and study. And one of the examples of this early syncretization between Greek and Egyptian cosmologies was Serapis. And many would argue the image of Serapis is the prototype of the image of Jesus Christ. Not only that the Jews never believed in Jesus Christ as the messiah as seen in the bible itself. And the early fathers of the Christian Church working out of Alexandria in the Catetechical School of Alexandria were the focus of many so-called 'heretical' sects who attacked them for copying ideas from other religions. And it is response to these arguments that they did not say "he died and rose again", they used rational philosophical arguments rising out of the Greek ideas about theology, such as in the works of Origen, who wrote "Para Celsus".
It was the Romans that made Christianity into what it is by decree and the various ecumenical councils like the Council of Nicea, based on the preceding work done by others including the Greeks in Alexandria and elsewere
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Again. Greeks only comprise a part of the Coptic Church. The Coptic Church included all national citizens of Egypt who embraced Christianity including Egyptian Jews, Baladi Egyptians, Libyans, Nubians, etc. And yes while Origen was an early Church Father he was also a heretic that was such due to his Hellenic pagan philosophies such as Neo-Platonism and Pythagoreanism as your source shows. Such contradict Christian and early Judaic understandings of the divine.
The Jews don't consider Jesus Christ as divine or the messiah. Not sure what you mean here and I am not trying to go off into a debate over religious belief. The facts are that there many controversies in the period of the early church and some of the biggest defenders of Christianity were the Greek Church fathers using platonic philosophy. And yes the crux of that controversy is whether or not "god" was a flesh and blood human along whether this flesh and blood person died and was resurrected. As such all of these controversies were only ironed out as a result of the Roman emperor and the ecumenical councils that established the orthodoxy of the Roman Catholic Church. Keeping in mind that the Eastern and Western churches to this day still have differing views on the "nature" of Jesus Christ and this has nothing to do with Jewish people because they don't believe Jesus is the messiah (god) as seen in the bible itself.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Yes, that Christianity came to Alexandria via St. Mark is a legend that may or may not be true but what is certain is that its establishment came via a process of small missionary communities and the main ones occurred outside of Alexandria due to persecution. Again Origen was a great philosopher but his understanding of Christianity was tainted with Hellenic views that were more Gnostic than Christian which is why he was declared a heretic.
Again, the point here was that it was the formal development of Theology as a subject of study in Alexandria that helped define the core tenets of Christianity and to this day these things are still taught to those studying to be priests in Theological Seminaries as a result of the Greeks. And that theology is not based on literal belief in a flesh and blood Jesus Christ because again the core of the controversy at the time is that "god" cannot be a mortal human and killed because all the various priests of the older religions that were outlawed saw that as sacrilege. And in their mind this idea of a "man" walking the earth as "god" was sacrilege, including the Jews. And in the cosmology and theology of the Greeks, Jesus was the "logos" or incarnation of the idea of a human coming out of the cosmology of ptah in the nile valley or "word made manifest". Meaning a symbol or parable of human "higher" nature. And at that time, among various Greek, Jewish and other platonic theologians, they believed that Christianity was superior to the other "pagan" religions because of its "rational" platonic philosophy and theological discourse. And then after the ecumenical councils the concept of Christ as a flesh and blood being who actually walked the earth was added as a distinction to pagan beliefs in "imaginary" gods.
Again, the point here is this syncretization of various beliefs took place under the Greeks and within the framework of Greek thought and as such some would consider Coptic church of Alexandria with its large population of Greek thinkers the first Church of Christianity as in the Church of Alexandria. However, the problem since then always has been trying to disentangle the history of philosophy and discourses surrounding the development of theology by the Greeks and their influence on early Christian thought. And that is why many find it 'heretical'. I am just pointing out that this Greek element was a major element of the early Christian church and especially the Coptic Church.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The mixture of Greek and Egyptian cosmology, along with Babylonian and Jewish mythology and the eventual development of formal theology took place in Alexandria among primarily Greek scholars. Jews didn't create this syncretization and formalization of religious thought into a discipline and study. And one of the examples of this early syncretization between Greek and Egyptian cosmologies was Serapis. And many would argue the image of Serapis is the prototype of the image of Jesus Christ. Not only that the Jews never believed in Jesus Christ as the messiah as seen in the bible itself. And the early fathers of the Christian Church working out of Alexandria in the Catetechical School of Alexandria were the focus of many so-called 'heretical' sects who attacked them for copying ideas from other religions. And it is response to these arguments that they did not say "he died and rose again", they used rational philosophical arguments rising out of the Greek ideas about theology, such as in the works of Origen, who wrote "Para Celsus".
Christianity did not originate in Alexandria Egypt but in Israel in Jerusalem and Nazareth and from there spread to Syria before it went west into Egypt. In fact the earliest church outside of Israel was in Antioch which was in norther Syria but is today part of Turkey. Christian cosmology and cosmogony came from Judaean or Israelites not Egypt though one can see more similarities to Babylonian cosmogony. Christianity itself is not a syncretic religion but that didn't stop peoples who were mostly pagans from syncretizing as such is a common process in polytheistic religions. Just because there was an identification with or similarities between depictions of Jesus and Serapis does not mean the former was derived from the latter. What's interesting is that years ago Ausar himself pointed out the fact that the early Coptic Church before its pagan syncretizations were purged bore a striking resemblance to Western Voodoo which was a syncretism of West African Vodun with Catholicism. For example some Coptic saints are actually Egyptian deities in disguise.
quote:It was the Romans that made Christianity into what it is by decree and the various ecumenical councils like the Council of Nicea, based on the preceding work done by others including the Greeks in Alexandria and elsewhere.
That is a common fallacy. It was the Romans who made Christianity into their official state or imperial religion but the doctrines of faith were established long before that, and long before the Emperor Constantine I (ca A.D. 280– 337). The purpose of the ecumenical councils was simply to establish to the public what exactly Christianity was in contradistinction to the various heresies that sprouted up claiming to be Christian. The Nicene Creed itself is based on the writings of the Cappadocian Fathers whose teachings were said to come from Paul of Antioch NOT anyone from Alexandria Egypt.
quote:The Jews don't consider Jesus Christ as divine or the messiah. Not sure what you mean here and I am not trying to go off into a debate over religious belief. The facts are that there many controversies in the period of the early church and some of the biggest defenders of Christianity were the Greek Church fathers using platonic philosophy. And yes the crux of that controversy is whether or not "god" was a flesh and blood human along whether this flesh and blood person died and was resurrected. As such all of these controversies were only ironed out as a result of the Roman emperor and the ecumenical councils that established the orthodoxy of the Roman Catholic Church. Keeping in mind that the Eastern and Western churches to this day still have differing views on the "nature" of Jesus Christ and this has nothing to do with Jewish people because they don't believe Jesus is the messiah (god) as seen in the bible itself.
Christianity originated among Judaeans as a sect of Judaean religion not to be confused with modern Rabbinic Judaism. There were several sects of Judaean religion at the time of Jesus mainly the Pharisees, Sadducees, and the Essenes. There is also the religion of the Samaritans which was a northern offshoot of the original Israelite religion whereas Judean religion is the southern arguably more pristine branch. That the early Christians were Judaeans is a no-brainer as even early Christian texts show that there were disputes about Christians attending Synagogues and even allowing Gentiles into the faith without being circumcised. Most folks who are familiar with Christianity should know these elementary and basic facts. The problem was when Gentiles especially Greeks entered the faith and misunderstood or misconstrued or even perverted the faith through their Hellenic views. Though to be fair, long before Christianity there was influence going both ways and even syncretism between Judaeans and Greeks. In fact Gnosticism itself is postulated to likely originate from Judacized Hellenes and/or Hellenized Jews perhaps the most famous was the philosopher Philo Judaeus a.k.a. Philo of Alexandria. However, again Christianity did not come from Alexandria but Israel.
quote: Again, the point here was that it was the formal development of Theology as a subject of study in Alexandria that helped define the core tenets of Christianity and to this day these things are still taught to those studying to be priests in Theological Seminaries as a result of the Greeks. And that theology is not based on literal belief in a flesh and blood Jesus Christ because again the core of the controversy at the time is that "god" cannot be a mortal human and killed because all the various priests of the older religions that were outlawed saw that as sacrilege. And in their mind this idea of a "man" walking the earth as "god" was sacrilege, including the Jews. And in the cosmology and theology of the Greeks, Jesus was the "logos" or incarnation of the idea of a human coming out of the cosmology of ptah in the nile valley or "word made manifest". Meaning a symbol or parable of human "higher" nature. And at that time, among various Greek, Jewish and other platonic theologians, they believed that Christianity was superior to the other "pagan" religions because of its "rational" platonic philosophy and theological discourse. And then after the ecumenical councils the concept of Christ as a flesh and blood being who actually walked the earth was added as a distinction to pagan beliefs in "imaginary" gods.
Again, you obviously know little to nothing about Christianity as its tenets do not come from Alexandria but from Israel and organized in Syria before its arrival to Egypt! Jesus as Messiah WAS a flesh and blood being and the belief was that God can incarnate in flesh. The irony is that you apparently don't know much about Egyptian religion because I'm surprised you didn't acknowledge the echoes in Egyptian religion in the concept of pharaoh or divine king which was widespread in Africa wherein the divine can incarnate in human flesh even though the flesh was mortal and that upon death the king would resurrect in a new celestial flesh! This Egyptian/African belief is manifested in Yeshua/Jesus whose old body was shed to reveal an immortal one. And that Jesus offered this transformation on his believers which is similar to the Osirian religion. Yet again this was formalized outside of Egypt first. The mode of worship as expressed in the Eucharist comes from the Old Testament Canaanite priesthood of Mechizidek in Shalom/Salem which later became Yerushalom/Jerusalem under the Israelites.
quote:Again, the point here is this syncretization of various beliefs took place under the Greeks and within the framework of Greek thought and as such some would consider Coptic church of Alexandria with its large population of Greek thinkers the first Church of Christianity as in the Church of Alexandria. However, the problem since then always has been trying to disentangle the history of philosophy and discourses surrounding the development of theology by the Greeks and their influence on early Christian thought. And that is why many find it 'heretical'. I am just pointing out that this Greek element was a major element of the early Christian church and especially the Coptic Church.
Again, I've never denied syncretism as we see this in modern times with Voodoo. My point is that the original Christian doctrines have nothing to do with Alexandria or Egypt and that Greek influence via Hellenistic philosophy actually contradicts Christian philosophy and leads to ecclesial errors and heresies ala Origen. Again, I suggest you do research on historical Christianity by actually reading the New Testament Letters of the Apostles and looking up the early Church of Antioch.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: That is a common fallacy. It was the Romans who made Christianity into their official state or imperial religion but the doctrines of faith were established long before that, and long before the Emperor Constantine I (ca A.D. 280– 337). The purpose of the ecumenical councils was simply to establish to the public what exactly Christianity was in contradistinction to the various heresies that sprouted up claiming to be Christian. The Nicene Creed itself is based on the writings of the Cappadocian Fathers whose teachings were said to come from Paul of Antioch NOT anyone from Alexandria Egypt.
I am not going to debate you about this because this isn't the thread for it. The point is that the Coptic Church started in Alexandria and was a settlement primarily made up Greeks with a long history of intellectual activity and assimilation of various ideas about everything about gods and religion. The origin of the Coptic Alphabet is as a result of the mixture of Egyptian and Greek languages. All of that predates Christianity and the earliest Christian Church in Africa was founded in Alexandria. The point being that the Greek influence is there and most of the controversies actually arose in the various Church fathers from North Africa, which not coincidentally also had a long history of indigenous religions and cultures before that. Again, these debates and heresies are testament to that and this is acknowledged by the Christians themselves in their own apologetic literature which often makes heavy use of Greek philosophical thought. The point being that "pagan" only comes about after the Roman decrees and councils due to the outlawing of all the various gods and religions that persisted among the Greeks and Roman empires up until this time. Also, the Patriarch (Pope/Bishop) of Alexandra was one of the major "sees" of the Christian Church going back to the first Century AD., second only to the Church of Rome, long before the ecumenical councils. And part of the confusion here goes back to the fact that the Coptic Church and Greek Orthodox church split after the council of Chalcedon. All of that to say that the early Church was heavily infused with Greek thought as a result of the large Greek population in Alexandria at that time. And it is because of that the early church is infused with Greek thought and ideas. For example, the word Pope comes from the Greek word Papas (father) due to the influence of the early Church/Patriarchate of Alexandria. Even more importantly, the word Bishop is derived from the Greek word "episkopos", meaning overseer, which predates Christianity. Also, the oldest surviving examples of the old Testament are written in Greek as well. In addition, "presbyter" is another important word in the structure of the church again going back to the Greek "presbyteros". All of this shows the heavy Greek influence on the structure of the early Church as a result. Again, I am not debating anybody's faith here just the facts of the historic role of Greeks in Alexandria and by extension their role in the early Church as part of "Copic" history and identity.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Christianity originated among Judaeans as a sect of Judaean religion not to be confused with modern Rabbinic Judaism. There were several sects of Judaean religion at the time of Jesus mainly the Pharisees, Sadducees, and the Essenes. There is also the religion of the Samaritans which was a northern offshoot of the original Israelite religion whereas Judean religion is the southern arguably more pristine branch. That the early Christians were Judaeans is a no-brainer as even early Christian texts show that there were disputes about Christians attending Synagogues and even allowing Gentiles into the faith without being circumcised. Most folks who are familiar with Christianity should know these elementary and basic facts. The problem was when Gentiles especially Greeks entered the faith and misunderstood or misconstrued or even perverted the faith through their Hellenic views. Though to be fair, long before Christianity there was influence going both ways and even syncretism between Judaeans and Greeks. In fact Gnosticism itself is postulated to likely originate from Judacized Hellenes and/or Hellenized Jews perhaps the most famous was the philosopher Philo Judaeus a.k.a. Philo of Alexandria. However, again Christianity did not come from Alexandria but Israel.
This is not about the history of the bible per se or what is in it. I am talking about he historic fact that Alexandria was a Greek city where Greek Philosophy and early theology developed and influenced the early church as evidence for the fact that Coptic at that early time represented a mixture of Greek and other populations in Alexandria. Only later did the Greek Orthodox Church split off from the Coptic Church as a result of the Council of Chalcedon based on the disagreements on the Nature of Christ. Again these disagreements have been around since the beginning and I am just pointing out the role of Greek thought with Alexandria one of the major centers even at that late time.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Again, you obviously know little to nothing about Christianity as its tenets do not come from Alexandria but from Israel and organized in Syria before its arrival to Egypt! Jesus as Messiah WAS a flesh and blood being and the belief was that God can incarnate in flesh. The irony is that you apparently don't know much about Egyptian religion because I'm surprised you didn't acknowledge the echoes in Egyptian religion in the concept of pharaoh or divine king which was widespread in Africa wherein the divine can incarnate in human flesh even though the flesh was mortal and that upon death the king would resurrect in a new celestial flesh! This Egyptian/African belief is manifested in Yeshua/Jesus whose old body was shed to reveal an immortal one. And that Jesus offered this transformation on his believers which is similar to the Osirian religion. Yet again this was formalized outside of Egypt first. The mode of worship as expressed in the Eucharist comes from the Old Testament Canaanite priesthood of Mechizidek in Shalom/Salem which later became Yerushalom/Jerusalem under the Israelites.
Again, like I said the earliest extant works of the Old Testament are written in Greek which is testimony to my point that Greek Alexandria was a major center of intellectual activity of the Time and a major influence on the early church and the "coptic" church at that time would have represented the Church of Alexandria with its large Greek population. I am not debating what is in the bible. Two totally separate and different things.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Again, I've never denied syncretism as we see this in modern times with Voodoo. My point is that the original Christian doctrines have nothing to do with Alexandria or Egypt and that Greek influence via Hellenistic philosophy actually contradicts Christian philosophy and leads to ecclesial errors and heresies ala Origen. Again, I suggest you do research on historical Christianity by actually reading the New Testament Letters of the Apostles and looking up the early Church of Antioch.
I think you are confusing my point. The early Church of Alexanria heavily influenced by the Greeks as Alexandra was founded by Greeks. And the coptic church and "coptics" arises from that history. Both the Coptic Church and Greek Orthodox Chuch attest to this. I am only speaking of this mixture of Greek and Egyptian history and people as a part of that "Coptic" identity.
Also, another point to make is that the Septuagint is not considered by many Rabbinical scholars to be authentic text. And there are many debates and controversies about that as well. What we see in Christianity as the "old testament" is the result of the Ptolemies writing translations of Jewish texts in Alexandria and everybody doesn't see them as "authentic".
^ I think you have some sort of misunderstanding. Nowhere did I deny Greek influence on Christianity. I made it clear that Christianity began amongst Hellenized Jews but not in Alexandria or Egypt. The tenets of Christianity began in Israel and then spread to Syria first before Egypt. I don't deny that Alexandria was an early center of Christianity especially when it came to translating Aramaic and Hebrew texts into Greece. Ironically it was in Alexandria where a lot of Hellenic heresy crept in which is why even the church father Origen was denounced as such.
Also, Rabbinic authorities reject the Septuagint because among several reasons they view it as the texts of Christians and saw to separate Jewish texts from Christian texts with the former being based on Masoretic though the differences were actually very few though significant. Among the differences, the Septuagint includes the Deuterocanon or Inter-testament such as the Book of Maccabees which is what the Jewish Holiday of Hannukah is based as well as a slightly longer version of Esther which many Rabbis cite which is the irony. the majority of Jews today especially in the West are Talmudic Jews who include the Talmud as holy scripture. Only a small minority of Jews are Karaite Jews who only follow the Tanakh (Old Testament) and reject the Talmud and for this the Karaites were themselves persecuted by the Talmudists for much of history. The irony is that the Masoretic Tanakh texts were transcribed by the Karaites while the Inter-testament books of the Septuagint are referenced by Talmudic rabbis.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I think you have some sort of misunderstanding. Nowhere did I deny Greek influence on Christianity. I made it clear that Christianity began amongst Hellenized Jews but not in Alexandria or Egypt. The tenets of Christianity began in Israel and then spread to Syria first before Egypt. I don't deny that Alexandria was an early center of Christianity especially when it came to translating Aramaic and Hebrew texts into Greece. Ironically it was in Alexandria where a lot of Hellenic heresy crept in which is why even the church father Origen was denounced as such.
Also, Rabbinic authorities reject the Septuagint because among several reasons they view it as the texts of Christians and saw to separate Jewish texts from Christian texts with the former being based on Masoretic though the differences were actually very few though significant. Among the differences, the Septuagint includes the Deuterocanon or Inter-testament such as the Book of Maccabees which is what the Jewish Holiday of Hannukah is based as well as a slightly longer version of Esther which many Rabbis cite which is the irony. the majority of Jews today especially in the West are Talmudic Jews who include the Talmud as holy scripture. Only a small minority of Jews are Karaite Jews who only follow the Tanakh (Old Testament) and reject the Talmud and for this the Karaites were themselves persecuted by the Talmudists for much of history. The irony is that the Masoretic Tanakh texts were transcribed by the Karaites while the Inter-testament books of the Septuagint are referenced by Talmudic rabbis.
I get it, but my point was that the Coptic Church and "the Copts" represented a mixture of Greek and Egyptian elements among others. This is still true even though obviously there are not only Greeks involved. And the only reason I mentioned Alexandria was because of its history as a Greek enclave with a mixture of traditions from long before Christianity. This history of blending of ideas and cultures is part of the reason why the "platonic school" was still dominant even in the early church of Alexandria during Origen's time. And it is from that mixture of ideas that came the field of theology as we know it. This is partly due to the various Greek scholars at Alexandria and elsewhere having philosophical debates about ideas and texts from other writers, cultures and eras as part of the nature of Greek syncretism which again means mixture. This is the reason why the old testament was written in Greek because the Greek Empire had a standard policy of taking texts to Alexandria for translation to Greek to use in learning and understanding. Thus making it a clearinghouse of knowledge and history for use in intellectual activities. And yes, it is precisely because this history that you got these later debates and schisms. The primary reason being that Christianity built itself as the "one true religion" whereas before that all other religions within the empire were allowed to coexist along with various sects and offshoots of early Christianity and Judaism.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wally:
Purest Descendants of the Pharaohs?
This has been a constant slogan of Egypt's Coptic church (the Greek elite?) but it is of course nonsense. The purest descendant's of the Pharaohs are the Egyptian fellaheen or Rural Egyptians, especially those of the Nile Valley. Because of this, and because of the confusion surrounding "Copts," I have updated a page on my website:
Virtually all Egyptologists and anthropologists agree that the Ancient Egyptians belonged to the same ethnic sub grouping, usually referred to as 'Hamites,' as the Somali, Galla (Oromo), Beja, Afar (Danakil), etc. - peoples of northeast Africa. We would also include the Wolof of Senegal, and of course modern Egyptians of the Nile Valley, especially the Fellaheen or Rural Egyptians, and the Nubians.
People don't distinguish between who may be biologically similar to an ancient Egyptian from who might actually have dynastic Egyptians in their ancestral bloodline
Nevertheless three has since been DNA analysis of mummies that came after the above Wally commentary from 2004 although still not enough to resolve the issue, also DNA studies that include Copts _________________________
According to Y-DNA analysis by Hassan et al. (2008), around 21% of Copts in Sudan (who are considered recent migrants from Egypt, within 500 years) carry the E1b1b clade
Posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The mixture of Greek and Egyptian cosmology, along with Babylonian and Jewish mythology and the eventual development of formal theology took place in Alexandria among primarily Greek scholars. Jews didn't create this syncretization and formalization of religious thought into a discipline and study. And one of the examples of this early syncretization between Greek and Egyptian cosmologies was Serapis. And many would argue the image of Serapis is the prototype of the image of Jesus Christ. Not only that the Jews never believed in Jesus Christ as the messiah as seen in the bible itself. And the early fathers of the Christian Church working out of Alexandria in the Catetechical School of Alexandria were the focus of many so-called 'heretical' sects who attacked them for copying ideas from other religions. And it is response to these arguments that they did not say "he died and rose again", they used rational philosophical arguments rising out of the Greek ideas about theology, such as in the works of Origen, who wrote "Para Celsus".
Christianity did not originate in Alexandria Egypt but in Israel in Jerusalem and Nazareth and from there spread to Syria before it went west into Egypt. In fact the earliest church outside of Israel was in Antioch which was in norther Syria but is today part of Turkey. Christian cosmology and cosmogony came from Judaean or Israelites not Egypt though one can see more similarities to Babylonian cosmogony. Christianity itself is not a syncretic religion but that didn't stop peoples who were mostly pagans from syncretizing as such is a common process in polytheistic religions. Just because there was an identification with or similarities between depictions of Jesus and Serapis does not mean the former was derived from the latter. What's interesting is that years ago Ausar himself pointed out the fact that the early Coptic Church before its pagan syncretizations were purged bore a striking resemblance to Western Voodoo which was a syncretism of West African Vodun with Catholicism. For example some Coptic saints are actually Egyptian deities in disguise.
quote:It was the Romans that made Christianity into what it is by decree and the various ecumenical councils like the Council of Nicea, based on the preceding work done by others including the Greeks in Alexandria and elsewhere.
That is a common fallacy. It was the Romans who made Christianity into their official state or imperial religion but the doctrines of faith were established long before that, and long before the Emperor Constantine I (ca A.D. 280– 337). The purpose of the ecumenical councils was simply to establish to the public what exactly Christianity was in contradistinction to the various heresies that sprouted up claiming to be Christian. The Nicene Creed itself is based on the writings of the Cappadocian Fathers whose teachings were said to come from Paul of Antioch NOT anyone from Alexandria Egypt.
quote:The Jews don't consider Jesus Christ as divine or the messiah. Not sure what you mean here and I am not trying to go off into a debate over religious belief. The facts are that there many controversies in the period of the early church and some of the biggest defenders of Christianity were the Greek Church fathers using platonic philosophy. And yes the crux of that controversy is whether or not "god" was a flesh and blood human along whether this flesh and blood person died and was resurrected. As such all of these controversies were only ironed out as a result of the Roman emperor and the ecumenical councils that established the orthodoxy of the Roman Catholic Church. Keeping in mind that the Eastern and Western churches to this day still have differing views on the "nature" of Jesus Christ and this has nothing to do with Jewish people because they don't believe Jesus is the messiah (god) as seen in the bible itself.
Christianity originated among Judaeans as a sect of Judaean religion not to be confused with modern Rabbinic Judaism. There were several sects of Judaean religion at the time of Jesus mainly the Pharisees, Sadducees, and the Essenes. There is also the religion of the Samaritans which was a northern offshoot of the original Israelite religion whereas Judean religion is the southern arguably more pristine branch. That the early Christians were Judaeans is a no-brainer as even early Christian texts show that there were disputes about Christians attending Synagogues and even allowing Gentiles into the faith without being circumcised. Most folks who are familiar with Christianity should know these elementary and basic facts. The problem was when Gentiles especially Greeks entered the faith and misunderstood or misconstrued or even perverted the faith through their Hellenic views. Though to be fair, long before Christianity there was influence going both ways and even syncretism between Judaeans and Greeks. In fact Gnosticism itself is postulated to likely originate from Judacized Hellenes and/or Hellenized Jews perhaps the most famous was the philosopher Philo Judaeus a.k.a. Philo of Alexandria. However, again Christianity did not come from Alexandria but Israel.
quote: Again, the point here was that it was the formal development of Theology as a subject of study in Alexandria that helped define the core tenets of Christianity and to this day these things are still taught to those studying to be priests in Theological Seminaries as a result of the Greeks. And that theology is not based on literal belief in a flesh and blood Jesus Christ because again the core of the controversy at the time is that "god" cannot be a mortal human and killed because all the various priests of the older religions that were outlawed saw that as sacrilege. And in their mind this idea of a "man" walking the earth as "god" was sacrilege, including the Jews. And in the cosmology and theology of the Greeks, Jesus was the "logos" or incarnation of the idea of a human coming out of the cosmology of ptah in the nile valley or "word made manifest". Meaning a symbol or parable of human "higher" nature. And at that time, among various Greek, Jewish and other platonic theologians, they believed that Christianity was superior to the other "pagan" religions because of its "rational" platonic philosophy and theological discourse. And then after the ecumenical councils the concept of Christ as a flesh and blood being who actually walked the earth was added as a distinction to pagan beliefs in "imaginary" gods.
Again, you obviously know little to nothing about Christianity as its tenets do not come from Alexandria but from Israel and organized in Syria before its arrival to Egypt! Jesus as Messiah WAS a flesh and blood being and the belief was that God can incarnate in flesh. The irony is that you apparently don't know much about Egyptian religion because I'm surprised you didn't acknowledge the echoes in Egyptian religion in the concept of pharaoh or divine king which was widespread in Africa wherein the divine can incarnate in human flesh even though the flesh was mortal and that upon death the king would resurrect in a new celestial flesh! This Egyptian/African belief is manifested in Yeshua/Jesus whose old body was shed to reveal an immortal one. And that Jesus offered this transformation on his believers which is similar to the Osirian religion. Yet again this was formalized outside of Egypt first. The mode of worship as expressed in the Eucharist comes from the Old Testament Canaanite priesthood of Mechizidek in Shalom/Salem which later became Yerushalom/Jerusalem under the Israelites.
quote:Again, the point here is this syncretization of various beliefs took place under the Greeks and within the framework of Greek thought and as such some would consider Coptic church of Alexandria with its large population of Greek thinkers the first Church of Christianity as in the Church of Alexandria. However, the problem since then always has been trying to disentangle the history of philosophy and discourses surrounding the development of theology by the Greeks and their influence on early Christian thought. And that is why many find it 'heretical'. I am just pointing out that this Greek element was a major element of the early Christian church and especially the Coptic Church.
Again, I've never denied syncretism as we see this in modern times with Voodoo. My point is that the original Christian doctrines have nothing to do with Alexandria or Egypt and that Greek influence via Hellenistic philosophy actually contradicts Christian philosophy and leads to ecclesial errors and heresies ala Origen. Again, I suggest you do research on historical Christianity by actually reading the New Testament Letters of the Apostles and looking up the early Church of Antioch.
You are indeed correct on several counts, and what you say is backed by credible references such as the Cambridge History of Christianity. Nobody had to wait around for Rome, the Pope or assorted church councils to "write up" or dictate what are considered to be the central Christian scriptures or writings. The writings of the Apostle Paul, which appeared within 50 years or so of the death of Christ, and make up over half the New Testament lays out the central doctrines. Other writings from an early time refer to the beliefs and practices of the followers of "Chrestus" "Christus" etc (renderings and pronunciations vary), and even hostile early detractors such as the historian Tacitus indicate that said followers had a definite set of rites and beliefs- deemed "mischievous" from his point of view. Hence Nero to divert attention from blame for setting the fire in Rome carried out a great persecution of the CHristians circa 64-65AD, holds Tacitus. He also confirms that said "Christus" indeed lived and was executed by Pontius Pilate. Suetonius another ancient Roman court historian notes that followers of "CHrestus" were expelled from Rome under Claudius due to disturbances among the Jews caused by their doctrine. Thus even hostile detractors like said Jews understood the disturbing doctrine and beliefs of said followers well enough to cause riot and tumult sufficient to get the Roman authorities involved. Thus nobody was waiting around for church councils 200-300 years later to come up with the doctrines that formed the foundations of the faith.
In any event the Letters of Paul and the earliest documents in Christianity and they were in place within a few decades of the death of Christ, and Christians held them to be their scriptures along with the Old Testament. The fact that somebody centuries later, packaged them into a book and called the book "the Bible", or the fact that as the faith spread in later centuries there was a need for standardization and defense, does not at all change the fact that the core doctrines, and apostolic writers and their disciples, were well understood, accepted and accepted by the earliest Christians. Nobody needed the pope. As the Cambridge Encyclopedia notes:
"It is also clear that our earliest Christian documents, namely the Pauline epistles, bear witness to the rapid incorporation of non-Jews into the community of believers in Jesus Christ.."
and
"The earliest and most important sources for Gentile Christianity are the seven authentic letters written by Paul c.50–60 to assemblies of Christians: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians and Philemon. The next two generations of Gentile mission foundations can be traced through an epistolary tradition that takes Paul as its foundation:19 letters written by his admirers in the 70s–90s (2 Thessalonians, Colossians, Ephesians, 1 Clement, Hebrews), and still others from the first decades of the second century( thePastoral Epistles, letters of Ignatius of Antioch, ofPolycarp, Barnabas). The earliest extant Christian narratives – the Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew and Luke), which were probably written between c.70 and 100 ce – all three presume a Gentile mission and Jesus’ conformity with it, although in different ways they reflect the tensions between the Jewish roots of the founder and early movement, and its now predominantly Gentile face.20"
FROM: Cambridge History of Christianity, Volume 1_ Origins to Constantine (2006)
But even if we are to set aside the Encyclopedia, the Wikipedia article "Biblical Canon" confirms the case:
"Writings attributed to the apostles circulated among the earliest Christian communities. The Pauline epistles were circulating in collected forms by the end of the 1st century AD. Justin Martyr, in the early 2nd century, mentions the "memoirs of the Apostles", which Christians (Greek: Χριστιανός) called "gospels", and which were considered to be authoritatively equal to the Old Testament.[26]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Christian_canons Posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Djehuti says: I get it, but my point was that the Coptic Church and "the Copts" represented a mixture of Greek and Egyptian elements among others. This is still true even though obviously there are not only Greeks involved.
Indeed. The Copts do have some links with Egypt but the claims of being pure, direct descendants of AE, as loudly proclaimed in some quarters is dubious.
Y-Chromosome Variation Among Sudanese: Restricted Gene Flow, Concordance With Language, Geography, and History
quote: "The relatively high-effective population size of the Copts is unlikely to have been influenced by their recent history in the Sudan. The current communities are known to be largely the product of recent migrations from Egypt over the past two centuries. The Copt samples displayed a most interesting Y-profile, enough (as much as that of Gaalien in Sudan) to suggest that they actually represent a living record of the peopling of Egypt. The significant frequency of B-M60 in this group might be a relic of a history of colonization of southern Egypt probably by Nilotics in the early state formation"
The relatively high-effective population size of the Copts is unlikely to have been influenced by their recent history in the Sudan. The current communities are known to be largely the product of recent migrations from Egypt over the past two centuries.
__________________________________
More quotes from the same article:
The Copt samples displayed a most interesting Y-profile, enough (as much as that of Gaalien in Sudan) to suggest that they actually represent a living record of the peopling of Egypt. The significant frequency of B-M60 in this group might be a relic of a history of colonization of southern Egypt probably by Nilotics in the early state formation, something that conforms both to recorded history and to Egyptian mythology.
RESULTS Y-haplogroup diversity Haplogroup frequencies in 15 Sudanese populations are given in Figure 2 following YCC nomenclature (2002). Haplogroups A-M13 and B-M60 are present at high frequencies in Nilo-Saharan groups except Nubians, with low frequencies in Afro-Asiatic groups although notable frequencies of B-M60 were found in Hausa (15.6%) and Copts (15.2%)
____________________________
You highlight haplogroup B-M60 in the blue box, yet the article says that is not found in Nubians but it is in Nilo-Saharans
But this haplogroup is only found in Egypt about 2% accroding to Wood 2005, "Contrasting patterns of Y chromosome and mtDNA variation in Africa: evidence for sex-biased demographic processes"
It was found at high frequency in a study on Siwa people though
However since Hassan had made that remark on B-M60 none of the genetic analysis on mummies have found haplogroup B and I don't recall it being mentioned. I don't thinks there is strong evidence yet since 2008 for Hassan suggesting B-M60 is associated in a significant way with ancient Egypt. Yet Copts also bear haplogroup E and R1b, which were found in Ramesess III and the Amarna mummies respectively (both post-Hassan 2008)
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova: You are indeed correct on several counts, and what you say is backed by credible references such as the Cambridge History of Christianity. Nobody had to wait around for Rome, the Pope or assorted church councils to "write up" or dictate what are considered to be the central Christian scriptures or writings. The writings of the Apostle Paul, which appeared within 70 years of the death of Christ, and make up over half the New Testament lays out the central doctrines. Other writings from an early time refer to the beliefs and practices of the followers of "Chrestus" "Christus" etc (renderings and pronunciations vary), and even hostile early detractors such as the historian Tacitus indicate that said followers had a definite set of rites and beliefs- deemed "mischievous" from his point of view. Hence Nero to divert attention from blame for setting the fire in Rome carried out a great persecution of the CHristians circa 64-65AD, holds Tacitus. He also confirms that said "Christus" indeed lived and was executed by Pontius Pilate. Suetonius another ancient Roman court historian notes that followers of "CHrestus" were expelled from Rome under Claudius due to disturbances among the Jews caused by their doctrine. Thus even hostile detractors like said Jews understood the disturbing doctrine and beliefs of said followers well enough to cause riot and tumult sufficient to get the Roman authorities involved. Thus nobody was waiting around for church councils 200-300 years later to come up with the doctrines that formed the foundations of the faith.
In any event the Letters of Paul and the earliest documents in Christianity and they were in place within a few decades of the death of Christ, and Christians held them to be their scriptures along with the Old Testament. The fact that somebody centuries later, packaged them into a book and called the book "the Bible", or the fact that as the faith spread in later centuries there was a need for standardization and defense, does not at all change the fact that the core doctrines, and apostolic writers and their disciples, were well understood, accepted and accepted by the earliest Christians. Nobody needed the pope. As the Cambridge Encyclopedia notes:
"It is also clear that our earliest Christian documents, namely the Pauline epistles, bear witness to the rapid incorporation of non-Jews into the community of believers in Jesus Christ.."
and
"The earliest and most important sources for Gentile Christianity are the seven authentic letters written by Paul c.50–60 to assemblies of Christians: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians and Philemon. The next two generations of Gentile mission foundations can be traced through an epistolary tradition that takes Paul as its foundation:19 letters written by his admirers in the 70s–90s (2 Thessalonians, Colossians, Ephesians, 1 Clement, Hebrews), and still others from the first decades of the second century( thePastoral Epistles, letters of Ignatius of Antioch, ofPolycarp, Barnabas). The earliest extant Christian narratives – the Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew and Luke), which were probably written between c.70 and 100 ce – all three presume a Gentile mission and Jesus’ conformity with it, although in different ways they reflect the tensions between the Jewish roots of the founder and early movement, and its now predominantly Gentile face.20"
FROM: Cambridge History of Christianity, Volume 1_ Origins to Constantine (2006)
But even if we are to set aside the Encyclopedia, the Wikipedia article "Biblical Canon" confirms the case:
"Writings attributed to the apostles circulated among the earliest Christian communities. The Pauline epistles were circulating in collected forms by the end of the 1st century AD. Justin Martyr, in the early 2nd century, mentions the "memoirs of the Apostles", which Christians (Greek: Χριστιανός) called "gospels", and which were considered to be authoritatively equal to the Old Testament.[26]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Christian_canons
I just want to call out again, that Judaism and Christianity are two totally separate forms of faith and Judaism does not accept Jesus Christ as the messiah nor do they accept the new testament as part of Hebrew canon outside of Messianic Judaism. And again, it is the Greeks who played a large role in formulating the cannon of Christianity in Alexandria and elsewhere. And this is as evidenced by all the excavated books of the old and new testament found in the Nile Valley and elsewhere written in Greek. Again as testament to the history and role of Greeks in Egypt and the Mediterranean. Keep in mind the word Christ is actually Greek and one of the oldest concepts of the church is Christ "the logos" which is a fundamental aspect of Christian theology.
Y-Chromosome Variation Among Sudanese: Restricted Gene Flow, Concordance With Language, Geography, and History
quote: "The relatively high-effective population size of the Copts is unlikely to have been influenced by their recent history in the Sudan. The current communities are known to be largely the product of recent migrations from Egypt over the past two centuries. The Copt samples displayed a most interesting Y-profile, enough (as much as that of Gaalien in Sudan) to suggest that they actually represent a living record of the peopling of Egypt. The significant frequency of B-M60 in this group might be a relic of a history of colonization of southern Egypt probably by Nilotics in the early state formation"
The relatively high-effective population size of the Copts is unlikely to have been influenced by their recent history in the Sudan. The current communities are known to be largely the product of recent migrations from Egypt over the past two centuries.
__________________________________
More quotes from the same article:
The Copt samples displayed a most interesting Y-profile, enough (as much as that of Gaalien in Sudan) to suggest that they actually represent a living record of the peopling of Egypt. The significant frequency of B-M60 in this group might be a relic of a history of colonization of southern Egypt probably by Nilotics in the early state formation, something that conforms both to recorded history and to Egyptian mythology.
RESULTS Y-haplogroup diversity Haplogroup frequencies in 15 Sudanese populations are given in Figure 2 following YCC nomenclature (2002). Haplogroups A-M13 and B-M60 are present at high frequencies in Nilo-Saharan groups except Nubians, with low frequencies in Afro-Asiatic groups although notable frequencies of B-M60 were found in Hausa (15.6%) and Copts (15.2%)
____________________________
You highlight haplogroup B-M60 in the blue box, yet the article says that is not found in Nubians but it is in Nilo-Saharans
But this haplogroup is only found in Egypt about 2% accroding to Wood 2005, "Contrasting patterns of Y chromosome and mtDNA variation in Africa: evidence for sex-biased demographic processes"
It was found at high frequency in a study on Siwa people though
However since Hassan had made that remark on B-M60 none of the genetic analysis on mummies have found haplogroup B and I don't recall it being mentioned. I don't thinks there is strong evidence yet since 2008 for Hassan suggesting B-M60 is associated in a significant way with ancient Egypt. Yet Copts also bear haplogroup E and R1b, which were found in Ramesess III and the Amarna mummies respectively (both post-Hassan 2008)
"Accordingly, through limited on number of aDNA samples, there is enough data to suggest and to tally with the historical evidence of the dominance by Nilotic elements during the early state formation in the Nile Valley , and as the states thrived there was a dominance by other elements particularly Nuba/Nubians"
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Big O: "Accordingly, through limited on number of aDNA samples, there is enough data to suggest and to tally with the historical evidence of the dominance by Nilotic elements during the early state formation in the Nile Valley , and as the states thrived there was a dominance by other elements particularly Nuba/Nubians" [/QB]
^^ This quote is from the below, with some of the same information mentioning Copts Hassan would be published later in 2008 under peer review. Below the parts not included by realhistory (Note: the below is 231 pages, I was not able to search the PDF easily for keywords until I downloaded it by hitting the icon on the upper right of the PDF and then looking at the downloaded version with by reader, then it worked perfectly) .
Genetic Patterns of Y-chromosome and Mitochondrial DNA Variation
Hisham Yousif Hassan Mohamed B.sc. (Honors) of Zoology, University of Khartoum, 1999 Upgrading to PhD. Institute of Endemic Diseases, 2004 Thesis Submitted for the Fulfillment of Requirements for Philosophy Degree of Science in Molecular Biology
IX
Accordingly, through limited on number of aDNA samples, there is enough data to suggest and to tally with the historical evidence of the dominance by Nilotic elements during the early state formation in the Nile Valley, and as the states thrived there was a dominance by other elements particularly Nuba/Nubians
146
Another population with a relatively high effective population size that is unlikely to have been influenced by their recent past history in the Sudan are the Copts. Although the history of Copts in Nubia began earlier after the conversion of Nubians from polytheism to Christianity in the 6th Century (Sudan Studies Association, 2006). After the 7th Century barriers of languages and genes kept both populations relatively isolated. The Copts population had a most intersting Y profile enough as much as that of the Gaalien for the Sudan, to suggest that they actually represent a living record of the peopling of Egypt. The significant frequency of the B-M60 in this groups might be a relic of a history of coloniziation of southern Egypt probably by Nilotics in the early state formation something that conforms to the recorded history and mythology of Egypt
75
Haplogroups A-M13 and B-M60 are present at high frequencies in Nilo-Saharan speaking groups except Nubians, and with low frequencies in Afro-Asiatic speaking groups although notable frequencies of B-M60 were found in Hausa (15.6%) and Copts (15.2%). Both haplogroups were absent in Fulani.
142
For extant DNA, the PCA plot of Y-chromosome defines two major genetic episodes for Sudanese populations who speak Nilo-Saharan languages , one is the predominance of haplogroup A-M13 and B-M60 among those groups and the other is defined by the other important haplogroup which is the E-M78. The frequency and wide spread of haplogroups A-M13 and B-M60 makes an excellent marker for early events in population affinities. And to test for hypothesis such as whether the Nilotics have a continuous history in the Sudan and East Africa or whether there was a re-entery to the Nile basin from the Great Sahara following the deterioration of the climate in that region. Haplogroup B-M60 appears to be more characteristic to the Nile Valley as being more associated with populations along the Nile and may equally give clues into past demographic events.
Posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: zarahan this Copt graphics is not very updated
Y-Chromosome Variation Among Sudanese: Restricted Gene Flow, Concordance With Language, Geography, and History
quote: "The relatively high-effective population size of the Copts is unlikely to have been influenced by their recent history in the Sudan. The current communities are known to be largely the product of recent migrations from Egypt over the past two centuries. The Copt samples displayed a most interesting Y-profile, enough (as much as that of Gaalien in Sudan) to suggest that they actually represent a living record of the peopling of Egypt. The significant frequency of B-M60 in this group might be a relic of a history of colonization of southern Egypt probably by Nilotics in the early state formation"
The relatively high-effective population size of the Copts is unlikely to have been influenced by their recent history in the Sudan. The current communities are known to be largely the product of recent migrations from Egypt over the past two centuries.
__________________________________
More quotes from the same article:
The Copt samples displayed a most interesting Y-profile, enough (as much as that of Gaalien in Sudan) to suggest that they actually represent a living record of the peopling of Egypt. The significant frequency of B-M60 in this group might be a relic of a history of colonization of southern Egypt probably by Nilotics in the early state formation, something that conforms both to recorded history and to Egyptian mythology.
RESULTS Y-haplogroup diversity Haplogroup frequencies in 15 Sudanese populations are given in Figure 2 following YCC nomenclature (2002). Haplogroups A-M13 and B-M60 are present at high frequencies in Nilo-Saharan groups except Nubians, with low frequencies in Afro-Asiatic groups although notable frequencies of B-M60 were found in Hausa (15.6%) and Copts (15.2%)
____________________________
You highlight haplogroup B-M60 in the blue box, yet the article says that is not found in Nubians but it is in Nilo-Saharans
But this haplogroup is only found in Egypt about 2% accroding to Wood 2005, "Contrasting patterns of Y chromosome and mtDNA variation in Africa: evidence for sex-biased demographic processes"
It was found at high frequency in a study on Siwa people though
However since Hassan had made that remark on B-M60 none of the genetic analysis on mummies have found haplogroup B and I don't recall it being mentioned. I don't thinks there is strong evidence yet since 2008 for Hassan suggesting B-M60 is associated in a significant way with ancient Egypt. Yet Copts also bear haplogroup E and R1b, which were found in Ramesess III and the Amarna mummies respectively (both post-Hassan 2008)
B-M60 in the blue box says exactly what it says- related mostly to Nilo-Saharans, but per Wiki article Haplogroup B, it also appears among the Nubians. Some Nubians of course do speak Nilo-Saharan.
"According to one study of the Y-DNA of populations in Sudan, haplogroup B-M60 is found in approximately 30% (16/53) of Southern Sudanese, 16% (5/32) of local Hausa people, 14% (4/28) of the Nuba of central Sudan, 3.7% (8/216) of Northern Sudanese (but only among Copts and Nubians), and 2.2% (2/90) of Western Sudanese.[7] According to another study, haplogroup B is found in approximately 15% of Sudanese males, including 12.5% (5/40) B2a1a1a1 (M109/M152) and 2.5% (1/40) B-M60(xM146, M150, M112).[9]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_B-M60
Do you have other refs on the Copts and "E" in addition to Hassan?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
There is no evidence to say that B-M60 is related to early state formation of Egypt
Posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova: You are indeed correct on several counts, and what you say is backed by credible references such as the Cambridge History of Christianity. Nobody had to wait around for Rome, the Pope or assorted church councils to "write up" or dictate what are considered to be the central Christian scriptures or writings. The writings of the Apostle Paul, which appeared within 70 years of the death of Christ, and make up over half the New Testament lays out the central doctrines. Other writings from an early time refer to the beliefs and practices of the followers of "Chrestus" "Christus" etc (renderings and pronunciations vary), and even hostile early detractors such as the historian Tacitus indicate that said followers had a definite set of rites and beliefs- deemed "mischievous" from his point of view. Hence Nero to divert attention from blame for setting the fire in Rome carried out a great persecution of the CHristians circa 64-65AD, holds Tacitus. He also confirms that said "Christus" indeed lived and was executed by Pontius Pilate. Suetonius another ancient Roman court historian notes that followers of "CHrestus" were expelled from Rome under Claudius due to disturbances among the Jews caused by their doctrine. Thus even hostile detractors like said Jews understood the disturbing doctrine and beliefs of said followers well enough to cause riot and tumult sufficient to get the Roman authorities involved. Thus nobody was waiting around for church councils 200-300 years later to come up with the doctrines that formed the foundations of the faith.
In any event the Letters of Paul and the earliest documents in Christianity and they were in place within a few decades of the death of Christ, and Christians held them to be their scriptures along with the Old Testament. The fact that somebody centuries later, packaged them into a book and called the book "the Bible", or the fact that as the faith spread in later centuries there was a need for standardization and defense, does not at all change the fact that the core doctrines, and apostolic writers and their disciples, were well understood, accepted and accepted by the earliest Christians. Nobody needed the pope. As the Cambridge Encyclopedia notes:
"It is also clear that our earliest Christian documents, namely the Pauline epistles, bear witness to the rapid incorporation of non-Jews into the community of believers in Jesus Christ.."
and
"The earliest and most important sources for Gentile Christianity are the seven authentic letters written by Paul c.50–60 to assemblies of Christians: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians and Philemon. The next two generations of Gentile mission foundations can be traced through an epistolary tradition that takes Paul as its foundation:19 letters written by his admirers in the 70s–90s (2 Thessalonians, Colossians, Ephesians, 1 Clement, Hebrews), and still others from the first decades of the second century( thePastoral Epistles, letters of Ignatius of Antioch, ofPolycarp, Barnabas). The earliest extant Christian narratives – the Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew and Luke), which were probably written between c.70 and 100 ce – all three presume a Gentile mission and Jesus’ conformity with it, although in different ways they reflect the tensions between the Jewish roots of the founder and early movement, and its now predominantly Gentile face.20"
FROM: Cambridge History of Christianity, Volume 1_ Origins to Constantine (2006)
But even if we are to set aside the Encyclopedia, the Wikipedia article "Biblical Canon" confirms the case:
"Writings attributed to the apostles circulated among the earliest Christian communities. The Pauline epistles were circulating in collected forms by the end of the 1st century AD. Justin Martyr, in the early 2nd century, mentions the "memoirs of the Apostles", which Christians (Greek: Χριστιανός) called "gospels", and which were considered to be authoritatively equal to the Old Testament.[26]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Christian_canons
I just want to call out again, that Judaism and Christianity are two totally separate forms of faith and Judaism does not accept Jesus Christ as the messiah nor do they accept the new testament as part of Hebrew canon outside of Messianic Judaism. And again, it is the Greeks who played a large role in formulating the cannon of Christianity in Alexandria and elsewhere. And this is as evidenced by all the excavated books of the old and new testament found in the Nile Valley and elsewhere written in Greek. Again as testament to the history and role of Greeks in Egypt and the Mediterranean. Keep in mind the word Christ is actually Greek and one of the oldest concepts of the church is Christ "the logos" which is a fundamental aspect of Christian theology.
Agreed, Judaism and Christianity, though related closely on some points are 2 clearly distinct faiths.
What you say though re Greek philosophy playing a large role in formulating the canon of Christianity is not true, or only applies in small part centuries later AFTER the foundational writings and understandings were in place- a foundational canon well established on the ground and accepted a such by the masses of believers. Recommend you look more at credible, stable scholarly references, stronger than Wikipedia or Youtube those these can yield some relevant info. In any event as shown below- even Wikipedia confirms the case I state.
Any supposed "canon" formulations for the Hellenistic zone mostly came AFTER the basic foundation writings were already in place as credible scholars shown above demonstrate. You or someone mentioned Origen above, but Origen came along some 150- 200 years AFTER the basic foundational writings were already in place.
The religious website you give (newadvent) does not support any Greek "cut and paste" so to speak, of the original foundations. If anything it shows that the "Greek" thing came along LATER from the outside and was an influence for some church figures, that often contributed to what the mainstream deemed heresy. Note they say SUBSEQUENT" history, and "HELLENIC SPECULATIONS" below. Quote:
"In the subsequent history of Christian theology many conflicts would naturally arise between these rival concepts, and Hellenic speculations constitute a dangerous temptation for Christian writers. They were hardly tempted, of course, to make the Divine Logos an impersonal power (the Incarnation too definitely forbade this), but they were at times moved, more or less consciously, to consider the Word as an intermediary being between God and the world. Hence arose the subordinationist tendencies found in certain Ante-Nicene writers; hence, also, the Arian heresy (see COUNCIL OF NICAEA).” --NewAdvent.org
You mentioned the Logos ruminations and debates, and this can tie into Greek philosophizing, but even your own web reference says that the concept is already present and established in the Pauline and Johanine writings long BEFORE any Greek cut and pasters showed up, or any church councils convened centuries later. QUOTE:
"The term Logos is found only in the Johannine writings: in the Apocalypse (19:13), in the Gospel of St. John (1:1-14), and in his First Epistle (1:1; cf. 1:7 - Vulgate). But already in the Epistles of St. Paul the theology of the Logos had made its influence felt. This is seen in the Epistles to the Corinthians, where Christ is called "the power of God, and the wisdom of God" (1 Corinthians 1:24) and "the image of God" (2 Corinthians 4:4); it is more evident in the Epistle to the Colossians (1:15 sqq.); above all in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where the theology of the Logos lacks only the term itself, that finally appears in St. John."
In short no popes, councils or Greek cut and pasters are needed to establish the concept in clear foundation writings. These may have centuries later on formally compiled and given a label like "the Bible" but they were already in place from the beginning of the church.
So yeah later on there may have been plenty of Greek rumination, speculation, philosophizing or debating, but that does not change the fact of the settled core foundations. Were there other claimants wanting to get in on the action? Sure like everywhere multiple claimants may claim this and that, but their credibility is low. Did later periods bring formalization and standardization often as a defense to some of those very same Greek-influenced heresies? Sure. But that was centuries later. Do all scholars agree? No, but the preponderance of evidence affirms that was stated earlier- quote:
"It is also clear that our earliest Christian documents, namely the Pauline epistles, bear witness to the rapid incorporation of non-Jews into the community of believers in Jesus Christ.."
and
"The earliest and most important sources for Gentile Christianity are the seven authentic letters written by Paul c.50–60 to assemblies of Christians: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians and Philemon. The next two generations of Gentile mission foundations can be traced through an epistolary tradition that takes Paul as its foundation:19 letters written by his admirers in the 70s–90s (2 Thessalonians, Colossians, Ephesians, 1 Clement, Hebrews), and still others from the first decades of the second century( thePastoral Epistles, letters of Ignatius of Antioch, ofPolycarp, Barnabas). The earliest extant Christian narratives – the Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew and Luke), which were probably written between c.70 and 100 ce – all three presume a Gentile mission and Jesus’ conformity with it, although in different ways they reflect the tensions between the Jewish roots of the founder and early movement, and its now predominantly Gentile face.20"
FROM: Cambridge History of Christianity, Volume 1_ Origins to Constantine (2006)
But even if we are to set aside the Encyclopedia, the Wikipedia article "Biblical Canon" only confirms the case:
"Writings attributed to the apostles circulated among the earliest Christian communities. The Pauline epistles were circulating in collected forms by the end of the 1st century AD. Justin Martyr, in the early 2nd century, mentions the "memoirs of the Apostles", which Christians (Greek: Χριστιανός) called "gospels", and which were considered to be authoritatively equal to the Old Testament.[26]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Christian_canons Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan aka Enrique
Do you have other refs on the Copts and "E" in addition to Hassan?
There may be no other analysis than by Hassan at this time.
Hassan 2008 has been mentioned but there is also his 2015 paper with Begoña Dobon
With all this talk about Greeks, let's have a look
note: no haplotypes discussed, from the supplement:
The Immunochip (Illumina Infinium single-nucleotide polymorphism microarray) was originally designed for deep replication of meta-genome-wide association studies (GWASs): 2.000 independent association signals for 11 immune-mediated diseases were included, based on early 1000 Genomes Pilot data (February 2010 release), mainly on European variants1 . As result, 186 loci are dense covered with single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) while other genomic regions are not represented. This restricted the statistical methods that we could apply: methods based on linkage disequilibrium or haplotype information were discarded due to the heterogeneous SNP density. We focused our analysis in methods based on allele frequencies: pair-wise FST 2 and F-statistics3 . Also, when working with genotyping arrays the problem of ascertainment bias should be addressed. To assess whether our inferences on population structure and population differentiation were robust to the peculiarities of the Immmunochip, we tested our assumptions using data from 1000 Genomes Project4 with no ascertainment bias or from “neutral” Immmunochip SNPs
The genetics of East African populations: a Nilo-Saharan component in the African genetic landscape 2015 Begoña Dobon, Hisham Y. Hassan, Hafid Laayouni, Pierre Luisi, Isis Ricaño-Ponce, Alexandra Zhernakova, Cisca Wijmenga, Hanan Tahir, David Comas, Mihai G. Netea & Jaume Bertranpetit Scientific Reports volume 5, Article number: 9996 (2015)
Copts, with a strong individual heterogeneity, are more similar to Arabs (FST = 0.019) than to any other East African population. Copts and South-West populations are the most distant populations (FST > 0.1).
Copts show a common ancestry with North African and Middle Eastern populations (dark blue), whereas the South-West cluster (Darfurians, Nuba and Nilotes) share an ancestry component (light blue) with sub–Saharan samples. The North-East cluster (Beja, Ethiopians, Arabs and Nubians) shows both components, although the main component (~70%) is that detected in North Africa and Middle East (Fig. 3).
ADMIXTURE results for the 14 populations.
A random subset of 18 individuals from each population was selected to avoid sample size bias. Columns represent individuals, where the size of each colour segment represents the proportion of ancestry from each cluster. Although k = 3 is the statistically supported model, here we show the results from k = 2 through k = 5 as they explain several ancestral components: North African/Middle Eastern (dark blue), Sub-Saharan (light blue), Coptic (dark green), Nilo-Saharan (light green) and Fulani (pink). MKK = Maasai from Kinyawa, Kenya; LWK = Luhya from Webuye, Kenya; YRI = Yoruba from Ibadan, Nigeria.
Populations from the North-East cluster: Beja, Ethiopians, Arabs and Nubians (Table 2) may be explained as admixture products of an ancestral North African population (similar to Copts) and an ancestral South-West population (Nuba, even if in one case Darfurians have better fit). These four populations had an intermediate position between Copts and South-West Sudanese populations both in the PC and admixture analyses.
The North African/Middle Eastern genetic component is identified especially in Copts. The Coptic population present in Sudan is an example of a recent migration from Egypt over the past two centuries. They are close to Egyptians in the PCA, but remain a differentiated cluster, showing their own component at k = 4 (Fig. 3). Copts lack the influence found in Egyptians from Qatar, an Arabic population. It may suggest that Copts have a genetic composition that could resemble the ancestral Egyptian population, without the present strong Arab influence.
Principal component analysis of the populations from the Sudanese region in the context of the African continent.
Plot shows a) PC1 and PC2 and b) PC2 and PC3 and the variation explained by them. Sudanese populations cluster in four groups according to their geographic location, with PC1 representing a north-east to south-west axis in East Africa. Populations not genotyped in this study are shown with grey filled symbols. MKK = Maasai from Kinyawa, Kenya; LWK = Luhya from Webuye, Kenya; YRI = Yoruba from Ibadan, Nigeria.
_________________________________
wiki:
According to Y-DNA analysis by Hassan et al. (2008), around 45% of Copts in Sudan carry the haplogroup J. The remainder mainly belong to the E1b1b clade (21%). Maternally, Hassan (2009) found that Copts in Sudan exclusively carry various descendants of the macrohaplogroup N. This mtDNA clade is likewise closely associated with local Afroasiatic-speaking populations, including Berbers and Ethiopid peoples. Of the N derivatives borne by Copts, U6 is most frequent (28%), followed by the haplogroup T (17%).[127]
____________
Y-Chromosome Variation Among Sudanese: Restricted Gene Flow, Concordance With Language, Geography, and History Hisham Y. Hassan, 2008
The relatively high-effective population size of the Copts is unlikely to have been influenced by their recent history in the Sudan.
Sample here is 33 Copts thus R1b 15% B-M60 15.1% E3b 21% J1 39% J2 6% (^ see that Greeks are typically J2, yet the Copts are leaning toward Arabs who lean toward J1) J total 45%
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
I thought everybody knew about Constantine and the 1st council at Nicea. Hhow it was there, over 200 yrs after the agreed upon date given to the Gospels, Letters, and Apocalypse, that Christianity actually took shape.
There was no such thing as heresy in Christianity until at least the 1st Council at Nicea because a unified belief system that one could waiver from simply did not exist. Council members from various churches weren't on the one or there wouldn't've been a series of councils up to the 700's CE nor would there be ancient Christian movements still surviving today ie Catholic Eastern Orthodox other ones not as familiar to the 'avg westerner'. Many Christians don't feel Ethiopian Orthodox are Xian rather than Jewish because of the many Hebrew practices in the Tewahedo "church".
The Christianity we know today is a Roman result just as today's rabbinic Judaism is a Roman result.
In the former case Constantine is responsible for Christianity since he set up the "Nicean Council" which determined which of the tenets and doctrines circulating around the Mediterranean world were to become either Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, etc.
Other unapproved doctrines, that many many a pre 325 CE Christian believed in and followed were suppressed and their practitioners even penalized at times, iirc.
IE "the equality of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in the Holy Trinity and asserted that only the Son became incarnate as Jesus Christ."
Excuse me for quoting the Wiki, which is no more than sets of amateur internetters attempting to make a 21st Century/3rd Millennium relevant encyclopedia as up to date as the latest headlines. A fine and factual effort sometimes, just as often a subjective opinionated product.
Christianity wasn't consolidated until after the birth of Islam. Before the 460 years of councils at Nicea and elsewhere, more 'books' circulated than in either the very streamlined and late appearing Protestant Bible most are familiar with or the fuller Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Ethiopian, etc., editions.
Neither of them have any 'book' about the boyhood of their deity figure, a Greek concept very much at odds with Hebrew sensibilities of deity on many counts.
One can read most of these banished Christian Gospels and Apocalypse. See their forbidden theology in an edition like the misnamed Lost Books of the Bible. No, there are no lost books. The 'Councilors' decided what was and what was not going to be canon. Now, working from my memory, it was Charlesworth edited a definitive collection of some of those scriptures that didn't please council members. (link)
EDIT: not the one from my childhood and young adult "studies" but a 2011 work new to me.
=-=-=-=
The Christianity we know today is a Roman result just as today's rabbinic Judaism is a Roman result.
Short shrift on the latter. Rome needed Judea in complete submission. Only a Kandake of Sudan gave them as much military trouble. Edom/Rome was exterminating rabbis but not burning books because Judean Jews practiced 'oral theology'. I mean everything was transmitted mouth to ear in sing song as a memory aid. OK so these early rabbis and talmudiym were griots, of a sort.
One ribbi, Jochannan(?), fled Yerushalayim hidden in a
coffin. He asked was permitted by Roman authority to teach his version of Hokhmath Yisra'el. All others were in fact lost. Then Rab Y*hudah haNasi composed Mishnah in writing lest the tradition die with the 'griots'. Luckily there are b*raitoth, in G*marah the preserve little bits of other rabbinic streams.
Israel-ism was replaced by Judah-ism courtesy of Rome.
BTW 400 yrs after Islam's rise enough Jews still believed in corporeality and other now non-official Jewish ideas that the Saadya Gaon of Egypt had to write The Book of Beliefs and Opinions to quash them though Judaism never has had any one central authority since the legendary Moshe Rabbeinu.
PRECISION Of course Copt (Qubti) is an ethnicity. The word itself means native Egyptian in distinction to 'Greco-' 'Romano-' or other hyphenated late antiquity Egyptian citizens.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I just want to call out again, that Judaism and Christianity are two totally separate forms of faith and Judaism does not accept Jesus Christ as the messiah nor do they accept the new testament as part of Hebrew canon outside of Messianic Judaism...
Again, what's the purpose of these statements. Everybody knows this, and nobody said anything to the contrary. Of course Christianity and Judaism are different but it does not change the fact that both are siblings deriving from the same Judaean religious tradition. Buddhism and Hinduism are different faiths also but nobody is denying that both are related as they both come from the same ancient Indian spiritual beliefs.
quote:And again, it is the Greeks who played a large role in formulating the cannon of Christianity in Alexandria and elsewhere. And this is as evidenced by all the excavated books of the old and new testament found in the Nile Valley and elsewhere written in Greek. Again as testament to the history and role of Greeks in Egypt and the Mediterranean. Keep in mind the word Christ is actually Greek and one of the oldest concepts of the church is Christ "the logos" which is a fundamental aspect of Christian theology.
And again nobody is denying the influence of the Greeks as the earliest extant New Testament texts are in Greek (the second oldest being Aramaic) and the earliest converts to Christianity (outside of the Judaean community) were Greeks. However such Hellenic influence occurred before Christianity even reached Alexandria in the region of Syria in Antioch and Edessa! Again, why are you making Alexandria the begin all, end all, when Greeks speakers were present in Israel (the homeland of Christ) and Syria (the conversion place of Paul)?? Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Well, to Jewish Jews, Christianity is a semi-allowed kind of idolatry permitted to non-Israel. If anyone's willing we can go over Christianity's beliefs and easily separate the Hebrew from the Greek theology. This syncretism is as obvious as Hebrew era Judaism drawings on themes local to and spread across the wide expanse of the Fertile Cresent, Nile Valley, and Red Sea belief systems.
The Qumran repository was active until the final conquest of Judea and destruction of Jerusalem and its temple. It had a few works in Greek, translations from the Hebrew.
The sectarian workshop collecting various versions of non-biblical, biblical, even original, works. None of them are Greek authored with Greek theology Gospels etc of the New Testament Christian Greek Scriptures. This is evidence against Gospels Acts Letters or Apocalypse circulating among Judea's Jews c 70 CE as many credentialed Bible scholars convey.
Christianity doesn't claim to be Judaism's sister. Christianity views itself Israel's replacement.
One of the things put off by Constantine and the bishops' councils is Jesus the Magician, a figure apparently loved by the masses of Christianity. Catacomb walls show Jesus using a magic wand.
This smacks of Infancy Gospels where the growing child Jesus performs magic for and against his little playmates.
Why ones don't know this? The popular Infancy Gospels didn't muster the Councils' canon. The common people lost them over time.
Ecumenical Councils were first set up by Western Roman Emperor Constantine who was also implementing them seeking to keep the geographically sprawling empire unified.
I dunno why I keep taking for granted the ES crew are already versed on Constantine. It was certainly on Africana students' plates when my studies started.
Khazars likewise had political motivations for adopting Judaism and Islam's political ambition is obvious almost from its start.
Politics and religion go hand in hand in controlling and directing a populace as its temporal and spiritual authorities so dictate.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: I thought everybody knew about Constantine and the 1st council at Nicea. How it was there, over 200 yrs after the agreed upon date given to the Gospels, Letters, and Apocalypse, that Christianity actually took shape.
The canonization of texts came after the formulation of the doctrines which was established before Constantine and Nicea. In fact, 1st Council of Nicea had to confirm their creed based on earlier doctrines of Cappadocia which was based on that of Antioch.
quote:There was no such thing as heresy in Christianity until at least the 1st Council at Nicea because a unified belief system that one could waiver from simply did not exist. Council members from various churches weren't on the one or there wouldn't've been a series of councils up to the 700's CE nor would there be ancient Christian movements still surviving today ie Catholic Eastern Orthodox other ones not as familiar to the 'avg westerner'. Many Christians don't feel Ethiopian Orthodox are Xian rather than Jewish because of the many Hebrew practices in the Tewahedo "church".
That's incorrect. There did exist a unified system of beliefs and the reason for the councils was to call out other cults and sects who hijacked the name of "Christianity" even though they really weren't. Even in the texts of Acts of the Apostles, and especially in the Epistles the Apostles and their successors often ran into individuals and entire groups who misconstrued their faith into something that was not. Gnostics are a perfect example of this twisting many Christian doctrines into their Hellenistic mystical forms than anything Biblical.
By the way, when it comes to the Tewahedo Church many people forget that Abyssinia (Ethiopia) before Christianity was Jewish! So this explains why the modern Tewahedo Church has many Judaic customs in contrast to other Churches which was predominated by Gentiles.
quote:The Christianity we know today is a Roman result just as today's rabbinic Judaism is a Roman result.
In the former case Constantine is responsible for Christianity since he set up the "Nicean Council" which determined which of the tenets and doctrines circulating around the Mediterranean world were to become either Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, etc.
Again Christian doctrines were established well before Constantine. The problem came when Constantine turned the faith into a state religion and thus politicized it. Originally Christianity shunned the political realm and did not get involved with affairs of governance and ruling except when it comes to basic codes of conduct. The Ecclesia or Church was to serve as an advisory role to local rulers and governors. The Church ceased being Christian when it began persecuting pagans and destroying their temples and centers especially under the Emperor Theodosius who legalized such persecutions! The irony is that Jesus says his true followers are the persecuted people NOT the persecutors.
How is modern Judaism a Roman result? Because of the Romans's destruction of the Jerusalem Temple?
quote:Other unapproved doctrines, that many many a pre 325 CE Christian believed in and followed were suppressed and their practitioners even penalized at times, iirc.
Again the problem is that you had different cults incorporating either the Christian moniker and/or Christian practices but were not?
Surely the Jewish religion has the concept of heresy. How else do you explain the Samaritans?? There was a unified Israelite religion but when the political schism took place dividing United Israel into the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judaea there happened a religious one as well involving the priesthood. With the Samaritans basing their temple on Mt Gerizim in Samaria while Judeans based their temple in Jerusalem on Mt. Moriah.
And even in modern Judaism the schism between Qaraites and Talmudists. No doubt this was another reason why the early Church called for councils to not only call out imposter Christians but to prevent schisms which was unfortunately they didn't prevent.
quote:IE "the equality of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in the Holy Trinity and asserted that only the Son became incarnate as Jesus Christ."
Excuse me for quoting the Wiki, which is no more than sets of amateur internetters attempting to make a 21st Century/3rd Millennium relevant encyclopedia as up to date as the latest headlines. A fine and factual effort sometimes, just as often a subjective opinionated product.
Technically speaking The Father and Son are not equal since the Son is begotten from the Father who has 'monarchia'. The Spirit proceeds from the Father and is shared with the Son. All three persons make up God who is of a single essence.
quote:Christianity wasn't consolidated until after the birth of Islam. Before the 460 years of councils at Nicea and elsewhere, more 'books' circulated than in either the very streamlined and late appearing Protestant Bible most are familiar with or the fuller Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Ethiopian, etc., editions.
On the contrary Christianity was not only established before Constantine but Islam itself is actually a heretical form of Christianity! This can found in the simple fact that the Quran calls Issa (Jesus) the Messiah born of the virgin Maryam!
quote:Neither of them have any 'book' about the boyhood of their deity figure, a Greek concept very much at odds with Hebrew sensibilities of deity on many counts.
One can read most of these banished Christian Gospels and Apocalypse. See their forbidden theology in an edition like the misnamed Lost Books of the Bible. No, there are no lost books. The 'Councilors' decided what was and what was not going to be canon. Now, working from my memory, it was Charlesworth edited a definitive collection of some of those scriptures that didn't please council members. (link)
EDIT: not the one from my childhood and young adult "studies" but a 2011 work new to me.
Those banished gospels were Gnostic works that were written centuries after the time of Jesus and include a lot of un-Biblical (both Old and New Testament) themes OR they are simply unreliable such as the Infancy Gospel which has Jesus speaking as a baby and other miracles as a toddler which does bear a striking resemblance to Greek stories of deities. As for Jesus childhood, the Gospel of Luke makes reference to Jesus at age 12 spending 3 days in Temple of Jerusalem during Passover where he debates with rabbis.
quote:=-=-=-= The Christianity we know today is a Roman result just as today's rabbinic Judaism is a Roman result.
Short shrift on the latter. Rome needed Judea in complete submission. Only a Kandake of Sudan gave them as much military trouble. Edom/Rome was exterminating rabbis but not burning books because Judean Jews practiced 'oral theology'. I mean everything was transmitted mouth to ear in sing song as a memory aid. OK so these early rabbis and talmudiym were griots, of a sort.
One ribbi, Jochannan(?), fled Yerushalayim hidden in a
coffin. He asked was permitted by Roman authority to teach his version of Hokhmath Yisra'el. All others were in fact lost. Then Rab Y*hudah haNasi composed Mishnah in writing lest the tradition die with the 'griots'. Luckily there are b*raitoth, in G*marah the preserve little bits of other rabbinic streams.
Israel-ism was replaced by Judah-ism courtesy of Rome.
BTW 400 yrs after Islam's rise enough Jews still believed in corporeality and other now non-official Jewish ideas that the Saadya Gaon of Egypt had to write The Book of Beliefs and Opinions to quash them though Judaism never has had any one central authority since the legendary Moshe Rabbeinu.
Weren't Judaeans spread throughout the Roman Empire especially in the eastern Mediterranean? And didn't some Jews like Josephus serve under the Romans as well? And what of the Samaritans??
quote:PRECISION Of course Copt (Qubti) is an ethnicity. The word itself means native Egyptian in distinction to 'Greco-' 'Romano-' or other hyphenated late antiquity Egyptian citizens. But that hasn't stopped the Greco-Romans of Egypt from adopting that name as well.
Agreed.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
There is no argument.
The was no Bible before the Ecumenical Councils and if they all denominations were on the one it would not be ecumenical, look the word up.
Ecumenical movements attempt to bridge those differences, although such efforts remain controversial.
The World Council of Churches consists of more than 300 Protestant and Orthodox churches, but the Roman Catholic Church, the largest group of Christians globally, is not a member.
. . .
quote: Abstract /Resumo In this article, we will assess the Catholic and Adventist point of view of the history of the Christian Church during the first four ecumenical councils in the light of their documents. Seventh-day Adventists see the Christian Church during this period as corrupt and not guided by divine authority. Roman Catholics, in turn, understand that this is the most glorious period of the church, when divine authority shaped the truth against heresies. Assuming that all truth is God’s truth, did the church represent or not divine authority? Which religious group is more historically accurate in its description of reality, Catholics or Adventists?
RODRIGO GALIZA TRUTH, AUTHORITY AND HERESY IN THE FOUR FIRST ECUMENICAL COUNCILS
Fact of the matter is the bishops of many different Xian churches met after Constantine's prodding. Then after 400 years of ongoing councils still never came up with a unified single Xian theology or New Testament Greek Holy Scriptures.
Anyone may have it their own way. I'm presenting what scholarship reveals. Nothing invented on the spot solely to salve ego and win debate no matter how twisted the propositions. Like Islam is a distorted Xianity, bah! What malarkey. Islam like Judaism posits a one and only deity who neither begets nor is begotten.
The Xian concept of god/angel getting it on with a married woman to beget a demi-god is from Greek mythology. A prime example being mangod Herakles (a 12 months o/t year mythos figure) sired by God Zeus on a married woman.
In B*reshiyth the Hebrew deity wipes out his world when angels miscegenate with humans. But even more important, and just think, the deity who demands death of an adulterous wife would go and authorize knocking up a married woman? In the Xian story Joseph knows this and its why he wanted to put Mary away privately rather that introduce her to community shame by announcing "I did not impregnate her, she has played the whore". BTW much of the tribe of Y*hudah derives from him taking up with his daughter in-law disguised as a whore. Y*hosua` ben Nun was proud to have Rahab the harlot as wife. Midrash says all the men of Israel wanted her.
And after a whole lot of sieving argument still magic working little boy Jesus grew up to be magic wand wielding adult Jesus.
Were they not real Christians the catacomb dwellers and all the other rank&file Xians who knew baby magic and magic wand Jesus. Wasn't heretical when it first started. Who dare call these matyrs keeping the faith alive in the face of unprecedented government persecution heretics?
To this day Xianity has never come down to even a concensus view on the nature of their ManGod deity.
People tell all kind of lies to win a debate. For instance Clement is as old as the date given for the canonical Gospels. Now of course something like the Slavonic Enoch is after the Ecumenical Councils. The one who said all the Xian Apochrypha post-date the Councils lied or didn't look it up before he put it up.
quote: The New Testament apocrypha (singular apocryphon)[1] are a number of writings by early Christians that give accounts of Jesus and his teachings, the nature of God, or the teachings of his apostles and of their lives. Some of these writings have been cited as scripture by early Christians, but since the fifth century a widespread consensus has emerged limiting the New Testament to the 27 books of the modern canon.[2][3] Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant churches generally do not view these New Testament apocrypha as part of the Bible.[3]
All interested in unbiased knowledge on all this can wade through each individual book for its date of probable authorship @ (sorry) the Wiki.
Back in 1998 when I first seriously took a look at Christian origins I had to take my asz to numerous libraries including NYPL archived collections. Then, my emphasis was on James. Today you kids got it made with nearly all at your fingertips if you will only bother to go and digest (not read via the quick-fast skim-dunk method for only what pleases you) what's readily available online.
Nonetheless I expect more uninformed yipyap coming this way, including pompous declarations the scholarship is "incorrect." What audacity!
=-=-=-=
About the Copts. Has anyone here met and spoken with any or have a Copt friend? I knew one vending gelato or frogurt way back in 1982 in Columbus Ohio. I know one now in Brooklyn. Lola told me she was black though if a woman presented me a child with her features I'd expect someone a lot less black than me the actual father. I never talk race or colour with Mary who after I asked if she knew of Senegal said "C'mon I'm African." When I was saying something Lake Tschad related to the Muslim owner of the Egyptian grocer/clothing /toiletries store I frequent he quickly shot back "I'm African."
I dunno why a Copt and a Muslim Egyptian just blurted their affiliations out. Neither the wheat colored slightly curly haired Copt proclaim blackness w/o any prompt or reason at all, not caring what her white customers might think.
The rabbi of an upstate synagogue referred him to me when an orthodox Ethiopian came to worship there than in the Greek Orthodox church of the town. Never discussed religion w/t Amharas at university. Midwest black girls hated a Worku because of her natural bone straight hair (BA girls largely prefer what their ppl call 'good hair' and are extremely jealous over it).
Anyway Qemat/Agau/Beta Israel (Cushitic speakers) are not alone in claiming Israel ancestry but I wonder how many EO claiming whatever level of Israel are Falas Mora or of that descent?
It may be declared "incorrect" by the unknowing yet it remains factual the whole Tripolitania to Egypt, Sudan, and Ethiopia orthodox xianity's monophysism wasn't heretical until the 4th Council decided it was.
quote: Monophysitism asserted that the person of Jesus Christ has only one, divine nature rather than the two natures, divine and human, that were established at the Council of Chalcedon in 451.
. At which point the great Coptic Church was split off from the rest of the Christianity whose early formation it heavily contributed to. And why? For retaining theology held since the birth of Christianity suddenly become 'anathema'.
quote: Alexandria quickly became an important centre for Christianity, and its see was ranked on par with Rome and Antioch at the Council of Nicaea (325 CE). The patriarchate of Alexandria —the first bishopric in Christianity to use the title pope— became increasingly influential. Among its most influential occupants was St. Cyril of Alexandria, who spearheaded the Council of Ephesus (431) and the condemnation of Nestorius and his followers.
quote: ... after the Incarnation, Christ had only one nature and that, therefore, the humanity of the incarnate Christ was not of the same substance as that of other human beings. Political and ecclesiastical rivalries as well as theology played a role in the decision of Chalcedon to depose and excommunicate the patriarch of Alexandria, Dioscorus (died 454). Churches that continued to support Dioscorus and insisted that his teaching was consistent with the orthodox doctrine of St. Cyril of Alexandria were labeled monophysite.
Despite the Ecumenical Councils the number of and which books are within canon still varies as it no concensus except for a limited number of books and each Church has books some others don't accept. I think it was 2nd Clement that caused the Coptic walkout on the 4th and ignore all succeeding Ecumenical Councils and their proclamations.
quote: "the New Testament canons of the Syriac, Armenian, Georgian, Egyptian Coptic and Ethiopian Churches all have minor differences, yet five of these Churches are part of the same communion and hold the same theological beliefs."
Ausar (the fake Egyptian) posted some great scholarly quotes in that thread on how Christianity was spread up Nile.
We cannot critical adjuge religions' origins if we take holy holy believer attitudes tha our particular religion is the only one that has it right.
We must try to ascertain things as impartially as we do when examining so-called pagan peoples' mythos.
IE none of us can say God is this or God is that. Doing so is religious bigotry. We can say the deity of religion X is this or that, or the God of people Y is this or that, based on what X or Y themselves say about it.
Attacking or defending any deity idea as false etc is not the place of academic discussion held in any brick and mortar institution of higher learning outside apologetic theology schools catering to their own religion, even its own denomination within that religion. IMO it should be the "nothing-is-sacred dissecting examination" rule of secular university that ES goes by unless the nature of Egyptology forum is shifting further toward polemic = academic. There was always a mix but the weight was on academic quasi-academic even pseudo-academic.
Anyway, give the people what they want is always how its going to be. See how a few states allow what scientists call pseudo-science into the classroom as the preferred narrative.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova:
What you say though re Greek philosophy playing a large role in formulating the canon of Christianity is not true, or only applies in small part centuries later AFTER the foundational writings and understandings were in place- a foundational canon well established on the ground and accepted a such by the masses of believers. Recommend you look more at credible, stable scholarly references, stronger than Wikipedia or Youtube those these can yield some relevant info. In any event as shown below- even Wikipedia confirms the case I state.
Any supposed "canon" formulations for the Hellenistic zone mostly came AFTER the basic foundation writings were already in place as credible scholars shown above demonstrate. You or someone mentioned Origen above, but Origen came along some 150- 200 years AFTER the basic foundational writings were already in place.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Again, what's the purpose of these statements. Everybody knows this, and nobody said anything to the contrary. Of course Christianity and Judaism are different but it does not change the fact that both are siblings deriving from the same Judaean religious tradition. Buddhism and Hinduism are different faiths also but nobody is denying that both are related as they both come from the same ancient Indian spiritual beliefs.
You both are missing my point. I am not talking about what is in those writings. What I am talking about is that at the time between 300BC and 300AD Greece and especially Alexandria was a clearinghouse for scholarship and philosophical integration of various ideas from across the Mediterranean world long before Christianity. And it is because of this "cosmopolitan" nature of Alexandrian society that it represents a mixture. The point is the Greeks were used to discussing the nature of the soul, god, belief and "spirit" or "soul" or "logos" long before the idea of Christianity even came up. And the point I am making is that if it wasn't for the Greeks copying works from other languages, including the works of the Hebrews, so they could integrate it into a wider body of Greek philosophical thought, then you may not have a bible as we know it today. That is the point of bringing up the fact that all these early biblical manuscripts are written in Greek and largely found in the Nile Valley. And certainly when they translated the old testament there was no Christianity and certainly the Ptolemies were not converting to Judaism either. I am not talking about the specifics of what is in those books. Also, keep in mind that in the 2nd century AD you still had Roman temples to Isis being built and maintained, you still had the Romans maintaining various religious centers around the Mediterranean with various deities before they made Christianity the "official" state religion. That is the significance of the work "Isis and Osiris" written in the 2nd Century AD by Plutarch as a work of philosophy and the study of religion and belief which is a discussion of syncretism in various religions from ancient times. This was the normal thing up to that time. So of course when those religions were outlawed of course those people who were now being persecuted would protest......
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Well, to Jewish Jews, Christianity is a semi-allowed kind of idolatry permitted to non-Israel. If anyone's willing we can go over Christianity's beliefs and easily separate the Hebrew from the Greek theology. This syncretism is as obvious as Hebrew era Judaism drawings on themes local to and spread across the wide expanse of the Fertile Cresent, Nile Valley, and Red Sea belief systems.
Perhaps the biggest rift between Judaism and Christianity was not the belief that Jesus was Messiah but rather that he was God incarnate which was viewed as blasphemy and idolatrous. Though the Christian scriptural defense is the Book of Isaiah with his prophecy of Emmanuel born of the virgin and called "Mighty God".
quote:The Qumran depository was active until the final conquest of Judea and destruction of Jerusalem and its temple. It had a few works in Greek, translations from the Hebrew.
The sectarian workshop collecting various versions of non-biblical, biblical, even original, works. None of them are Greek authored with Greek theology Gospels etc of the New Testament Christian Greek Scriptures. This is evidence against Gospels Acts Letters or Apocalypse circulating among Judea's Jews c 70 CE as many credentialed Bible scholars convey.
The key word is 'sectarian'. The early Christians per their own traditions were a small sect persecuted by the more dominant sects being the Pharisees and Sadducees. By the way, I forgot to mention that today's Rabbinic Judaism directly descends from the Pharisees and it was they whom Jesus was most confrontational with and is the party that was held responsible for his crucifixion! The Sadducees or followers of Solomon's High Priest Zadok eventually became extinct with the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple since their sect was based solely on temple worship. There were two other minor sects-- the secluded ascetic Essenes and war-like Zealots who instigated the most rebellions against Rome via assassinations.
Since Jesus's death, reports from Josephus (even if inauthentic) say his brother James the Just was murdered by Pharisees. Other reports say his other brothers and relatives were either killed or driven out of Judaea and their homes burned. So no I don't expect Christian doctrines or teachings to be preserved among the greater Judaean community.
quote:Christianity doesn't claim to be Judaism's sister. Christianity views itself Israel's replacement.
Christianity claims to be the true faith of Israel just as Pharisaic or Rabbinic Judaism then again so does the Samaritan religion.
quote:One of the things put off by Constantine and the bishops' councils is Jesus the Magician, a figure apparently loved by the masses of Christianity. Catacomb walls show Jesus using a magic wand.
That's because long before Constantine's conversion, the early Christian community rejected the notion of Jesus as magician as blasphemy. Jesus was God incarnate to the Christians and to other heretical groups even some Jews a prophet if not a sage. Ironically, there are stories in the Talmud and other Jewish works dismissing Jesus's miracles as sorcery, indeed even in the Gospels the Pharisees accuse him of sorcery and working magic on behalf of Satan. Even today there is a belief among some Jews that Jesus was a sage skilled in Kabbalistic mysticism that explains his miracles.
quote:This smacks of Infancy Gospels where the growing child Jesus performs magic for and against his little playmates.
Why ones don't know this? The popular Infancy Gospels didn't muster the Councils' canon. The common people lost them over time.
Infancy gospels are apocrypha and were never accepted even before any councils. Especially since traditions hold that those who knew Jesus or his family thought such legends were laughably ridiculous! These infancy gospels were penned decades if not a century after his death, and some was blatantly Gnostic.
quote:Ecumenical Councils were first set up by Western Roman Emperor Constantine who was also implementing them seeking to keep the geographically sprawling empire unified.
I dunno why I keep taking for granted the ES crew are already versed on Constantine. It was certainly on Africana students' plates when my studies started.
Constantine first made Christianity a state religion. He did NOT invent Christianity or its doctrines that were around long before he was born! Again the Apostles' Creed which is the very creed of the Church was affirmed by the Council of Nicea came from the Cappadocian Church fathers who in turn copied it from Antioch.
quote:Khazars likewise had political motivations for adopting Judaism and Islam's political ambition is obvious almost from its start.
Are they truly of Khazar origin? And why Judaism when Christianity and Islam were more dominant?
quote:Politics and religion go hand in hand in controlling and directing a populace as its temporal and spiritual authorities so dictate.
Yes but unfortunately Christianity was never meant to be a "state" religion. The Apostles made it clear Christianity was meant to be a local community religion whose only political role was to advise local rulers only. Christianity was a way of life and moral code of conduct that people were encouraged to follow it was NOT a system to be imposed on anyone which happened once it was officialized by imperial Rome.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: There is no argument.
There was no Bible before the Ecumenical Councils and if they all denominations were on the one it would not be ecumenical, look the word up.
Ecumenical movements attempt to bridge those differences, although such efforts remain controversial.
The World Council of Churches consists of more than 300 Protestant and Orthodox churches, but the Roman Catholic Church, the largest group of Christians globally, is not a member.
. . .
quote: Abstract /Resumo In this article, we will assess the Catholic and Adventist point of view of the history of the Christian Church during the first four ecumenical councils in the light of their documents. Seventh-day Adventists see the Christian Church during this period as corrupt and not guided by divine authority. Roman Catholics, in turn, understand that this is the most glorious period of the church, when divine authority shaped the truth against heresies. Assuming that all truth is God’s truth, did the church represent or not divine authority? Which religious group is more historically accurate in its description of reality, Catholics or Adventists?
RODRIGO GALIZA TRUTH, AUTHORITY AND HERESY IN THE FOUR FIRST ECUMENICAL COUNCILS
There was no Roman Catholic Church either before the councils. Christians had their own texts via the TNK as well as the Gospels and Epistles etc. But NO they weren't put together in one work called the Bible until the councils. Not only is Christian worship based on scriptures but also liturgical practice as well. These practices including baptismal rites, forms of prayer, even down to things like church architecture and were all in play long before Constantine.
quote:Fact of the matter is the bishops of many different Xian churches met after Constantine's prodding then after 400 years of ongoing councils still never came up with a unified single Xian theology or New Testament Greek Holy Scriptures.
Not true. I already told you about the Cappadocians and there were others.
quote:Anyone may have it their own way. I'm presenting what scholarship reveals. Nothing invented on the spot solely to salve ego and win debate no matter how twisted the propositions. Like Islam is a distorted Xianity, bah! What malarkey. Islam like Judaism posits a one and only deity who neither begets nor is begotten.
Yet the Quran calls Issa (Jesus?) not only a messenger but the "Word of God" who has "the sprit proceeding from him" as well as a Messiah born from the virgin Maryam. Strangely the Quran calls Christians 'Nasara' and the first cousin of Muhammad's first wife Khadija, a man named Waraqa Ibn Nawfal, was whom Muhammad learned the Injeel (Gospel) from and the word likely comes from the Greek Euangelion. In fact the earliest Arabic writing in the Hejaz was made by a Christian. And even early witnesses to the Arab conquest called the Arabs heretics instead of outright heathens.
quote:The Xian concept of god/angel getting it on with a married woman to beget a demi-god is from Greek mythology. A prime example being man-god Herakles (a 12 months o/t year mythos figure) sired by God Zeus on a married woman.
That is NOT what Jesus was. Jesus was conceived immaculately by his mother Maryam through the Holy Spirit. No sex involved. He was not a hemi-theos (half-god) but simultaneously completely God and completely man. Once his earthly body died he was resurrected with a resplendent divine body interestingly making him more similar to Egyptian and other African myths of divine kings whose bodies were mortal but capable of reviving into an immortal "shining" form.
quote:In B*reshiyth the Hebrew deity wipes out his world when angels miscegenated with humans. But even more important and just think the deity who demands death of an adulterous wife would go and authorize knocking up a married woman. In the Xian story Joseph knows this and its why he wanted to put Mary away privately rather that introduce her to community shame by announcing "I did not impregnate her, she has played the whore". BTW much of the tribe of Y*hudah derives from him taking up with his daughter disguised as a whore. Y*hosua` ben Nun was proud to have Rahab the harlot as wife. Midrash says all the men of Israel wanted her.
Angels miscegenating with humans was indeed a crime but that's not what Jesus is the result of. Jesus was God the Son who was an angel or rather thee Angel of the Lord who incarnated or took human flesh through Mary again via the Ruach ha Kodesh.
quote:And after a whole lot of sieving argument still magic working little boy Jesus grew up to be magic wand wielding adult Jesus.
Again infancy gospels are apocryphal or legendary nonsense. It's the same as in Islam weak Hadiths about trees going over to Muhammad and saying shahada and then bowing in prayer or Legions of the Jews tales for Jewish children.
quote:Were they not real Christians the catacomb dwellers and all the other rank&file Xians who knew baby magic and magic wand Jesus. Wasn't heretical when it first started. Who dare call these matyrs keeping the faith alive in the face of unprecedented government persecution heretics?
No because. Christians don't practice magic which is a sin and continuation of Old Testament laws. Thus only heretics believed and practiced it.
quote:To this day Xianity has never come down to even a consensus view on the nature of their ManGod deity.
Incorrect. Again such was formulated by the Cappadocians who say they got it from Antioch. That many people who grew up as nominal Christians or in societies that are nominally Christians don't know what their actual doctrines are or stray from doctrines is not the same as not having original doctrines. Tell me, are the conflicts between the Talmudists and Qaraites mean that there was no original doctrine among them? What about the conflict between the Misnagdim and Hassidim? I won't even get into the Zoharim such as the Sabbataeans. Does this mean there was never a consensus view in Judaism until this day?
quote:People tell all kind of lies to win a debate. For instance Clement is as old as the date given for the canonical Gospels. Now of course something like the Slavonic Enoch is after the Ecumenical Councils. The one who said all the Xian Apochrypha pos-date the Councils lied or didn't look it up before he put it up.
quote: The New Testament apocrypha (singular apocryphon)[1] are a number of writings by early Christians that give accounts of Jesus and his teachings, the nature of God, or the teachings of his apostles and of their lives. Some of these writings have been cited as scripture by early Christians, but since the fifth century a widespread consensus has emerged limiting the New Testament to the 27 books of the modern canon.[2][3] Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant churches generally do not view these New Testament apocrypha as part of the Bible.[3]
All interested in unbiased knowledge on all this can wade through each individual book for its date of probable authorship @ (sorry) the Wiki.
I never said all apocrypha post-date the councils. My question is simply when were they ever accepted as texts canon to the community before Constantine? You keep asserting they were without evidence. Even the councils rejections were based on the dismissal of church bishops from different regions who agreed upon as much. So what are we to make of the Sefarim haChitzonim why are these works considered Apocrypha to Judaism and what is the basis of Jewish canonization? Ironically there is a strong historical correlation between the canonization of Jewish texts and those of Christians with many rabbinic authorities agreeing in councils of their own around the 2nd Century when Christianity was on the ascendancy. What's the saying about throwing rocks while living in glass houses?
By the way the oldest New Testament manuscript yet discovered is the Rylands Library Papyrus P52 copy of the Gospel of John dated to the latter of half of the 2nd CE and discovered in Egypt.
quote:Back in 1998 when I first seriously took a look at Christian origins I had to take my asz to numerous libraries including NYPL archived collections. Then, my emphasis was on James. Today you kids got it made with nearly all at your fingertips if you will only bother to go and digest (not read via the quick-fast skim-dunk method for only what pleases you) what's readily available online.
Nonetheless I expect more uninformed yipyap coming this way, including pompous declarations the scholarship is "incorrect." What audacity!
I never said the scholarship was incorrect. But merely that you are incorrect about the scholarship and making unsubstantiated claims both about Christian beliefs on the nature of Jesus as well as Apocrypha.
quote:=-=-=-=
About the Copts. Has anyone here met and spoken with any or have a Copt friend? I knew one vending gelato or frogurt way back in 1982 in Columbus Ohio. I know one now in Brooklyn. Lola told me she was black though if a woman presented me a child with her features I'd expect someone a lot less black than me the actual father. I never talk race or colour with Mary who after I asked if she knew of Senegal said "C'mon I'm African." When I was saying something Lake Tschad related to the Muslim owner of the Egyptian grocer/clothing /toiletries store I frequent he quickly shot back "I'm African."
I dunno why a Copt and a Muslim Egyptian just blurted their affiliations out. Neither the wheat colored slightly curly haired Copt proclaim blackness w/o any prompt or reason at all, not caring what her white customers might think.
The rabbi of an upstate synagogue referred him to me when an orthodox Ethiopian came to worship there than in the Greek Orthodox church of the town. Never discussed religion w/t Amharas at university. Midwest black girls hated a Worku because of her natural bone straight hair (BA girls largely prefer what their ppl call 'good hair' and are extremely jealous over it).
Anyway Qemat/Agau/Beta Israel (Cushitic speakers) are not alone in claiming Israel ancestry but I wonder how many EO claiming whatever level of Israel are Falas Mora or of that descent?
Again there is no difference in look between Copts and Muslims.
quote:It may be declared "incorrect" by the unknowing yet it remains factual the whole Tripolitania to Egypt, Sudan, and Ethiopia orthdox xianity's monophysism wasn't heretical until the 4th Council decided it was.
quote:Monophysitism asserted that the person of Jesus Christ has only one, divine nature rather than the two natures, divine and human, that were established at the Council of Chalcedon in 451.
At which point the great Coptic Church was split off from the rest of the Christianity whose early formation it heavily contributed to. And why? For retaining theology held since the birth of Christianity suddenly become 'anathema'.
That's because they denied Jesus' human nature. It makes me wonder if this stemmed from an ancient Egyptian or African belief that stressed a god-king's divinity over his human nature.
quote: Alexandria quickly became an important centre for Christianity, and its see was ranked on par with Rome and Antioch at the Council of Nicaea (325 CE). The patriarchate of Alexandria —the first bishopric in Christianity to use the title pope— became increasingly influential. Among its most influential occupants was St. Cyril of Alexandria, who spearheaded the Council of Ephesus (431) and the condemnation of Nestorius and his followers.
quote: ... after the Incarnation, Christ had only one nature and that, therefore, the humanity of the incarnate Christ was not of the same substance as that of other human beings. Political and ecclesiastical rivalries as well as theology played a role in the decision of Chalcedon to depose and excommunicate the patriarch of Alexandria, Dioscorus (died 454). Churches that continued to support Dioscorus and insisted that his teaching was consistent with the orthodox doctrine of St. Cyril of Alexandria were labeled monophysite.
Despite the Ecumenical Councils the number of and which books are within canon still varies as it no concensus except for a limited number of books and each Church has books some others don't accept. I think it was 2nd Clement that caused the Coptic walkout on the 4th and ignore all succeeding Ecumenical Councils and their proclamations.
one Wiki author opined "the New Testament canons of the Syriac, Armenian, Georgian, Egyptian Coptic and Ethiopian Churches all have minor differences, yet five of these Churches are part of the same communion and hold the same theological beliefs."
. Oxford University Press. p [/quote] [/QUOTE] Of course the philosophical ideas behind Christianity took some time to develop again that doesn't mean there wasn't already a common doctrine among the early Christian community before Constantine let alone all the different councils. Again, do you consider Sadducees, Essenes, and even the Zealots to be fellow Jews? What about the Samaritans?
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
People are free to chose opinions unbacked by any references academic or apologetic or expressions given with reference beyond entrenched discussant ideology.
Not wasting time reposting what ones refuse to go read and thus precision tune their slack knowledge base.
This discussion has slid into simple ego defense debate irrelevant to known history on the development of anything, which always starts in ifancy not born already fully matured like Athena from Zeus' splitting headache.
Unless someone is interested in further clarity or has necessary precisions for me based on replicable published scholarship, I've no need to continue this sub-topic of Christianity's origins and development, and Coptic major influence thereon, from non-believer academic positions and also theology degree holding believers honest enough to admit incontrovertible facts.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Except for the Shomroni its academic and I won't answer you until you answer what I've asked you about the myriad of ethnicities in the Philippine Islands congealing a national identity only after enforced by European conquest and the other things I asked about like the Moros and polygyny including their forced concubinage on one particular outgroup.
You are good at avoiding questions about Filipino stuff when ES should be loaded with such info from a native or at least diasporan informant speaking an island mother tongue and embracing the overall culture.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Again, do you consider Sadducees, Essenes, and even the Zealots to be fellow Jews? What about the Samaritans?
.
OK DJ, I'll say, this much eh ... bud? Per Judaism as, practiced until German Jewry copied Christian Reformation's lead and invented Reform Judaism, legally a Jew is ANYONE who's mother is Jewish or who 'converts' with circumcision for males and miqwah dunking ('baptism') for male & female geriym ssadiqiym (righteous converts) alike. I am well aware of that definition's incongruity for the modern western (ie yte euro) educated readers. Shemites decided this long before Yaphet declared a defintion must not include the word being defined. Pharisees and Sadducees and Essenes, OH MY! Hah hah. There were "70 sects" of Judaeans in the decades leading up to the conquest and when the Qumran community copyshop and depository was abandoned. 'Jamesians' and other pre-proto-Xians were among the 70.
But that, and most of the above is grist for the Mansion of the Gods mill.
But first a dogma and anachronism example of what's not allowed there:
I personally believe, based on current Sefardi/orthodox Judaism, that the Hebrew deity, worshipped first by the Tribes and then the kingdoms Israel and Judah followed by the nation of Judea past its obliteration and into its diaspora, was conceptualized as incorporeal.
Sure I can post that. It's truthful for the minority intelligentsia at least since Ezra and the Men of the Great Assembly founded nascient Semitic 'Judaism'. Thing is, it's exclusive thus only partially factual.
Readers will have no such dogma jugged down their throats like its the one only fact relevant to understand that topic.
I cannot controvert any post(er) saying otherwise if based on archeology and TN"K itself, which reveal in academic approach that a good many rank&file took the anthropomorphisms at face value clear up to 1000 yrs ago and that some ancient Israels in fact did attribute their deity with a wifey.
=-=-=-=
So to what extent was a gendered, though sexless, incorporate deity factual of the broad masses? They weren't going around quivering in holy holy piousness like Sunday School class books present them. They were just like the other day to day peoples around them in a world of Gods made by Humans whose priests and chiefs learned to coax and finally control denizens via organizing their common-most spiritualities into a set of dictated rules for their ethnic group, to both rulers/holymen and the peoples best advantages.
This wing of the Mansion would have to conclude Israel officially pushed a gendered, sexless, incorporeal solo being as the deity until the masses 1000s of years later finally gave up all but one restricted interpretive belief of a GodWife transmuted into Shekinah considered both the deity's wife and the "Divine Presence" itself.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Except for the Shomroni its academic and I won't answer you until you answer what I've asked you about the myriad of ethnicities in the Philippine Islands congealing a national identity only after enforced by European conquest and the other things I asked about like the Moros and polygyny including their forced concubinage on one particular outgroup.
You are good at avoiding questions about Filipino stuff when ES should be loaded with such info from a native or at least diasporan informant speaking an island mother tongue and embracing the overall culture.
Before the advent of 'Filipino' identity, yes the Philippines was divided into a myriad of tribal groups. But before the Spanish came there were already two rival states. The Kingdom of Luzon in the north (where I hail from) and the Islamic Sultanate of Mindinao in the south. The Visayan Islands were caught in the middle. The Moro practice of polygyny with forced concubinage is actually an Islamic practice. That is not to dismiss all polygyny in the Philippines as Islamic but they did use 'jihad' to acquire their concubines. I'm most familiar with the customs of Luzon. Marriages were monogamous though elite men in certain instances could have concubines as well. I don't know what else you want to know.
quote: OK DJ, I'll say, this much eh ... bud? Per Judaism as, practiced until German Jewry copied Christian Reformation's lead and invented Reform Judaism, legally a Jew is ANYONE who's mother is Jewish or who 'converts' with circumcision for males and miqwah dunking ('baptism') for male & female geriym ssadiqiym (righteous converts) alike. I am well aware of that definition's incongruity for the modern western (ie yte euro) educated readers. Shemites decided this long before Yaphet declared a defintion must not include the word being defined. Pharisees and Sadducees and Essenes, OH MY! Hah hah. There were "70 sects" of Judaeans in the decades leading up to the conquest and when the Qumran community copyshop and depository was abandoned. 'Jamesians' and other pre-proto-Xians were among the 70.
But that, and most of the above is grist for the Mansion of the Gods mill.
I'm not surprised since the older a religion is, the more variations it develops. It gets back to my point that Christianity began as a sect of Judaean (as opposed to modern Jewish) religion. Though there still has to be common doctrines to which all the sects agree on lest a sect become heretical and no longer viewed as Judaean. What are we to make of the religion(s) or sects of the Aramaeans-- the Sabians and Haranians??
By the way, in regards to canonization of Christian texts in the Council of Nicea, I forgot to mention that unlike the Protestantism the early Christians did not have a concept of 'sola scriptura'. While scripture was significant, tradition was equally important as Christian worship is based not only on scripture but liturgy which was based on traditions both oral and learned and thus not much different from other Judaic traditions. For example the Letters of Acts and the Epistles all spoke of instructions provided by the Apostles that were both oral and ritual. Thus the texts alone don't provide such details on liturgy.
quote:But first a dogma and anachronism example of what's not allowed there:
I personally believe, based on current Sefardi/orthodox Judaism, that the Hebrew deity, worshipped first by the Tribes and then the kingdoms Israel and Judah followed by the nation of Judea past its obliteration and into its diaspora, was conceptualized as incorporeal.
Sure I can post that. It's truthful for the minority intelligentsia at least since Ezra and the Men of the Great Assembly founded nascient Semitic 'Judaism'. Thing is, it's exclusive thus only partially factual.
Readers will have no such dogma jugged down their throats like its the one only fact relevant to understand that topic.
I cannot controvert any post(er) saying otherwise if based on archeology and TN"K itself, which reveal in academic approach that a good many rank&file took the anthropomorphisms at face value clear up to 1000 yrs ago and that some ancient Israels in fact did attribute their deity with a wifey.
=-=-=-=
What about the ancient Israelite community in Elephantine? There is evidence there that they viewed Yhwh as having a wife also I've read of Kabbalistic views that God is an androgynous being composed of a male and female entity united as one.
quote:So to what extent was a gendered, though sexless, incorporate deity factual of the broad masses? They weren't going around quivering in holy holy piousness like Sunday School class books present them. They were just like the other day to day peoples around them in a world of Gods made by Humans whose priests and chiefs learned to coax and finally control denizens via organizing their common-most spiritualities into a set of dictated rules for their ethnic group, to both rulers/holymen and the peoples best advantages.
This wing of the Mansion would have to conclude Israel officially pushed a gendered, sexless, incorporeal solo being as the deity until the masses 1000s of years later finally gave up all but one restricted interpretive belief of a GodWife transmuted into Shekinah considered both the deity's wife and the "Divine Presence" itself.
The Christian view of trinity is that God 'the Father' is a transcendent being that is technically sexless but figuratively is male not only due to patriarchal sensibilities but also the sense that 'He' created the cosmos and its inhabitants instead of giving birth to it. God 'the Son' is the being called 'The Angel of His Face/Presence' or 'The Angel of His Name' in the TNK who was likely the God who walked in the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve (since no creature can see the Father in person and live) and is the being who later incarnated as Yeshuah/Jesus. The Holy Spirit is the incorporeal and largely invisible entity that is pervasive and omnipresent especially where there is life. All three aspects which are referenced to in the TNK are God or 'Elohim' the collective.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: That is NOT what Jesus was. Jesus was conceived immaculately by his mother Maryam through the Holy Spirit. No sex involved. He was not a hemi-theos (half-god) but simultaneously completely God and completely man. Once his earthly body died he was resurrected with a resplendent divine body interestingly making him more similar to Egyptian and other African myths of divine kings whose bodies were mortal but capable of reviving into an immortal "shining" form.
Maybe there is an influence from northeastern Africa there?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Perhaps there is, though I should point out such influence is not solely on Christianity per say but on early Judaean or Israelite religion in general since traditions hold that the Israelite tribes resided in Egypt for a time.
One good source on Egyptian influence on Israelite and later Christian development is Alice C. Linsley and her blog Just Genesis. She's really off when it comes to genetics and she groups Nilo-Saharan with Afro-asiatic which tends to obfuscate the latter's direct ties between Egyptian and early Semitic systems. However she is very keen at pointing out cultural practices held in common and mythological motifs.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Getting back to the origins of the Coptic/Christian faith in Egypt (as opposed to the people who adopted that faith), I think an important missing link is the Jordan and Sinai region. For some reason most sources on Christian history tend to neglect this area.
This same area is also the missing link in Islamic history. As I've earlier pointed out Islam is itself a Christian heresy, but Islamic tradition as based on Hadiths written centuries after Muhammad posit its origins in the Hejaz in Mecca and Medina. However, no archaeology has verified these claims. On the contrary, the Quran itself posits the birthplace and homeland of 'The Prophet ' in a city called Bakka which was a major city located in a well watered valley with high cliffs and olive trees. None of these descriptions match Mecca but they do match Petra. By the way, 'Muhammad' is not a name but a title meaning 'the Praised One' and even this title is not commonly used in the Quran as often as 'the Prophet'. What's more Canadian historian Dan Gibson has proven through his studies of the earliest qibla (direction of prayer) that the earliest known mosques had their qiblas pointing to Petra not Jerusalem or Mecca. Really all of this deserves its own topic.
But getting back to my point, Petra and the nation of Nabataea in general was originally an early center of Christianity. After the assassination of James brother of Jesus, his surviving relatives and members of his church fled south of Judaea into Edom (Arabia Petraea). It's likely that afterward this same community extended westward into the Sinai. Tradition holds that St. Mark arrived in Alexandria by boat, but again we shouldn't really attribute Christianity's presence in Egypt alone to him. If one were to retrace the steps of the Simeon the Ethiopian eunuch to his journey back to Nubia he could have crossed from Arabia Petraea through Sinai and then to the Nile Valley or Sailed from the Red Sea port of Arabia Petraea to the Nubian coast.
Right before the time of 'Muhammad' the Jordanian area was controlled by the Christian Ghassanids who interestingly were of the same Monophysite faith as the Copts but had their own Church.
In fact the earliest church discovered by archaeology is the Aqaba Church discovered by the Gulf of Aqaba. Jordanian Christians still exist today albeit a tiny minority of the local Bedouin.
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: This same area is also the missing link in Islamic history. As I've earlier pointed out Islam is itself a Christian heresy, but Islamic tradition as based on Hadiths written centuries after Muhammad posit its origins in the Hejaz in Mecca and Medina. However, no archaeology has verified these claims. On the contrary, the Quran itself posits the birthplace and homeland of 'The Prophet ' in a city called Bakka which was a major city located in a well watered valley with high cliffs and olive trees. None of these descriptions match Mecca but they do match Petra. By the way, 'Muhammad' is not a name but a title meaning 'the Praised One' and even this title is not commonly used in the Quran as often as 'the Prophet'. What's more Canadian historian Dan Gibson has proven through his studies of the earliest qibla (direction of prayer) that the earliest known mosques had their qiblas pointing to Petra not Jerusalem or Mecca. Really all of this deserves its own topic.
But getting back to my point, Petra and the nation of Nabataea in general was originally an early center of Christianity. After the assassination of James brother of Jesus, his surviving relatives and members of his church fled south of Judaea into Edom (Arabia Petraea).It's likely that afterward this same community extended westward into the Sinai. Tradition holds that St. Mark arrived in Alexandria by boat, but again we shouldn't really attribute Christianity's presence in Egypt alone to him. If one were to retrace the steps of the Simeon the Ethiopian eunuch to his journey back to Nubia he could have crossed from Arabia Petraea through Sinai and then to the Nile Valley or Sailed from the Red Sea port of Arabia Petraea to the Nubian coast.
Do you have further readings on the bolded?
Posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Originally posted by Tukuler:
I thought everybody knew about Constantine and the 1st council at Nicea. Hhow it was there, over 200 yrs after the agreed upon date given to the Gospels, Letters, and Apocalypse, that Christianity actually took shape.
Not really. As already shown by credible scholarship the foundational writings and doctrines of Christianity were well in place and accepted by most who followed the faith centuries before Nicea. Just the writings of the Apostle Paul, within 50 years or so of the death of Christ debunk claims of some sort of “Nicean” set up. The “taking shape” was centuries BEFORE Nicea.
There was no such thing as heresy in Christianity until at least the 1st Council at Nicea because[b] a unified belief system that one could waiver from simply did not exist.
Wrong again. Actually the writings of Paul and John and others criticized several positions considered heretical centuries BEFORE Nicea. Chief among these was denial of the resurrection. Others included denial of the deity of Christ. Criticisms of what was deemed to be erroneous, appear in the letters of Paul and others and did not have to wait for Nicean councilors to come along. In fact the Nicean councilors relied on these foundational writings to handle the main controversy at Nicea which dealt little with any pick and choose of a canon.
The Christianity we know today is a Roman result just as today's rabbinic Judaism is a Roman result.
How is rabbinic Judaism a Roman result? Can you give specific examples? Was the rabbinate established and controlled by the Romans?
In the former case Constantine is responsible for Christianity since he set up the "Nicean Council"
Constantine may have set up the council but he is not “responsible for Christianity.” The founders of Christianity are responsible for its core doctrines, writings and beliefs.
which determined which of the tenets and doctrines circulating around the Mediterranean world were to become either Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox,etc.
Keep in mind that the tenets of Christianity do not derive from, did not originate with, and do not depend on Constantine. The tenets Nicea adopted however are basically consistent with the core foundations of Christian thought, such as the resurrection etc. In fact Constantine had to convene a gathering of many respected and credible Christian leaders and teachers of the day, and it was they who called the tune after due deliberation.
Other unapproved doctrines, that many many a pre 325 CE Christian believed in and followed were suppressed and their practitioners even penalized at times, iirc.
Sure, there was suppression of unapproved views such as that of Arian. And this is nothing special at all in religious systems. Anytime a religious faith is being defended, what is deemed unorthodox is disavowed, Hence orthodox Judiasm has suppressed claims that there are multiple true Gods in favor of the doctrine of one true God. Orthodox Islam has suppressed the same, along with other views that question Muhammed’s role as a true prophet or last revelation of God. Most Buddhist teachings likewise suppresses contrary views in its own sphere- with the commonly accepted pool of core beliefs excluding contradictory doctrines such as Islam and Christianity, not needing a central leader or organization to do so.
Christianity wasn't consolidated until after the birth of Islam. Before the 460 years of councils at Nicea and elsewhere, more 'books' circulated than in either the very streamlined and late appearing Protestant Bible most are familiar with or the fuller Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Ethiopian, etc., editions.
It depends how you define “consolidated.” The core beliefs and writings were already established as a clear foundation, complete with certain non-negotiables such as the atoning sacrifice, the resurrection etc. You could say that Constantine cranked up the imposition or intrusion of Roman imperial power but he had little to do with any canon formulations at Nicea.
One can read most of these banished Christian Gospels and Apocalypse. See their forbidden theology in an edition like the misnamed Lost Books of the Bible. No, there are no lost books. The 'Councilors' decided what was and what was not going to be canon.
Not quite. There was little “pick and choose” as to what books were to be in the canon at Nicea. In fact there was little discussion of the issue because most of the writings usually recognized as “the Canon” today were already commonly accepted by Christians via: (a) writings of the apostles, (b) the approval of the apostles, (c) acceptance by the mass of Christian believers and (d) consistency of doctrine with that of the apostles who had directly heard and received it from Jesus. Peter himself affirms and approves of the teachings of Paul for example in 2 Peter 3, even mentioning his epistles:
“.. even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” –-2 Peter 2: 15
Such had already laid the foundations. Picking an accepted set of writings was among the least problems the Nicean councilors had to contend with.
Most of the discussion at Nicea revolved around the Arian controversy as to the deity of Christ. There was “controversy” because Arian advanced a line of argument contradictory to the basic four-fold test above. A summary on Wikipedia is fairly accurate and can be verified by the cited refs (QUOTE):
There is no record of any discussion of the biblical canon at the Council.[84] The development of the biblical canon was nearly complete (with exceptions known as the Antilegomena, written texts whose authenticity or value is disputed) by the time the Muratorian fragment was written.[85]
The main source of the idea that the canon was created at the Council of Nicaea seems to be Voltaire, who popularised a story that the canon was determined by placing all the competing books on an altar during the Council and then keeping the ones that did not fall off. The original source of this "fictitious anecdote" is the Synodicon Vetus,[87] a pseudo-historical account of early Church councils from AD 887:[88]” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea cited ref: John Meade, "The Council of Nicaea and the Biblical Canon" and Ehrman 2004, pp. 15–16, 23, 93
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: This same area is also the missing link in Islamic history. As I've earlier pointed out Islam is itself a Christian heresy, but Islamic tradition as based on Hadiths written centuries after Muhammad posit its origins in the Hejaz in Mecca and Medina. However, no archaeology has verified these claims. On the contrary, the Quran itself posits the birthplace and homeland of 'The Prophet ' in a city called Bakka which was a major city located in a well watered valley with high cliffs and olive trees. None of these descriptions match Mecca but they do match Petra. By the way, 'Muhammad' is not a name but a title meaning 'the Praised One' and even this title is not commonly used in the Quran as often as 'the Prophet'. What's more Canadian historian Dan Gibson has proven through his studies of the earliest qibla (direction of prayer) that the earliest known mosques had their qiblas pointing to Petra not Jerusalem or Mecca. Really all of this deserves its own topic.
But getting back to my point, Petra and the nation of Nabataea in general was originally an early center of Christianity. After the assassination of James brother of Jesus, his surviving relatives and members of his church fled south of Judaea into Edom (Arabia Petraea).It's likely that afterward this same community extended westward into the Sinai. Tradition holds that St. Mark arrived in Alexandria by boat, but again we shouldn't really attribute Christianity's presence in Egypt alone to him. If one were to retrace the steps of the Simeon the Ethiopian eunuch to his journey back to Nubia he could have crossed from Arabia Petraea through Sinai and then to the Nile Valley or Sailed from the Red Sea port of Arabia Petraea to the Nubian coast.
Do you have further readings on the bolded?
James and Paul: The Pseudo-Clementine writings of the late fourth century take up and develop the tensions between James and Paul. These writings appear to be based on sources and traditions derived from Christian Jews from Jerusalem who fled to Pella (a city in the Decapolis on the eastern side of the Jordan River) around the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. After the suppression of the second revolt against Rome in 135 C.E., the Jewish Jerusalem church disbanded, possibly again migrating to Pella. Not surprisingly, the tradition in the Pseudo-Clementines portrays Paul as the enemy of James and Christian Judaism. Historically, however, the evidence suggests that though the relationship involved tensions, the two were not enemies.
Jewish Christianity: James the Just, Ebionites and Essenes Extra-Biblical Perspectives "While Peter carried the Gospel to the towns of Judea, James "the Just," "the brother of the Lord," became the head of the now reduced and impoverished church in Jerusalem. James practiced the Law in all its severity, and rivaled the Essenes in asceticism; he ate no meats drank no wink had only one garment, and never cut his hair or beard. For eleven years, under his guidance, the Christians were left undisturbed. About 41 another James, the son of Zebedee, was beheaded; Peter was arrested, but escaped. In 62 James the Just was himself put to death. Four years later the Jews revolted against Rome. The Jerusalem Christians, too convinced of the coming "end of the world" to care about politics, left the city and established themselves in pagan and pro-Roman Pella, on the farther bank of the Jordan. From that hour Judaism and Christianity parted. The Jews accused the Christians of treason and cowardice, and the Christians hailed the destruction of the Temple by Titus as a fulfillment of Christ's prophecy. Mutual hatred Inflamed the two faiths, and wrote some of their most pious literature..." Posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Bible Odyssey article sez: Not surprisingly, the tradition in the Pseudo-Clementines portrays Paul as the enemy of James and Christian Judaism. Historically, however, the evidence suggests that though the relationship involved tensions, the two were not enemies. https://www.bibleodyssey.org:443/en/people/related--
The article's conclusion is a fair one, and its use of the title " Pseudo-Clementine" can in a sense basically sum up the false or pseudo notion of some sort of massive division or enmity between Paul and James. Nothing of the sort existed. Tensions yes, as the Judaic influence on Christianity with its legalisms and law strictures waned and the distinctive elements of Christianity freed of the old Judaic systems flourished. It is significant that they were first called Christians in Antioch not Jerusalem which was slated for future destruction.
The Biblical narrative shows some tension but more significant is that James actually played a moderate, conciliatory role in reconciling calls for imposition of Jewish legalism on the gentiles. It is James in the Book of Acts who is the moderate- rejecting extreme Jewish legalisma nd formalism and only calling for a minimal observance of legalism, and James moderate formula was widely hailed and accepted as per Acts: ============================================================================= ACTS 15- 13-31 13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: 14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. 15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written.. 19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood...
22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.
24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; 29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
30 So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle:
31 Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation." =============================================================================
^^Thus it is James who is the moderate, harmonizer guy, and his moderate formula receives wide support, which pretty much debunks attempts to portray James as some sort of ascetic extremist. And it is James that puts a spike in the legal extremism certain of the Jewish belieevers sought to impose on the Gentile beleivers.
Rather than James, the main tension recorded in the Biblical narrative is between Paul and Peter, not James. Paul says he had to withstand Peter to the face for his disimmulation when again, Jewish influences sought to impose their legalisms on the Gentiles, refusing even to eat with the Gentile believers. Apparently some had forgotten James moderate approach, so the lesson had to be driven home again:
"11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. 13
And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. 14But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" -Galatians 2: 11-21 ---------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------
It was an embarrassing confrontation in public for Peter but a necessary one to prevent Christianity falling back into Judaism and old Judaic forms. Peter accepts the rebuke and later on explicitly affirms and endorses the ministry of Paul:
“.. even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” –-2 Peter 2: 15
Posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
The Christianity we know today is a Roman result just as today's rabbinic Judaism is a Roman result.
^^Lioness do you have anything on this? Is todays' rabbinic Judaism merely a form set up by the Roman hegemons?
And speaking of councils setting up canons, some argue that a central councils of Jews, the Council of Jamnia, is responsible for setting up the canon of the Old Testament. Using the approach of "council setups" could it not be argued that the central council is responsible for the Judaism we have today? In addition, influencer Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai relocated to the city of Yavneh, where he received permission from the Romans to found a school of halakha (Jewish religious law). Thus using the "Rome in charge" formula could it be said that influential Jewish rabbis and the central council were under the thumb of the Roman bosses?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova: [QB] The Christianity we know today is a Roman result just as today's rabbinic Judaism is a Roman result.
^^Lioness do you have anything on this? Is todays' rabbinic Judaism merely a form set up by the Roman hegemons?
What in particular, theologically, makes todays rabbinic Judaism a result of Roman ideas?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Zarahan, you are absolutely correct on James Brother of Jesus. Furthermore, the disputes and reconciliations between the Apostles shows that the doctrines of Christianity were being solidified by the Apostles themselves NOT by Nicene Councils long before the birth of Constantine! Constantine nor his councils did NOT create Christianity. Jesus and his apostles did.
The purpose of the Nicene Council was to clarify to the Roman Imperial government what Christianity is and what it entails in contrast to the various sects and cults that utilized certain Christian themes or took the Christian title as outright imposters. The Christian Ecclesia/Church was first ratified and unified under the Apostles themselves. It was only later on when Christianity began gaining in popularity that there appeared the heretical sects and cults that began appropriating Christian name or ways.
Zarahan, what do you make of the successive Apostolate Church of James surviving in Arabia Petraea and its connections to Coptism?
Posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova: [QB] The Christianity we know today is a Roman result just as today's rabbinic Judaism is a Roman result.
^^Lioness do you have anything on this? Is todays' rabbinic Judaism merely a form set up by the Roman hegemons?
What in particular, theologically, makes todays rabbinic Judaism a result of Roman ideas?
This is exactly what I asked Tukuler. Where is he coming up with this claim?
Posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Zarahan, you are absolutely correct on James Brother of Jesus. Furthermore, the disputes and reconciliations between the Apostles shows that the doctrines of Christianity were being solidified by the Apostles themselves NOT by Nicene Councils long before the birth of Constantine! Constantine nor his councils did NOT create Christianity. Jesus and his apostles did.
The purpose of the Nicene Council was to clarify to the Roman Imperial government what Christianity is and what it entails in contrast to the various sects and cults that utilized certain Christian themes or took the Christian title as outright imposters. The Christian Ecclesia/Church was first ratified and unified under the Apostles themselves. It was only later on when Christianity began gaining in popularity that there appeared the heretical sects and cults that began appropriating Christian name or ways.
Zarahan, what do you make of the successive Apostolate Church of James surviving in Arabia Petraea and its connections to Coptism?
Indeed. As for the Apostolate CHurch of James in Arabia, don't know much about it, and web searches yield thin material so far. Maybe an offshoot of the Jewish/Palestinian remnants left behind after the destruction of Jerusalem? The dynamic movements of Christianity had by that time moved on from this area and its stronger Jewish influence. Per the book 2000 years of Coptic Christianity ref below, the COptic Church places stress on the healing practices advocated by James in his Epistle, particularly prayer and anointing:
“However, we must make an important distinction between the official, or sacramental healing ministry of the Coptic Church, and the popular healing ministry of the Coptic Church. The sacramental healing ministry follows the healing practice as set forth by James:
----------------------- ------------ Is any among you afflicted? Let him pray. Is any merry? Let him sing psalms. Is any sick among you? Let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him (James 5:13-15).” -------------------------- -------------- --FROM: Two Thousand Years of Coptic Christianity. By Otto Friedrich August Meinardus. 2002
Speaking of the Coptic CHurch it pretty much accepted the decisions at Nicea. QUOTE from the detailed history:
--------------------------------
“Egypt’s role in the formation of the canon of the Scriptures was of the utmost importance, owing to the natural advantages of its position and the conspicuous eminence of its great teachers during the third century, particularly Clement of Alexandria and Origen. The testimony of the Alexandrian Church to the New Testament canon is generally uniform. In addition to the acknowledged books, the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse were received there as divine scripture, even by those who doubted their immediate apostolic origin. The two shorter Epistle of Saint John were well known and commonly received, but no one except Origen, so far as can be discovered, was acquainted with the Second Epistle of Peter.
The first reference to the complete canon, however, is found in the Thirty-ninth Festal Letter of Saint Athanasius (fourth century), where the books are listed in the following order:
Old Testament-, the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four Kings, two Chronicles, Esdras (I and II), Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job, twelve Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Lamentations, Ezekiel, and Daniel.
New Testament-. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, seven Catholic Epistles (James; I and II Peter; I, II, and III John; Jude), fourteen Pauline Episdes (Romans, I and II Corinthians, Hebrews, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I and II Thcssalonians, I and II Timothy, Titus, Philemon), and the Apocalypse.”
--FROM: Two Thousand Years of Coptic Christianity. By Otto Friedrich August Meinardus. 2002. p40-42
Here is a quote from Athanasius’ 39 festal letter (c367AD). With a small number of exceptions his list roughly conforms to the accepted canon of today. The Coptic Church accepts this as a matter of course with little serious disagreement or debate:
----------------------------- ---------------------------- As he put it: “Again it is not tedious to speak of the books of the New Testament. These are, the four gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addi tion, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Eph esians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.” (Athanasius, L, 552) ----------------------- ------------------------------ -
While the Coptic Church has developed in distinctive ways and is linked with the Constantinople rather than Roman framework, the Coptic Church is generally accepting of the decisions at Nicea, QUOTE:
“Nicea (325). The First Ecumenical Council assembled at Nicca in Bithynia. The twenty canons of the 318 holy fathers arc of greatest importance for the study of canon law. After the Confessio fidei, the creed promulgated by the council, there follow the canons. These canons state that pagans are not to be ordained, unless they have been well instructed in the Christian faith; that members of the clergy should not castrate themselves; and that they should not live with women, except those belonging to their families. Furthermore, those who have been excommunicated should not be restored to communion by another bishop, and those who engage in usury shall be cast forth. Canon six states, “Let the ancient customs which are observed in Egypt, Libya, and the Pcntapolis prevail, so that the Bishop of Alexandria may have jurisdiction over all these [nomes], since this is also customary with the Bishop at Rome.” Special requirements are set forth for those who lapsed during the persecutions.” --FROM: Two Thousand Years of Coptic Christianity. By Otto Friedrich August Meinardus. 2002. p46
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova: Indeed. As for the Apostolate Church of James in Arabia, don't know much about it, and web searches yield thin material so far. Maybe an offshoot of the Jewish/Palestinian remnants left behind after the destruction of Jerusalem? The dynamic movements of Christianity had by that time moved on from this area and its stronger Jewish influence. Per the book 2000 years of Coptic Christianity ref below, the Coptic Church places stress on the healing practices advocated by James in his Epistle, particularly prayer and anointing:
“However, we must make an important distinction between the official, or sacramental healing ministry of the Coptic Church, and the popular healing ministry of the Coptic Church. The sacramental healing ministry follows the healing practice as set forth by James:
----------------------- ------------ Is any among you afflicted? Let him pray. Is any merry? Let him sing psalms. Is any sick among you? Let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him (James 5:13-15).” -------------------------- -------------- --FROM: Two Thousand Years of Coptic Christianity. By Otto Friedrich August Meinardus. 2002
Yes, thanks for reminding me about James's healing tradition that's held in common with the Coptic Church. Another tradition that's a possible strong link would be desert monasticism of the so-called Desert Fathers. The Coptic Church of Egypt gets all the credit for desert ascetism yet as the source I cited earlier shows, James Brother of Jesus was an ardent proponent of asceticism even taking Nazerite vows. After his death and the destruction of his church in Jerusalem his followers carried such traditions into the deserts of Negev and Jordan. The oldest known desert monastery is the Monastery of St. Anthony located in the northern Eastern Desert of Egypt, but this is only counting the formally constructed monasteries. The first monasteries were not artificially constructed buildings but rather caves and crannies that were taken residence in. In fact, archaeology is only recently looking at this.
quote:Speaking of the Coptic Church it pretty much accepted the decisions at Nicea. QUOTE from the detailed history:
--------------------------------
“Egypt’s role in the formation of the canon of the Scriptures was of the utmost importance, owing to the natural advantages of its position and the conspicuous eminence of its great teachers during the third century, particularly Clement of Alexandria and Origen. The testimony of the Alexandrian Church to the New Testament canon is generally uniform. In addition to the acknowledged books, the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse were received there as divine scripture, even by those who doubted their immediate apostolic origin. The two shorter Epistle of Saint John were well known and commonly received, but no one except Origen, so far as can be discovered, was acquainted with the Second Epistle of Peter.
The first reference to the complete canon, however, is found in the Thirty-ninth Festal Letter of Saint Athanasius (fourth century), where the books are listed in the following order:
Old Testament-, the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four Kings, two Chronicles, Esdras (I and II), Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job, twelve Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Lamentations, Ezekiel, and Daniel.
New Testament-. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, seven Catholic Epistles (James; I and II Peter; I, II, and III John; Jude), fourteen Pauline Episdes (Romans, I and II Corinthians, Hebrews, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I and II Thcssalonians, I and II Timothy, Titus, Philemon), and the Apocalypse.”
--FROM: Two Thousand Years of Coptic Christianity. By Otto Friedrich August Meinardus. 2002. p40-42
Here is a quote from Athanasius’ 39 festal letter (c367AD). With a small number of exceptions his list roughly conforms to the accepted canon of today. The Coptic Church accepts this as a matter of course with little serious disagreement or debate:
----------------------------- ---------------------------- As he put it: “Again it is not tedious to speak of the books of the New Testament. These are, the four gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addi tion, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Eph esians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.” (Athanasius, L, 552) ----------------------- ------------------------------ -
While the Coptic Church has developed in distinctive ways and is linked with the Constantinople rather than Roman framework, the Coptic Church is fully accepting of the decisions at Nicea, QUOTE:
“Nicea (325). The First Ecumenical Council assembled at Nicca in Bithynia. The twenty canons of the 318 holy fathers arc of greatest importance for the study of canon law. After the Confessio fidei, the creed promulgated by the council, there follow the canons. These canons state that pagans are not to be ordained, unless they have been well instructed in the Christian faith; that members of the clergy should not castrate themselves; and that they should not live with women, except those belonging to their families. Furthermore, those who have been excommunicated should not be restored to communion by another bishop, and those who engage in usury shall be cast forth. Canon six states, “Let the ancient customs which are observed in Egypt, Libya, and the Pentapolis prevail, so that the Bishop of Alexandria may have jurisdiction over all these [nomes], since this is also customary with the Bishop at Rome.” Special requirements are set forth for those who lapsed during the persecutions.” --FROM: Two Thousand Years of Coptic Christianity. By Otto Friedrich August Meinardus. 2002. p46
^ Yet note how the Western Catholic Church has strayed from those very canons NOT the Eastern Orthodox or the Coptic Church. You have pagans or atheists being ordained. And of course Catholic priests were required to be celibate even though celibacy was only required for monks. In facts priests were required to have wives per the Book of Timonthy's requirements for priesthood. Even St. Peter the alleged 'Bishop of Rome' was married and his wife was martyred right after he was. And of course the Papacy is an innovation that developed later under early Frankish rule. There was no Pope or papacy as Archbishops of the pentapolis (5 great cities) Rome, Alexandria, Ephesus, Antioch, and Jerusalem had equal authority. As far as those engaging in usury being cast forth, LOL Usury was invented by Italian merchants and then used by the Knights Templar which was later taken over by the Vatican who has the oldest and one of the largest banks in the world. The word 'bank' comes from the early Italian 'banko' meaning counter where money transactions are done.
Posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Excellent summary, showing that what is often deemed "official" Christianity like celibate priests or central papacies alleged to be 'vicars of Christ', are mostly Catholic practice or propaganda. But wait a minute. You mean to tell me that European usury was developed by the Italians and the Vatican had a hand in the various bank or maybe as we stay today "banksta" developments? The wealth of the papacy is well known but how involved were they in the banksta end, for not only internal admin but manipulation of trade etc.?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Politics and religion go hand in hand in controlling and directing a populace as its temporal and spiritual authorities so dictate.
Yes but unfortunately Christianity was never meant to be a "state" religion. The Apostles made it clear Christianity was meant to be a local community religion whose only political role was to advise local rulers only. Christianity was a way of life and moral code of conduct that people were encouraged to follow it was NOT a system to be imposed on anyone which happened once it was officialized by imperial Rome.
I disagree. The 'church" has always been seen as basically a reflection of "gods kingdom" and therefore having earthy authority as a semi-governmental body (so as above so below also symbolic of Solomon's temple). The whole idea being that man's law (governance of the earth) is a reflection of "divine law" and the "divine kingdom" with Jesus being the "king of heaven" and the basis of earthly authority. This is why the Abrahamic religions are often seen as supra-state religions. And also keep in mind the idea of "ecumenical" means "world authority" meaning spreading over the world. Divine authority being the basis of earthly authority has always been true of formalized organized religions, except this is taking it to a global level as "really really true" not made up symbolic deities.
quote: Moreover it was enough to look at the Bible, to read it without prejudice to see that the economy of the Christian preaching was above all one of oral teaching. Christ preached, He did not write. In His preaching He appealed to the Bible, but He was not satisfied with the mere reading of it, He explained and interpreted it, He made use of it in His teaching, but He did not substitute it for His teaching. There is the example of the mysterious traveller who explained to the disciples of Emmaus what had reference to Him in the Scriptures to convince them that Christ had to suffer and thus enter into His glory. And as He preached Himself so He sent His Apostles to preach; He did not commission them to write but to teach, and it was by oral teaching and preaching that they instructed the nations and brought them to the Faith. If some of them wrote and did so under Divine inspiration it is manifest that this was as it were incidentally. They did not write for the sake of writing, but to supplement their oral teaching when they could not go themselves to recall or explain it, to solve practical questions, etc. St. Paul, who of all the Apostles wrote the most, did not dream of writing everything nor of replacing his oral teaching by his writings. Finally, the same texts which show us Christ instituting His Church and the Apostles founding Churches and spreading Christ's doctrine throughout the world show us at the same time the Church instituted as a teaching authority; the Apostles claimed for themselves this authority, sending others as they had been sent by Christ and as Christ had been sent by God, always with power to teach and to impose doctrine as well as to govern the Church and to baptize. Whoever believed them would be saved; whoever refused to believe them would be condemned. It is the living Church and not Scripture that St. Paul indicates as the pillar and the unshakable ground of truth. And the inference of texts and facts is only what is exacted by the nature of things. A book although Divine and inspired is not intended to support itself. If it is obscure (and what unprejudiced person will deny that there are obscurities in the Bible?) it must be interpreted. And even if it is clear it does not carry with it the guarantee of its Divinity, its authenticity, or its value. Someone must bring it within reach and no matter what be done the believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities between the word of God and his reading. Now, authority for authority, is it not better to have recourse to that of the Church than to that of the first comer? Liberal Protestants, such as M. Auguste Sabatier, have been the first to recognize that, if there must be a religion of authority, the Catholic system with the splendid organization of its living magisterium is far superior to the Protestant system, which rests everything on the authority of a book.
quote: A characteristic feature of the Messianic kingdom, as predicted, is its universal extent. Not merely the twelve tribes, but the Gentiles are to yield allegiance to the Son of David. All kings are to serve and obey him; his dominion is to extend to the ends of the earth (Psalm 21:28 sq.; 2:7-12; 116:1; Zechariah 9:10). Another series of remarkable passages declares that the subject nations will possess the unity conferred by a common faith and a common worship — a feature represented under the striking image of the concourse of all peoples and nations to worship at Jerusalem. "It shall come to pass in the last days (i.e. in the Messianic Era] . . . that many nations shall say: Come and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways and we will walk in his paths; for the law shall go forth out of Sion, and the word of the Lord out of Jerusalem" (Micah 4:1-2; cf. Isaiah 2:2; Zechariah 8:3). This unity of worship is to be the fruit of a Divine revelation common to all the inhabitants of the earth (Zechariah 14:8).
Corresponding to the triple office of the Messias as priest, prophet, and king, it will be noted that in relation to the kingdom the Sacred Writings lay stress on three points:
it is to be endowed with a new and peculiar sacrificial system it is to be the kingdom of truth possessed of a Divine revelation it is to be governed by an authority emanating from the Messias.
This is no different than Ptah,Amun, Osiris and Djehuti being the ultimate origin of the earthly right to make laws and to rule as Pharaoh.
Also in terms of the theology and philosophy of the Greeks it is important to understand the main issue aside from the historicity of Christ is how to understand Christ and the trinity in present day terms as a subject of faith, belief and meditation/prayer. And for that they make use of many concept that are philosophical in nature.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I disagree. The "church" has always been seen as basically a reflection of "gods kingdom" and therefore having earthy authority as a semi-governmental body (so as above so below also symbolic of Solomon's temple). The whole idea being that man's law (governance of the earth) is a reflection of "divine law" and the "divine kingdom" with Jesus being the "king of heaven" and the basis of earthly authority. This is why the Abrahamic religions are often seen as supra-state religions. And also keep in mind the idea of "ecumenical" means "world authority" meaning spreading over the world. Divine authority being the basis of earthly authority has always been true of formalized organized religions, except this is taking it to a global level as "really really true" not made up symbolic deities.
Yes, the church is suppose to be a reflection of God's kingdom but there is still a distinction between the divine kingdom and the earthly. Earthly kingdoms or governments as based on politics of man is faulty. God's kingdom as a spiritual one is not. The problem arises when mixing the two. Jesus who is both God and man is believed to be the only one who can unite both realms and as per Christian belief he will achieve this when he returns to bring about "olam ha va" (the worlds to come) when a new heaven and earth are created. Until then no one can achieve this let alone impose it on anyone. (Luke 17:21) Jesus was once asked when the kingdom of God would come. The kingdom of God, Jesus replied, is not something people will be able to see and point to. Then came these striking words: “Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.”
This is why for Christians to become citizens of the Kingdom of God is a spiritual process of naturalization that begins within the heart and soul of the believer. This is NOT something that is to be imposed on anyone such as by destroying pagan temples or coercing them into conversion like you see in Islam. In fact, the early Church fathers preached against the practice of 'dominion' or 'domination' which is viewed as one of the ways of Satan. Until Jesus returns the church is to preserve and promulgate the doctrines and virtues which that communities or nations may follow while advising whatever governments are in place whether they be monarchies, republics, etc.
quote:
quote: Moreover it was enough to look at the Bible, to read it without prejudice to see that the economy of the Christian preaching was above all one of oral teaching. Christ preached, He did not write. In His preaching He appealed to the Bible, but He was not satisfied with the mere reading of it, He explained and interpreted it, He made use of it in His teaching, but He did not substitute it for His teaching. There is the example of the mysterious traveller who explained to the disciples of Emmaus what had reference to Him in the Scriptures to convince them that Christ had to suffer and thus enter into His glory. And as He preached Himself so He sent His Apostles to preach; He did not commission them to write but to teach, and it was by oral teaching and preaching that they instructed the nations and brought them to the Faith. If some of them wrote and did so under Divine inspiration it is manifest that this was as it were incidentally. They did not write for the sake of writing, but to supplement their oral teaching when they could not go themselves to recall or explain it, to solve practical questions, etc. St. Paul, who of all the Apostles wrote the most, did not dream of writing everything nor of replacing his oral teaching by his writings. Finally, the same texts which show us Christ instituting His Church and the Apostles founding Churches and spreading Christ's doctrine throughout the world show us at the same time the Church instituted as a teaching authority; the Apostles claimed for themselves this authority, sending others as they had been sent by Christ and as Christ had been sent by God, always with power to teach and to impose doctrine as well as to govern the Church and to baptize. Whoever believed them would be saved; whoever refused to believe them would be condemned. It is the living Church and not Scripture that St. Paul indicates as the pillar and the unshakable ground of truth. And the inference of texts and facts is only what is exacted by the nature of things. A book although Divine and inspired is not intended to support itself. If it is obscure (and what unprejudiced person will deny that there are obscurities in the Bible?) it must be interpreted. And even if it is clear it does not carry with it the guarantee of its Divinity, its authenticity, or its value. Someone must bring it within reach and no matter what be done the believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities between the word of God and his reading. Now, authority for authority, is it not better to have recourse to that of the Church than to that of the first comer? Liberal Protestants, such as M. Auguste Sabatier, have been the first to recognize that, if there must be a religion of authority, the Catholic system with the splendid organization of its living magisterium is far superior to the Protestant system, which rests everything on the authority of a book.
quote: A characteristic feature of the Messianic kingdom, as predicted, is its universal extent. Not merely the twelve tribes, but the Gentiles are to yield allegiance to the Son of David. All kings are to serve and obey him; his dominion is to extend to the ends of the earth (Psalm 21:28 sq.; 2:7-12; 116:1; Zechariah 9:10). Another series of remarkable passages declares that the subject nations will possess the unity conferred by a common faith and a common worship — a feature represented under the striking image of the concourse of all peoples and nations to worship at Jerusalem. "It shall come to pass in the last days (i.e. in the Messianic Era] . . . that many nations shall say: Come and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways and we will walk in his paths; for the law shall go forth out of Sion, and the word of the Lord out of Jerusalem" (Micah 4:1-2; cf. Isaiah 2:2; Zechariah 8:3). This unity of worship is to be the fruit of a Divine revelation common to all the inhabitants of the earth (Zechariah 14:8).
Corresponding to the triple office of the Messias as priest, prophet, and king, it will be noted that in relation to the kingdom the Sacred Writings lay stress on three points:
it is to be endowed with a new and peculiar sacrificial system it is to be the kingdom of truth possessed of a Divine revelation it is to be governed by an authority emanating from the Messias.
This is no different than Ptah,Amun, Osiris and Djehuti being the ultimate origin of the earthly right to make laws and to rule as Pharaoh.
Also in terms of the theology and philosophy of the Greeks it is important to understand the main issue aside from the historicity of Christ is how to understand Christ and the trinity in present day terms as a subject of faith, belief and meditation/prayer. And for that they make use of many concept that are philosophical in nature.
Yes, Jesus as the quintessential god-king found in Egyptian (and other African cultures) had all the power and glory to him. His Apostles who were his lieutenants were promised thrones of their own as well in the new kingdom. While in Egypt there was divine kingship, Asiatics on the other hand had at best priest-kings but mostly kings aided by priests and advised by prophets. To be all three- priest, prophet, and king was excessive for a mere man unless he were divine. The very existence of the earthly kingdom of Israel was depended on their covenant the heavenly kingdom of the deity they served. This was a common belief and practice in the ancient world. When a kingdom conquered another, it was believed the patron deity of the conquering kingdom also conquered the patron deity of the conquered city. The God of Israel was never viewed as a conquering deity but rather a deity who is never conquered because he is the creator of the universe. The Israelites were chosen to be a priesthood unto all other nations. Unfortunately this has been distorted by ultra-Zionists and even some of their Evangelical allies. Again dominion is viewed as something satanic. This is why the church as heavenly kingdom begins from the believers as a grass roots movement and NOT top down rule except from God himself. In fact Jesus describes God's Kingdom as "weeds" despite a gardener's attempt to root them out! True followers of Christ are to be persecuted not become persecutors or reliant on a government or state!
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
I really didn't want this thread to devolve into a debate about Christian theology but rather stick to the topic of the origin of the Coptic religion and those peoples who adopted that religious identity.
Christianity began as a sect of Judaean religion (as opposed to modern Jewish/Rabbinical religion) thus the first church grew out amongst Judaeans and spread first to Judaeans before gentiles. So the first Christian communities Egypt had to spring up in Judaean communities first. Tradition holds Alexandria as the great center of Christianity in Egypt and St. Mark its Episcopal leader for establishing the Church there in A.D. 42. But was Alexandria the very first area of Christianity? And was St. Mark the first to introduce it? Tradition holds that at two other apostles evangelized in Africa namely Simon the Zealot and possibly Matthew, and before the latter his convert Simeon Bachos the Ethiopian eunuch. Alexandria had the largest population of Judaeans but it doesn't make them the first all be all. In fact another early center that gets neglected is the city of Pelesium (modern Farma) in the northeastern Delta facing the Sinai. In fact, Pelesium was believed to be the first Egyptian city Jesus and his family dwelt in when they fled from Herod. Then there is the subsequent influx and influence of refugees from James Church who dwelt in the Jordanian and Sinai deserts.
Another point of interest in the development of Coptism from Archaeology of Early Christianity in Egypt While the popularity of various Gnostic communities had started to wane by the fourth century, a variety of other groups such as the Manicheans, Melitians, Arians, and Nestorians developed alternative theological positions to challenge Alexandrian Christianity (Bagnall 1993, 303–7; Behlmer and Tamcke 2015). The Alexandrian patriarchs (p. 668) were able to assert an independence from the wider Christian community of Byzantium with the support of an increasingly powerful monastic movement in the chōra. By 451 Egyptian and Syrian Christians declined to support the theology of Chalcedon and elected to stand by the authority of the Alexandrian patriarchs. The severing of ties between Constantinople, Rome, and Alexandria marked the separation of the miaphysite community found in Egypt and Syria and the pro-Chalcedonian or Melkite community, which supported Constantinople. While ethnicity did not necessarily predetermine the alliances, the Egyptian and Syrian churches would develop an identity entirely separate from the imperial, predominately pro-Chalcedonian church as espoused by the Melkites (Farag 2014, 23–38).
And then we have this from an Arab historian on the Arab conquest of Egypt: Know that the land of Egypt when the Muslims entered it, was full of Christians, but divided amongst themselves in two sects, both as to race and religion.
The one part was made up of men about the court and public affairs, all Greek, from among the soldiers of Constantinople, the seat of government of Rum; their views as well as their religion, were all of them Melkite; and their number was above 300 000, all Greeks
The other portion was the whole people of Egypt, who were Qibt, and were of mixed descent; among whom one could not distinguish Qibt from Abbysinian, Nubian or Israelite; and they were all Jacobites. Some of them were writers in government offices, others were merchants and tradesmen, others were bishops and presbyters and such like, others were tillers of the land in the country, while others were of the class of servants and domestics. But between these and the Melkite ruling population, marriages were not allowed, from mutual hatred of each other, often carried to murders on either side.
---The Sheikh and Imam Taqi-ed-din El-Maqrizi of Cairo from Baalbek, History of the Copts and of their Church Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:The other portion was the whole people of Egypt, who were Qibt, and were of mixed descent; among whom one could not distinguish Qibt from Abyssinian, Nubian or Israelite; and they were all Jacobites.
What do you think they meant by this? Were they discussing phenotypic appearance, religious beliefs, or something else?
Speaking of phenotype, I remember a few years back seeing someone on another Internet forum citing the story of a Coptic saint named "St. Moses the Black" as evidence that Egyptians during the early Christian period couldn't have been "Black" as apparently St. Moses's skin color was noted as standing out among them:
quote:When [St. Moses] came before the Patriarch to be ordained, the patriarch wanted to test him by asking the elders, Who brought this black here? Cast him out. He obeyed, and left saying to himself, It is good what they have done to you, O black colored one. The Patriarch, however, called him back and ordained him a priest, and said to him, Moses, all of you now has become white.
Any thoughts on this?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:The other portion was the whole people of Egypt, who were Qibt, and were of mixed descent; among whom one could not distinguish Qibt from Abyssinian, Nubian or Israelite; and they were all Jacobites.
What do you think they meant by this? Were they discussing phenotypic appearance, religious beliefs, or something else?
It's clear El-Maqrizi is referring to both-- phenotype and religious beliefs. As I cited in the first source, the first major schism of the Church due to sectarian division (before the Schism of 1054) was the Council of Chalcedon where the precise nature of Jesus's divinity was debated. The Ecclesial Sees of Byzantium and Rome accepted the Chalcedon view that Jesus was equally God and equally human in nature whereas all the other Sees viewed him as only God in nature just in human form. Thus the latter churches held to the monophysite/miaphysite of Christ's divine nature only. This is the view held by the majority of churches in Christendom including Asiatic churches such as the Syrian Orthodox Church known as the 'Jacobite' Church, the Assyrian Orthodox or 'Nestorian' Church of the East, Armenian Church, and Coptic Churches of Africa including Tewahedo Church of Ethiopia. The only exception in Asia was the Lebanese Orthodox Church known as 'Melkite' Church which accepted Chalcedon and submitted to the Greek authority of Constantinople. So apparently northern Egypt especially Alexandria was Melkite i.e. Byzantine-Greek whereas the other Egyptians were 'Jacobite' Christians who were Miaphysites who apparently were more black in appearance. The part that struck me was that El-Maqrizi included 'Israelites' among this latter group!
quote:Speaking of phenotype, I remember a few years back seeing someone on another Internet forum citing the story of a Coptic saint named "St. Moses the Black" as evidence that Egyptians during the early Christian period couldn't have been "Black" as apparently St. Moses's skin color was noted as standing out among them:
quote:When [St. Moses] came before the Patriarch to be ordained, the patriarch wanted to test him by asking the elders, Who brought this black here? Cast him out. He obeyed, and left saying to himself, It is good what they have done to you, O black colored one. The Patriarch, however, called him back and ordained him a priest, and said to him, Moses, all of you now has become white.
Any thoughts on this?
Yeah! It makes perfect sense when you take into context El-Maqrizi's account. Alexandria was predominantly Greek (white) and thus NOT native. So of course St. Moses would be distinguished as 'Black'. The obfuscation from Eurocentrics is that all 'Copts', that is Egyptian Christians, were of the same phenotype as Greek Alexandrians but this couldn't be further from the truth. Speaking of which, the Coptic Church unsurprisingly is the church with the largest number of black saints second to that of the Tewahedo Church of course. Yet Most Christians don't ever hear about them.
Worse yet, many of these saints ended being white-washed in many icons made in Europe and sometimes even in Alexandria.
Another Coptic saint other than Moses and Maurice is Paul of Thebes the archetypical 'Desert Father' and first solitary monk of the desert. Even though he like St. Maurice is a native of Thebes almost all depictions of him are of a white man.
Posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
It's clear El-Maqrizi is referring to both-- phenotype and religious beliefs. As I cited in the first source, the first major schism of the Church due to sectarian division (before the Schism of 1054) was the Council of Chalcedon where the precise nature of Jesus's divinity was debated. The Ecclesial Sees of Byzantium and Rome accepted the Chalcedon view that Jesus was equally God and equally human in nature whereas all the other Sees viewed him as only God in nature just in human form. Thus the latter churches held to the monophysite/miaphysite of Christ's divine nature only. This is the view held by the majority of churches in Christendom including Asiatic churches such as the Syrian Orthodox Church known as the 'Jacobite' Church, Nestorian Church of the East, Armenian Church, and Coptic Churches of Africa including Tewahedo Church of Ethiopia. The only exception in Asia was the Lebanese Orthodox Church known as 'Melkite' Church which accepted Chalcedon and submitted to the Greek authority of Constantinople. So apparently northern Egypt especially Alexandria was Melkite i.e. Byzantine-Greek whereas the other Egyptians were 'Jacobite' Christians who were Miaphysites who apparently were more black in appearance. The part that struck me was that El-Maqrizi included 'Israelites' among this latter group!
It makes perfect sense when you take into context El-Maqrizi's account. Alexandria was predominantly Greek (white) and thus NOT native. So of course St. Moses would be distinguished as 'Black'. The obfuscation from Eurocentrics is that all 'Copts', that is Egyptian Christians, were of the same phenotype as Greek Alexandrians but this couldn't be further from the truth. Speaking of which, the Coptic Church unsurprisingly is the church with the largest number of black saints second to that of the Tewahedo Church of course. Yet Most Christians don't ever hear about them.
Worse yet, many of these saints ended being white-washed in many icons made in Europe and sometimes even in Alexandria.
Another Coptic saint other than Moses and Maurice is Paul of Thebes the archetypical 'Desert Father' and first solitary monk of the desert. Even though he like St. Maurice is a native of Thebes almost all depictions of him are of a white man.
You are quite right on this- good info- many know of Ethiopia, but relatively few have heard of these saints. Also very interesting that the most black saints outside the Ethiopian Church would be in the Coptic church. Some might say not surprising given the African location and sub-Saharan elements in the Coptic makeup, even though many of today's modern Copts have substantial "Eurasian" admixture.
---------------------------------------------- "The Copts and the Egyptians have a historically documented shared history. We further investigate the relationships of the Copts and the Egyptians to other groups. All population histories tested in every possible combination of either Copts or Egyptians, and Bedouin and Nuer, with Ju|'hoansi as outgroup to the others were rejected (D-statistic, |Z|>5.5), which points to a non-tree-like history of the Copts and Egyptians. Our results instead indicate that they are an admixed population of at least one sub-Saharan population and one Eurasian population, but had subsequent admixture with additional groups. The population tree that has the most support finds the Nuer (Nilotic) as an outgroup to the Bedouin and Copts (D(Ju|'hoansi,Nuer;Bedouin,Copts) = 0.0103, Z = 5.550). The Copts were estimated to be of 69.54% ± 2.57 European ancestry and the Egyptians of 70.65% ± 2.47 European ancestry (f4- ratio, Fig 3B, S9A Fig)."
--Hollfelder et al Northeast African genomic variation shaped by the continuity of indigenous groups and Eurasian migrations ----------------------------------------------
Interestingly enough, the Coptic Communion- that is the Oriental Orthodox Communion of which the Egyptian (primarily Coptic) Church is a communicant, holds to an Old Earth- Long-Age creational view, which accommodates the Big Bang and the long ages and processes of evolution. One of their leaders, Pope Shenouda III lays out this long creational age view in some of his writings.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova: You are quite right on this- good info- many know of Ethiopia, but relatively few have heard of these saints. Also very interesting that the most black saints outside the Ethiopian Church would be in the Coptic church. Some might say not surprising given the African location and sub-Saharan elements in the Coptic makeup, even though many of today's modern Copts have substantial "Eurasian" admixture.
That's funny considering that according to the Nature study of the Late Period Abusir mummies, modern Egyptians are more "Sub-Saharan" while ancient Egyptians are more "Eurasian".
I recall a conversation many years ago with Ausar about the Coptic Church and how many of its saints were black but never get attention or end up being white-washed. This is not surprising since before the Chalcedon schism, when all the churches were united, they shared the same saints. Many saints of Africa were held by people in Europe. Over time some of these saints ended up getting white-washed especially through portrayals in icons perhaps similar to the phenomenon in America where famous cowboys in the west who were black but were white-washed as their fame spread to the white populace and especially when portrayed in Hollywood.
quote:---------------------------------------------- "The Copts and the Egyptians have a historically documented shared history. We further investigate the relationships of the Copts and the Egyptians to other groups. All population histories tested in every possible combination of either Copts or Egyptians, and Bedouin and Nuer, with Ju|'hoansi as outgroup to the others were rejected (D-statistic, |Z|>5.5), which points to a non-tree-like history of the Copts and Egyptians. Our results instead indicate that they are an admixed population of at least one sub-Saharan population and one Eurasian population, but had subsequent admixture with additional groups. The population tree that has the most support finds the Nuer (Nilotic) as an outgroup to the Bedouin and Copts (D(Ju|'hoansi,Nuer;Bedouin,Copts) = 0.0103, Z = 5.550). The Copts were estimated to be of 69.54% ± 2.57 European ancestry and the Egyptians of 70.65% ± 2.47 European ancestry (f4- ratio, Fig 3B, S9A Fig)."
--Hollfelder et al Northeast African genomic variation shaped by the continuity of indigenous groups and Eurasian migrations ----------------------------------------------
I'm curious as to the nature of this distinction between "Copts" and "Egyptians", considering that Copts ARE Egyptians? Do they mean Copts vs. Muslim Egyptians??
quote:Interestingly enough, the Coptic Communion- that is the Oriental Orthodox Communion of which the Egyptian (primarily Coptic) Church is a communicant, holds to an Old Earth- Long-Age creational view, which accommodates the Big Bang and the long ages and processes of evolution. One of their leaders, Pope Shenouda III lays out this long creational age view in some of his writings.
I'm not sure about their views on 'The Big Bang' theory or evolution, but I do know that Oriental and Greek Orthodox view on creation was that it was a process that took longer than the conventional '7 literal days' that many Protestants and Evangelicals seem to hold. Again, this based the more figurative or general translation of the Hebrew word 'yom' which may not necessarily mean a day as in a 24 hour period but simply a period of time in general. Also considering that time to God is different from man.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova: Originally posted by Tukuler:
Not really. As already shown by credible scholarship the foundational writings and doctrines of Christianity were well in place and accepted by most who followed the faith centuries before Nicea. Just the writings of the Apostle Paul, within 50 years or so of the death of Christ debunk claims of some sort of “Nicean” set up. The “taking shape” was centuries BEFORE Nicea.
Anything just to be contrary?
Who said there weren't writings attributed to Paul etc before the 1st Nicean Council? Musta been you.
Delving the above presented facts from the given references an honest student vs an apologist for their own chosen religion's dogma can see there were many books written at the same time of the accepted dates of Paul etc.
Keep misleading people into thinking that only the Nicean accepted books existed and there were no others just as old.
Don't ask. If one did not read the references to ascertain for themselves the dates of certain apocrypha/pseudogriphica when originally posted they sure aren't going to retain that info here now either.
Sorry no 'book' religion on earth was born full grown like Athena burst from Zeus' splitting headache.
Judaean intelligentsia met twice over at least 300 years on what available writings should be considered canon. CANON, not which books by whom are older but which books muster up to a council's decision as fit for the decisors' dogma, making what was once thought valid, acceptable, and reliable no longer so.
Yes council members met and 'fought it out' sometimes expelling bishops/churches, other times bishops/churches walking out as did the Coptic Church (essentially the church for the entirety of northeastern Africa from Libya to Abyssinia) after a council decision dropping a book held canonical by them that now hundreds of years later the non-African council members didn't want in THEIR Bible.
Politico-religious authorities hold councils unless under a dictatorial military junta.
For incipient Judaism it was at Jabneh. Both meetings agreed on the exact same books.
For infant Christianity it was at Nicea. There was no agreement over several meetings as to which books are out. There are books in Ethiopian canon not in others. There are books in Egypt/Sudan canon not in other Bibles. There are There are books in Eastern Orthodox not in other Bibles. There are books in Roman Catholic not in other Bibles.
It is only the German Bible all non-Catholics @ ES are familiar with. One is sadly mistaken to believe that's the one and only collection of Christian Greek Scriptures of the Holy New Testament.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Look there's no argument about messiah' Messiah simply means annoited one. King Cyrus of Persia was a messiah. To Hebrews Jesus cannot be a messiah because the Temple was standing per the Greek Scriptures account yet no Cohen spilled not a drop of oil on Jesus.
There was no big rift in Judaism leading to Christianity.
Judaeans & dispora never accepted anything originally written in Greek or spiritual concepts from Greeks as having anything to do with Hebrews. In fact there is a trickle in Judaism that posits Saul/Paul was an
[based on Acts 22:nn and Acts 5:38] I am ... a Jew, born in Tarsus, ... Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, ... . "Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God."]
emissary of Rabban Gamaliel to end any confusion and establish a belief system no way compatible with the Wisdom of Israel as per the Sages of Israel. Things like ghosts who impregnate married women, drinking blood, cannabalism, triune deity, etc., are totally against what 'Judaism' is about at its very root.
BTW Emmanuel was a person who served as a 'measuring stick' about events to happen in the time of Isaiah. Does any Christian Bible faithfully translate anything about this Immanuel, especially the Hebrew legal and cultural meaning behind virgin=/=unpenetrated female as per white European education.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
Well, to Jewish Jews, Christianity is a semi-allowed kind of idolatry permitted to non-Israel.
This syncretism is as obvious as Hebrew era Judaism drawings on themes local to and spread across the wide expanse of the Fertile Cresent, Nile Valley, and Red Sea belief systems.
Though the Christian scriptural defense is the Book of Isaiah with his prophecy of Emmanuel born of the virgin and called "Mighty God".
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Say one approaches the themes I've brought up from a believers standpoint instead of as non-apologetically as one would write about let's say the Metamorphosis, the Eddas, or the Popol Vuh.
The result?
Cognitive dissonance bred of a believers' apologetics prefering their variety over other Christian churches?
Here we see from the earliest Roman Christians, the ones martyred after scurrying around catacombs, view of Jesus raising the dead portrayed as a wand wielding magician (remember Magi came to see newborn Jesus).
Yes, here is Jesus as a magic man. Was this an heresy to these very same first groups of western Roman Christians?!?
Face what early fervently believing Christians painted on the walls of their refuges/dwelling spaces. It was no heresy to them in their time. It became heresy only later, i.e., if it is a heresy at all. As we have seen, Christian heresy is a developing concept never universally finalized. I really have no idea if any extant Church holds to a wand waving Jesus or not.
Regardless, raising up the dead is certainly a magical act, don't care who's doing it, Jesus the Christ, Eliyahu haNabi, or Hor son of Re.
quote:
quote: One of the things put off by Constantine and the bishops' councils is Jesus the Magician, a figure apparently loved by the masses of Christianity. Catacomb walls show Jesus using a magic wand.
That's because long before Constantine's conversion, the early Christian community rejected the notion of Jesus as magician as blasphemy.
Why I say cognitive dissonance? The catacomb painters were the early Roman Xian community. They painted 'blasphemy' all over the walls and other early Roman Xians produced Jesus with a wand art in various media as I posted earlier only to find that perhaps nobody followed the lynx to see with their own eyes the variety of Jesus the Magician art pieces.
A wooden door at the Santa Sabina Church in Rome shows Jesus with a “wand" performing miracles: (top to bottom) Jesus raising Lazarus; Jesus multiplying loaves and fish; Jesus turning water into wine. (Image credit: Lee Jefferson)
That said, it looked nothing like the magic we see in pop culture today.
=-=-=-=
Amazing. Never knew Jesus with wand art flourished up to 800 CE after the last Council. Let me assure all readers I mean no contempt when using the magician label. Practitioners of magic -- apparel, baths, diet, prayers to the TetraGrammaton seeking permisssion-- (as distinct from sleight of hand parlor entertainments anyone can learn to perform for show) see nothing odious about the craft.
Posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
quote:Originally posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova: Originally posted by Tukuler:
I thought everybody knew about Constantine and the 1st council at Nicea. How [url=ndrln]it was there, over 200 yrs after the agreed upon date given to the Gospels, Letters, and Apocalypse, that Christianity actually took shape.
Not really. As already shown by credible scholarship the foundational writings and doctrines of Christianity were well in place and accepted by most who followed the faith centuries before Nicea. Just the writings of the Apostle Paul, within 50 years or so of the death of Christ debunk claims of some sort of “Nicean” set up. The “taking shape” was centuries BEFORE Nicea.
Anything just to be contrary?
Who said there weren't writings attributed to Paul etc before the 1st Nicean Council? Musta been you.
Delving the above presented facts from the given references an honest student vs an apologist for their own chosen religion's dogma can see there were many books written at the same time of the accepted dates of Paul etc.
Keep misleading people into thinking that only the Nicean accepted books existed and there were no others just as old.
Don't ask. If one did not read the references to ascertain for themselves the dates of certain apocrypha/pseudogriphica when originally posted they sure aren't going to retain that info here now either.
Sorry no 'book' religion on earth was born full grown like Athena burst from Zeus' splitting headache.
Judaean intelligentsia met twice over at least 300 years on what available writings should be considered canon. CANON, not which books by whom are older but which books muster up to a council's decision as fit for the decisors' dogma, making what was once thought valid, acceptable, and reliable no longer so.
Yes council members met and 'fought it out' sometimes expelling bishops/churches, other times bishops/churches walking out as did the Coptic Church (essentially the church for the entirety of northeastern Africa from Libya to Abyssinia) after a council decision dropping a book held canonical by them that now hundreds of years later the non-African council members didn't want in THEIR Bible.
Politico-religious authorities hold councils unless under a dictatorial military junta.
For incipient Judaism it was at Jabneh. Both meetings agreed on the exact same books.
For infant Christianity it was at Nicea. There was no agreement over several meetings as to which books are out. There are books in Ethiopian canon not in others. There are books in Egypt/Sudan canon not in other Bibles. There are There are books in Eastern Orthodox not in other Bibles. There are books in Roman Catholic not in other Bibles.
It is only the German Bible all non-Catholics @ ES are familiar with. One is sadly mistaken to believe that's the one and only collection of Christian Greek Scriptures of the Holy New Testament.
Delving the above presented facts from the given references an honest student vs an apologist for their own chosen religion's dogma can see there were many books written at the same time of the accepted dates of Paul etc.
Really? One thing about what you have posted during this thread is that you have presented very few facts backed with credible scholarship. Your own words give you away when you assert earlier:
” I thought everybody knew about Constantine and the 1st council at Nicea."
^^You then proceeded to make a number of shaky claims with little evidence to back them up. The notion that “everybody knew” only exists in the shaky claims you have advanced. If anything you have shown a cavalier disregard for honest scholarship.
Keep misleading people into thinking that only the Nicean accepted books existed and there were no others just as old.
^^Laughable strawman nonsense. No one here made any claim that “only the Nicean accepted books existed and there were no others just as old. “
To the contrary as repeatedly demonstrated by credible scholarship, there were plenty of accepted writings, such as the earliest documents of the Christian corpus- the Letters of the Apostle Paul – which were in place and widely accepted long before Nicea. No one claimed that “only” the Nicean accepted books existed.
Sorry no 'book' religion on earth was born full grown like Athena burst from Zeus' splitting headache.
^ No one here has made any such claim. This is another diversionary strawman you are attempting to use to cover debunked arguments..
Judaean intelligentsia met twice over at least 300 years on what available writings should be considered canon. CANON, not which books by whom are older but which books muster up to a council's decision as fit for the decisors' dogma, making what was once thought valid, acceptable, and reliable no longer so.
Here again, you provide no credible reference. Where and when did this ”intelligentsia” meet and what SPECIFICALLY did they decide as to the “canon?” As in other posts during this thread, and claims such as you can provide precious little, and indeed, you seem to contradict your own earlier arguments. Earlier you claimed:
” ..today's rabbinic Judaism is a Roman result.
^^If the Jew intelligentsia met to determine the canon, how is it how is it that a Roman result prevails today? Please elucidate about this mysterious “intelligentsia” and how they produced a “roman result”..
Yes council members met and 'fought it out' sometimes expelling bishops/churches, other times bishops/churches walking out as did the Coptic Church (essentially the church for the entirety of northeastern Africa from Libya to Abyssinia) after a council decision dropping a book held canonical by them that now hundreds of years later the non-African council members didn't want in THEIR Bible.
But the 1st Nicean council, on which you have placed such stress in your argument, did no such thing as having the Coptic Church ”walk out” nor did the council “drop” any books cuz “non-African council members didn't want in THEIR Bible.” This is simplistic pablum. As already shown by credible references:
----------------- -------------------------------------------- ] There is no record of any discussion of the biblical canon at the Council.[84] The development of the biblical canon was nearly complete (with exceptions known as the Antilegomena, written texts whose authenticity or value is disputed) by the time the Muratorian fragment was written.[85]
The main source of the idea that the canon was created at the Council of Nicaea seems to be Voltaire, who popularised a story that the canon was determined by placing all the competing books on an altar during the Council and then keeping the ones that did not fall off. The original source of this "fictitious anecdote" is the Synodicon Vetus,[87] a pseudo-historical account of early Church councils from AD 887:[88]” [/b] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea cited ref: John Meade, "The Council of Nicaea and the Biblical Canon" and Ehrman 2004, pp. 15–16, 23, 93 ------------------------------------ -----------------------------
Politico-religious authorities hold councils unless under a dictatorial military junta.
^^OK, but who and when and where were the councils of the mysterious Jew “intelligentsia” that produced a “Roman result”?
For incipient Judaism it was at Jabneh. Both meetings agreed on the exact same books.
^^You mentioned 2 meetings of the Jew intelligentsia. Here you say Jabneh. What was the other?
As for Jabneh or Jammnia, that alleged council of “intelligentsia” supposedly picking on a canon, has long been discredited by credible scholarship. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jamnia
There are books in Ethiopian canon not in others. There are books in Egypt/Sudan canon not in other Bibles. There are There are books in Eastern Orthodox not in other Bibles. There are books in Roman Catholic not in other Bibles.
Sure, and that is to be expected as various entities developed. However in general, most of the books of the Christian Bible, are accepted by all the churches calling themselves Christian mentioned above. All churches for example accept the 5 Books of Moses, the Gospels, the writings of Paul etc. etc. The Ethiopian canon includes ALL of the Catholic and Protestant canon plus some other books. None of the excluded books are of importance to any fundamental doctrines of the faith. The Orthodox Tewahedo New Testament canon consists of the entire 27 book Christian canon, which is almost universally accepted across Christendom. Extra books such as the Book of Clement affect no fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith which Ethiopians affirm. http://www.ethiopianorthodox.org/english/canonical/books.html
By the way there is disagreement among Jews as to which books belong in their canon. Ben Sira excluded Ruth, Song of Songs, Esther and Daniel, but Akiva defends the canonicity of Esther and Song of Songs. Josephus holds for 22 books, others say there are 24 books in canon. Which is the “approved” number by the two meetings of Jewish “intelligentsia”?
It is only the German Bible all non-Catholics @ ES are familiar with. One is sadly mistaken to believe that's the one and only collection of Christian Greek Scriptures of the Holy New Testament.
Who says non-Catholics at ES are only familiar with the German Bible? How did you come to this startling mind-reading conclusion? There are at least 18 different editions of the ”German” bible. Which “German Bible” you talking bout? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations_into_German Posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Say one approaches the themes I've brought up from a believers standpoint instead of as non-apologetically as one would write about let's say the Metamorphosis, the Eddas, or the Popol Vuh.
The result?
Cognitive dissonance bred of a believers' apologetics prefering their variety over other Christian churches?
Here we see from the earliest Roman Christians, the ones martyred after scurrying around catacombs, view of Jesus raising the dead portrayed as a wand wielding magician (remember Magi came to see newborn Jesus).
Yes, here is Jesus as a magic man. Was this an heresy to these very same first groups of western Roman Christians?!?
Face what early fervently believing Christians painted on the walls of their refuges/dwelling spaces. It was no heresy to them in their time. It became heresy only later, i.e., if it is a heresy at all. As we have seen, Christian heresy is a developing concept never universally finalized. I really have no idea if any extant Church holds to a wand waving Jesus or not.
Regardless, raising up the dead is certainly a magical act, don't care who's doing it, Jesus the Christ, Eliyahu haNabi, or Hor son of Re.
..]That's because long before Constantine's conversion, the early Christian community rejected the notion of Jesus as magician as blasphemy.
Why I say cognitive dissonance? The catacomb painters were the early Roman Xian community. They painted 'blasphemy' all over the walls and other early Roman Xians produced Jesus with a wand art in various media as I posted earlier only to find that perhaps nobody followed the lynx to see with their own eyes the variety of Jesus the Magician art pieces.
That said, it looked nothing like the magic we see in pop culture today.
.
Here we see from the earliest Roman Christians, the ones martyred after scurrying around catacombs, view of Jesus raising the dead portrayed as a wand wielding magician (remember Magi came to see newborn Jesus).
Your simplistic approach equates random graffiti or paintings with part of some sort of “canon.” This is like saying that the wall inscriptions, graffiti or paintings left behind by Jews scurrying around at the Siege of Jerusalem must be given equal time with the Talmud. Lol… Your approach is even more laughable for the same reference you cite discredits it. Using your "equal time to all" approach then the ruminations of many "Black Hebrews", who say they are the "true Jews" (being of the original Jewish tribes of West African slaves to America), are just as valid as the teachings of the great Jewish Torah scholars.
And since the Romans are involved how as you claim earlier, is ..today's rabbinic Judaism is a Roman result.”?
...magic was very much alive during the period of early Christianity. Between [URL=http://ndrln]the third and eighth centuries, the years when images of what looks like a "wand-carrying" Jesus Christ adorned the burial sites of ancient Romans,
Magic was alive but was rejected by the Christian community per your own citation. And as the images are from the third and eight centuries, they are rather late in the game. The commonly accepted Christian writings were already in place centuries BEFORE that, as already demonstrated above by credible scholarship. In fact, the early Christian corpus which was commonly accepted before Nicea includes an incident where Jesus rejects charges from some Jews that he is some sort of magician or sorcerer, and holds them slanderous (Luke 11: 14-22). Thus the canon itself way before Nicea rejects any "magic" insinuations of the wall paintings. This is another reason the "magician" wall paintings have little credibility as any statement or suggestion of the Christian faith. Your spiel fails on 2 counts: both by the commonly accepted corpus, and your own "supporting" reference.
Why I say cognitive dissonance? The catacomb painters were the early Roman Xian community. They painted 'blasphemy' all over the walls and other early Roman Xians produced Jesus with a wand art in various media as I posted earlier only to find that perhaps nobody followed the lynx to see with their own eyes the variety of Jesus the Magician art pieces.
The manufactured “cognitive dissonance” is on your part for as your own reference says, the early Christians did not view Jesus as a magician, and that this was a charge used as a form of slander. If most early Christians did not hold to such beliefs then the so-called “magic” paintings were by either confused people or bogus plants made by faux “Xians” to gin up and continue assorted slander. Such would have little credibility in the Christian community particularly since they used imagery from the slander of the enemies of Christianity at the time.
Curiously, you forget to include the consensus of experts in the article, which debunks magic as any significant part of the fundamental Christian faith, and that he early Christians DIDN’T see Jesus as a magician:- QUOTE:
--------------------- --------------------------- ” Despite these evocative images, most evidence suggests early Christians didn't see Jesus as a magician. Magic was considered a purely human pursuit that could not raise the dead, whereas Jesus' supernatural acts were always seen by believers as miracles performed through a powerful God. What's more, the "wand" carried by Jesus was in fact not a wand —magicians of the day never carried wands anyway, experts told Live Science. .. In this context, some people did call Jesus a magician — but as a form of slander..” https://www.livescience.com/was-jesus-a-magician-wand.html ---------------------------- -----------------------------
One of the things put off by Constantine and the bishops' councils is Jesus the Magician, a figure apparently loved by the masses of Christianity. Catacomb walls show Jesus using a magic wand
But your own reference debunks the argument you are making. Your own reference says quote: ..most evidence suggests early Christians didn't see Jesus as a magician..”
So how then can you claim Jesus the Magician was “Loved by the masses of Christianity?” And where in the deliberations of Nicea or the Biship’s councils, of Constantine was this “magician” supposedly “put off”? No such conclusion is in the proffered test. You have shot yourself in the foot with your own “supporting” reference. Lol..
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
OK, you wrote one thing aimed at readers who don't know the evolution of Rabbinic Sepharade/Orthodox Ashkenazi Judaism.
And no, the key word is repository. The celibate folk at Qumran collected versions no matter who. Nothing in the collection is an original Greek scripture. Were the Gospels by a Judaean sect they'd a been there.
There may have been groups of Judaeans listening to a James (or Ya`aqob) give some moral and practical action teachings from "the Lord Jesus Christ." Seems contrary to the widely accepted faith over works Pauline doctrine. A major problem is the superlative Greek of the Letter of James just about negates any Hebrew identity for its author who nonetheless appears to be Israelite (heritage) though maybe not a Hebrew (lineage).
quote:
quote:The Qumran repository was active until the final conquest of Judea and destruction of Jerusalem and its temple. It had a few works in Greek, translations from the Hebrew.
The sectarian workshop collected various versions of non-biblical, biblical, even original, works. None of them are Greek authored with Greek theology Gospels etc of the New Testament Christian Greek Scriptures. This is evidence against Gospels Acts Letters or Apocalypse circulating among Judea's Jews c 70 CE as many credentialed Bible scholars convey.
The key word is 'sectarian'. The early Christians per their own traditions were a small sect persecuted by the more dominant sects being the Pharisees and Sadducees. By the way, I forgot to mention that today's Rabbinic Judaism directly descends from the Pharisees and it was they whom Jesus was most confrontational with and is the party that was held responsible for his crucifixion! The Sadducees or followers of Solomon's High Priest Zadok eventually became extinct with the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple since their sect was based solely on temple worship. There were two other minor sects-- the secluded ascetic Essenes and war-like Zealots who instigated the most rebellions against Rome via assassinations.
.
Hmm, deflecting from no evidence of Greek Gospels Letters or Apocalypse at Qumran to the fact of every religion and philosophy on earth, sectarianism aka entrenched differences of opinion.
Again, iirc, there were 70 different "sects" at the Temple's fall per Judaean source material. There's more to it than the Christian Greek Scriptures' attacks against Ssadoqiym and Perushiym. Were there really such a things as Essenes in the 1st century CE? Not to stray from the definitive fact the Qumran community copied and stored books regardless of 'sect'. Qan'iym weren't even a sect. They were a political party. This may be hard for moderns to understand but there was no sacred/secular or church/state clear categories as is today.
Well, I'll say this much, 2nd Temple era Judea-ism couldn't have functioned w/o 'rabbis' AND priests, the former being perhaps more important. More kohaniym were what you call Pharisees than they were Sadducees. Many priestly caste individuals stood against fellow priests following Zadok/Boetus theology ...
Aw here let me defer
quote: But it would be incorrect to maintain that the Sadducees completely rejected the traditional interpretations of the law. They too held to numerous traditions and many of their interpretations of the religious law were substantially the same as those of the Pharisees. They had their own “Book of Decrees” (ספר הגזרות) which expounded their explanations of the commandments of the Torah and, in spite of their desire to resemble the other nations in behavior, they also observed some customs which tended to set them apart from the Gentiles.
The customs of the Sadducees, at any rate, were better adapted to the religious beliefs of the rich and the aristocracy which governed the land. But the greater the number of rich men who joined the Sadducees, the stronger became the concentration of the masses about the Pharisees and the abyss between the two grew from day to day.
The primary difference between the Sadducees and the Pharisees consisted in that the Sadducees rejected the oral law which was accepted by the Pharisees. They maintained that only the written law of the Torah was binding upon men. In rejecting the traditions of the Pharisees, they refused to believe in the resurrection of the dead, which is not explicitly promised in the Torah. They ridiculed the Pharisees for the latter’s belief in the immortality of the soul and in a life after death and made fun of the notion that the souls of the pious will rest under the throne of glory. Another subject of their humor was the Pharisees’ readiness to endure suffering in the hope of being rewarded in life to come.
As in many things thought purely 'religious' sociology (politics, business, 'lumpen proletariat ethos') plays the vital role of allignment to causes or movements as much or more than theology.
Here's an example. Who needs an afterdeath reward? The rich who enjoyed all life's fineries OR the those lucky enough just to get by and those with a lil bit to spare (poor and middle class)?
Shoo, nowadays even the poor reject "Pie in the sky in the sweet by and by" conviction or just relief from Christian authorites no longer able to punish free thought via stake burnings or whatnot.
The part about Saducees rejecting traditional interpretations is rubbish because there was no one set of agreed upon traditions that people varied from. That's why 1000 years after Zadok and Boetus the Saadya Gaon of Upper Egypt set himself to penning the Book of Beliefs and Opinions.
No wait let me make it plain I got no time for your bullshit, 20-questions lack-of-methodology, deliberate 'misconstruings' and miso-Judaic bigotry this or any other day.
Pat yourself on the back thump your chest in victory rant on about how stupid I am
Say what you will tell the world what I write ain't shit I don't give a fox and will not reply to you
but will carry on replying to Djehuti, who apparently has some background on the topics, and any interested others.
Threads always immediately go off topic. No anthropology on Copts from me but inline with the thread header is revealing of Coptic Christianity as a major impetus of formative Christianity only to find an Ecumenical Council's non-Africans turned Coptic (essentially NE African Christianity and canon into heresy.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:
quote:One of the things put off by Constantine and the bishops' councils is Jesus the Magician,
That's because
...long before Constantine's conversion, the early Christian community rejected the notion of Jesus as magician as blasphemy. Jesus was God incarnate to the Christians and
to other heretical groups even some Jews a prophet if not a sage.
Um sorry. I don't merely disagree because that is patently incorrect. Judaeans per their academicians taught prophecy ended with Malachi the last messenger/'angel' of the Hebrew deity. It's not up for grabs who the Sages of Israel were. Hhaz"l or the "Hokmei Yisra'el remembered for blessing" are listed from Ezra the Scribe to the Sages of Mishna and Gemara. No Jesus or Jason w/o son of Father's First Name or lineage patronymic is on the list. The teacher of Ssadok and Boetus made the list of fathers/founders, builders, and transferers of what has grown into modern Rabbinic Judaism.
Hoping to find an intro to Steinsaltz' Talmud Babli xlation chock full of stuff I'm sure you'll appreciate even without being Jewish or Noachide.
Thanks to you I've picked up on certain nuances re magic/magician and sorcery/sorcerer that 'till now have been outside my ken. Ethics of the Fathers/Founders record: "The more women the more witchcraft". Now I'm seeing negativity applied to occultist so even when doing a good deed they're still strongly looked down on.
Admittedly I see no difference in Moishe Rabbeinu's staff that turned into a snake to devour his adversaries' snake rods and whatever you want to call what's in Jesus' hand when he performs a "miracle" which religious authorities don't consider as magic.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Never accepted by whom for what?
OK I know what you saying but bear with me.
It took the Councils to tear the broad masses of early Christians away from mid-2nd century Gospel of James. Even after rejected as Gospel canon by council bishops, new ones were constantly being written.
Also all the Gospels were penned after 39 CE
One other pre-Nicea Infancy Gospel (Thomas) with its Gnostic exaggerations is not so ridiculous in Arab eyes. The Qur'an has lines derived from this Gospel.
quote:
quote:...Infancy Gospels where the growing child Jesus performs magic for and against his little playmates.
Why ones don't know this? The popular Infancy Gospels didn't muster the Councils' canon. The common people lost them over time.
Infancy gospels are apocrypha and were never accepted even before any councils. Especially since traditions hold that those who knew Jesus or his family << >> thought such legends were laughably ridiculous! These infancy gospels were penned decades if not a century after his death, and some was blatantly Gnostic.
All I knew about Islam's relation to Christianity before the above was from a white American Christian and a red Muslim Arab, both young university students like myself at the time.
The WAC was showing off a copy of the Book of Barnabas. All of us pooh poohed what he was telling us about it because outside any Bible any of us ever read. He told us it's a valid book in Islam. So I went and dragged the the RAM into the discussion. He said yes Muslims recognize Barnabas and all the others.
Who can and can't be valid religious books/(pseudo-)authors? Christians and Jews decided that for themselves before Islam and its prophet Muhammad who is supposed to be the Seal of the Prophets, each and every one of them. Don't quote me according to some here I'm going senile but I think Zoroaster followers are included among dhimmi (people with a book of revealed religion).
From where I sit, not thinking any them up to Muhammad was a real multi-national attested living human being, all of its fair game. Aggadic midrash, books in non-Protestant, non-Roman Catholic canon Bibles and the legendry stuff too. I'm not saying even one vested interest religious authority will ever agree to that. Because truth doesn't need only the facts. Truth is subjective. It's true unicorns are horned horses. Fact is ain't no such animals as unicorns but somebody's little daughters 'need' them unicorns.
Some adults can't take all the heavy heavy unless some light weight everyday everyday is thrown in the mix.
Ya know Maimonides was under one rabbinates' ban not due to 'fables'. Cat said the Big MM was too rational yes he did Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Whoa! Low blow. Quote me saying that emporer invented Chrisitianity. Big difference unifying a religion in order to better unify an empire stretched from here to eternity and inventing such religions tenets.
In a fair discussion I should never have to say I never said something I never said.
quote: Constantine first made Christianity a state religion. He did NOT invent Christianity or its doctrines that were around long before he was born! Again the Apostles' Creed which is the very creed of the Church was affirmed by the Council of Nicea came from the Cappadocian Church fathers who in turn copied it from Antioch.
The Britannica says Constantine called the first Ecumenical Council. Christianity Today says Constantine called the first Ecumenical Council. Per the Catholic Encyclodepia
quote:<<the Arian controversy>> and the war which soon broke out between Constantine and Licinius, added to the disorder and partly explains the progress of the religious conflict during the years 322-3. Finally Constantine, having conquered Licinius and become sole emperor, concerned himself with the re-establishment of religious peace as well as of civil order.
He addressed letters to St. Alexander and to Arius deprecating these heated controversies regarding questions of no practical importance, and advising the adversaries to agree without delay. It was evident that the emperor did not then grasp the significance of the Arian controversy. Hosius of Cordova, his counsellor in religious matters, bore the imperial letter to Alexandria, but failed in his conciliatory mission. Seeing this, the emperor, perhaps advised by Hosius, judged no remedy more apt to restore peace in the Church than the convocation of an ecumenical council. The emperor himself, in very respectful letters, begged the bishops of every country to come promptly to Nicaea. Several bishops from outside the Roman Empire (e.g., from Persia) came to the Council. It is not historically known whether the emperor in convoking the Council acted solely in his own name or in concert with the pope; however, it is probable that Constantine and Sylvester came to an agreement (see POPE ST. SYLVESTER I).
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:
quote: Khazars likewise had political motivations for adopting Judaism and Islam's political ambition is obvious almost from its start.
Are they truly of Khazar origin? And why Judaism when Christianity and Islam were more dominant?
.
Is who truly of Khazar origin?
Kevin Brook a correspondent from my Jewish yahoogroups moderator days is author of the Khazaria website which link http://www.khazaria.com has posted here several times.
R' Yehudah haLewi wrote the first book on Khazars so long ago I forget when. It's an apologetic intro to mid range intensity work on Judaism. Rabbi ND Korobkin wrote the recent translation of that work. He performed the brit for a friends son. I talked to him for a while on a variety of Judaica since he obviously was no Kushi-phobic white Jewish rabbi.
Kevin proudly admits being Khazar descended.
The rabbi? Really can't remember he felt the same or not. Not all European Jews have Khazar antecedents but again see Wexler1993, Slavica Publishers The Ashkenazic Jews: a Slavo-Turkic people in search of a Jewish Identity https://slavica.indiana.edu/bookListings/linguistics/The_Ashkenazic_Jews
I don't bring it up unless white Jews do just as white Jews don't ring no convert bells around me. Wouldja believe the Chabad from Lubavitch Lithuania teach the Beta Israel of Ethiopia are converts? No Teimani Jews from right next door in the Yaman know nothin bout dat.
R' Moshe Hailu Paris zs"l and Dr Ephraim Isaac of Beta and Teiman strains renowned Princeton professor fluent in 7 dead languages
DJ, you don't know it but your question is its answer! Christianity and Islam's dominance is the reason why. How would becoming Christian or Jewish shield Khazaria from Catholic or Muslim empires contemporaneously at war, each wanting to 'enlist' Khazaria when Bulan's desire was independent freedom?
I think they were converted by Persian Jews.
OK I'm back off to the races c u inna few.
Posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Originally posted by Tukuler:
OK, you wrote one thing aimed at readers who don't know the evolution of Rabbinic Sepharade/Orthodox Ashkenazi Judaism.
No it wasn’t written for those who “don’t know” evolution of Rabbinic Sepharade/Orthodox Ashkenazi Judaism. No need for any diversions. You advanced several dubious claims such as the Nicean council bulldozing a canon through, how today’s Judaism is this mysterious ”Roman result”, the “2 councils” - one at Jammnia, that allegedly dictated what would be in he Jewish canon, among other things. All of these claims have been comprehensively debunked.
And no, the key word is repository. The celibate folk at Qumran collected versions no matter who. Nothing in the collection is an original Greek scripture. Were the Gospels by a Judaean sect they'd a been there.
You seem not to understand what the Qumran collection is. It is not a collection of Christian writings. It is a collection of the Old testament Hebrew scriptures, a very reliable excellent collection by the way, that verifies the credibility of the Old Testament writings quoted by Jesus and his followers.
Were the Gospels by a Judaean sect they'd a been there.
Here again you make little sense- your logic is lacking. Who on earth on earth expects the Qumran scrolls to have Christian gospels or epistles? Nobody except in terms of your strawman argument. And why would the Qumran collectors, who were concerned about the Hebrew scriptures, accept for deposit the writings of a small group of Judean Christians already rejected by the existing leadership? Again, yur argument makes little sense.
There may have been groups of Judaeans listening to a James (or Ya`aqob) give some moral and practical action teachings from "the Lord Jesus Christ." Seems contrary to the widely accepted faith over works Pauline doctrine.
The alleged “enmity” insinuated between James and Paul ahs already been dealt with by Djehuti, and as already referenced on other pages is mostly based on the pseudo-Clementine tradition. Quote:
Not surprisingly, the tradition in the Pseudo-Clementines portrays Paul as the enemy of James and Christian Judaism. Historically, however, the evidence suggests that though the relationship involved tensions, the two were not enemies.” https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/people/related-articles/james-and-paul
A major problem is the superlative Greek of the Letter of James just about negates any Hebrew identity for its author who nonetheless appears to be Israelite (heritage) though maybe not a Hebrew (lineage).
So you claim. But what credible scholar says that that the Greek of the Letter of James “negates his Hebrew identity”? Says who and what specifically? Cite and show credible references not your opinion.
The sectarian workshop collected various versions of non-biblical, biblical, even original, works. None of them are Greek authored with Greek theology Gospels etc of the New Testament Christian Greek Scriptures.[/b
What “sectarian workshop”? Who and where? Give some specifics rather than opinion. Was the “workshop” at Qumran? Please clarify and elucidate.
[b]This is evidence against Gospels Acts Letters or Apocalypse circulating among Judea's Jews c 70 CE as many credentialed Bible scholars convey.
Since you provide no specifics above, nor do you list the “credentialed scholars” and their specific arguments, what exactly is this “evidence” against Quote- “against Gospels Acts Letters or Apocalypse, circulating among Judea's Jews c 70”?
So far, you are coming up short on both evidence or specific arguments keyed to that evidence. And when you say “Among Judea’s Jews” who precisely is this? Are you referring to the early Jewish converts? Are you referring to the tens of thousands of regular Jews in Judea circa 70BC? If the latter, why would they be interested in the Gospels or the letters of Paul? And why would the Qumran collectors who are focused on the Hebrew scriptures collect Christian writings circa 70 AD?
The key word is 'sectarian'. The early Christians per their own traditions were a small sect persecuted by the more dominant sects being the Pharisees and Sadducees. By the way, I forgot to mention that today's Rabbinic Judaism directly descends from the Pharisees
OK, but you said earlier that today’s rabinnic Judaism is a Roman result. You still have not explained in what specific way. Were the Pharisees and Sadducees under Roman direction? Clarify and elucidate.
and it was they whom Jesus was most confrontational with and is the party that was held responsible for his crucifixion! The Sadducees or followers of Solomon's High Priest Zadok eventually became extinct with the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple since their sect was based solely on temple worship. There were two other minor sects-- the secluded ascetic Essenes and war-like Zealots who instigated the most rebellions against Rome via assassinations.
OK. .
Hmm, deflecting from no evidence of Greek Gospels Letters or Apocalypse at Qumranto the fact of every religion and philosophy on earth, sectarianism aka entrenched differences of opinion.
Dude do you realize how lacking your logic is? Why would the Qumran collectors, who are focused on the Hebrew scriptures, go around collecting gospels, epistles or Christian Apocalypse writings? The only “deflection” at play here is a lack of basic logic.
Were there really such a things as Essenes in the 1st century CE? Not to stray from the definitive fact the Qumran community copied and stored books regardless of 'sect'. Qan'iym weren't even a sect. They were a political party. This may be hard for moderns to understand but there was no sacred/secular or church/state clear categories as is today.
OK but there is a fatal flaw in your thinking. The Essenes did not collect material from “every sect.” And the Essenes were more than a mere political party. Many were careful transcribers, researchers and scholars, and the excellence of their work is reflected in the indispensable Qumran collection.
No wait let me make it plain I got no time for your bullshit, 20-questions lack-of-methodology, deliberate 'misconstruings' and miso-Judaic bigotry this or any other day.
This is your way of backtracking out of several debunked claims, rather that simply admit the referenced data and tweak your arguments to adjust for them. Fine.
Say what you will tell the world what I write ain't shit I don't give a fox and will not reply to you
This is rather childish and not necessary. If various references and data seem to negate an argument, simply acknowledge the data and tweak your argument to make it stronger, or adjust it in the light of the data. No need for any high drama.
but will carry on replying to Djehuti, who apparently has some background on the topics, and any interested others.
Very well reply only to Djehuti, fine. Will you be demanding as you seem to have done in various places, that he include “authentic” Filipino information as proof of his good intentions? On other threads you criticize him for commenting on “black” issues. Apparently a Fillipino guy, even one sympathetic to black issues, knowledgeable about said issues, and who has significantly contributed to the understanding of African history, antrho etc etc for well over a decade online, is not “qualified” enough.. Mercy me..
Coptic Christianity as a major impetus of formative Christianity only to find an Ecumenical Council's non-Africans turned Coptic (essentially NE African Christianity and canon into heresy.
The only thing is your “finding” is simply dubious. The 1st Nicean council did not turn Coptic Christianity into “heresy.” The Coptic Church fully incorporates the central canon of Christianity, Old and New Testament, with a number of other secondary books added on. Sorry..
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
I don't know why you guys are bringing this issue up again. Christian doctrines were solidified by the Church long before Constantine and Nicea. The Nicene Council was formed by Constantine after Christianity was established as a State/Imperial religion and its purpose was to establish to the Roman government what Christianity was as there were imposter cults and heretical sects. At Nicea, the scriptures were canonized but they were already long used by the Church before Constantine. And again Christianity is not just based on texts but is liturgy based on traditions both oral and ritual. The Council of Nicea mentions very little about the liturgy because the liturgy is taught and learned within the church and NOT by any imperial edict.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
quote:
quote: Khazars likewise had political motivations for adopting Judaism and Islam's political ambition is obvious almost from its start.
Are they truly of Khazar origin? And why Judaism when Christianity and Islam were more dominant?
.
Is who truly of Khazar origin?
Kevin Brook a correspondent from my Jewish yahoogroups moderator days is author of the Khazaria website which link http://www.khazaria.com has posted here several times.
R' Yehudah haLewi wrote the first book on Khazars so long ago I forget when. It's an apologetic intro to mid range intensity work on Judaism. Rabbi ND Korobkin wrote the recent translation of that work. He performed the brit for a friends son. I talked to him for a while on a variety of Judaica since he obviously was no Kushi-phobic white Jewish rabbi.
Kevin proudly admits being Khazar descended.
The rabbi? Really can't remember he felt the same or not. Not all European Jews have Khazar antecedents but again see Wexler1993, Slavica Publishers The Ashkenazic Jews: a Slavo-Turkic people in search of a Jewish Identity https://slavica.indiana.edu/bookListings/linguistics/The_Ashkenazic_Jews
I don't bring it up unless white Jews do just as white Jews don't ring no convert bells around me. Wouldja believe the Chabad from Lubavitch Lithuania teach the Beta Israel of Ethiopia are converts? No Teimani Jews from right next door in the Yaman know nothin bout dat.
As far as I know the Sephardim have an easier time tracing their heritage to Israel than the Ashkenazim. The Sephardim trace descent directly from Judaean settlers of North Africa and parts of Mediterranean Europe and they maintained ties with the Rabbinate of Babylon. The Ashkenazim on the other hand were established in inner Europe a little later but their lineages are more murky and thus questionable.
It was my impression that the 'Khazarian' label came to prominence in 1976 with Arthur Koestler's book The 13th Tribe. DNA studies especially from Behar show the Cohen modal haplotype being some more frequent in Sephardim than Ashkenazim and that Ashkenazi show more European maternal lineages than Sephardim. I do recall a recent PCA study based on autosomes showing Ashkenazi to be intermediate with Levantine populations and those of the Caucasus giving some support to the Khazarian theory. Though Khazars are a Turkic people there were various peoples living in their empire.
quote:
R' Moshe Hailu Paris zs"l and Dr Ephraim Isaac of Beta and Teiman strains renowned Princeton professor fluent in 7 dead languages
DJ, you don't know it but your question is its answer! Christianity and Islam's dominance is the reason why. How would becoming Christian or Jewish shield Khazaria from Catholic or Muslim empires contemporaneously at war, each wanting to 'enlist' Khazaria when Bulan's desire was independent freedom?
I think they were converted by Persian Jews.
OK I'm back off to the races c u inna few.
To my understanding both the Teimani and Beta Israel are Qaraite Jews who do not recognize Talmudic authority.
Which reminds me, do you consider the birth of Rabbic/Talmudic Judaism to the Geonate Rabbinate of Babylon?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Getting back to the topic of 'who the Copts are', it's been established that Alexandrian Copts are actually more so Greek Orthodox in belief and ethnci make up than they are Coptic even though Alexandria is the Ecclesial see for the entire Coptic Church and the Bishop of Alexandria being its head. One clue of of the identity of true Copts or Qibt could be found among the Nubian Copts of northern Sudan.
Asten B in his webpage shares some interesting highlights from past genetic studies on Nile Valley populations in regards to the Sudanese Copts.
quote:Astenb wrote:
In 2015 there is a publication by Dobon et al, that models the ancestry of African populations with a focus on Sudan, South Sudan, and the Horn of Africa. This study was one of the first to introduce the genomes of populations in the whole of Sudan and not just "Nilotes" from Southern Sudan. This study identifies a "Coptic" component that distinguishes itself and peaks in an immigrant population from Southern Egypt.
"The North African/Middle Eastern genetic component is identified especially in Copts. The Coptic population present in Sudan is an example of a recent migration from Egypt over the past two centuries. They are close to Egyptians in the PCA, but remain a differentiated cluster, showing their own component at k = 4 (Fig. 3). Copts lack the influence found in Egyptians from Qatar, an Arabic population. It may suggest that Copts have a genetic composition that could resemble the ancestral Egyptian population, without the present strong Arab influence."
In this study we can see a Non-Arab Egyptian component that it is the most dominant within Northern Sudan and the Horn of Africa. ALL native populations in Sudan, Southern Sudan and the Horn of Africa lack ancestry with populations of Western Africa. If this component is an "Ancestral Egyptian population" then in this model Northern Sudanese and Ethiopians have significant "Ancestral Egyptian" ancestry, more so than Arab Egyptians in this model. This study is consistent in producing data that shows if a model in which Sudanese and or Ethiopians are dominated by components which peak in West Africans it's an insufficient model that doesn't really capture the diversity of North East Africa.
In 2017 Hollfelder at al, published another paper dealing with the genomic variation of North East Africans. The Admixture results showed considerable substructure with Copts differentiating from other Egyptians even while noting the population difference between the two were statistically insignificant. Copts seemed to stand out due to genetic isolation and endogamy. In this study as well there is a model where populations from the Levant and Arabia leading all the way into the Horn of Africa share a significant component that peaks in Sudanese Copts.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: One clue of of the identity of true Copts or Qibt could be found among the Nubian Copts of northern Sudan.
I believe that Coptic population is descended from historical immigrants from Egypt though.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ They are! That's the point. The Copts of northern Sudan are directly descended from Upper Egyptian Copts who migrated south. And they like many Sa'idi are highly endogamous which is why they show certain distinction in autosomal pattern compared to Egyptians in general.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ They are! That's the point. The Copts of northern Sudan are directly descended from Upper Egyptian Copts who migrated south. And they like many Sa'idi are highly endogamous which is why they show certain distinction in autosomal pattern compared to Egyptians in general.
OK. In your previous post, you called them "Nubian Copts", which made me think you missed the part about them being immigrants from Egypt.
Does anyone have good pictures of the Coptic people in Sudan? Because the ones I have been able to find on Google look suspiciously more like Alexandrians than typical Upper Egyptians.
Posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Originally posted by Wally:
quote: I wrote: originally an ethnic group of Graeco-Africans (much like the 'coloreds' of South Africa)
Ausar responded: "Really you see the Copts in that manner? Please explain more your views. I have never honestly seen a Coptic Christain who looks like any of the sculpture nor arrwork in the tombs. Most I have seen look Syrian or Greek. This is why I asked you originally Wally where you got that picture of the Copt because he certainly does not look like most I have seen.
My belief is most of them are Syrians and Greeks who lived amungst the indigenous Fellahin or Jews who converted to Christainty to stay in Egypt. Most people don't realize that during the Ptolomeic period many pockets of foreginers lived within Middle Egypt. Lots of refugees from Judea came into Egyptand Syrians served in Ptolomeic armies were awarded plots of land in Egypt particular around Faiyum. Even during the Middle Ages Faiyum has a couple of Jews."
My Response:
I think, perhaps, that we are both correct, simply because there is great confusion as to who or what exactly is a Copt.
My first image of an Egyptian Copt was when I was studying the history of modern Ethiopia. I became aware that at one time, the head of the Ethiopian Coptic church had to be an Egyptian, an Egyptian who incidentally looked very much like this gentleman...
"His Holiness Shenouda III is considered by Copts to be the 117th patriarch of Alexandria in direct succession to Saint Mark the Evangelist, author of the second Gospel..."
He certainly resembles a description of the Copts as you stated above. Here's a picture of some Cairene Copts. I couldn't get images of Upper Egyptian Copts, but I imagine that they would resemble the people of Upper Egypt, as the Ethiopian Copts look Ethiopian...
This ambivalence about the Copts can also be seen in this definition from the WorldBook Encyclopedia:
Copts is a term first used to refer to certain native residents of ancient Egypt. The Copts spoke a version of the ancient Egyptian language enriched by many Greek words and written with a modified Greek alphabet. The name Copts also refers to members of the Coptic Orthodox Church in modern Egypt, who use the Coptic language in their church service. However, like other Egyptians today, Copts speak Arabic.
What did Volney see?
In his writings, Count C.F.C. de Volney describes the modern Egyptian Copts whom he encountered as resembling a mulatto race, as a combination of Greeks and Blacks...
(That is why my comparison to the 'coloreds' of South Africa; which is a political description - biologically speaking they are simply a Black people mixed with other races -- We learned dominant and recessive genes in Middle School biology)...
There is definite confusion here. What we do know for certain is that the Coptic language is a direct descendant of Kemetian. That's really all that's important.
Purest Descendants of the Pharaohs?
This has been a constant slogan of Egypt's Coptic church (the Greek elite?) but it is of course nonsense. The purest descendant's of the Pharaohs are the Egyptian fellaheen or Rural Egyptians, especially those of the Nile Valley. Because of this, and because of the confusion surrounding "Copts," I have updated a page on my website:
Virtually all Egyptologists and anthropologists agree that the Ancient Egyptians belonged to the same ethnic sub grouping, usually referred to as 'Hamites,' as the Somali, Galla (Oromo), Beja, Afar (Danakil), etc. - peoples of northeast Africa. We would also include the Wolof of Senegal, and of course modern Egyptians of the Nile Valley, especially the Fellaheen or Rural Egyptians, and the Nubians. http://www.geocities.com/wally_mo/people.html
As far as the Wolof of Senegal, If anyone wants to get a clear view of a Kemetian people, I would recommend the movie "Saraaba"(Utopia)by Amadou Seck. It conveys,in my opinion, a real "feel" of Ancient Kemet. Besides, it's also a good movie, and it's available on Video...
[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 06 July 2004).]
As we have seen on this thread, the Copts are a diverse ethnic mixture, from the Sudan to Egypt to the Levant, with genetic heritage covering Eurasia to Sub- Saharan Africa. Some thus might argue for the socio-label "mulatto" you reference Count Volney as using, and under Western or American "one drop" rules. Ironically, under US govt racial classifications, most Copts, who are from "North Africa" would be classified as "white" along with Egyptians. The tale of M. Hefny of Egypt, an Egyptian who was fighting to be reclassified as black, illustrates the ambiguous nature of identity in this area. Copts are a language group but that ambiguity also extends to other dimensions of identity besides language.
DETROIT (WWJ/AP) – An Egyptian immigrant who lives in Detroit is asking the U.S. government to classify him as black, not white.
Mostafa Hefny has been trying to get the racial designation since the 1980s.
READ MORE: Redistricting Panel Advances Michigan Senate Map “As a black man and as an African, I am proud of this heritage,” Hefny told The Detroit News for a story published Tuesday. “My classification as a white man takes away my black pride, my black heritage and my strong black identity.”
Hefny is brown-skinned with curly hair. The 61-year-old was born in Egypt and came to the United States in 1978. When he was admitted to the country, he was classified on government papers as a white person, Hefny said.
“The government (interviewer) said, `You are now white,”‘ said Hefny, who said he is a Nubian, an ancient group of Egyptians considered more African than Arab, from the northern part of Sudan and the southern portion of Egypt.
A white person is defined as “a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, North Africa or the Middle East,” according to Directive 15 for the federal Office of Management and Budget Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity.
Hefny said he was denied promotions because of his insistence that he is black.
READ MORE: Michigan Reports 9,313 New COVID-19 Cases, 65 Deaths “There are two versions of the ideology of white supremacy and black inferiority — a hard version, which was prevalent in the 17th and 18th centuries, and a soft version which was prevalent in the 19th and 20th centuries and which continues to exist to the present,” Hefny said in a media release.. “The hard version of this ideology argued that Negroes did not have a soul, had a tail, and were only one link above the apes …The soft version, which continues to exist to the present, argues that blacks are intellectually, culturally, and morally inferior to whites.”
He also said he lost out on a teaching position at Wayne State University in the early 1990s because it was a position designed for a minority, and he didn’t qualify.
“I have been awarded, inadvertently, the negative effects of being black such as racial profiling, stereotypes and disenfranchisement due to my negroid features,” Hefny said. “However, the legal demand of my racial classification of ‘white’ prevents me from receiving benefits established for black people.”
In 1997, Hefny filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government to be classified as black, but the case was dismissed.
Hefny also has taken his fight online, where an organization he co-founded, The Association of Black Egyptian, Ethiopian, and Nubian Advocates, has posted a petition. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Coptic monks between 1898 and 1914, Middle East, Israel and/or Palestine American Colony (Jerusalem)
The Ethiopian Orthodox Community in Jerusalem: New Archives and Perspectives on Daily Life and Social Networks, 1840–1940
Stéphane Ancel According to Ethiopian accounts, a plague in 1838 killed every Ethiopian monk in Jerusalem. Dayr al-Sultan, the monastery on the roof of the Chapel of St. Helena, where Ethiopian and Coptic monks had lived together, was from then on occupied only by the Copts, with permission from the Armenian Patriarchate, the traditional protector of both Ethiopians and Egyptians in Jerusalem. Three years later, a new group of Ethiopian monks arrived in town and immediately accused the Copts of unfairly appropriating the site. This event marked the beginning of a long-term conflict in which Ethiopians fought with Copts and Armenians over ownership of Dayr al-Sultan. Indeed, between 1840 and 1940, Dayr al-Sultan was the site of disturbances, demonstrations, and fights. However, in addition to conflict, this period also witnessed the development of the Ethiopian Orthodox community in Jerusalem. From the second half of the nineteenth century, Ethiopians could acquire houses and lands in Jerusalem, their population grew and finally, in 1905, the Ottoman authorities designated a part of the town as Haret al-Habash, known today as the Ethiopian compound.
~Ordinary Jerusalem 1840–1940 - Oapen
_________________________
I notice they are not that happy looking
Posted by SlimJim (Member # 23217) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: I thought everybody knew about Constantine and the 1st council at Nicea. How it was there, over 200 yrs after the agreed upon date given to the Gospels, Letters, and Apocalypse, that Christianity actually took shape.
The canonization of texts came after the formulation of the doctrines which was established before Constantine and Nicea. In fact, 1st Council of Nicea had to confirm their creed based on earlier doctrines of Cappadocia which was based on that of Antioch.
quote:There was no such thing as heresy in Christianity until at least the 1st Council at Nicea because a unified belief system that one could waiver from simply did not exist. Council members from various churches weren't on the one or there wouldn't've been a series of councils up to the 700's CE nor would there be ancient Christian movements still surviving today ie Catholic Eastern Orthodox other ones not as familiar to the 'avg westerner'. Many Christians don't feel Ethiopian Orthodox are Xian rather than Jewish because of the many Hebrew practices in the Tewahedo "church".
That's incorrect. There did exist a unified system of beliefs and the reason for the councils was to call out other cults and sects who hijacked the name of "Christianity" even though they really weren't. Even in the texts of Acts of the Apostles, and especially in the Epistles the Apostles and their successors often ran into individuals and entire groups who misconstrued their faith into something that was not. Gnostics are a perfect example of this twisting many Christian doctrines into their Hellenistic mystical forms than anything Biblical.
By the way, when it comes to the Tewahedo Church many people forget that Abyssinia (Ethiopia) before Christianity was Jewish! So this explains why the modern Tewahedo Church has many Judaic customs in contrast to other Churches which was predominated by Gentiles.
quote:The Christianity we know today is a Roman result just as today's rabbinic Judaism is a Roman result.
In the former case Constantine is responsible for Christianity since he set up the "Nicean Council" which determined which of the tenets and doctrines circulating around the Mediterranean world were to become either Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, etc.
Again Christian doctrines were established well before Constantine. The problem came when Constantine turned the faith into a state religion and thus politicized it. Originally Christianity shunned the political realm and did not get involved with affairs of governance and ruling except when it comes to basic codes of conduct. The Ecclesia or Church was to serve as an advisory role to local rulers and governors. The Church ceased being Christian when it began persecuting pagans and destroying their temples and centers especially under the Emperor Theodosius who legalized such persecutions! The irony is that Jesus says his true followers are the persecuted people NOT the persecutors.
How is modern Judaism a Roman result? Because of the Romans's destruction of the Jerusalem Temple?
quote:Other unapproved doctrines, that many many a pre 325 CE Christian believed in and followed were suppressed and their practitioners even penalized at times, iirc.
Again the problem is that you had different cults incorporating either the Christian moniker and/or Christian practices but were not?
Surely the Jewish religion has the concept of heresy. How else do you explain the Samaritans?? There was a unified Israelite religion but when the political schism took place dividing United Israel into the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judaea there happened a religious one as well involving the priesthood. With the Samaritans basing their temple on Mt Gerizim in Samaria while Judeans based their temple in Jerusalem on Mt. Moriah.
And even in modern Judaism the schism between Qaraites and Talmudists. No doubt this was another reason why the early Church called for councils to not only call out imposter Christians but to prevent schisms which was unfortunately they didn't prevent.
quote:IE "the equality of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in the Holy Trinity and asserted that only the Son became incarnate as Jesus Christ."
Excuse me for quoting the Wiki, which is no more than sets of amateur internetters attempting to make a 21st Century/3rd Millennium relevant encyclopedia as up to date as the latest headlines. A fine and factual effort sometimes, just as often a subjective opinionated product.
Technically speaking The Father and Son are not equal since the Son is begotten from the Father who has 'monarchia'. The Spirit proceeds from the Father and is shared with the Son. All three persons make up God who is of a single essence.
quote:Christianity wasn't consolidated until after the birth of Islam. Before the 460 years of councils at Nicea and elsewhere, more 'books' circulated than in either the very streamlined and late appearing Protestant Bible most are familiar with or the fuller Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Ethiopian, etc., editions.
On the contrary Christianity was not only established before Constantine but Islam itself is actually a heretical form of Christianity! This can found in the simple fact that the Quran calls Issa (Jesus) the Messiah born of the virgin Maryam!
quote:Neither of them have any 'book' about the boyhood of their deity figure, a Greek concept very much at odds with Hebrew sensibilities of deity on many counts.
One can read most of these banished Christian Gospels and Apocalypse. See their forbidden theology in an edition like the misnamed Lost Books of the Bible. No, there are no lost books. The 'Councilors' decided what was and what was not going to be canon. Now, working from my memory, it was Charlesworth edited a definitive collection of some of those scriptures that didn't please council members. (link)
EDIT: not the one from my childhood and young adult "studies" but a 2011 work new to me.
Those banished gospels were Gnostic works that were written centuries after the time of Jesus and include a lot of un-Biblical (both Old and New Testament) themes OR they are simply unreliable such as the Infancy Gospel which has Jesus speaking as a baby and other miracles as a toddler which does bear a striking resemblance to Greek stories of deities. As for Jesus childhood, the Gospel of Luke makes reference to Jesus at age 12 spending 3 days in Temple of Jerusalem during Passover where he debates with rabbis.
quote:=-=-=-= The Christianity we know today is a Roman result just as today's rabbinic Judaism is a Roman result.
Short shrift on the latter. Rome needed Judea in complete submission. Only a Kandake of Sudan gave them as much military trouble. Edom/Rome was exterminating rabbis but not burning books because Judean Jews practiced 'oral theology'. I mean everything was transmitted mouth to ear in sing song as a memory aid. OK so these early rabbis and talmudiym were griots, of a sort.
One ribbi, Jochannan(?), fled Yerushalayim hidden in a
coffin. He asked was permitted by Roman authority to teach his version of Hokhmath Yisra'el. All others were in fact lost. Then Rab Y*hudah haNasi composed Mishnah in writing lest the tradition die with the 'griots'. Luckily there are b*raitoth, in G*marah the preserve little bits of other rabbinic streams.
Israel-ism was replaced by Judah-ism courtesy of Rome.
BTW 400 yrs after Islam's rise enough Jews still believed in corporeality and other now non-official Jewish ideas that the Saadya Gaon of Egypt had to write The Book of Beliefs and Opinions to quash them though Judaism never has had any one central authority since the legendary Moshe Rabbeinu.
Weren't Judaeans spread throughout the Roman Empire especially in the eastern Mediterranean? And didn't some Jews like Josephus serve under the Romans as well? And what of the Samaritans??
quote:PRECISION Of course Copt (Qubti) is an ethnicity. The word itself means native Egyptian in distinction to 'Greco-' 'Romano-' or other hyphenated late antiquity Egyptian citizens. But that hasn't stopped the Greco-Romans of Egypt from adopting that name as well.
Agreed.
Any resources I can read to learn about Eritrea/Ethiopia following Judaism before Christianity?
Posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
Coptic monks between 1898 and 1914, Middle East, Israel and/or Palestine American Colony (Jerusalem)
The Ethiopian Orthodox Community in Jerusalem: New Archives and Perspectives on Daily Life and Social Networks, 1840–1940
Stéphane Ancel According to Ethiopian accounts, a plague in 1838 killed every Ethiopian monk in Jerusalem. Dayr al-Sultan, the monastery on the roof of the Chapel of St. Helena, where Ethiopian and Coptic monks had lived together, was from then on occupied only by the Copts, with permission from the Armenian Patriarchate, the traditional protector of both Ethiopians and Egyptians in Jerusalem. Three years later, a new group of Ethiopian monks arrived in town and immediately accused the Copts of unfairly appropriating the site. This event marked the beginning of a long-term conflict in which Ethiopians fought with Copts and Armenians over ownership of Dayr al-Sultan. Indeed, between 1840 and 1940, Dayr al-Sultan was the site of disturbances, demonstrations, and fights. However, in addition to conflict, this period also witnessed the development of the Ethiopian Orthodox community in Jerusalem. From the second half of the nineteenth century, Ethiopians could acquire houses and lands in Jerusalem, their population grew and finally, in 1905, the Ottoman authorities designated a part of the town as Haret al-Habash, known today as the Ethiopian compound.
~Ordinary Jerusalem 1840–1940 - Oapen
_________________________
I notice they are not that happy looking
What you mean not looking happy? Monks don't usually look very happy. They like that focused, dour look. But since you post these pics as part of Coptic identity, what "race" would they have been classified by in America, circa your date of 1898 and 1914, given the American or white European "one drop" rule per popular usage or even official court cases etc.. per below?
**Mere societal/popular perceptions are not all the story of course..
Ethiopians fought with Copts and Armenians over ownership of Dayr al-Sultan. Indeed, between 1840 and 1940, Dayr al-Sultan was the site of disturbances, demonstrations, and fights. However, in addition to conflict, this period also witnessed the development of the Ethiopian Orthodox community in Jerusalem. From the second half of the nineteenth century, Ethiopians could acquire houses and lands in Jerusalem, their population grew and finally, in 1905, the Ottoman authorities designated a part of the town as Haret al-Habash, known today as the Ethiopian compound.
Hmmm, if as you say above the Ethiopians had their own slice of land in Jerusalem under Ottoman rule, after squabbling with the Copts & Armenians for a piece of the action, whatever happened to said Ethiopians once the Ottomans left??
Originally posted by SlimJim:
quote: Any resources I can read to learn about Eritrea/Ethiopia following Judaism before Christianity?
Look at the actual references on bottom of the Wiki page on the Beta Israel. Look at the good solid scholarly references, not mere personal opinion on web pages or Youtube. Verify the Wikipedia write-ups which may change daily, sometimes hourly, against credible references. Depends how deep you want to go.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
.
Posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
he one drop rule is a stupid brain dead Jim Crow redneck law designed to prevent so called race mixing
ironically many black people love the one drop because whenever they like certain people they can say "well because of the one drop rule, he's one of ours, she's one of ours"
but if they don't like the person they don't bring up the one drop rule instead imply the person is potentially disloyal to blackness because they are part white
So it starts off stupid and racist from the white end and then black people flip it in other stupid ways
I hate the one drop rule
You have to look at the big picture to see the ironies and nuances of one-drop. Yes the one drop rule started out as an attempt to establish alleged white "purity" even as white hypocrisy created a substantial "mulatto" population from Day 1. But blacks turned it to their advantage over time. The "one of us" claims are not simply racial boosterism but a practical reality. Racism drove all blacks into the same boat regardless of European genes though those with more such genes had some advantages. Nevertheless, in general it was one boat. The infamous Plessy case, had Homer Plessy, who could pass for white -kicked out of a "white' railroad car, just like his darker brethren. Plessy was of mixed race; he described himself as “seven-eighths Caucasian and one-eighth African blood.” Didn't make any difference- 1/8 "drops got him the boot. The white Supreme Court used the case to legalize or allow segregation as supreme rule of the land.
but if they don't like the person they don't bring up the one drop rule instead imply the person is potentially disloyal to blackness because they are part white
^^ If they bring up the treachery due to a race mix or "white blood" they are in part invoking the one-drop concept to explain the treachery or wrongdoing, since its drops of treacherous white blood responsible.
So it starts off stupid and racist from the white end and then black people flip it in other stupid ways
SOME blacks may do a stupid flip, but the flip can be quite reasonable in other ways. For one thing, having people who can "pass" as "white" enables/enabled blacks to do things they otherwise could not have done such as buy property in certain areas using a "high yeller" frontman with enough drops of white blood to pull it off.
Second flipping the script is perfectly appropriate in confronting racists. Lets take the black "Curse of Ham" smear. OK then, if "accursed" Ham is black, then his descendants are responsible for Egypt, Ethiopia, Canaan, Mesopotamia, Punt and so on. It is a most delicious irony, taking their own smear and ramming it back in their faces. Nothing wrong with that at all. Its like some Bob Jones Univ racialists you run into occasionally who assert that Moses in the Bible mandated "separation of da races." They go silent or sputter in protest when you point out that:
a) Moses separation rules are not based on race but religion- those worshipping Jehovah versus those who worshiped idols of stone, wood etc
b) The Hebrew lawgiver hisself married one of the "tainted" folk- a Kushite, and was supported in a confrontation involving his Kushite wife by none other than Jehovah. (Numbers 12)
The script gets even more hilarious when suddenly assorted racialists try to backtrack and reverse gear to declare the Kushites "white" after previously disdaining them as descendants of "accursed" black Ham.
So flipped scripts are not "stupid" at all, but can be quite useful in exposing racist sophistry and hypocrisy.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
.
Posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
You sidestepped the question. Under the American one-drop formula, what "race" would the Copts be?
Posted by sudanese (Member # 15779) on :
Until and unless new genetic evidence rebuts the Abusir paper and the Neolithic Kenyan paper, modern Egyptians are the closest representation of the ancient Egyptians.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
.
Posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova: You sidestepped the question. Under the American one-drop formula, what "race" would the Copts be?
Now you are asking a different question, you didn't mention any specific picture
According to the racist one drop rule all haplogroup E carriers are black including
Lyndon B. Johnson 21% of Sudanese Copts (mt? could be higher)(Hassan, 2008) Napoleon (relatives) Albert Einstein Nicolas Cage Adolf Hitler (relatives) Sir David Attenborough
"Black" here does not mean "black skinned" it means having black African ancestry, no matter how slight. It means "tainted by inferior African blood", that is what the one drop rule is
However one can't make any claims about the ancestry of the old photo Coptic monks in Jerusalem I posted because we do not have any ancestry information for them The one drop rule is not employed by looking at a person. It is determined by a person having documented African ancestry and if they have been deemed of having the slightest trace of African ancestry they are black. The purpose of the rule is specifically designed to bypass assumption made by looking, that if you have any thoughts about mixing with African people if any of your descendants no matter how far ahead in the future they might be and "white looking" they will be placed in a lower social class regardless of how they look. There will be no more "Passing", races must be pure, with no taint whatsoever
So this rule is like what Nazis might do but instead in American context. And for some reason you think it is still useful to classify people with
According to the racist one drop rule all haplogroup E carriers are black including
Lyndon B. Johnson 21% of Sudanese Copts (mt? could be higher)(Hassan, 2008) Napoleon (relatives) Albert Einstein Nicolas Cage Adolf Hitler (relatives) Sir David Attenborough
Nope- the one-drop rule came to be long before there was any modern DNA analysis establishing something like "Haplogroup E". It was and still is mostly based based on ancestry and genealogy and phenotypical looks. And the "one-drop" applies to people who are in a subordinate racial social position or pressured to be. Such does not and never did apply to Adolf Hitler or Lyndon Johnson, Napoleon, Nicholas Cage, etc who are all recognized as members of the dominant white group.
"Black" here does not mean "black skinned" it means having black African ancestry, no matter how slight. It means "tainted by inferior African blood", that is what the one drop rule is
Not really. "Black" under the one-drop always had/has a substantial phenotypical component, thus "black skinned" was always and would be simply the most VISIBLE part of the package. A "black looking" person would be the easy end of the package, a "light skinnad" Homer Plessy would be on the other less visible end, but sill one general package.
However one can't make any claims about the ancestry of the old photo Coptic monks in Jerusalem I posted because we do not have any ancestry information for them
Partly, but you don't need modern DNA info from them since one of the key components of one drop is phenotypical. Genealogical ancestry is an important part, but so is the phenotype- i,e. nose shape, "good hair" etc that allows one to "pass." And I am talking about several pics in this thread showing what would be called "black" Copt under odr. Here is a pic you posted:
The one drop rule is not employed by looking at a person. It is determined by a person having documented African ancestry and if they have been deemed of having the slightest trace of African ancestry they are black. The purpose of the rule is specifically designed to bypass assumption made by looking,
Not really. Phenotypical looks have always been a key component of "one drop" even if genealogical ancestry also weighs heavily. As one good PBS article puts it on the complexities of "racial" types and mixes:
"The phenomenon known as "passing as white" is difficult to explain in other countries or to foreign students. Typical questions are: "Shouldn't Americans say that a person who is passing as white is white, or nearly all white, and has previously been passing as black?" or "To be consistent, shouldn't you say that someone who is one-eighth white is passing as black?" or "Why is there so much concern, since the so-called blacks who pass take so little negroid ancestry with them?" Those who ask such questions need to realize that "passing" is much more a social phenomenon than a biological one, reflecting the nation's unique definition of what makes a person black. The concept of "passing" rests on the one-drop rule and on folk beliefs about race and miscegenation, not on biological or historical fact. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/mixed/onedrop.html
if any of your descendants no matter how far ahead in the future they might be and "white looking" they will be placed in a lower social class regardless of how they look. There will be no more "Passing", races must be pure, with no taint whatsoever
You have made my point for me in part by admitting aoive that one drop is MORE than mere DNA info. You say it is designed with a social subordination goal 'in mind. Precisely. The goal may be open subordination or personal psychologizing and dismissal of the target, but one drop always had and has more than mere biology via DNA or even genealogical documentation in view, and the historical record shows this.
So this rule is like what Nazis might do but instead in American context.
The Nazis were actually more flexible re "Jewish blood." You could be a non-Jew with less than 75% "Jewish blood." The Nazis also relied heavily on religious affiliation in making their determinations of "purity" not simply biology. As one study puts it:
".. officials explained that all Mischlinge with 75 percent or more Jewish blood were to count as Jews; on the other hand, not necessarily all German-Jewish Mischlinge with less than 75 percent Jewish blood were Jews in the sense of the law.35 Blood, as it had been all along, was still a malleable concept—race was contained in the blood, but it could also be affected by an individual"s religious confession. This flexibility complicated effective interpretation, and therefore enforcement of, the laws. Even National Socialist bureaucrats found the phrase “German-blooded” awkward."
--Rachel Boaz 2009. THE SEARCH FOR “ARYAN BLOOD:” SEROANTHROPOLOGY IN WEIMAR AND NATIONAL SOCIALIST GERMANY. Kent State Univ- dissertation.
And for some reason you think it is still useful to classify people with
Didn't say it had any classification value in the biological sense, but in the social sense it has been useful for African Americans, as already detailed above.
a) As you yourself admit it allowed blacks to claim as their own individuals who had notable accomplishments. This is not at all unreasonable for a severely oppressed minority, and allows use of the accomplishments as pushback against the oppressive group.
b) Since one-drop put all in the same boat, this broadened the base and resources'that could be used in the fight against the oppressor group, including the use of "passing" to end run oppressors and gain access to those resources.
c) It allows the script to be flipped to expose the hypocrisy and sophistry in the historical propaganda and claims of the oppressor group.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
.
Posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Actually as I showed before, it has more to do with DNA or even genealogical paperwork but also has a significant "looks" or phenotypical component. A random white person on the street could be "one-dropped" on looks alone. In fact there are several successful court cases of white women suing streetcar companies because white conductors assigned them to the "negro" car due to their looks, and horrors! They was "unfairly" forced to ride several miles in said streetcars with negroes including, gasp, negro mens!
classification based on a taint concept. 1% That 1% changes their racial classification and that is super stupid and useless to anyone
Actually as already demonstrated, there are several reasons one-drop in a social sense has been usefully used by African descendants, who were almost the only people to which it has been applied. Many white people actually benefited initially from one-drop in terms of the psychic satisfaction of Aryan or white purity, how it discourages competition for eligible white males or females via mating, and how it demonizes "impure" blacks so whites garner an economic spillover benefit in the form of greater shares of resources in jobs, housing etc. Why sell housing or give jobs to "impure" and "tainted" negroes for example- and this has often been the reasoning undergirding numerous manifestations of white supremacy. But once black folk got a hold of the concept and started using it to pushback, and started flipping the script to subvert it ('"passing" for example) or using it to expose the hypocrisy of white racism or bogus white narratives about black people, then many whites want to backtrack. They can;t deal with the barbed sting at the tail end of the pushback, but had no problem with it when all the white benefits seemed positive.
It was not about people looking at somebody and making judgements and it had some variations in state laws
Nope. One drop did not at all overrule assumptions based on looks- in fact looks was a key component. This should be obvious for accurate genealogical records were often not available for many African-Americans or whites for that matter. Nor was their a totalitarian "purity" bureaucracy in states to investigate degrees of whiteness. The record shows many courts unable to decide on the exact "percentage" of white blood. Even the Nazis found genealogical paperwork incomplete, obscure or unsatisfactory and had to rely also on declared religion and looks. So to say one drop had nothing to do with looks is inaccurate.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
.
Posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
No you don't have to quote obsolete state law because one-drop is a popular social meme that is current today among some whites and blacks. 1924 seems rather late as far as the concept. What did the Racial Integrity Law of 1924 say that has a bearing?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
.
Posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Sure, not adopted officially as law, but as the Wiki article shows it was in action informally or advocated variously long before.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
.
Posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Sure its illogical, but logic was not high up on the list. White benefit though, is.
Suppose today somebody who most people consider to be "white" did a DNA test and it said they were 6% African. Are we are supposed to call them black now because of the one drop rule of the Jim Crow era?
By the rule they would be "black." But why would they willingly give up the advantage and privileges of being white? As your link shows white people have always massaged the rule to ensure they would not lose its benefits. Thus the Virginia legislature made the "Pochohantas exemption" in relation to some Indians because several white elites had Indian ancestry and would have been adversely affected. Likewise some legislatures delayed handling the hot potato classification measure in some years because it would have opened a can of worms and exposed numerous "white" people to the vicious caste system they themselves had designed, for their benefit. As one disturbed South Carolina lawmaker said when debating various racial classification measures:
" It would be a cruel injustice and the source of endless litigation, of scandal, horror, feud, and bloodshed to undertake to annul or forbid marriage for a remote, perhaps obsolete trace of Negro blood. The doors would be open to scandal, malice, and greed; to statements on the witness stand that the father or grandfather or grandmother had said that A or B had Negro blood in their veins."
Likewise the Virginia House passed the Racial "Integrity" Act but the Senate soon after voted to indefinitely postpone its consideration. They knew it could open up a wasp' nest and expose white hypocrisy over so-called "purity."
"On March 5, 1926, the House passed the amended revision of the Racial Integrity Act by a vote of 52 to 18, but one week later, the Senate voted 20 to 9 to indefinitely postpone its consideration." https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/racial-integrity-laws-1924-1930/ Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Last I checked, Africans in general but North Africans especially use the reverse one-drop rule-- any non-black/white ancestor makes one non-black/white. This was especially true for those with Arab ancestry and hence the process of Arabization in Africa. This is why you have Africans who are clearly black but claim to be Arab instead and hate and despise blacks.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Black is a color. Arab a language based ethnicity. Sudani 'royalty' claims both identities at least since the Sudan Arab v Sudan Black hype Euros capitalized off of in the 80s/90s.
True mulatto Bob Marley was called whitey in JA and a family spurned him due to his white daddy.
Obama is "mzungu" like his mum in Kenyan eyes. Was Doe white to the average Ghanaian citizen?
It appears people of a dual parentage are often considered 'other' pending geography.
Inner Africa considers them non-black.
America thinks of them as black.
Europe and Luso-Hispanic America, at a time before Anglo-American influences, recognized them for what they are neither black nor white but something else. Same for South Africa, not sure about Australia whose indigenous blacks are now no longer Australia's only black fellows.
Arabic speakers have ambivalencies but generally recognize them as Arab though noting the 'other' element as epitomized by Antar, hero of heroes in Arabic literature yet facing discrimination because part Abyssinian.
A Persian(?) product, the 1001 Nights, is profuse with black stereotypes no different than southern plantation owners yet reveres the sexual prowess of the black male whereas the planters et al were only interested in black female "ass" without recognizing her humanity unlike the Islamic world via open concubinage.
Perhaps not Qur'anic but Islam too has its negrophobia or anti-Hamitism elements evinced in the idea that calling its prophet a black should be punished by death even though it's recorded by al-Jahiz, based on Zanji sources, that Muhammad's uncles were black
quote:The ten sons of Abd el Mottalib the grandfather of Mohammed were all black and strong. The Amir ibn al Tufayl said that the Kaba was well guarded when he saw them on black camels going around the Kaba.
. Incidently this work also records the Copts as blacks, again per the Zanji
quote:
They say : The blacks are more numerous than the whites. The whites at most consist of the people of * Persia, *Jibal, and * Khurasan, the * Greeks, * Slavs, * Franks, and * Avars, and some few others, not very numerous; the blacks include the * Zanj, * Ethiopians, the people of * Fazzan, the * Berbers, the
The Zanj also say: The Copts too are blacks. Abraham the friend of God married one of them and so was born a big prophet the ancestor of the Arabs; Ismael. The Prophet (p.b.u.h.) also married one of them and Ibrahim was born. The angel Gabriel when addressing the prophet called him father of Ibrahim.
^ Yes, so there are Arab texts describing the native Copts as 'black' people.
But please guys, I don't want this thread to be degraded into another 'race' argument. If you want to discuss the bio-anthropological affinities of Copts, we can still do that without being bogged down in the mire of how or to whom the label of 'black' is used.
The Abusir Mummy study suggests that there has been an increase in so-called 'Sub-Saharan' ancestry in the Egyptian populace since the Late Period, despite the discrepancies about the Abusir sample itself. Surprisingly there hasn't been as many studies done on Egyptian remains post-Roman Period to Medieval times as there has been on those of Predynastic, Dynastic and Late periods. I recall our old moderator Ausar mentioning that from the comparatively few studies that were done e.g. Ahmed Batrawi, Sidney Smith, etc. the remains do show a significant increase in so-called "negroid" cranial features. At first glance this would support the assertions of the Abusir study, however I recall that those same studies and more recent ones show that overall the skeletal remains still conform to North African range of morphology and not the Sub-Saharan one. In fact, Sidney Smith and I believe C. Loring Brace say that their features are merely a "reversion" or return to those of early predynastic crania such as the Badarian. So IF there was an influx of more "negroid" looking people into the Egyptian Nile Valley it wasn't Sub-Saharans but rather other North Africans who resembled and perhaps related to the early Predynastic people.
Also, the Abusir paper does nothing to explain why there is Sub-Saharan ancestry not only in modern Southwest Asians like modern Levantine and Arabian peoples, but that other North Africans have even higher amounts of it than Egyptians i.e. Algerians and Tunisians.
Of course the popular explanation for the presence of such Sub-Saharan ancestry is slave-trade, but this actually makes little historical sense as Ausar has pointed out, the majority of slaves during the Islamic Period were owned by Arabs and then later Turkish Ottomans. The indigenous/Baladi Egyptians who were the majority were themselves poor serfs in subject to their Islamic overlords. Those who did not convert to Islam and remained Copts were in perpetual debt under the system of jizya so there is no way they could buy or own slaves. Also, as Ausar pointed out records from Islamic rulers show that Sub-Saharan slaves had incredibly low birth rates to the point of fertility problems and this was just the females as males were regularly castrated and made eunuchs.
So I'm throwing this good meat with no bones to all of you to make of it as you please. Marinate it and cook it but don't spoil it with low grade talk of black vs. white "negroid" vs. "caucasian".
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ As mentioned in another thread, Brandon brought up the Irish 2006 paper Who Were the Ancient Egyptians? Dental AffinitiesAmong Neolithic Through Postdynastic Peoples where it says this about the Greco-Roman period: Did Egyptians of the Ptolemaic and Roman periods differ significantly from their dynastic antecedents? Again, more post dynastic samples would prove useful in answering this broad question. Moreover, any foreign genetic influence on the indigenous populace likely diminished relative to the distance upriver. However, as it stands, the lone Greek Egyptian (GEG) sample from Lower Egypt significantly differs from all but the small Roman-period Kharga sample (Table 4). In fact, it was shown to be a major outlier that is divergent from all others (Figs. 2, 3, 5). The Greek Egyptians exhibit the lowest frequencies of UM1 cusp 5, three-rooted UM2, five-cusped LM2, and two-rooted LM2, along with a high incidence of UM3 absence, among others (Table 2). This trait combination is reminiscent of that in Europeans and western Asians (Turner, 1985a; Turner and Markowitz, 1990;Roler, 1992; Lipschultz, 1996; Irish, 1998a). Thus, if the present heterogeneous sample is at all representative of peoples during Ptolemaic times, it may suggest some measure of foreign admixture, at least in Lower Egypt near Saqqara and Manfalut. Another possibility is that the sample consists of actual Greeks. Although their total number was probably low (Peacock, 2000), Greek administrators and others were present in Lower Egypt. Future comparisons to actual Greek specimens will help verify this possibility. Lastly, the Roman-period specimens are much more closely akin to the seven dynastic samples. Kharga and especially Hawara are most similar, based on their trait concordance (Table 2), low and insignificant MMDs (Table4), and positions within or near the cluster of 11 or so samples (Fig. 2). El Hesa is more divergent (Figs. 2, 3, 5); this divergence was shown to be driven by several extreme trait frequencies, including very high UI2 interruption groove and UM3 absence, and very low UM1 Carabelli’s trait. As above, the first two traits are common in Europeans and western Asians; the latter is rare in these areas, as well as greater North Africa (Irish, 1993, 1997).Like the Greeks, the Romans did not migrate to Lower and especially Upper Egypt in large numbers (Peacock,2000). As such, the distinctive trait frequencies of El Hesa were probably not due to Roman gene flow. There is no evidence that Kharga and Hawara received such influence. Thus the results, at least for these samples, do not support significant biological differentiation in the Egyptians of this time relative to their dynastic predecessors.
So the dental non-metric traits show that during Greco-Roman times the Egyptians were still largely continuous with their dynastic predecessors and thus indigenous. So this leaves the Medieval Period and the Islamic Conquests.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: Any resources I can read to learn about Eritrea/Ethiopia following Judaism before Christianity?
Sorry I missed your question earlier, SlimJim.
Unfortunately there isn't as much information on the history of Judaism in Ethiopia as there is Christianity. This despite the fact that Ethiopian traditions hold that a little under half of the Axumite Empire before Christianization was Jewish. In fact, it is still largely a mystery as to how Judaism reached that region. There are two competing hypotheses-- one is the Nile route with Jews reaching northwest Ethiopia from the Nile Valley and perhaps stemming from the Jewish community of Elephantine southern Egypt; the other of course is the Red Sea route from Arabia.
For right now I only know of 3 sources for your query-- 1 article and 2 books:
Ethiopia, the Unknown Land: A Cultural and Historical Guide by archaeologist Stuart Christopher Munro-Hay
and The Beta Israel (Falasha) in Ethiopia: From Earliest Times to the Twentieth Century by Steven B. Kaplan
Posted by SlimJim (Member # 23217) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: Any resources I can read to learn about Eritrea/Ethiopia following Judaism before Christianity?
Sorry I missed your question earlier, SlimJim.
Unfortunately there isn't as much information on the history of Judaism in Ethiopia as there is Christianity. This despite the fact that Ethiopian traditions hold that a little under half of the Axumite Empire before Christianization was Jewish. In fact, it is still largely a mystery as to how Judaism reached that region. There are two competing hypotheses-- one is the Nile route with Jews reaching northwest Ethiopia from the Nile Valley and perhaps stemming from the Jewish community of Elephantine southern Egypt; the other of course is the Red Sea route from Arabia.
For right now I only know of 3 sources for your query-- 1 article and 2 books:
Ethiopia, the Unknown Land: A Cultural and Historical Guide by archaeologist Stuart Christopher Munro-Hay
and The Beta Israel (Falasha) in Ethiopia: From Earliest Times to the Twentieth Century by Steven B. Kaplan
Thanks for linking those books/website, im gonna check those out, I never knew there was a Jewish presence in Elephantine but i don't see how that could have spread into the Horn, I think Yemen/Himyarites may be the most likely... thanks again
Posted by SlimJim (Member # 23217) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ As mentioned in another thread, Brandon brought up the Irish 2006 paper Who Were the Ancient Egyptians? Dental AffinitiesAmong Neolithic Through Postdynastic Peoples where it says this about the Greco-Roman period: Did Egyptians of the Ptolemaic and Roman periods differ significantly from their dynastic antecedents? Again, more post dynastic samples would prove useful in answering this broad question. Moreover, any foreign genetic influence on the indigenous populace likely diminished relative to the distance upriver. However, as it stands, the lone Greek Egyptian (GEG) sample from Lower Egypt significantly differs from all but the small Roman-period Kharga sample (Table 4). In fact, it was shown to be a major outlier that is divergent from all others (Figs. 2, 3, 5). The Greek Egyptians exhibit the lowest frequencies of UM1 cusp 5, three-rooted UM2, five-cusped LM2, and two-rooted LM2, along with a high incidence of UM3 absence, among others (Table 2). This trait combination is reminiscent of that in Europeans and western Asians (Turner, 1985a; Turner and Markowitz, 1990;Roler, 1992; Lipschultz, 1996; Irish, 1998a). Thus, if the present heterogeneous sample is at all representative of peoples during Ptolemaic times, it may suggest some measure of foreign admixture, at least in Lower Egypt near Saqqara and Manfalut. Another possibility is that the sample consists of actual Greeks. Although their total number was probably low (Peacock, 2000), Greek administrators and others were present in Lower Egypt. Future comparisons to actual Greek specimens will help verify this possibility. Lastly, the Roman-period specimens are much more closely akin to the seven dynastic samples. Kharga and especially Hawara are most similar, based on their trait concordance (Table 2), low and insignificant MMDs (Table4), and positions within or near the cluster of 11 or so samples (Fig. 2). El Hesa is more divergent (Figs. 2, 3, 5); this divergence was shown to be driven by several extreme trait frequencies, including very high UI2 interruption groove and UM3 absence, and very low UM1 Carabelli’s trait. As above, the first two traits are common in Europeans and western Asians; the latter is rare in these areas, as well as greater North Africa (Irish, 1993, 1997).Like the Greeks, the Romans did not migrate to Lower and especially Upper Egypt in large numbers (Peacock,2000). As such, the distinctive trait frequencies of El Hesa were probably not due to Roman gene flow. There is no evidence that Kharga and Hawara received such influence. Thus the results, at least for these samples, do not support significant biological differentiation in the Egyptians of this time relative to their dynastic predecessors.
So the dental non-metric traits show that during Greco-Roman times the Egyptians were still largely continuous with their dynastic predecessors and thus indigenous. So this leaves the Medieval Period and the Islamic Conquests.
I believe the craniofacial data show there was a lot of morphological change from the early dynastic into the late northern dynastic.
I don't know much when it comes to dental traits but aren't they strongly dependant on diet? If Greco Roman Egyptians had similar diets to early dynastic Egyptians than they could show dental affinites regardless of how related they really are, Hanihara 2006 was a dental study showing Somalis to be closest to Japan, South Africa and China which is obviously not what the genetic and craniofacial data will attest to, Pre dynastic Egyptians were closest to Afghanistan, North India and South Australia, they had an Israeli/Iran sample in the study aswell yet all of the aformentioned groups plotted closer to Egypt than Israel.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: Thanks for linking those books/website, I'm gonna check those out, I never knew there was a Jewish presence in Elephantine but I don't see how that could have spread into the Horn, I think Yemen/Himyarites may be the most likely... thanks again
The Judaean community was established in Elephantine during Persian rule by Judaean mercenaries guarding the southern border. You can read more about it here. However, the community eventually declined and ceased to exist due to civil conflict post-Persian times going into Ptolemaic rule.
This is why as I pointed out in the 1st page of this thread, that by Roman times during the lifetime of Jesus, Besides Alexandria, there were 6 other cities that were centers of Judaean communities since the Ptolemaic period and even before then: Tahpanhes (bordering the Sinai), Migdol (somewhere in the eastern delta), Leontopolis (in the east-central delta in modern Damietta), Memphis, Oxyrhyynchus (in middle Egypt near Abusir el-Melek), and Antinoopolis (in Upper Egypt near Thebes).
That Ethiopian Jewry came from the Nile is a lesser known theory based on the fact that there was a Judaean presence in the Upper Nile of Egypt as well as the peculiar fact that Beta-Israel Ethiopians today are largely confined to the northwest of the country toward the Sudan and away from the coast. However there are many arguments against the theory as Kaplan shows in his book on the Beta Israel here, particularly when you scroll down to pages 27-29.
quote: I believe the craniofacial data show there was a lot of morphological change from the early dynastic into the late northern dynastic.
True, one also has to keep in mind the non-metric features which are a better indicator of genetic relatedness than the metric features. Despite whatever variation and heterogeneity the Egyptian populations show, there was still an underlying relatedness as expressed in non-metric traits both in skull and teeth that was expressly North African.
quote:I don't know much when it comes to dental traits but aren't they strongly dependent on diet? If Greco Roman Egyptians had similar diets to early dynastic Egyptians than they could show dental affinities regardless of how related they really are, Hanihara 2006 was a dental study showing Somalis to be closest to Japan, South Africa and China which is obviously not what the genetic and craniofacial data will attest to, Pre dynastic Egyptians were closest to Afghanistan, North India and South Australia, they had an Israeli/Iran sample in the study a swell yet all of the aforementioned groups plotted closer to Egypt than Israel.
Yes diet affects some traits of cranium and teeth especially metric features, but non-metrics are largely not plastic but determined by specific genetic features of populations. The study you're referring to is the 2005 Hanihara & Ishida paper Metric dental variation of major human populations whose results are shown below:
But again, their paper is based on metric analysis. Non-metric features are more accurate for assessing population relatedness.
^ "Africa" refers to his Sub-Saharan sample grouped with Australo-Melanesians while Nubians are grouped with Indians.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
This thread was started by Wally and I'll damn well post to it what I please.
I'm sick of this trend on ES of minimalizing black ala 'what is black' but no corollaries like 'who/what is white' 'who/what is brown' 'who/what is red' 'who/ what is yellow'.
No non-blacks have the right to corral Africana studies or steer black commenting voices toward any directions they dictate. That's imperialistic mentality of black inferiority or blacks need 'allies' to set them straight about their own identity purpose and direction. The only thing worse are the Blacks who let them get away with it.
And don't hand me no pacifying lip, I ain't your negro. I don't gush all over myself because non-blacks wanna hang. I have and have had non-black friends and loves since in knee pants youth to senior citizen today and hopefully in my old man future to come. I was chastised for bringing NW Euros to Kwanzaa festivals in the mid-70s. That took 'Rock Against Racism' balls to counter Black racialism.
And no they're not just Jewish non-blacks though I have yet to sit a Circumpolar at my dinner table (hah). Human variety has always fascinated me all my life, it's God's most wondrous gift to us but ever since anti-black racism was encoded into Sanskrit holy writ some 2600 years ago we for the most part have blown it.
=-=-=-=
Just who are the Copts? Wally asked 18 years ago.
Their conquerors ain't say nothin "Graeco" about 'em. Arabic records agree with the Zanji opinion recorded by al-Jahiz and is evident from even a preliminary search of historic Arabic opinion on who are blacks with Copts and certain aMazigh on the list. I will post the Qubti instances later, if not today hopefully by Sunday, lemme go collect a few.
As you can probably guess Arabic ras, which is pronounced 'race' and means heading, is based on Hham mythos expansions in the Hebrew story of Noahh, the Arc, Shem, Hham, and Yaphet.
The Copts encountered by Islamic invaders of Egypt are of course not today's Egyptian Copts. Qubt was applied to Egyptians in general. Most all of Egypt was Christian. That faith was itself developed in imperial roman Egypt by Egyptians until 'reading themselves out of communion' with the Vatican et al since the Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon. All the African bishops and churches included.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Yes, so there are Arab texts describing the native Copts as 'black' people.
But please guys, I don't want this thread to be degraded (sic) into another 'race' argument. If you want to discuss the bio-anthropological affinities of Copts, we can still do that without being bogged down in the mire of how or to whom the label of 'black' is used.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Pretty sure Qemant/Agaw/Beta Israel Judaism is independent of Yemen's though they freely marry each other.
Anyway, enjoy
=-=-=-=-=
DAN, BETA ISRAEL, AND THE RABBINATE
Hear now that in Sepharad (Hesperides or Spain) in the year 883 CE one Rabbi Eldad haDani (the Danite) came amongst the Jews there or so says Rabbi Hhisdai ibn Shapruth. Eldad had also been in Iraq and in Tunisia he was with Rabbi Y*hudah ben Qorash. The Karaite Rabbi Y*hudah haDassi says Eldad visited Egypt and returned to Ethiopia before travelling to the aforenamed countries. Read now what Eldad wrote to Jews of Spain in the 11th paragraph of his letter:
quote:
We have a tradition from father to son that we, the sons of Dan, were aforetime in the land of Israel dwellers in tents and among all the tribes of Israel there were none like us men of war and mighty of valour. And, when Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, who caused Israel to sin and made two golden calves, arose over them, the kingdom of the house of David was divided and the tribes gathered together and said, "Come and fight against Rehoboam and against Jerusalem." They answered, "Why should we fight with our brothers and with the son of our lord David King of Israel and Judah? G-d forbid!" Then said the elders of Israel, "You have not in all the tribes of Israel mighty ones like the tribe of Dan," At once they said to the children of Dan, "Arise and fight with the children of Judah." They answered, "By the life of Dan our father, we will not make war with our brothers and we will not shed blood." At once we the children of Dan took swords and lances and bows, and devoted ourselves to death to go forth from the land of Israel, for we saw we could not stay, "Let us go hence and find a resting place but if we wait until the end they will take us away." So we took heart and counsel to go to Egypt to destroy it and to kill all its inhabitants. Our princes said to us, "Is it not written, ye shall not continue to see it again for ever? How will you prosper?" They said, "Let us go against Amalek or against Edom or against Ammon and Moab to destroy them and let us dwell in their place." Our princes said, "It is written in the Law that haQadosh, Barukh Hu, has prevented Israel from crossing their border. Finally we took counsel to go to Egypt, but not by the way that our fathers went and not to destroy it, but only to go there to cross the River Pishon to the land of Æthiopia and, behold, when we came near to Egypt, all Egypt was afraid and sent to us asking, "Is it war or peace?" and we said, "For peace; we will cross your country to the River Pishon, and there we will find a resting place," and, behold, they did not believe us, but all Egypt stood on guard until we crossed their country and arrived in the land of Æthiopia. We found it a good and fat land, and, in it, fields, enclosures, and gardens. They could not restrain the children of Dan from dwelling with them, for they took the land by might and, behold, though they wished to kill them all, they had to pay tribute to Israel, and we dwelt with them many years, and increased and multiplied greatly and held great riches.
. Having read this Ethiopian Danite's own hand written word, we continue on with the rabbis' responsa. But first note that Eldad wrote on the location of all tribes. He said of the places he visited that Spain had Yehudah; barbarian Europe had Benyamin; Yissachar, Zebulun and Reuben in Iran; Ephraim and Manasseh in Saudi Arabia; Simeon and more of Manasseh in Iraq. He tells how Asher, Naftali and Gad escaped Syria/Iraq after Sennacherib's death and journeyed to Eritrea where they fight with the people of the land "unto this very day". The sons of Levi are also beyond the rivers of Kush.
The Tunisians asked the Gaon Rabbi Zemahh about Eldad and Ethiopian Jews. He bases his opinion on the wisdom of Rabban Yisshaq ben Mar and Rabban Simhha who both met Eldad. He bases his opinion on biblical passages. He bases his opinion on Hhazal (the Sages) who find no mention of Dan in any of the 10 exiles. the Gaon says: "But the tribe of Dan is not mentioned in any of the exiles because it went of its own accord to Æthiopia."
600 years later, in 1434 CE, Italian Rabbi Eliyahu of Ferrara writes what he heard straight from the mouth of a Beta Israel. In 1488 another Italian Rabbi Obadyah of Bertinoro writes about Beta Israel and he met two of them in Egypt. He says: "They are somewhat black... They claim descent from the tribe of Dan ...". Rabbi Dawiyd ben-Zimra of Egypt in two seperate responsum says: "... she was Jewish, a member of the tribe of Dan ..." and "... among the kings of Kush, where there are three kingdoms ... one of Israelites of the tribe of Dan." "... the Kushites are undoubtedly of the tribe of Dan." Rabbi Ya`aqob Castro also ruled "... the Abyssinian Jews ... are of the tribe of Dan ..."
Now finishing up in our days, the former Sepharade Chief Rabbi Ovadia Yossef in 1973 ruled,
quote: "I have therefore reached the conclusion that the Falashas are descendants of Israelite tribes which migrated southward to Ethiopia. The aforementioned authorities who determined that they are of the Tribe of Dan undoubtedly investigated the matter thoroughly and came to this conclusion according to the most reliable testimony and evidence."
.
The Sepharade Rabbinate has through the ages stuck up for the darkest skinned of Jews whenever they've been attacked for reasons of color. Did they not force the White Jews of India to cease referring to the Black Jews of India as slaves and converts and to stop congregational and cemetery discrimination there in India? And though it may be irksome to certain Iberian and Syrian Jews, don't the Ashkenazis call all Sefardis blacks?
This short but careful examination has shown that;
nobody assigned the tribe of Dan onto the Beta Israel
the first historical notice of Beta Israel is from their own R' Eldad the Danite
since R' Eldad's time competent halakhic authority recognizes Beta Israel
nowhere is Hhushiym meaning 'fleet ones' (nor hhoshekh meaning 'dark') relied on as reasoning for dark and black skinned Jews origin
nobody was denigrating Afrikans as snakes and assigning them to Dan
What Danites have done Ahaliab master craftsman of holy appurtenances in the desert wilderness
Samson redeems all Israel from Palestinian oppression
Hyram Solomonic Temple's master architect,
Moshe Rabbeynu foretold us that Dan will be a guerilla fighter and our judge. All Israel will be judged by Dan. Jews will be judged by the way they treat Dan.
BTW Talk of Teimaniym being Qaraites is swill. Why do people say these incorrect things?
I've 'read' at the USA Teimani immigrant mother congregation, Ohel Shalom, in Boro Park Brooklyn for Shabbath and weekday service. My mechanic of 18 years was Teimani. When I used to fly my ssiyssiyth I ran into 'em alla time. A few Teimani music and literature still adorn my shelves and the Biladi Teimani siddur is among my variouus ethnicities prayerbook collection. Their tiqqun got 'lost' with most my library.
Take it as Simon Sez
quote:Due to the relative isolation of the Yemenite community, the Yemenite Talmudic tradition is generally considered older and more accurate than most of the Talmuds that we have today.
Talmud: Megillah, Moʻed kaṭan and Zevaḥim. Manuscript in Aramaic and Hebrew, on paper. Yemen, 1546. MS X893 T141 Rare Book and Manuscript Library
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: Any resources I can read to learn about Eritrea/Ethiopia following Judaism before Christianity?
Sorry I missed your question earlier, SlimJim.
Unfortunately there isn't as much information on the history of Judaism in Ethiopia as there is Christianity. This despite the fact that Ethiopian traditions hold that a little under half of the Axumite Empire before Christianization was Jewish. In fact, it is still largely a mystery as to how Judaism reached that region. There are two competing hypotheses-- one is the Nile route with Jews reaching northwest Ethiopia from the Nile Valley and perhaps stemming from the Jewish community of Elephantine southern Egypt; the other of course is the Red Sea route from Arabia.
For right now I only know of 3 sources for your query-- 1 article and 2 books:
Ethiopia, the Unknown Land: A Cultural and Historical Guide by archaeologist Stuart Christopher Munro-Hay
and The Beta Israel (Falasha) in Ethiopia: From Earliest Times to the Twentieth Century by Steven B. Kaplan
Thanks for linking those books/website, im gonna check those out, I never knew there was a Jewish presence in Elephantine but i don't see how that could have spread into the Horn, I think Yemen/Himyarites may be the most likely... thanks again
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: This thread was started by Wally and I'll damn well post to it what I please.
I'm sick of this trend on ES of minimalizing black ala 'what is black' but no corollaries like 'who/what is white' 'who/what is brown' 'who/what is red' 'who/ what is yellow'.
You're absolutely right, Tukuler! I don't mean to dictate to posters on this thread which was started by Wally but personally I'm just too weary of certain individuals arguing about who is and who isn't 'black', while never arguing the same about the label of 'white'. I get very irritated by that. To me there is far more to a people's ethnic identity than just skin color though such is a part of it. I want to get down to the bottom of just who the Copts are as a people as opposed to other Egyptians who are non-Copts or Muslim.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Fair enough I guess. And I remain B L A C K and PROUD as it goes. I ain't gonna black out nothing where when how or why I see black is relevant. Nevermind the bollocks.
I could perhaps be too historic bent. while the thread is contemporary. But one other my bent thing, the transition period between all Egypt designated Qubt and only Christian Egyptians + Diaspora fitting the ID. Cut to the chase/Moral of that story:, how many Muslim fellahin are lineal Qubt from before Islam? The boogah-bear of Coptic Christian lineage frequency is its corollary.
Worked a ADMIXTURE redux focused on Sudan Copt genomes posted here a few yrs gone ...
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: You're absolutely right, Tukuler! I don't mean to dictate to posters on this thread which was started by Wally but personally I'm just too weary of certain individuals arguing about who is and who isn't 'black', while never arguing the same about the label of 'white'. I get very irritated by that. To me there is far more to a people's ethnic identity than just skin color though such is a part of it. I want to get down to the bottom of just who the Copts are as a people as opposed to other Egyptians who are non-Copts or Muslim.
You seem confused, one day you claim only skin color matters (therefore ancient egyptians were black) and the other you accept diversity and understand that skin color isn't enough to determine ethnicity.
Since when did I say "only skin color matters"??! Just because I acknowledge the fact that ancient Egyptians were black as evidenced by their skin color does not mean that was the ONLY thing that determines their ethnicity.
A-M Mekota1, M Vermehren Department of Biology I, Biodiversity Research/Anthropology1and Department of Veterinary Anatomy II2, Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Germany Submitted January 8, 2002; revised May 4, 2004; accepted August 12, 2004 Skin sections showed particularly good tissue preservation, although cellular outlines were never distinct. Although much of the epidermis had already separated from the dermis, the remaining epidermis often was preserved well (Fig. 1). The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin. In the dermis, the hair follicles, hair, and sebaceous and sweat glands were readily apparent (Fig. 2). Blood vessels, but no red blood cells, and small peripheral nerves were identified unambiguously (Fig. 3). The subcutaneous layer showed loose connective tissue fibers attached to the dermis, and fat cell remnants were observed
Skin color is just one trait, there are many others including cranial, post-cranial skeletal, and even dental as shown here.
But when it comes to overall ethnicity, culture including language is just as significant.
Christopher Ehret Professor of History, African Studies Chair University of California at Los Angeles Ancient Egyptian civilization was, in ways and to an extent usually not recognized, fundamentally African. The evidence of both language and culture reveals these African roots.
The origins of Egyptian ethnicity lay in the areas south of Egypt. The ancient Egyptian language belonged to the Afrasian family (also called Afroasiatic or, formerly, Hamito-Semitic). The speakers of the earliest Afrasian languages, according to recent studies, were a set of peoples whose lands between 15,000 and 13,000 B.C. stretched from Nubia in the west to far northern Somalia in the east. They supported themselves by gathering wild grains. The first elements of Egyptian culture were laid down two thousand years later, between 12,000 and 10,000 B.C., when some of these Afrasian communities expanded northward into Egypt, bringing with them a language directly ancestral to ancient Egyptian. They also introduced to Egypt the idea of using wild grains as food.
Now unless you have any evidence to the contrary, what are you complaining about??
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Since when did I say "only skin color matters"??! Just because I acknowledge the fact that ancient Egyptians were black as evidenced by their skin color does not mean that was the ONLY thing that determines their ethnicity.
A-M Mekota1, M Vermehren Department of Biology I, Biodiversity Research/Anthropology1and Department of Veterinary Anatomy II2, Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Germany Submitted January 8, 2002; revised May 4, 2004; accepted August 12, 2004 Skin sections showed particularly good tissue preservation, although cellular outlines were never distinct. Although much of the epidermis had already separated from the dermis, the remaining epidermis often was preserved well (Fig. 1). The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin. In the dermis, the hair follicles, hair, and sebaceous and sweat glands were readily apparent (Fig. 2). Blood vessels, but no red blood cells, and small peripheral nerves were identified unambiguously (Fig. 3). The subcutaneous layer showed loose connective tissue fibers attached to the dermis, and fat cell remnants were observed
Skin color is just one trait, there are many others including cranial, post-cranial skeletal, and even dental as shown here.
But when it comes to overall ethnicity, culture including language is just as significant.
Christopher Ehret Professor of History, African Studies Chair University of California at Los Angeles Ancient Egyptian civilization was, in ways and to an extent usually not recognized, fundamentally African. The evidence of both language and culture reveals these African roots.
The origins of Egyptian ethnicity lay in the areas south of Egypt. The ancient Egyptian language belonged to the Afrasian family (also called Afroasiatic or, formerly, Hamito-Semitic). The speakers of the earliest Afrasian languages, according to recent studies, were a set of peoples whose lands between 15,000 and 13,000 B.C. stretched from Nubia in the west to far northern Somalia in the east. They supported themselves by gathering wild grains. The first elements of Egyptian culture were laid down two thousand years later, between 12,000 and 10,000 B.C., when some of these Afrasian communities expanded northward into Egypt, bringing with them a language directly ancestral to ancient Egyptian. They also introduced to Egypt the idea of using wild grains as food.
Now unless you have any evidence to the contrary, what are you complaining about?? [/QB]
They weren't "black" since they didn't depict themselves as such and genetic/anthropologic datas show a predominantly west eurasian population with (as expected) black affinities. Moreover "afro-asiatic" isn't a culture nor do people identify with it and most "afro-asiatics" are predominantly eurasian not really "negroid". I shouldn't remind you that from a genetic standpoint people like ethiopians or eritreans are closer to people in the middle east than west or central africans.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: They weren't "black" since they didn't depict themselves as such...
First off, "black" is a reference to skin color, and not only did I cite a study showing their skin to be "packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin", but they also depicted themselves as such. Or what do you call these pharaonic portraits below?
I could go on and on but I don't want to turn this thread into a picture spam.
quote:and genetic/anthropologic datas show a predominantly west eurasian population with (as expected) black affinities...
First of all, we've gone over literally tons of anthropological data in this forum your can either search through the archives or simply read snippets of it on Zarahan's thread here and they all support an African identity. As far as actual genetics go, modern Egyptians show predominantly African lineages both maternally and paternally, the only debate now is about their autosomal patterns particularly those of the Abusir Mummy study whose so-called 'Western Eurasian' identity is still in conjecture as explained by Beyoku in his thread here, but then you call them Eurasians with "black affinities", now what exactly do you mean by that?!! LOL
quote:Moreover "afro-asiatic" isn't a culture nor do people identify with it and most "afro-asiatics" are predominantly eurasian not really "negroid". I shouldn't remind you that from a genetic standpoint people like ethiopians or eritreans are closer to people in the middle east than west or central africans.
Wrong. Afro-asiatic is a linguistic as well as a cultural group that originated in Africa, hence the majority of Afroasiatic speakers are AFRICAN with the only non-African branch being Semitic. "Negroid" is a typological classification that is just as faulty as "Caucasoid" hence, prehistoric "Caucasoids" in Kenya and Indigenous Americans with "Negroid" features. Regardless, Ethiopians and Eritreans are still as African as Central Africans just as the Egyptians that doesn't mean they have to look or be identical to Central Africans. Central Africa is NOT Africa but a region of it.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Fair enough I guess. And I remain B L A C K and PROUD as it goes. I ain't gonna black out nothing where when how or why I see black is relevant. Nevermind the bollocks.
I could perhaps be too historic bent. while the thread is contemporary. But one other my bent thing, the transition period between all Egypt designated Qubt and only Christian Egyptians + Diaspora fitting the ID. Cut to the chase/Moral of that story:, how many Muslim fellahin are lineal Qubt from before Islam? The boogah-bear of Coptic Christian lineage frequency is its corollary.
Worked a ADMIXTURE redux focused on Sudan Copt genomes posted here a few yrs gone ...
Thank you Tukuler. The common conjecture is that the vast majority of Egypt was 'Qubt' before the Islamic invasion, and that over time more people began converting to Islam. I recall Ausar stating the fact that many Baladi especially in rural areas are endogamous though religion plays a large role as well as Muslims typically only marry Muslims and Christians only marry Christians, even then many marry only others of their community and even practice cousin marriage. That said, the Sudanese Copts do represent an interesting sub-population.
I also think the issue of Judaean presence is pertinent to the topic as the first Christians are very much tied to these communities. This makes me wonder about Irish's findings on the El Hesa sample. The eighth sample is from a late Roman middle class cemetery on the now submerged Nile island of El Hesa (HES) (Elliot Smithand Wood-Jones, 1910; Reisner, 1910). Museum recordsreport that the remains were excavated in 1907–1908 forvon Luschan (Irish, 1993)
^ Note El Hesa is located in the 1st nome near Elephantine.
Irish then went on to state: El Hesa is more divergent (Figs. 2, 3, 5); this divergence was shown to be driven by several extreme trait frequencies, including very high UI2 interruption groove and UM3 absence, and very low UM1 Carabelli’s trait. As above, the first two traits are common in Europeans and western Asians; the latter is rare in these areas, as well as greater North Africa (Irish, 1993, 1997).Like the Greeks, the Romans did not migrate to Lower and especially Upper Egypt in large numbers (Peacock,2000). As such, the distinctive trait frequencies of El Hesa were probably not due to Roman gene flow.
So could the El Hesa sample represent a remnant of the Elephantine Judaean community??
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: First off, "black" is a reference to skin color, and not only did I cite a study showing their skin to be "packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin", but they also depicted themselves as such. Or what do you call these pharaonic portraits below?
These are not old kingdom egyptians + I notice when afrocentrists try to prove egyptians were black they always use wood statues but forget that such material becomes darker over time (the degree of variation depends on which type of wood was used). We have the mummy of Queen tiye and there is nothing "black" about it and the face of tutankhamun has been reconstructed (by 2 different labs btw) and he didn't look black at all (same for his father btw).
When we look at old kingdom artifacts, they obviously don't look black :
I also wouldn't be surprised if during later periods egyptian faced an influx of nubian settlers and some being able to reach high positions.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: First of all, we've gone over literally tons of anthropological data in this forum your can either search through the archives or simply read snippets of it on Zarahan's thread here and they all support an African identity. As far as actual genetics go, modern Egyptians show predominantly African lineages both maternally and paternally, the only debate now is about their autosomal patterns particularly those of the Abusir Mummy study whose so-called 'Western Eurasian' identity is still in conjecture as explained by Beyoku in his thread here, but then you call them Eurasians with "black affinities", now what exactly do you mean by that?!! LOL
I've read almost all of them and none actually show they were black but simply SSA affinities with some (like badarians) being somewhat intermediate. You shouldn't forget that such affinity still exist and upper egyptians would already show affinities with their southern neighbours.
Moreover I think you forget that we also have the genomes of egyptians who lived in Lebanon and roman England + a whole set of haplogroups but yes let's pretend it's simply a coincidence that they are all predominantly eurasian.
Even geneticists noticed it :
quote:On top of this historical information offering an explanation for the observed mtDNA data are now additional, recently published, mtGenomes from Africa, and Egypt in particular. MtDNA haplotypes recently obtained from ancient human remains from sub-Saharan Africa belong only to haplogroup L subgroups [65,88]. However, nearly all of the remains excavated in the Northern part of the continent belong to Eurasian mtDNA lineages [63,67,74,89,90]. In fact, of the 114 mtDNA genomes now available from northern African ancient human remains, only one belongs to an African lineage (L3 observed in a skeleton from Abusir el-Meleq [74]). The deep presence of Eurasian mtDNA lineages in Northern Africa has, therefore, been clearly established with these recent reports and offers further support for the authenticity of the Eurasian mtDNA sequence observed in the Djehutynakht mummy
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Wrong. Afro-asiatic is a linguistic as well as a cultural group that originated in Africa, hence the majority of Afroasiatic speakers are AFRICAN with the only non-African branch being Semitic. "Negroid" is a typological classification that is just as faulty as "Caucasoid" hence, prehistoric "Caucasoids" in Kenya and Indigenous Americans with "Negroid" features. Regardless, Ethiopians and Eritreans are still as African as Central Africans just as the Egyptians that doesn't mean they have to look or be identical to Central Africans. Central Africa is NOT Africa but a region of it.
Afro-asiatic is a culture now ? XD It's a linguistic family that's it, people who belong to it aren't culturally similar : Semites share more culturally with their non semitic middle eastern neighbours than groups like berbers or horners, berbers share more with mediterranean europeans than horners, etc etc
+ "originating in africa" first that's an hypothesis and secondly it doesn't mean it necessarily originated from non-eurasian groups. And stop trying to play on the "muh negroid/caucasoid is a construct" not it is not, forensic anthropology can clearly differentiate both and both are induced by certain type of ancestry. Caucasoid in Kenya is supported by migrations of west eurasian pops in that part of the world and negroid in America is evidence of these negrito like populations reaching america that's it (even though I have some doubt about it).
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Basically NorthAfrocentrics pick black targets for to rage over their inadequesies and ambivalent ID. Hung up between poles they greatly admire their European conquerors, huff and puff about the Arab one, but vent full spleen against Inner Africans and Blacks of such descent.
We see in above posts their aim/goal is not so much swapping info and data on a subject matter but to express bias prejudice and contempt toward black people code-worded Afrocentrics though neither DJ nor myself cotton to Afrocentricity and Djehuti is neither black, African, nor faking to be either black or African to gain acceptance points. DJ is also a vet like Brandon who doesn't fake being black either.
@ Atlas
No man Not this shite again We are sick of North Afrocentricists' cherry pic spam What we could use is some tangier oranges please There are countless threads with a plethora of imgs showing the geo-biological diversity of pre-historic through current Egypt.
Of the three SahraSudanese, SahraGafsian, and Levantine the former is associated with state initiation and the latter more important than the middle in the unorganized delta which the SahraSudanese descendants conquered, forged into a state annexed into their nation's new dual kingdom state empire.
We understand the inferiority complex aMazigh nationalist and other NorthAfrocentrics feel behind the relative minor role they played until New Kingdom times when they became the Big Boss. Helene's garbage "work" The Shining Ones --only 12 libraries in the whole world stack this pamphlet designed according to author to school the blacks-- should've focused on that instead of trying to steal AE so the resentful among the Berbers could feel better about themselves.
But on Narmer's Palette anything near to resembling today's coastal North Africans are trampled underfoot of the Big Black Bull. See the bumped Narmer thread in this forum.
=-=-=-=-=
Now back to stuff truly worthy of reply
@ DJ The ADMIXTURE redux shows its Copt sample set is majority the K found predominantly in north and northeast Africa with spill over into the Levant. Copt shares exactly the same individual lineages only with Halfaween but, of course, in different proportions.
At K 13 the Greek sample sets show no distinct Aegean-Balkan-Adriatic genomic lineage(s) to compare against Copt. Nonetheless K 9 found predominant in north Mediterraneans from Iberia to Anatolia is exemplified by Greece_N and is significant in Copt. Note Shaigia_Khartoum has nearly 3X more K 9 than Copt. Does anyone propose Graeco origins for these Khartoum region residents? Lesst it go unsaid, Copt has as much South Sudan genomics as it does north or east Medit ones. K 9
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
Does anyone know if Coptic Egyptians have any special cultural ties to the pre-Christian Pharaonic culture besides liturgical language? We know that some elements of indigenous Egyptian culture survive today, particularly among rural Upper Egyptians, but have the Coptic ones preserved more of those traditions than their Muslim neighbors?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: These are not old kingdom egyptians + I notice when afrocentrists try to prove egyptians were black they always use wood statues but forget that such material becomes darker over time (the degree of variation depends on which type of wood was used)...
Since when do I have to give examples from only the Old Kingdom? Fine. Here are Old Kingdom Examples below:
I could go on and on but such is a waste of time and bandwidth when I could simply present the bio-anthropological data or better yet save me all the trouble when YOU can look through Egyptsearch archives yourself!
By the way, I'm not Afrocentric and I provided examples of PAINTED portraits, including murals! The whole dark coloring due to rotted wood excuse is pathetically erroneous. Why do Eurocentrics like yourself always provide examples of Old Kingdom statues that are either unpainted or whose paint has faded, especially those with so-called "Caucasian" features?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:We have the mummy of Queen tiye and there is nothing "black" about it and the face of tutankhamun has been reconstructed (by 2 different labs btw) and he didn't look black at all (same for his father btw).
Wrong again. Data from Harris & Wente's book X-ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies has been compiled and shows the royal mummies display many traits typically held by "black" Africans including the mummy of Tiye.
"The Elder Lady", First identified as Queen Tiye The occipital bun is reminiscent of Mesolithic Nubians (see below). Sagittal plateau, rounded forehead with moderately projecting glabella; globular cranium with high vault. Protrusion of incisors, receding chin and steep mandible. Very vertical zygomatic arches and pronounced maxillary prognathism.
And her bust painted bust shows she bears a striking resemblance to modern Beja women.
As for Tutankhamun, there were actually at least 8 reconstructions made in the past 30 years, with each one looking different from the other. This is because soft tissue features like nose tip and lips are largely left to conjecture and the same with skin color. Most of the reconstructions done were not double-blinded meaning the scientists knew who the skull belonged to and input their biases.
However one forensic artist involved in the 2005 Nat Geo reconstruction, Susan Anton had this to say: Thanks for your email. I actually didn't choose the term "North African Caucasoid" that is the term used by another team (there were three that worked on separate reconstructions). The French team was responsible for the reconstruction that was on the cover of National Geographic Magazine and they also used that term. Our team, myself and Michael Anderson of Yale, were the ones that did the plaster reconstruction without knowledge of whose skull we were working on. I did the biological profile (assessment of age at death, sex and ancestry), Michael made the actual reconstruction. Based on the physical characters of the skull, I concluded that this was the skull of a male older than 15 but less than 21, and likely in the 18-20 year range and of African ancestry, possibly north African. The possibly north African came mostly from the shape of the face including the narrow nose opening, that is not entirely consistent with an 'African' designation. A narrow nose is more typical of more northerly located populations because nose breadth is thought to be at least in part related to the climate in which ancestral populations lived. A narrow and tall nose is seen most frequently in Europeans. Tut's head was a bit of a conundrum, but, as you note, there is a huge range ofvariation in modern humans from any area, so for me the skull overall, including aspects of the face, spoke fairly strongly of his African origins..
So his overall skull shape was African except his nose and perhaps face, but as the one who emailed her responded there are those in Africa not only North Africans but even certain populations in Sub-Sahara who share the same features but are clearly 'black'.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote: When we look at old kingdom artifacts, they obviously don't look black:
These brothers above are so non-black that Afrocentrics are using them as examples of black Egypt! LOL
Oh yes the overused bleached seated scribe whose Caucasian features are so favored, here are remnants of his skin color before his bleaching.
An unpainted woman with ambiguous features.
Yes more Egyptian men with Caucasians features yet remnants of their chocolate dark skin remain. Again, like was explained to Susan Anton such features are not limited to Europeans or other Eurasians but is found in Africans as well not just North Africa but certain areas of Sub-Sahara also along with black skin.
quote:I also wouldn't be surprised if during later periods Egyptians faced an influx of Nubian settlers and some being able to reach high positions.
Unfortunately for you, what you don’t understand is that Nubians are the closest relatives of the Egyptians to the point that Eurocentrics try to white-wash them too!
quote:I've read almost all of them and none actually show they were black but simply SSA affinities with some (like badarians) being somewhat intermediate. You shouldn't forget that such affinity still exist and upper egyptians would already show affinities with their southern neighbours.
Gee, the Egyptians are Africans who show SSA affinities including black skin but are not ‘black’. Okay, but the same nonsensical reasoning can be applied to their southern neighbors, the Nubians, and IS applied to them!
quote:Moreover I think you forget that we also have the genomes of egyptians who lived in Lebanon and roman England + a whole set of haplogroups but yes let's pretend it's simply a coincidence that they are all predominantly eurasian.
What Eurasian haplogroups? The only haplogroups Egyptians share with Lebanese and other Eurasians are all African such as paternal E-M215 and maternal L2b also being found in Lebanon.
quote:Even geneticists noticed it: On top of this historical information offering an explanation for the observed mtDNA data are now additional, recently published, mtGenomes from Africa, and Egypt in particular. MtDNA haplotypes recently obtained from ancient human remains from sub-Saharan Africa belong only to haplogroup L subgroups [65,88]. However, nearly all of the remains excavated in the Northern part of the continent belong to Eurasian mtDNA lineages [63,67,74,89,90]. In fact, of the 114 mtDNA genomes now available from northern African ancient human remains, only one belongs to an African lineage (L3 observed in a skeleton from Abusir el-Meleq [74]). The deep presence of Eurasian mtDNA lineages in Northern Africa has, therefore, been clearly established with these recent reports and offers further support for the authenticity of the Eurasian mtDNA sequence observed in the Djehutynakht mummy https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4425/9/3/135/htm
First of all, the mixed ancestry of Djehutynakht was discussed before. Second, the claim in the passage you cited is misleading by suggesting that all Sub-Saharan or even African maternal lineages only belong to the L clade. The highest maternal clade among modern especially indigenous Egyptians is actually M1 which has its highest frequency and diversity in Sub-Saharan East Africa. They also carry N clade and underived N* was discovered in the Neolithic Central Sahara. Haplogroup U5 has its highest frequency in the Maghreb but there are suggestions of a possible origin for U in northeast Africa.
quote: Afro-asiatic is a culture now? XD It's a linguistic family that's it, people who belong to it aren't culturally similar : Semites share more culturally with their non-semitic middle eastern neighbours than groups like berbers or horners, berbers share more with mediterranean europeans than horners, etc etc
Of course first and foremost it is a linguistic family however language is a part of culture, and thus Proto-Afro-asiatic was spoken by a particular cultural group. Your Eurocentric kinsmen know this which is why the field of ‘Indo-European Studies’ doesn’t just include language. You are correct about Semites, because Semitic developed in the Levant and cut off from their African relatives. It’s the same thing with Berber which had more relations with Mediterranean Europeans than with other Africans-- at least those Berbers who lived along the coasts. By the way, are you aware that those same Mediterranean Europeans show African admixture in their genetics just as coastal Berbers show European admixture?
quote:+ "originating in africa" first that's an hypothesis and secondly it doesn't mean it necessarily originated from non-eurasian groups. And stop trying to play on the "muh negroid/caucasoid is a construct" not it is not, forensic anthropology can clearly differentiate both and both are induced by certain type of ancestry. Caucasoid in Kenya is supported by migrations of west eurasian pops in that part of the world and negroid in America is evidence of these negrito like populations reaching america that's it (even though I have some doubt about it).
Afroasiatic’s origins in Africa is a hypothesis that is heavily supported by both linguistics and population genetics. For example, the majority of Afroasiatic speakers share African haplogroups in common especially paternal E1b1b. Also, while “negroid” and “Caucasoid” features have some basis the overall classification that is typological is not. Please cite evidence of West Eurasians in Mesolithic Kenya, last I checked no DNA was found in the fossilized remains of Gamble’s Cave and the DNA of Luzia’s people was examined and there were no “Negrito” genes. You really need to do research on topics before you address them.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Seriously, Antalas all your assertions have been debunked countless times on this forum. If you have an objection, I suggest you pick a particular topic from the archives and address it. This thread is about the Copts. I really don't want to lose my patience and treat you like the other Euronutcases that have been humiliated many times before. So until then I'll just ignore you.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Since when do I have to give examples from only the Old Kingdom? Fine. Here are Old Kingdom Examples below:
So where are the blacks ?? They look like modern egyptians
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
By the way, I'm not Afrocentric and I provided examples of PAINTED portraits, including murals! The whole dark coloring due to rotted wood excuse is pathetically erroneous. Why do Eurocentrics like yourself always provide examples of Old Kingdom statues that are either unpainted or whose paint has faded, especially those with so-called "Caucasian" features? [/QB]
The painted portraits didn't show black people but "red/brown" skinned people like modern egyptians + such color was based on conventional artistic canons it doesn't mean all egyptian men from north to south had this skin color. The statues I posted are way more relevant and give us a better glimpse at how they view themselves. Also how can I be "eurocentric" if I'm not European ? I'm against all kind of -ism and -tric and as for "faded" do you have any evidence of it ? they could have used a pitch black pigment for these statues they would have still not look like blacks. These people literally depicted themselves as red skinned, with caucasoid features, their mummies all had straight hair, etc but you still want to defend they were "black" ? Come on be serious
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Wrong again. Data from Harris & Wente's book X-ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies has been compiled and shows the royal mummies display many traits typically held by "black" Africans including the mummy of Tiye.
hahaha source is "realhistoryww" and after that you claim you're not afrocentric. + many north africans show ssa affinities or ssa traits especially people like upper egyptians that doesn't mean they are black or look black.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: And her bust painted bust shows she bears a striking resemblance to modern Beja women.
That's not a painted bust but wood (yew wood) and painted depictions and statues of her didn't show any black phenotype + her haplogroup was eurasian (K) and her father's paternal haplogroup was again eurasian (G2a)
That's literally her parents :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: As for Tutankhamun, there were actually at least 8 reconstructions made in the past 30 years, with each one looking different from the other. This is because soft tissue features like nose tip and lips are largely left to conjecture and the same with skin color. Most of the reconstructions done were not double-blinded meaning the scientists knew who the skull belonged to and input their biases.
However one forensic artist involved in the 2005 Nat Geo reconstruction, Susan Anton had this to say: Thanks for your email. I actually didn't choose the term "North African Caucasoid" that is the term used by another team (there were three that worked on separate reconstructions). The French team was responsible for the reconstruction that was on the cover of National Geographic Magazine and they also used that term. Our team, myself and Michael Anderson of Yale, were the ones that did the plaster reconstruction without knowledge of whose skull we were working on. I did the biological profile (assessment of age at death, sex and ancestry), Michael made the actual reconstruction. Based on the physical characters of the skull, I concluded that this was the skull of a male older than 15 but less than 21, and likely in the 18-20 year range and of African ancestry, possibly north African. The possibly north African came mostly from the shape of the face including the narrow nose opening, that is not entirely consistent with an 'African' designation. A narrow nose is more typical of more northerly located populations because nose breadth is thought to be at least in part related to the climate in which ancestral populations lived. A narrow and tall nose is seen most frequently in Europeans. Tut's head was a bit of a conundrum, but, as you note, there is a huge range ofvariation in modern humans from any area, so for me the skull overall, including aspects of the face, spoke fairly strongly of his African origins..
So his overall skull shape was African except his nose and perhaps face, but as the one who emailed her responded there are those in Africa not only North Africans but even certain populations in Sub-Sahara who share the same features but are clearly 'black'.
Doesn't mean these reconstructions all had the same level of quality + the last one we have is based on two different labs and they both reached the same results so this can't simply be "conjecture" Moreover he looked like his father akhenaten :
Also the fact that some horner have caucasoid features is due to their eurasian ancestry and most sub-saharans don't have such features.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Sure, when all the original paint is faded to YOU they may not "look black", but let's see.
These brothers above are so non-black that Afrocentrics are using them as examples of black Egypt! LOL
Oh yes the overused bleached seated scribe whose Caucasian features are so favored, here are remnants of his skin color before his bleaching.
Yes more Egyptian men with Caucasians features yet remnants of their chocolate dark skin remain. Again, like was explained to Susan Anton such features are not limited to Europeans or other Eurasians but is found in Africans as well not just North Africa but certain areas of Sub-Sahara also along with black skin.
Literally not a single one of them look black lmao They look exactly like modern egyptians and even if you want to darkwash them they would still not look black in any way.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Unfortunately for you, what you don’t understand is that Nubians are the closest relatives of the Egyptians to the point that Eurocentrics try to white-wash them too!
The situation isn't as simple as that since both regions show important diversity and even in the past egyptians used to depict nubians as very different from them whether in terms of skin color or facial traits (as far as I know only the nubians of Wawat were depicted as similar to egyptians physically).
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Gee, the Egyptians are Africans who show SSA affinities including black skin but are not ‘black’. Okay, but the same nonsensical reasoning can be applied to their southern neighbors, the Nubians, and IS applied to them!
What does "african" even mean ? Japanese don't have anything to do with indians or iranians despite all of them being asians. And yes showing SSA affinities isn't going to make someone black, north africans are a good example of this + egyptians whether modern or ancient didn't have "black" skin.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: What Eurasian haplogroups? The only haplogroups Egyptians share with Lebanese and other Eurasians are all African such as paternal E-M215 and maternal L2b also being found in Lebanon.
Wrong, these are "african" ? :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: First of all, the mixed ancestry of Djehutynakht was discussed before. Second, the claim in the passage you cited is misleading by suggesting that all Sub-Saharan or even African maternal lineages only belong to the L clade. The highest maternal clade among modern especially indigenous Egyptians is actually M1 which has its highest frequency and diversity in Sub-Saharan East Africa. They also carry N clade and underived N* was discovered in the Neolithic Central Sahara. Haplogroup U5 has its highest frequency in the Maghreb but there are suggestions of a possible origin for U in northeast Africa.
M1 nor U5/U6 are african they were brought by eurasian back migrants :
quote:The oldest arrivals amongst extant mtDNAs appear to be the U6 and M1 lineages, which date to 36.6 (24.9; 48.8) and 25.4 (17.9; 33.1) ka respectively [31]. As with U5 in Europe [11], the arrival time could be older in each case, since the haplogroups appear likely to have arisen within the southern Mediterranean region from haplogroup U and M ancestors, making dating the arrival time very imprecise. Nevertheless, the estimates seem to match best the appearance of the Upper Palaeolithic Dabban industry in Cyrenaïca, as suggested before [15, 23]. [...] For U6, by contrast, the corresponding increases in effective sizes were less marked (~3-fold and ~1.5-fold, respectively), and the signal indicates that the expansion began earlier, ~22 ka. This coincides closely with the beginning of the Iberomaurusian industry in the Maghreb. These results therefore suggest that the Iberomaurusian was initiated by an expansion of modern humans of ultimately Near Eastern, carrying mtDNA haplogroup U6, who had spread into Cyrenaïca ~35-45 ka and produced the Dabban industry. The link back to the Near East and the European Early Upper Palaeolithic (which likely has the same source) may explain the suggested skeletal similarities between the robust Iberomaurusian "Mechta-Afalou" burials and European Cro-Magnon remains, as well as the case for continuity of the bearers of the Iberomaurusian industry from Morocco with later northwest African populations suggested by the dental evidence [57]."
quote:Individuals carrying haplogroup U possibly spread westward from Western Asia around 39–52 ky, reaching Europe as signaled by haplogroup U5, and North Africa signaled by haplogroup U6, which likely represents a genetic signal of a EUP return of Homo sapiens from Eurasia to North Africa11,29,30. The time of the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) for U6 was estimated to 35.3 (24.6–46.4) ky BP29,30. Thus it has been proposed that the lineage originated somewhere in Western Asia11,29,30. We found a basal U6 in South East Europe, on the current territory of Romania 35 ky BP, suggesting that either the U6 lineage originated in Eastern Europe or the TMRCA of U6 is older than 35 ky.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Of course first and foremost it is a linguistic family however language is a part of culture, and thus Proto-Afro-asiatic was spoken by a particular cultural group. Your Eurocentric kinsmen know this which is why the field of ‘Indo-European Studies’ doesn’t just include language. You are correct about Semites, because Semitic developed in the Levant and cut off from their African relatives. It’s the same thing with Berber which had more relations with Mediterranean Europeans than with other Africans-- at least those Berbers who lived along the coasts. By the way, are you aware that those same Mediterranean Europeans show African admixture in their genetics just as coastal Berbers show European admixture?
What kind of mental gymnastic is that ? That PAAs had a common culture doesn't mean all their modern descendents share the same culture or speak a common language. The analogy with "indo-europeans" is fallacious since it's two very different context and yes I'm aware they have "african" admixture but why do you bring this ? European admixture among Berbers (not only coastal since all berbers show it) is old going back to the early european farmers/cardial industry and bell beaker era.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:Afroasiatic’s origins in Africa is a hypothesis that is heavily supported by both linguistics and population genetics. For example, the majority of Afroasiatic speakers share African haplogroups in common especially paternal E1b1b. Also, while “negroid” and “Caucasoid” features have some basis the overall classification that is typological is not. Please cite evidence of West Eurasians in Mesolithic Kenya, last I checked no DNA was found in the fossilized remains of Gamble’s Cave and the DNA of Luzia’s people was examined and there were no “Negrito” genes. You really need to do research on topics before you address them.
Show me exactly where it says mesolithic kenyas were caucasoids (I need the context) + Where it says Luzia was negroid.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Dj
Couldn'tya just bump one o d pic threads by Mena or sumpin
of rounding out the knowledge base and making new research breakthroughs and you're falling for it.
Yeah yeah I know every masculine male wantsta fight.
Anyway 'faded paint' doesn't matter since one can look at even a toddlers one color pencil and paper sketches of people and tell the race and it is facial features your opponent means by black not skin color.
Your opponent also counts so-called racial ambiguity looks as non-black but let me assure you these aNazigh nationalist are biologically determinant in favor of Euro yteness in reading out blk mixtures from Berberdom while avidly adopting mixtures having three yte Euro (usually Spaniard) grandparents as fully and unquestionably Berber.
They've adopted yte Euro racist anthropology methodology well known to all but perhaps best worded by P Manansala
* ytes can have thick lips and/or broad nose with rounded nostrils and/or woolly hair and /or brown skin per the yte invented science anthropology but
* blx cannot have thin lips and/or medium to narrow nose width with slit or teardrop shaped nostrils and/ or loose curly, wavy, or straight hair.
Can't beat that official science definition even if verdict reached by an all white jury.
When Simon makes the rules and one unquestioningly abides by them then the game is fixed because ppl act like scientist aren't people who have biases of their own affecting their precious 'scientific' interpretations and conclusions.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
From Manansala's (he banned me from TaSeti yahoogroup) Short Anthropology Primer, once posted on ES but can't find it and luckily Asar Imhotep archived it SALUD!
=-=-=-=
the Badari and early Nakada were clearly Africoid in character, even the neolithic Saharan element that came to cast more and more influence on Southern Egypt could also be characterized as African variants. In fact, in most cases, these hetergenous peoples were strongly "Negroid." (Gabel 1966, Keita 1993).
In concluding, we can illustrate the problem in this way using the old three race theory still commonly used by geneticists and forensic anthropologists:
Let A = Africoid, C = Caucasoid, M = Mongoloid; and the monotypic trait types so that in pure form:
A = A monotypic traits M = M monotypic traits C = C monotypic traits; In addition, there are variants to the above traits that are similar to the monotype yet significantly different. Lets label these types:
A2, A3, A4 types, M2, M3, M4 types, C2, C3, C4 types; And also there are variants that don't quite fit any of these patterns (at least not from the non-Eurocentric perspective) such as many South Asians, Australians, etc. For the sake of convenience lets say there are four such types (there are probably more):
D type, E type, F type, G type; Now, we will take the Eurocentric position and classify all types into the original three monotypic groups:
A does not = A2, A3, A4, M, M2, M3, M4, C, C2, C3, ,C4, D, E, F or G types
M does not = A, A2, A3, A4, M2, M3, M4, C, C2, C3, ,C4, D, E, F or G types
However,
C = A2, A3, A4, M2, M3, M4, C, C2, C3, C4, D, E, F and G types
Armed with such a contrived system, the Eurocentric, hyperdiffusionists can argue just about anything they please without regard to the true facts.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
Anyway 'faded paint' doesn't matter since one can look at even a toddlers one color pencil and paper sketches of people and tell the race and it is facial features your opponent means by black not skin color.
Exactly.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Your opponent also counts so-called racial ambiguity looks as non-black but let me assure you these aNazigh nationalist are biologically determinant in favor of Euro yteness in reading out blk mixtures from Berberdom while avidly adopting mixtures having three yte Euro (usually Spaniard) grandparents as fully and unquestionably Berber.
That's not true. I've never seen any north african who consider mixed euro-amazigh as fully berber. And culturally, Berbers didn't go by skin color, facial traits or maternal ancestry. You were considered amazigh if your father was one and if your tribe was amazigh therefore many half-black, half-euro or whatever else were seen as "fully" berber as long as their father was.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: They've adopted yte Euro racist anthropology methodology well known to all but perhaps best worded by P Manansala
* ytes can have thick lips and/or broad nose with rounded nostrils and/or woolly hair and /or brown skin per the yte invented science anthropology but
* blx cannot have thin lips and/or medium to narrow nose width with slit or teardrop shaped nostrils and/ or loose curly, wavy, or straight hair.
Can't beat that official science definition even if verdict reached by an all white jury.
When Simon makes the rules and one unquestioningly abides by them then the game is fixed because ppl act like scientist aren't people who have biases of their own affecting their precious 'scientific' interpretations and conclusions. [/QB]
In general, caucasoid traits in sub-saharan africa are induced by west eurasian ancestry that's why it's present among horners or fulanis instead of Pygmies or Igbo people. You're dishonest and not in phase with scientific datas if you think otherwise.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
Armed with such a contrived system, the Eurocentric, hyperdiffusionists can argue just about anything they please without regard to the true facts. [/QB]
I don't see why all groups should necessarily express the same proportion of variations, they don't have the same history, didn't produced the same mutations, didn't evolved in same environments, etc
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: M1 nor U5/U6 are african they were brought by eurasian back migrants :
40,000 years ago (U6) and further bifurcated only in Africa.
Illogical stupid special plead 'argument'
Aren't all eurasians nothing but african forward migrants?
Well what else but cracked pot logic to expect from racists NorthAfrocentrics?
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: M1 nor U5/U6 are african they were brought by eurasian back migrants :
40,000 years ago (U6) and further bifurcated only in Africa.
Illogical stupid special plead 'argument'
Aren't all eurasians nothing but african forward migrants?
Well what else but cracked pot logic to expect from racists NorthAfrocentrics?
It doesn't matter because even if you want to make these eurasians as black as you want, these lineages didn't appear in Africa nor are historical horners those who spread this haplogroup.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
"You're dishonest"
STFU
Yes it is true. And beyond true, it's a fact.
Tukuler is my ethnicity not just a forum name tag. You can't tell me shih about our features, where they're from, etc. Our lactase gene is the oldest and ytes got it from us just as Mykenaean and other Aegean ppls have our Tropical African genome in their ADMIXTURE results.
No one, repeat, no one --archaeologist ethnographer anththropologist historian geneticist genomist-- other than speculatation has shown as much as a single yte man migrating to the SE Algerian earliest halPulaaren habitats which cave paintings show no proto-Pulaar looking like any kind of yte man, Euro or Afr.
In fact one geneticist team saw fit to go str8 and actually put in published writing that the Fulani they sampled who had exotic genealogy did not have any exotic looks. "The whiteman of Africa" is as Inner African as any Sahel Savanna even many Forest Africans.
When it comes to militant aMazigh NorthAfrocentric racism, bias, and prejudice lemme set all str8.
I'm talking personal experience with a prominent figure in turn of the century aMazigh nationalism who was 3/4 Spaniard and behind my back told a mutual acquaintance I was "fraud," in claiming my Nafusa paternal lineage and heritage, solely based on my prognathous face and nappy hair.[*]
The very definition of Biological Determinism and one reason I now refuse to meet up in real life with and develop 'friendships' with ppl I first meet via the Web.
For a while Dr Winters was also a member of a background check restricted membership aMazigh internet group closely related to The Amazigh Voice.
No Mughrebiym at Jersey City predominantly Moroccan congregation Qahal Qadosh Har Sinai either questioned or doubted me. Ditto for the defunct Moroccan Jewish Organization where I, a Lewi, was warmly welcomed by the native Cohaniym.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: That's not true. I've never seen any north african who consider mixed euro-amazigh as fully berber. And culturally, Berbers didn't go by skin color, facial traits or maternal ancestry. You were considered amazigh if your father was one and if your tribe was amazigh therefore many half-black, half-euro or whatever else were seen as "fully" berber as long as their father was.
Oh no another don't know whether I'm Berber or aMazigh confused coastal North African who knows less about aMazighity than I an admitted outsider does
[*] What's funny is a professional colleague pointed at the Berber woman on Nat'l Geo's Africa map saying you look like that one after he saw the Fulani woman on that map and me telling him of my Fulani ancestry.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Yes it is true. And beyond true, it's a fact.
Tukuler is my ethnicity not just a forum name tag.
I'm talking personal experience with a prominent figure in turn of the century aMazigh nationalism who was 3/4 Spaniard and behind my back told a mutual acquaintance I was fraud in claiming my Nafusa paternal lineage and heritage solely based on my face and hair.
Are you talking about Antonio Cubillo ? Most berbers aren't even aware of canarians or their islands and on internet most berbers actually make fun of them because we know they aren't really berber genetically. Some of these canarians even go as far as learning tifinagh and tamazight but we can't take these people seriously they're just facing an identity crisis in order to feel native to these islands. So again stop talking in the name of people you don't know much about.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: No Mughrebiym at Moroccan congregation Qahal Qadosh Har Sinai either questioned or doubted me. Ditto for the defunct Moroccan Jewish Organization where I, a Lewi, was warmly welcomed by the native Cohaniym.
I don't see why you bring this but these jews don't feel native to north africa nor do they know much about berbers in general therefore no wonder they didn't questioned you.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Oh no another don't know whether I'm Berber or aMazigh confused coastal North African who knows less about aMazighity than I an admitted outsider does
???
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
M1 nor U5/U6 are african they were brought by eurasian back migrants :
40,000 years ago (U6) and further bifurcated only in Africa.
Illogical stupid special plead 'argument'
Aren't all eurasians nothing but african forward migrants?
Well what else but cracked pot logic to expect from racists NorthAfrocentrics?
these lineages didn't appear in Africa nor are historical horners those who spread this haplogroup.
Why thread bumping isn't enough Will post U6 science fact later
BTW Moroccan Jewry goes back to pre-Roman Africa and's been enhanced by Expulsion refugees no diff than non-Jewish Moroccans. Yte anthopologists and ethnologists plainly posit the majority of Mughrebi Jews are converted indigenous Africans in relative isolation marrying mainly local mates.
Take that I-already-know-who-you-mean chip off your shoulder, no wait a minute and lemme knock it off. The aMazigh nationalist I wrote of above, she was a staunch Muslim when I first met her. Within a couple of years she converted to Judaism (no, I didn't make her do it). Just googled her name, she still passionately loves her Algerian aMazighity and toned down the militant nationalism somewhat. Nah, she was never really a wild eyed militant aMazigh nationalist like Helene.
Anyway only a smug fool imagines he knows the details of all the 'Berber' and non-Berber N Afr Jews of my friendship or acquaintance when such idiot doesn't even know me, less lone the individuals i refer to. SMH
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
SORRY FOR THE DIVERGENCE BUT AS USUAL I WILL NOT REMAIN SILENT TO POSTER NONSENSE
posted 30 March, 2018 11:28 PM Profile for Tukuler Author's Homepage Send New Private Message Edit/Delete Post Reply With Quote
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: I'm saying the subclade that made its way to Africa stopped in the Levant, first. The Romanian individual belongs to another subclade. Both subclades originate with a parent population that migrated from Asia.
quote:The analysis of the PM1 mitogenome polymorphisms revealed 15 nucleotide changes with respect to the rCRS28, identifying the PM1 mitogenome as a basal haplogroup U6* (Supplementary Table 1). One of these polymorphisms is a private mutation, T10517A, not previously found in any mitochondrial genome.
^This individual's mtDNA did not give birth to African U6, if that's what you're thinking.
You're absolutely right.
PM1 U6 is a sister of the African Root U6, a great aunt to the eldest African U6a, great aunt to U6b'd, and aunt of the young African U6c.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Icon 1 posted 31 March, 2018 11:32 AM Profile for Tukuler Author's Homepage Send New Private Message Edit/Delete Post Reply With Quote
Ah, but what is the age of U6 in the Arabian Plate?
Is AP U6 from pre-history or from the Amazigh girls whom one physician ranked the most perfect slave?
"The Berber women are from the island of Barbara (sic), which is between the west and the south. Their color is mostly black, though some pale ones can be found among them. If you can find one whose mother is of Kutama, whose father is of Sanhaja, and whose origin is Masmuda, then you will find her naturally inclined to obedience and loyalty in all matters, active in service, suited both to motherhood and to pleasure, for they are the most solicitous in caring for their children. Abu Uthman the slave-dealer says, If it happens that a Berber girl with her racial excellence is imported at the age of nine, spends three years in Medina and three years in Mecca, comes to Iraq at the age of fifteen and is educated in Iraq, and is bought at the age of twenty-five, then she adds to the excellence of her race the roguishness of the Medinans, the languor of the Meccans, and the culture of the women of Iraq. Then she is worthy to be hidden in the eyelid and placed in the eye."
~ ibn Butlān, a Nestorian Christian physician of Baghdad ~
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Hey Antalas
I ain't here to dialog with you I'm here to show you stupid and manipulative by presenting fact derived from raw data thoroughly rebuffing everything you've posted.
Why don't you start your own dang thread instead of disrupting and diverting this one?
You bored & lonely so waste ppl's time here w/old shih we done ran thru & turned inside out decades ago.
Only reason responded so far is for those not familiar w/t site and to buck the trend of sourcing outside ES when links to ES contributors brings out the intricacies not found elsewhere. and I tired reacting to horseshit and gaslighting
Posted by SlimJim (Member # 23217) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: Thanks for linking those books/website, I'm gonna check those out, I never knew there was a Jewish presence in Elephantine but I don't see how that could have spread into the Horn, I think Yemen/Himyarites may be the most likely... thanks again
The Judaean community was established in Elephantine during Persian rule by Judaean mercenaries guarding the southern border. You can read more about it here. However, the community eventually declined and ceased to exist due to civil conflict post-Persian times going into Ptolemaic rule.
This is why as I pointed out in the 1st page of this thread, that by Roman times during the lifetime of Jesus, Besides Alexandria, there were 6 other cities that were centers of Judaean communities since the Ptolemaic period and even before then: Tahpanhes (bordering the Sinai), Migdol (somewhere in the eastern delta), Leontopolis (in the east-central delta in modern Damietta), Memphis, Oxyrhyynchus (in middle Egypt near Abusir el-Melek), and Antinoopolis (in Upper Egypt near Thebes).
That Ethiopian Jewry came from the Nile is a lesser known theory based on the fact that there was a Judaean presence in the Upper Nile of Egypt as well as the peculiar fact that Beta-Israel Ethiopians today are largely confined to the northwest of the country toward the Sudan and away from the coast. However there are many arguments against the theory as Kaplan shows in his book on the Beta Israel here, particularly when you scroll down to pages 27-29.
quote: I believe the craniofacial data show there was a lot of morphological change from the early dynastic into the late northern dynastic.
True, one also has to keep in mind the non-metric features which are a better indicator of genetic relatedness than the metric features. Despite whatever variation and heterogeneity the Egyptian populations show, there was still an underlying relatedness as expressed in non-metric traits both in skull and teeth that was expressly North African.
quote:I don't know much when it comes to dental traits but aren't they strongly dependent on diet? If Greco Roman Egyptians had similar diets to early dynastic Egyptians than they could show dental affinities regardless of how related they really are, Hanihara 2006 was a dental study showing Somalis to be closest to Japan, South Africa and China which is obviously not what the genetic and craniofacial data will attest to, Pre dynastic Egyptians were closest to Afghanistan, North India and South Australia, they had an Israeli/Iran sample in the study a swell yet all of the aforementioned groups plotted closer to Egypt than Israel.
Yes diet affects some traits of cranium and teeth especially metric features, but non-metrics are largely not plastic but determined by specific genetic features of populations. The study you're referring to is the 2005 Hanihara & Ishida paper Metric dental variation of major human populations whose results are shown below:
But again, their paper is based on metric analysis. Non-metric features are more accurate for assessing population relatedness.
^ "Africa" refers to his Sub-Saharan sample grouped with Australo-Melanesians while Nubians are grouped with Indians.
I wasn't aware there was such a big difference between metric and non metric studies in terms of relatedness, thanks for the help.
I recall the user "Swenet" using the 1993 study among other lines of evidence to argue that ancient Egyptians could be modelled as part EEF, in that study its shown that Neolithic Germans fit into the Predynastic Egyptian type, but seeing as this is a metric study do you think it takes a way from the idea that Ancient Egyptians could be modelled as EEF? Are there any non metric analyses comparing EEF to Ancient Egyptians?
Posted by SlimJim (Member # 23217) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote: When we look at old kingdom artifacts, they obviously don't look black:
These brothers above are so non-black that Afrocentrics are using them as examples of black Egypt! LOL
Oh yes the overused bleached seated scribe whose Caucasian features are so favored, here are remnants of his skin color before his bleaching.
An unpainted woman with ambiguous features.
Yes more Egyptian men with Caucasians features yet remnants of their chocolate dark skin remain. Again, like was explained to Susan Anton such features are not limited to Europeans or other Eurasians but is found in Africans as well not just North Africa but certain areas of Sub-Sahara also along with black skin.
quote:I also wouldn't be surprised if during later periods Egyptians faced an influx of Nubian settlers and some being able to reach high positions.
Unfortunately for you, what you don’t understand is that Nubians are the closest relatives of the Egyptians to the point that Eurocentrics try to white-wash them too!
quote:I've read almost all of them and none actually show they were black but simply SSA affinities with some (like badarians) being somewhat intermediate. You shouldn't forget that such affinity still exist and upper egyptians would already show affinities with their southern neighbours.
Gee, the Egyptians are Africans who show SSA affinities including black skin but are not ‘black’. Okay, but the same nonsensical reasoning can be applied to their southern neighbors, the Nubians, and IS applied to them!
quote:Moreover I think you forget that we also have the genomes of egyptians who lived in Lebanon and roman England + a whole set of haplogroups but yes let's pretend it's simply a coincidence that they are all predominantly eurasian.
What Eurasian haplogroups? The only haplogroups Egyptians share with Lebanese and other Eurasians are all African such as paternal E-M215 and maternal L2b also being found in Lebanon.
quote:Even geneticists noticed it: On top of this historical information offering an explanation for the observed mtDNA data are now additional, recently published, mtGenomes from Africa, and Egypt in particular. MtDNA haplotypes recently obtained from ancient human remains from sub-Saharan Africa belong only to haplogroup L subgroups [65,88]. However, nearly all of the remains excavated in the Northern part of the continent belong to Eurasian mtDNA lineages [63,67,74,89,90]. In fact, of the 114 mtDNA genomes now available from northern African ancient human remains, only one belongs to an African lineage (L3 observed in a skeleton from Abusir el-Meleq [74]). The deep presence of Eurasian mtDNA lineages in Northern Africa has, therefore, been clearly established with these recent reports and offers further support for the authenticity of the Eurasian mtDNA sequence observed in the Djehutynakht mummy https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4425/9/3/135/htm
First of all, the mixed ancestry of Djehutynakht was discussed before. Second, the claim in the passage you cited is misleading by suggesting that all Sub-Saharan or even African maternal lineages only belong to the L clade. The highest maternal clade among modern especially indigenous Egyptians is actually M1 which has its highest frequency and diversity in Sub-Saharan East Africa. They also carry N clade and underived N* was discovered in the Neolithic Central Sahara. Haplogroup U5 has its highest frequency in the Maghreb but there are suggestions of a possible origin for U in northeast Africa.
quote: Afro-asiatic is a culture now? XD It's a linguistic family that's it, people who belong to it aren't culturally similar : Semites share more culturally with their non-semitic middle eastern neighbours than groups like berbers or horners, berbers share more with mediterranean europeans than horners, etc etc
Of course first and foremost it is a linguistic family however language is a part of culture, and thus Proto-Afro-asiatic was spoken by a particular cultural group. Your Eurocentric kinsmen know this which is why the field of ‘Indo-European Studies’ doesn’t just include language. You are correct about Semites, because Semitic developed in the Levant and cut off from their African relatives. It’s the same thing with Berber which had more relations with Mediterranean Europeans than with other Africans-- at least those Berbers who lived along the coasts. By the way, are you aware that those same Mediterranean Europeans show African admixture in their genetics just as coastal Berbers show European admixture?
quote:+ "originating in africa" first that's an hypothesis and secondly it doesn't mean it necessarily originated from non-eurasian groups. And stop trying to play on the "muh negroid/caucasoid is a construct" not it is not, forensic anthropology can clearly differentiate both and both are induced by certain type of ancestry. Caucasoid in Kenya is supported by migrations of west eurasian pops in that part of the world and negroid in America is evidence of these negrito like populations reaching america that's it (even though I have some doubt about it).
Afroasiatic’s origins in Africa is a hypothesis that is heavily supported by both linguistics and population genetics. For example, the majority of Afroasiatic speakers share African haplogroups in common especially paternal E1b1b. Also, while “negroid” and “Caucasoid” features have some basis the overall classification that is typological is not. Please cite evidence of West Eurasians in Mesolithic Kenya, last I checked no DNA was found in the fossilized remains of Gamble’s Cave and the DNA of Luzia’s people was examined and there were no “Negrito” genes. You really need to do research on topics before you address them.
Even if that lightskinned statue wasn't bleached and it represents his original tone, I'm lighter than him lol and I'm Eritrean, I have family who are midnight black, we carry the same type of ancestries, in the same proportions and are just as African as each other. This stuff is borderline meaningless.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
these are "african" ? :
maybe, if the clade of R1B is R1b-V88 as 27% of Siwa are, V88 is at highest frequency in the Chad Cameroon basin
Also if you look at that G2 of the male Yuya there is no male child and also no known male ancestor of Yuya The haplogroup K interestingly, found in 32% of people with Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry and a varied distribution in Europe, North Africa and the Middle East
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Haplogroup U5 has its highest frequency in the Maghreb
No, that's U6 highest frequency in the Maghreb but highest diversity on the Iberian peninsula, (10 out of 19 sublineages are only found there)
U5a and U5b today form the highest population concentrations in the far north, among Sami, Finns, and Estonians.
Posted by TubuYal23 (Member # 23503) on :
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim:
Even if that light skinned statue wasn't bleached and it represents his original tone, I'm lighter than him lol and I'm Eritrean, I have family who are midnight black, we carry the same type of ancestries, in the same proportions and are just as African as each other. This stuff is borderline meaningless.
It's silly at this point and the fact that ppl don't understand how all these features originated in Africa is mind boggling. It's one of the many signs of why there's so much genetic and phenotypic diversity on the continent before migration from other groups.
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
All of the genetic diversity found Eurasia is a subset of that which comes form Africa. Some of that "Subset" comes from African populations who no longer exist.
Some of the Genetic diversity found in Africa is a subset of that which comes from Eurasia. This can be seen any many of the Derived mtdna N lineages as well as plenty of Downstream Y-dna M89 lineages. This is also seen at an autosomal level with many of the autosomal components that originate in (or are more frequent in) Eurasia showing evidence of having back-migrated via the Gate of tears, Straights of Gibraltar or Sinai.
This shows up in things like skin tones and hair textures. The fact that Africans have dark AND light skinned gene variants that are native to the continent does not preclude them from ALSO carrying Eurasian derived genes relating to of skin and hair texture.
There are also certain gene functions dealing immune system response that are passed from Eurasia to Africa. Think of recently admixed Africans and African Americans carrying mutations related to Cystic Fibrosis from Eurasians or Eurasian specific lactose persistence mutations in addition to the African ones they may also carry.
Africans in a Hot/Dry environment may have selected adaptations for thinner noses. African living more in the Tropics of in Hot/Humid location could have admixture from Africans who migrated from that Hot/Dry location....or a Eurasians that migrated from a Cold/Dry location. Or Eurasians that migrated from a Hot/Dry location. Or they could have those noses by way of Admixture mediated through a secondary African populations that mixed with any of the former thinner nosed selecting groups. OR.....They could be in the tropic, but have a local geography that includes Mountainous Highlands....or extremely dry Lowlands. Or it could be sexually selected and population could shape the noses of their offspring while the bones are malleable. I have personally witnessed this.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Beyoku via TubaYal
The nose pinching and head shaping, some Blk Amers do, may well be an Africanism heldover from Fulani practices.
Head shaping is one reason I rejected craniometry as anywhere conclusive and only some kind of valid indicator only when the subject ppl don't do it.
But I don't believe nose pinching greatly effects either the nose bridge or nostril shape of individuals. And I don't think it effects generational inheritance any more than chopping tails off generations of mice only to find that won't engender a subspecies of tailless mouse. De-tailing mice admittedly is a debility not an enhancement like which seem to drive [micro]evolution/physical adaptation.
But we can't select a couple whose 7 of 8 great grandparents were all flat nose wide 'nostriled' or prominent bridge nosed with slit nostrils, force them to mate identical twins that we can nose pinch the one but not the other and see what happens as we'll then do the same to all generations resulting from our human lab mice.
Who knows? If the Republicans keep moving the USA in the direction that led the Weimar Republic into Nazism we just may be able to Mengele it. [sic, no sick]
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: So where are the blacks ?? They look like modern egyptians
quote:The painted portraits didn't show black people but "red/brown" skinned people like modern egyptians + such color was based on conventional artistic canons it doesn't mean all egyptian men from north to south had this skin color. The statues I posted are way more relevant and give us a better glimpse at how they view themselves. Also how can I be "eurocentric" if I'm not European ? I'm against all kind of -ism and -tric and as for "faded" do you have any evidence of it ? they could have used a pitch black pigment for these statues they would have still not look like blacks. These people literally depicted themselves as red skinned, with caucasoid features, their mummies all had straight hair, etc but you still want to defend they were "black" ? Come on be serious
You don't have to be European to be Eurocentric or rather Eurasiocentric. Trust me, I've come across too many Asians who share your mentality. Again, your excuses for the way Egyptians portray themselves in their original dark color is pathetic and absurd. I told you, your arguments have been debunked too many times in this forum. If you want to argue a point, I suggest you go search in the archives and pull one up.
quote: hahaha source is "realhistoryww" and after that you claim you're not afrocentric. + many north africans show ssa affinities or ssa traits especially people like upper egyptians that doesn't mean they are black or look black.
Actually the source originally came from an Asian researcher named P.K. Manansala whose webpage became defunct but luckily was copied by Mike a.k.a. "realhistory" who is an Afrocentric. Another member of this forum copied another page from Manansala that would do you good to read and learn: PKM's Short Primer on Physical Anthropology By the way, I find it odd that you complain about "Afrocentrics" yet attempt to white-wash the Egyptians who are an AFRICAN people.
So according to you North Africans, who are still African, who display so-called SSA affinities like tropical adapted bodies and black skin are still not black or don't even "look black".
Okay, I'm done. There's no way I could argue with someone that irrational. I suggest you seek professional mental health treatment. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: Even if that lightskinned statue wasn't bleached and it represents his original tone, I'm lighter than him lol and I'm Eritrean, I have family who are midnight black, we carry the same type of ancestries, in the same proportions and are just as African as each other. This stuff is borderline meaningless.
Which statue are you referring to? By the way, in many statues you can still see traces of the original paint. In most cases the paint decayed with age, but there are instances where the statues were "cleaned up" and in the process all of their original paint was brushed off. The seated scribe with the thin nose and thin lips is an example of this. That said, I don't deny there were ancient Egyptians with original lighter complexions.
Posted by SlimJim (Member # 23217) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: Even if that lightskinned statue wasn't bleached and it represents his original tone, I'm lighter than him lol and I'm Eritrean, I have family who are midnight black, we carry the same type of ancestries, in the same proportions and are just as African as each other. This stuff is borderline meaningless.
Which statue are you referring to? By the way, in many statues you can still see traces of the original paint. In most cases the paint decayed with age, but there are instances where the statues were "cleaned up" and in the process all of their original paint was brushed off. The seated scribe with the thin nose and thin lips is an example of this. That said, I don't deny there were ancient Egyptians with original lighter complexions.
I was talking about the seated scribe, I agree with you that it looks like the paint has decayed and was orignally darker but I was arguing on the basis that it is the orignal color as Antalas is claiming just to say it doesn't matter much either way, that complexion doesn't say much about the kind of ancestry he would have carried as was being claimed.
Posted by TubuYal23 (Member # 23503) on :
I love how foolish people like Antalas uses words like "Blacks" but claims that he or she isn't a eurocentric anti-black tool. lol
And ignorantly argues that indigenous North Africans don't look like "blacks", when "blacks" are the blueprint. It's clear as day whos not using the full extent of their brain power.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Notice how he admits that North Africans share affinities with Sub-Saharans including very dark skin, but they still aren't black. LOL
This is like saying southern Europeans like the Greeks share affinities with northern Europeans but they still aren't white. Funny thing is Classical authors like the Greeks and Romans outright called Egyptians 'black' people.
There's no arguing with people that deep in denial to the point of irrationality.
Posted by TubuYal23 (Member # 23503) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Notice how he admits that North Africans share affinities with Sub-Saharans including very dark skin, but they still aren't black. LOL
This is like saying southern Europeans like the Greeks share affinities with northern Europeans but they still aren't white. Funny thing is Classical authors like the Greeks and Romans outright called Egyptians 'black' people.
There's no arguing with people that deep in denial to the point of irrationality.
The very roots of people like him and their knowledge. Is founded on pure delusion. Despite, the wealth of information out there - including the classical - that were around at the time and consistently compared Ancient Egyptians to "black' people from the Nile Valley and to East Africans, in general. How many times does the research have to debunk the notion that so called "sub-saharans" aren't directly related to native melanated North Africans and the same applies to so called coptic groups. And as you said if a group shares strong affinities with another group, why wouldn't they be the same as that group? It's nonsensical (though, some Greeks will argue that they aren't white). This tells me that a lot of these "Egyptians aren't black" charlatans are stuck in the world of "dark skinned Caucasians" despite what they say otherwise.
Plus, no one ever takes into account the location of Punt and Egyptians direct relation to that civilization.
quote:
I mean in no text or readings, do (perfectly sane) individuals from 3,000 years ago. Let alone 1,000 years ago - do these people ever refer to AE's looking like them or like other "Caucasians" or Southern Europeans. Let alone what modern North Africans look like today, in terms of the assumed majority. In almost all references in regards to Egyptians or Kemet - the word Ethiopian or Aethiopia is a constant and that's not a play on words. It's a noted descriptive of the physical being.
quote:
The word 'black" or "black" groups continues to be used in relation to North Africa.
quote:
--------
quote:
Then you see how these people love to ignore the people of the oasis.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Famile Copte (Coptic Family) Autour du monde, aquarelles, souvenirs de voyages, fascicules i à xii. (1890s)
Figure 2: Coptic scribe, late 19th century, photographer unidentified collections of Paul Frecker, British 19th century photography dealer based in London. Notice the white turban which Copts only started wearing after 1856, when the old Islamic injunction to confine Copts to wear only black or dark turbans, to distinguish them from Muslims, was revoked after intervention from the European Powers.
“Coptic priest.” I, however, doubt this. I would say this is a Coptic deacon, and perhaps was being trained under his father to become priest. The Coptic Church does not ordain a man priest until he reaches the age of 30 years. Priesthood often ran in families and a son follows a father at the same church. The photographer unidentified at or around 1869
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Notice how he admits that North Africans share affinities with Sub-Saharans including very dark skin, but they still aren't black. LOL
This is like saying southern Europeans like the Greeks share affinities with northern Europeans but they still aren't white. Funny thing is Classical authors like the Greeks and Romans outright called Egyptians 'black' people.
There's no arguing with people that deep in denial to the point of irrationality.
"very dark skin" is induced by high level of SSA therefore can't be native to our mediterranean area.
The berber genetic profile is mostly defined by EEF, IBM and natufian or steppe ancestry therefore "very dark skin" can't be regarded as indigenous berber trait. Many north africans today have black slave ancestry which can produce dark types but still they aren't perceive as black by their fellow countrymen.
Here a quick example so you understand :
Obvious recent SSA ancestry but not seen as black by north africans or europeans :
And Greeks/Romans didn't really call egyptians "black" or else they would have considered them "aethiopians". "Black" in some context simply meant dark/swarthy which is kind of obvious when you compare an average egyptian to greeks or italians.
People who knew them well could easily make the difference :
quote: As for the people of India, those in the south are like the Aethiopians in color, although they are like the rest in respect to countenance and hair (for on account of the humidity of the air their hair does not curl), whereas those in the north are like the Egyptians.
Strabo, Geography 15.1.13
Also don't bring herodotus pls this has been debunked again and again.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by TubuYal23: The very roots of people like him and their knowledge. Is founded on pure delusion. Despite, the wealth of information out there - including the classical - that were around at the time and consistently compared Ancient Egyptians to "black' people from the Nile Valley and to East Africans, in general. How many times does the research have to debunk the notion that so called "sub-saharans" aren't directly related to native melanated North Africans and the same applies to so called coptic groups. And as you said if a group shares strong affinities with another group, why wouldn't they be the same as that group? It's nonsensical (though, some Greeks will argue that they aren't white). This tells me that a lot of these "Egyptians aren't black" charlatans are stuck in the world of "dark skinned Caucasians" despite what they say otherwise.
Plus, no one ever takes into account the location of Punt and Egyptians direct relation to that civilization.
I mean in no text or readings, do (perfectly sane) individuals from 3,000 years ago. Let alone 1,000 years ago - do these people ever refer to AE's looking like them or like other "Caucasians" or Southern Europeans. Let alone what modern North Africans look like today, in terms of the assumed majority. In almost all references in regards to Egyptians or Kemet - the word Ethiopian or Aethiopia is a constant and that's not a play on words. It's a noted descriptive of the physical being.
I would honestly suggest you to avoid ad hominems and to read more about North Africa's history because no one denied that some aethiopians actually lived in what is now considered north africa but no ancient authors view them as Libyans or Egyptians. They were described as aethiopians and lived on the northern fringe of the Sahara.
We already have tons of anthropological conclusions about this area from the neolithic, protohistoric, iron age era, etc and negroid skulls always form a minority. Since you posted Datas by Chamla see here her conclusions about Neolithic north-west africans :
so on 62 skulls only 4 were negroid
roman era north west africans were similar to modern north africans :
quote:Thus, in spite of a certain heterogeneity - difficult to appreciate -, our Algerian series of Roman period presents, as a whole, affinities at the same time with the "Berber" populations of North Africa and with various other Mediterranean populations. Among these last, the Eastern Iberian populations of the same time hold undoubtedly a privileged place, according to the data which we have (tabl. III). It seems however that our series is appreciably more robust than these Spanish series. It does not possess, on the other hand, the very broad front and the high stature of certain current Berbers (Tuareg), but would be rather similar to the Kabyles, of which it offers us perhaps an approximate image of the ancestors. "
So who's delusional now ? There were black populations living in ancient north africa especially in the Sahara some even in coastal cities (we do have testimonies of carthage using ethiopian mercenaries in Sicily along side its african/berber troops) but they weren't seen as libyans/moors/africans nor egyptian and were seen as exotic and rare by the classical world. Blacks only started to be more common with the trans-saharan slave trade which brought millions of them in our regions making a lot of modern north africans mixed. That's why mountainous berbers tend to look more mediterranean/eurasian that the mixed urban people.
Posted by TubuYal23 (Member # 23503) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
And Greeks/Romans didn't really call egyptians "black" or else they would have considered them "aethiopians". "Black" in some context simply meant dark/swarthy which is kind of obvious when you compare an average egyptian to greeks or italians.
People who knew them well could easily make the difference :
quote: As for the people of India, those in the south are like the Aethiopians in color, although they are like the rest in respect to countenance and hair (for on account of the humidity of the air their hair does not curl), whereas those in the north are like the Egyptians.
Strabo, Geography 15.1.13
Also, don't bring herodotus pls this has been debunked again and again.
Don't need Herodotus and yes, they did call Egyptians - Aethiopians (Not all the time but the terms used were consistent).
quote: “We now recognize that populations of Nubia and Egypt form a continuum rather than clearly distinct groups,” Mr. Emberling writes, “and that it is impossible to draw a line between Egypt and Nubia that would indicate where 'black' begins.”
or their calling
Diodorus of Sicily a liar...it's always curious when so called scholar disagree with the ancient people of their day. From their modern, biased jaded positions, when the topic of "black" Egypt is concerned.
quote:They say also that the Egyptians are colonists sent out by the Ethiopians, Osiris having been the leader of the colony. 2 For, speaking generally, what is now Egypt, they maintain, was not land but sea when in the beginning the universe was being formed; afterwards, however, as the Nile during the times of its inundation carried down the mud from Ethiopia, land was gradually built up from the deposit. Also the statement that all the land of the Egyptians is alluvial silt deposited by the river receives the clearest proof, in their opinion, from what takes place at the outlets of the Nile; 3 for as each year new mud is continually gathered together at the mouths of the river, the sea is observed being thrust back by the deposited silt and the land receiving the increase. And the larger part of the customs of the Egyptians are, they hold, Ethiopian, the p95 colonists still preserving their ancient manners. 4 For instance, the belief that their kings are gods, the very special attention which they pay to their burials, and many other matters of a similar nature are Ethiopian practices, while the shapes of their statues and the forms of their letters are Ethiopian; 5
or
quote: "Lycinus (describing an Egyptian): 'This boy is not merely black; he has thick lips and his legs are too thin... his hair worn in a plait shows that he is not a freeman.' Timolaus: 'but that is a sign of really distinguished birth in Egypt, Lycinus. All freeborn children plait their hair until they reach manhood...' - Lucian (Lycinus) of Samosata
I mean, it begs the question, are we to believe that all these equally ancient people were just making stuff up? Did they not see these people traveling on boats or on land in armies from the Nile Valley or Ancient Egypt? it's truly mind-bogglingly, that Eurocentrics will go as far as to deny the ancient etymology of the word "black" across multiple cultures and civilizations. When it's in reference to Ancient Egyptians and how the people of the time came upon them. And the notion that those people didn't comprehend differences in color among other groups, compared to their own - to be the height of absurdity.
Posted by TubuYal23 (Member # 23503) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by TubuYal23: The very roots of people like him and their knowledge. Is founded on pure delusion. Despite, the wealth of information out there - including the classical - that were around at the time and consistently compared Ancient Egyptians to "black' people from the Nile Valley and to East Africans, in general. How many times does the research have to debunk the notion that so called "sub-saharans" aren't directly related to native melanated North Africans and the same applies to so called coptic groups. And as you said if a group shares strong affinities with another group, why wouldn't they be the same as that group? It's nonsensical (though, some Greeks will argue that they aren't white). This tells me that a lot of these "Egyptians aren't black" charlatans are stuck in the world of "dark skinned Caucasians" despite what they say otherwise.
Plus, no one ever takes into account the location of Punt and Egyptians direct relation to that civilization.
I mean in no text or readings, do (perfectly sane) individuals from 3,000 years ago. Let alone 1,000 years ago - do these people ever refer to AE's looking like them or like other "Caucasians" or Southern Europeans. Let alone what modern North Africans look like today, in terms of the assumed majority. In almost all references in regards to Egyptians or Kemet - the word Ethiopian or Aethiopia is a constant and that's not a play on words. It's a noted descriptive of the physical being.
I would honestly suggest you to avoid ad hominems and to read more about North Africa's history because no one denied that some aethiopians actually lived in what is now considered north africa but no ancient authors view them as Libyans or Egyptians. They were described as aethiopians and lived on the northern fringe of the Sahara.
We already have tons of anthropological conclusions about this area from the neolithic, protohistoric, iron age era, etc and negroid skulls always form a minority. Since you posted Datas by Chamla see here her conclusions about Neolithic north-west africans :
so on 62 skulls only 4 were negroid
roman era north west africans were similar to modern north africans :
quote:Thus, in spite of a certain heterogeneity - difficult to appreciate -, our Algerian series of Roman period presents, as a whole, affinities at the same time with the "Berber" populations of North Africa and with various other Mediterranean populations. Among these last, the Eastern Iberian populations of the same time hold undoubtedly a privileged place, according to the data which we have (tabl. III). It seems however that our series is appreciably more robust than these Spanish series. It does not possess, on the other hand, the very broad front and the high stature of certain current Berbers (Tuareg), but would be rather similar to the Kabyles, of which it offers us perhaps an approximate image of the ancestors. "
So who's delusional now ? There were black populations living in ancient north africa especially in the Sahara some even in coastal cities (we do have testimonies of carthage using ethiopian mercenaries in Sicily along side its african/berber troops) but they weren't seen as libyans/moors/africans nor egyptian and were seen as exotic and rare by the classical world. Blacks only started to be more common with the trans-saharan slave trade which brought millions of them in our regions making a lot of modern north africans mixed. That's why mountainous berbers tend to look more mediterranean/eurasian that the mixed urban people.
Sorry, but ppl that use the word "blacks" as a reasonable connotation to refer to melanated Africans, in the refuse of AE being a "black" population. Brings me to certain conlcusions about you as a indiviual in regards to this specific matter.
I know pretty about North African history, and the fact of the matter is (as noted in the text and elsewhere) it's a region that has been invaded upon and occupied by many groups. So using, skulls from the Roman period as an example and there only being 4 out of 64 that can be noted as "Negroid" doesn't make your claim any more true. There is far more research now, beyond the data Ms. Chamla found during her time and the location of her study.
quote:From Figure 7.22 it can be seen that the GARAMANTES (Berbers) cluster most closely to the Sub-Saharan Africans and secondarily to the Roman Egyptians from Alexandria and the Nubians from Soleb
- The Archaeology of Fazzan. Volume 3, Excavations carried out by C.M. Daniels (pp.375-408)Editors: Mattingly, D.J. and Daniels, C.M. and Dore, J.N. and Edwards, D. and Hawthorne, J.
And this has every little to do with Ethiopian mercenaries or slaves. This the foolish notion that people like you always amount to, when you have zero grasp on the subject and contextualize things in such stereotypical terms and realities. Nothing you posted refutes nor debunks from my point, so that delusional tag will persist.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by TubuYal23: Don't need Herodotus and yes, they did call Egyptians - Aethiopians (Not all the time but the terms used were consistent).
They actually never called them aethiopians which is quite strange for a population that was apparently sun-burnt....
quote:Originally posted by TubuYal23: “We now recognize that populations of Nubia and Egypt form a continuum rather than clearly distinct groups,” Mr. Emberling writes, “and that it is impossible to draw a line between Egypt and Nubia that would indicate where 'black' begins.” or their calling
I totally agree.
quote:Originally posted by TubuYal23: Diodorus of Sicily a liar...it's always curious when so called scholar disagree with the ancient people of their day. From their modern, biased jaded positions, when the topic of "black" Egypt is concerned.
quote:They say also that the Egyptians are colonists sent out by the Ethiopians, Osiris having been the leader of the colony. 2 For, speaking generally, what is now Egypt, they maintain, was not land but sea when in the beginning the universe was being formed; afterwards, however, as the Nile during the times of its inundation carried down the mud from Ethiopia, land was gradually built up from the deposit. Also the statement that all the land of the Egyptians is alluvial silt deposited by the river receives the clearest proof, in their opinion, from what takes place at the outlets of the Nile; 3 for as each year new mud is continually gathered together at the mouths of the river, the sea is observed being thrust back by the deposited silt and the land receiving the increase. And the larger part of the customs of the Egyptians are, they hold, Ethiopian, the p95 colonists still preserving their ancient manners. 4 For instance, the belief that their kings are gods, the very special attention which they pay to their burials, and many other matters of a similar nature are Ethiopian practices, while the shapes of their statues and the forms of their letters are Ethiopian; 5
or
quote: "Lycinus (describing an Egyptian): 'This boy is not merely black; he has thick lips and his legs are too thin... his hair worn in a plait shows that he is not a freeman.' Timolaus: 'but that is a sign of really distinguished birth in Egypt, Lycinus. All freeborn children plait their hair until they reach manhood...' - Lucian (Lycinus) of Samosata
I mean, it begs the question, are we to believe that all these equally ancient people were just making stuff up? Did they not see these people traveling on boats or on land in armies from the Nile Valley or Ancient Egypt? it's truly mind-bogglingly, that Eurocentrics will go as far as to deny the ancient etymology of the word "black" across multiple cultures and civilizations. When it's in reference to Ancient Egyptians and how the people of the time came upon them. And the notion that those people didn't comprehend differences in color among other groups, compared to their own - to be the height of absurdity. [/QB]
I was expecting something more explicit but anyway I could have directly posted this :
quote:One such inscription from the Palermo Stone records the acquisition of some 7000 male and female slaves from the “Land of the Blacks” along with some 20,000 herd animals including cattle, sheep, and goats and what appears to have been 40 ships laden with cedar, along with other raw materials.
quote:The Ethiopians stain the world and depict a race of men steeped in darkness; less sun-burnt are the natives of India; the land of Egypt, flooded by the Nile, darkens bodies more mildly owing to the inundation of its fields: it is a country nearer to us and its moderate climate imparts a medium tone.
Manilius, Astronomica 4.724
And yes you should question the meaning of "black" in classical times especially since greeks had different words for it and they didn't all had the same meaning. They described all dark skinned populations as aethiops but strangely missed north africans ?
Posted by TubuYal23 (Member # 23503) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by TubuYal23: Don't need Herodotus and yes, they did call Egyptians - Aethiopians (Not all the time but the terms used were consistent).
They actually never called them aethiopians which is quite strange for a population that was apparently sun-burnt....
quote:Originally posted by TubuYal23: “We now recognize that populations of Nubia and Egypt form a continuum rather than clearly distinct groups,” Mr. Emberling writes, “and that it is impossible to draw a line between Egypt and Nubia that would indicate where 'black' begins.” or their calling
I totally agree.
quote:Originally posted by TubuYal23: Diodorus of Sicily a liar...it's always curious when so called scholar disagree with the ancient people of their day. From their modern, biased jaded positions, when the topic of "black" Egypt is concerned.
quote:They say also that the Egyptians are colonists sent out by the Ethiopians, Osiris having been the leader of the colony. 2 For, speaking generally, what is now Egypt, they maintain, was not land but sea when in the beginning the universe was being formed; afterwards, however, as the Nile during the times of its inundation carried down the mud from Ethiopia, land was gradually built up from the deposit. Also the statement that all the land of the Egyptians is alluvial silt deposited by the river receives the clearest proof, in their opinion, from what takes place at the outlets of the Nile; 3 for as each year new mud is continually gathered together at the mouths of the river, the sea is observed being thrust back by the deposited silt and the land receiving the increase. And the larger part of the customs of the Egyptians are, they hold, Ethiopian, the p95 colonists still preserving their ancient manners. 4 For instance, the belief that their kings are gods, the very special attention which they pay to their burials, and many other matters of a similar nature are Ethiopian practices, while the shapes of their statues and the forms of their letters are Ethiopian; 5
or
quote: "Lycinus (describing an Egyptian): 'This boy is not merely black; he has thick lips and his legs are too thin... his hair worn in a plait shows that he is not a freeman.' Timolaus: 'but that is a sign of really distinguished birth in Egypt, Lycinus. All freeborn children plait their hair until they reach manhood...' - Lucian (Lycinus) of Samosata
I mean, it begs the question, are we to believe that all these equally ancient people were just making stuff up? Did they not see these people traveling on boats or on land in armies from the Nile Valley or Ancient Egypt? it's truly mind-bogglingly, that Eurocentrics will go as far as to deny the ancient etymology of the word "black" across multiple cultures and civilizations. When it's in reference to Ancient Egyptians and how the people of the time came upon them. And the notion that those people didn't comprehend differences in color among other groups, compared to their own - to be the height of absurdity.
I was expecting something more explicit but anyway I could have directly posted this :
quote:One such inscription from the Palermo Stone records the acquisition of some 7000 male and female slaves from the “Land of the Blacks” along with some 20,000 herd animals including cattle, sheep, and goats and what appears to have been 40 ships laden with cedar, along with other raw materials.
quote:The Ethiopians stain the world and depict a race of men steeped in darkness; less sun-burnt are the natives of India; the land of Egypt, flooded by the Nile, darkens bodies more mildly owing to the inundation of its fields: it is a country nearer to us and its moderate climate imparts a medium tone.
Manilius, Astronomica 4.724
And yes you should question the meaning of "black" in classical times, especially since greeks had different words for it and they didn't all had the same meaning. They described all dark skinned populations as aethiops but strangely missed north africans?
You're quoting's were supposed to rely, to me what exactly? Kemet is the word for black in the Nile Valley, but I'm not using that word in this context. Also, Ancient Egypt was founded in the South not in North Africa proper, and you should know this Antalas.
And no, there's no reason to disregard the notions of blackness in the classical period, as they understand the meaning. Very well, the same with the idea of race, and they understood populations with different creeds these words may might different things in particular ways, but the context in which they were used can not be denied. Otherwise, we should just throw out all classical viewpoint, if words and meanings don't mean what they mean.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by TubuYal23: Sorry, but ppl that use the word "blacks" as a reasonable connotation to refer to melanated Africans, in the refuse of AE being a "black" population. Brings me to certain conlcusions about you as a indiviual in regards to this specific matter.
???
quote:Originally posted by TubuYal23: I know pretty about North African history, and the fact of the matter is (as noted in the text and elsewhere) it's a region that has been invaded upon and occupied by many groups. So using, skulls from the Roman period as an example and there only being 4 out of 64 that can be noted as "Negroid" doesn't make your claim any more true. There is far more research now, beyond the data Ms. Chamla found during her time and the location of her study.
No you don't seem to know much about the subject or else you would have known that the trans-saharan slave trade brought more people than all the invaders combined lol and indeed we do have more datas now and they confirmed even more what I said.
quote:Originally posted by TubuYal23:
quote:From Figure 7.22 it can be seen that the GARAMANTES (Berbers) cluster most closely to the Sub-Saharan Africans and secondarily to the Roman Egyptians from Alexandria and the Nubians from Soleb
- The Archaeology of Fazzan. Volume 3, Excavations carried out by C.M. Daniels (pp.375-408)Editors: Mattingly, D.J. and Daniels, C.M. and Dore, J.N. and Edwards, D. and Hawthorne, J. [/QB]
Actually it's more complex :
quote: The study of the fifty or so skulls collected in the central Sahara allows the distinction of three morphological types: Negroids representing barely 25%, a mixed type, in which are associated either prognathism and leptorhynia, or orthognathism and platyrhynia, which constitutes a third of the whole, and finally a non-negroid type, well known above all in the central Sahara (Hoggar-Tassili), representing 41.6% of all the skulls studied. However, some 17 years earlier Professor Sergi had also distinguished, among the skulls collected in the burials of Fezzan rightly attributed to the Garamantes, 46.6% Eurafricans, 26.6% nigrified Eurafricans (= mixed type of M.-C. Chamla) and 26.6% negroid. In conclusion, M.-C. Chamla believes that since protohistoric times the racial composition of the populations of the Saharan and South Saharan regions does not seem to have undergone profound changes .
They literally lived in the Sahara and used to enslave aethiopians (especially "troglodyte aethiopians") no surprise they became darker. Even a ancient african poet (Luxorius) actually criticized their dark skin :
quote: The aesthetic prejudice appears with much clearness, at the end of the ancient period it is true, in Luxorius, African poet exerting at the court of the Vandal kings, at the beginning of the VIth century AD. He opposes, in one of his poems, to the pretty pontic girl, who symbolizes the Nordic woman, a garamante ugly girl (foeda), symbolizing if not the Ethiopian woman, at least the southern type the most distant from the Nordic type
L'Afrique noire et le monde méditerranéen dans l'Antiquité (Éthiopiens et Gréco-Romains)par JEHAN DESANGES, p. 410
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by TubuYal23: You're quoting's were supposed to rely, to me what exactly? Kemet is the word for black in the Nile Valley, but I'm not using that word in this context. Also, Ancient Egypt was founded in the South not North Africa.
And no, there's no reason to disregard the notions of blackness in the classical period, as they understand the meaning. Very well, the same with the idea of race, and they understood populations with different creeds these words may might different things in particular ways, but the context in which they were used can not be denied. Otherwise, we should just throw out all classical viewpoint, if words and meanings don't mean what they mean. [/QB]
"Kemet" is not a reference to skin color. And Egypt wasn't founded in the "south" but in Upper Egypt which lies in North Africa.
I never said or imply they didn't have notions of "race" "people" but a same word could have in some cases different meanings and one reality could be described by a large variety of words. When it comes to describing populations they usually used aethiopians for the black ones this includes dark skinned populations of Asia. Egyptians were obviously not described as "black" the same way we understand it today but as dark/swarthy and were always distinguished from aethiopians same for libyans. Moreover I posted some sources which you apparently avoided for no reasons.
In classical times egyptians were seen as similar to northern indians (aka pakistanis) and colchians (aka western georgians) never to aethiopians or nubians.
Posted by TubuYal23 (Member # 23503) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by TubuYal23: You're quoting's were supposed to rely, to me what exactly? Kemet is the word for black in the Nile Valley, but I'm not using that word in this context. Also, Ancient Egypt was founded in the South not North Africa.
And no, there's no reason to disregard the notions of blackness in the classical period, as they understand the meaning. Very well, the same with the idea of race, and they understood populations with different creeds these words may might different things in particular ways, but the context in which they were used can not be denied. Otherwise, we should just throw out all classical viewpoint, if words and meanings don't mean what they mean.
"Kemet" is not a reference to skin color. And Egypt wasn't founded in the "south" but in Upper Egypt which lies in North Africa.
I never said or imply they didn't have notions of "race" "people" but a same word could have in some cases different meanings and one reality could be described by a large variety of words. When it comes to describing populations they usually used aethiopians for the black ones this includes dark skinned populations of Asia. Egyptians were obviously not described as "black" the same way we understand it today but as dark/swarthy and were always distinguished from aethiopians same for libyans. Moreover I posted some sources which you apparently avoided for no reasons.
In classical times egyptians were seen as similar to northern indians (aka pakistanis) and colchians (aka western georgians) never to aethiopians or nubians. [/QB]
I never said that Kemet referenced skin color. And which direction do you think Upper Egypt is located? The far South, not the far North. Don't be obtuse in regards to this historical fact.
quote:
Upper Egypt -
quote:Recent controversy over the date and origin of cattle domestication in northeast Africa has brought this topic, and Frankfort's early treatment of it, to the attention of pre-historians once more.In a discussion of their discoveries at Nabta Playa, Wendorf and Schild73 draw upon Kingship and the Gods to support their reintroduction of a variant upon the idea of a northeast African Kulturkreis74 based around the cultural significance of cattle, from which the belief systems of both ancient Egypt and the modern cattle-keepers of southern Sudan are held to have emerged.While it is true that Frankfort adopted this concept from C.G. Seligman, 75 the founding father of Sudanese ethnography, and in so doing fell prey to a theory founded ultimately upon spurious racial and linguistic premises rather than historical evidence, it did not, however, constitute his main motivation for introducing a perspective derived from anthropology into his discussions of ancient Egypt. This stemmed, rather, from what he perceived as the inadequacy of Western conceptual frameworks for understanding key aspects of dynastic culture: “The profound significance which cattle evidently possessed for the ancient Egyptians allows us to bring an entirely fresh kind of evidence to bear on the problem. For some modern Africans, related to the ancient Nilotes, display a similar attitude toward cattle; and these living adherents to a point of view so utterly alien to us open our eyes to possibilities which our own experience could never have suggested.
*******
quote: Shared features of Neolithic burial across the Nile Valley extend beyond the treatment and ornamentation of the corpse to the deposition of functionally similar artefacts within graves. These too are highly portable—and so consistent with the requirements of a relatively mobile lifestyle—and are closely associated with the presentation of the body, hair and skin (for Egyptian examples, see Figure 3). They include a range of cosmetic articles and implements as well as small vessels made of clay, stone or ivory. Combs of bone or ivory, and spatulas used with hollowed tusks for mixing and pouring fluids are among the grave goods documented throughout the valley, as are stone grinding palettes accompanied by rubbing pebbles (themselves often carefully selected in colourful varieties) and pigments for making body paint (Stevenson 2009; some of the earliest attestations of cosmetic palettes, dating to the mid–late sixth millennium BC, derive from Djara in Egypt's Western Desert; Riemer a al. 2009). Pigments are sometimes found within miniature containers of ivory, shell, pottery or ornamented cow horn. Mace-heads, which only later became a common grave good in Egypt, make their first appearance in central Sudanese burials at this earlier time (e.g. Lecointe 1987; Krzytaniak 1991). Markings on anthropomorphic figurines of the period point towards practices such as tattooing and scarification (Edwards 2004: 51), reinforcing the overall impression of a complex and exuberant material culture, strongly focused on the social presentation of the body in life as well as death.
*******
quote: More recently, Butzer (1976: 14) has related the distribution of early neolithic (Badarian) sites along the outskirts of the Nile Valley to pastoral activity, while Midant-Reynes (2000: 160) sees them as "mainly ... the result of pastoralism" and a "relatively mobile existence". Clark (1971:36) similarly observed of Badarian sites that "the circle of grain pits surrounding a central area of ash and pottery suggests a plan similar to that of the Nilotic, cattle-herding Jie in Uganda, the Songhai south of the Niger bend and other Central African peoples where a central stock pen is surrounded by the grain stores and temporary or permanent dwellings of the inhabitants". The recent excavations at Maghara 2 support the view that the formation of early neolithic sites in the Nile Valley was generated through the seasonal sojourns of mobile herding groups, rather than the establishment of permanent farming villages (Wengrow 2001: 95, 99 n. 5).
********
quote: "The question of the genetic origins of ancient Egyptians, particularly those during the Dynastic period, is relevant to the current study. Modern interpretations of Egyptian state formation propose an indigenous origin of the Dynastic civilization (Hassan, 1988). Early Egyptologists considered Upper and Lower Egyptians to be genetically distinct populations, and viewed the Dynastic period as characterized by a conquest of Upper Egypt by the Lower Egyptians. More recent interpretations contend that Egyptians from the south actually expanded into the northern regions during the Dynastic state unification (Hassan, 1988; Savage, 2001), and that the Pre-dynastic populations of Upper and Lower Egypt are morphologically distinct from one another, but not sufficiently distinct to consider either non-indigenous (Zakrzewski, 2007). The Pre-dynastic populations studied here, from Naqada and Badari, are both Upper Egyptian samples, while the Dynastic Egyptian sample (Tarkhan) is from Lower Egypt. The Dynastic Nubian sample is from Upper Nubia (Kerma). Previous analyses of cranial variation found the Badari and Early Pre-dynastic Egyptians to be more similar to other African groups than to Mediterranean or European populations (Keita, 1990; Zakrzewski, 2002).In addition, the Badarians have been described as near the centroid of cranial and dental variation among Pre-dynastic and Dynastic populations studied (Irish, 2006; Zakrzewski, 2007). This suggests that, at least through the Early Dynastic period, the inhabitants of the Nile valley were a continuous population of local origin, and no major migration or replacement events occurred during this time.
Studies of cranial morphology also support the use of a Nubian (Kerma) population for a comparison of the Dynastic period, as this group is likely to be more closely genetically related to the early Nile valley inhabitants than would be the Late Dynastic Egyptians, who likely experienced significant mixing with other Mediterranean populations (Zakrzewski, 2002).A craniometric study found the Naqada and Kerma populations to be morphologically similar (Keita, 1990). Given these and other prior studies suggesting continuity (Berry et al., 1967; Berry and Berry, 1972), and the lack of archaeological evidence of major migration or population replacement during the Neolithic transition in the Nile valley, we may cautiously interpret the dental health changes over time as primarily due to ecological, subsistence, and demographic changes experienced throughout the Nile valley region."
- AP Starling, JT Stock. (2007). Dental Indicators of Health and Stress in Early Egyptian and Nubian Agriculturalists: A Difficult Transition and Gradual Recovery. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 134:520-528
Posted by TubuYal23 (Member # 23503) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by TubuYal23: Sorry, but ppl that use the word "blacks" as a reasonable connotation to refer to melanated Africans, in the refuse of AE being a "black" population. Brings me to certain conlcusions about you as a indiviual in regards to this specific matter.
???
quote:Originally posted by TubuYal23: I know pretty about North African history, and the fact of the matter is (as noted in the text and elsewhere) it's a region that has been invaded upon and occupied by many groups. So using, skulls from the Roman period as an example and there only being 4 out of 64 that can be noted as "Negroid" doesn't make your claim any more true. There is far more research now, beyond the data Ms. Chamla found during her time and the location of her study.
No you don't seem to know much about the subject or else you would have known that the trans-saharan slave trade brought more people than all the invaders combined lol and indeed we do have more datas now and they confirmed even more what I said.
quote:Originally posted by TubuYal23:
quote:From Figure 7.22 it can be seen that the GARAMANTES (Berbers) cluster most closely to the Sub-Saharan Africans and secondarily to the Roman Egyptians from Alexandria and the Nubians from Soleb
- The Archaeology of Fazzan. Volume 3, Excavations carried out by C.M. Daniels (pp.375-408)Editors: Mattingly, D.J. and Daniels, C.M. and Dore, J.N. and Edwards, D. and Hawthorne, J.
Actually it's more complex :
quote: The study of the fifty or so skulls collected in the central Sahara allows the distinction of three morphological types: Negroids representing barely 25%, a mixed type, in which are associated either prognathism and leptorhynia, or orthognathism and platyrhynia, which constitutes a third of the whole, and finally a non-negroid type, well known above all in the central Sahara (Hoggar-Tassili), representing 41.6% of all the skulls studied. However, some 17 years earlier Professor Sergi had also distinguished, among the skulls collected in the burials of Fezzan rightly attributed to the Garamantes, 46.6% Eurafricans, 26.6% nigrified Eurafricans (= mixed type of M.-C. Chamla) and 26.6% negroid. In conclusion, M.-C. Chamla believes that since protohistoric times the racial composition of the populations of the Saharan and South Saharan regions does not seem to have undergone profound changes .
They literally lived in the Sahara and used to enslave aethiopians (especially "troglodyte aethiopians") no surprise they became darker. Even a ancient african poet (Luxorius) actually criticized their dark skin :
quote: The aesthetic prejudice appears with much clearness, at the end of the ancient period it is true, in Luxorius, African poet exerting at the court of the Vandal kings, at the beginning of the VIth century AD. He opposes, in one of his poems, to the pretty pontic girl, who symbolizes the Nordic woman, a garamante ugly girl (foeda), symbolizing if not the Ethiopian woman, at least the southern type the most distant from the Nordic type
L'Afrique noire et le monde méditerranéen dans l'Antiquité (Éthiopiens et Gréco-Romains)par JEHAN DESANGES, p. 410 [/QB]
There you go with the slave angle again...and why are you going back to Chamla? the group used in the garamante study weren't slaves.
It wasn't that confusing, don't use the word "blacks" as you continue to refuse the fact that AE were a "black" population.
quote:Originally posted by Ty Daniels: @Antalas AKA Hotepboy AKA Nassabean
You were BANNED TWICE on this site.
Why do you keep coming back?????
Oh, he's a repeat nutcase offender? Thanks, now it all makes sense. Given the sources he was pulling.
Posted by Ty Daniels (Member # 23186) on :
@Antalas AKA Hotepboy AKA Nassabean
Is an Anti-Black poster who claims to be Moroccan and lives in the UK.
To him all "Sub-Saharan" Africans in North Africa, are the result of slavery.
"Logic" isn't his strong point.
Posted by TubuYal23 (Member # 23503) on :
Thanks, Daniels.
The dude is a complete nutcase if he thinks "Sub-Saharans" Africans in North Africans were all slaves, the data and researches prove that to be false, the desert wasn't a barrier for African groups, they traveled to and from North Africa over the generations before slavery was even a concept.
Anyone that thinks otherwise is an idiotic anti-black fool.
Posted by Ty Daniels (Member # 23186) on :
@TubuYal23
100% Agreed!
So-Called "Sub-Saharan" Africans migrating past the "Sahara" is literally the catalyst to ALL HUMANS outside of Africa existing in the first place.
Pure "Tardedness" on his part.
Posted by TubuYal23 (Member # 23503) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ty Daniels: @TubuYal23
100% Agreed!
So-Called "Sub-Saharan" Africans migrating past the "Sahara" is literally the catalyst to ALL HUMANS outside of Africa existing in the first place.
Pure "Tardedness" on his part.
Correct, and the research proves that to be the truth -
quote:The presence of sub-Saharan L-type mtDNA sequences in North Africa has traditionally been explained by the recent slave trade. However, gene flow between sub-Saharan and northern African populations would also have been made possible earlier through the greening of the Sahara resulting from Early Holocene climatic improvement. In this article, we examine human dispersals across the Sahara through the analysis of the sub-Saharan mtDNA haplogroup L3e5, which is not only commonly found in the Lake Chad Basin (~17%), but which also attains non-negligible frequencies (-10%) in some Northwestern African populations. Age estimates point to its origin ~10 ka, probably directly in the Lake Chad Basin, where the clade occurs across linguistic boundaries. The virtual absence of this specific haplogroup in Daza from Northern Chad and all West African populations suggests that its migration took place elsewhere, perhaps through Northern Niger. Interestingly, independent confirmation of Early Holocene contacts between North Africa and the Lake Chad Basin have been provided by craniofacial data from Central Niger, supporting our suggestion that the Early Holocene offered a suitable climatic window for genetic exchanges between North and sub-Saharan Africa. In view of its younger founder age in North Africa, the discontinuous distribution of L3e5 was probably caused by the Middle Holocene re-expansion of the Sahara desert, disrupting the clade's original continuous spread.
---Eliška Podgorná et al. Annals of Human Genetics Volume 77, Issue 6, pages 513-523, November 2013
Then you have the Tubou people's that have lived in central/north/northeast for centuries, traveling throughout the Sahara for close to 5,0000 or 6,000 years and or more.
Posted by Ty Daniels (Member # 23186) on :
@TubuYal23
Agreed!!
He's basically arguing against facts to appease his "Anti-Black" ideology.
It's dogmatic, not rational, and "Tarded"
Posted by TubuYal23 (Member # 23503) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ty Daniels: @TubuYal23
Agreed!!
He's basically arguing against facts to appease his "Anti-Black" ideology.
It's dogmatic, not rational, and "Tarded"
Don't forget the Chadians as well. But in the end - for ppl like Antalas the facts don't matter, even basic human history is an obstacle for folks like him. It's all a bunch of garbage if it doesn't scream "no, no, no... no blacks here".
Posted by Ty Daniels (Member # 23186) on :
@TubuYal23
Right, it really is sad, some form of mental illness.
"Anti-Black" dogma is a roadblock to actual intelligent discourse on African history.
The Sahara wasn't always a desert, as we all know. Mega Lake Chad also provided avenues of migration for "Sub-Saharan" Africans.
Not to mention, after the Sahara became desert, Africans "south of the Sahara" still migrated on their own terms, within and outside Africa.
Posted by TubuYal23 (Member # 23503) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ty Daniels: @TubuYal23
Right, it really is sad, some form of mental illness.
"Anti-Black" dogma is a roadblock to actual intelligent discourse on African history.
The Sahara wasn't always a desert, as we all know. Mega Lake Chad also provided avenues of migration for "Sub-Saharan" Africans.
Not to mention, after the Sahara became desert, Africans "south of the Sahara" still migrated on their own terms, within and outside Africa.
Exactly, those groups would spread out in 4 to 5 different directions as the green turned into sand - some would go to the Moroccan/Mauritania region, others would find themselves in Chad and then into the Nile Valley, and another group would find themselves in what's now called Libya, etc.
Shoot, there's a whole canoe that dates back 8,500 years in Nigeria and who knows what else could be found. And to my knowledge, there are no giant lakes or rivers in that region. In modern times.
I'm sure some tried to weather the sandstorm and paid the price for not leaving, as we can see with some of the human remains (Kiffians) that can be found.
So, it can only be a generational mental illness for these people and that's why they can't stop themselves. They've done it with everything in Africa besides Egypt, always shocked that "blacks" could build walls of stone or intricate structures.
The lengths with which certain types of people refuse to acknowledge the truth, isn't surprising though, it's beyond pathetic.
That's why, they have to make up crap like this -
Posted by Ty Daniels (Member # 23186) on :
@TubuYal23
"Anti-Blacks" dogmatically believe that anyone with a "Black" phenotype is "Inferior/Subservient" by default.
The "Self Esteem" of the "Anti-Black" is contingent on the "Blacks Inferiority".
This is part of the reason they troll online where "Blacks" congregate.
The get an "Ego Boost" letting the "Blacks Know their Place".
When confronted with data that contradicts their bias/dogma they dismiss it and seek out sources that "confirm" their ideology.
As you said "Nutcase" behavior.
This is also why they reject data/info that comes from "Black" sources, because in their "Brains", it is "incorrect/inferior" due the the "Black person's Phenotype.
All the actual data we have shows that there were full-fledged "Black" Egyptians and North Africans.
To deny this to soothe ones ego/esteem is "Tarded"
Posted by TubuYal23 (Member # 23503) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ty Daniels: @TubuYal23
"Anti-Blacks" dogmatically believe that anyone with a "Black" phenotype is "Inferior/Subservient" by default.
The "Self Esteem" of the "Anti-Black" is contingent on the "Blacks Inferiority".
This is part of the reason they troll online where "Blacks" congregate.
The get an "Ego Boost" letting the "Blacks Know their Place".
When confronted with data that contradicts their bias/dogma they dismiss it and seek out sources that "confirm" their ideology.
As you said "Nutcase" behavior.
This is also why they reject data/info that comes from "Black" sources, because in their "Brains", it is "incorrect/inferior" due the the "Black person's Phenotype.
All the actual data we have shows that there were full-fledged "Black" Egyptians and North Africans.
To deny this to soothe ones ego/esteem is "Tarded"
It's why, debating them is pointless because they always showcase their real agenda. Despite their very exist on this earth, descending from Africans with black skin, that they love to deny and only admitting to them being around in different regions. Under the pretense of slavery or some other nonsense. I mean they can continue to ignore it and dismiss black scholars or all the non-black scholars that are finally telling the truth. But it's an issue that they will have to come to terms with, after bullsh*tting everyone in the field for close to a 100 year's. It's the giant hole that they dug for themselves and now they are having trouble keeping up with their own lies, and have resorted to putting out ridiculous 'research" based conclusions with sensualist titles that claim that anyone "black" in Egypt in Roman times was from slavery. lol
I always have to wonder - for such a superior group of people, they sure like to lie, project and make up a lot of bs to get ahead. And for every claim of "Afrocentrics" trying to distort history or the heritage of a civilization. There's thousands upon thousands of examples of the "No Black" contingent that has been doing much, much, much worse for generations and making careers out of it. Until their racist past is dug up, and their biases are laid bare, time, and time again.
A true disease of the mind is what they carry, the "anti-black" pathogen and it has spread to plenty of others in the human racialized paradigm.
Posted by Ty Daniels (Member # 23186) on :
@TubuYal23
Yeah they have been lying about Egypt and Africa in general for over 200 years.
The discussion/debate of the "Blackness" of the Egyptians is over 200 years in the "Western World".
With the main opposition being that "People With Black Phenotypes are Inferior", so they "invented" the "Black Whites/Hamites".
The EXACT same "Hamitic Myth" that allowed/justified the enslavement of Africans, became the tool they used to "Remove Blackness" from the Egyptians.
Literally "Europeans" and Arabs alike both used the Hamitic myth to justify enslaving Africans.
But once the glory of Egypt finally became known, then the "Hamites" had to become "White", "Dark White", "Black Caucasians" and a bunch of other foolishness.
Since a "Lie Births More Lies", they have to keep lying about the origin, and nature of the Egyptians and Africans in general.
Posted by TubuYal23 (Member # 23503) on :
@Ty Daniels
The same Hamitic myth that has led to millions of deaths and civil wars in Africa. And now we are back to the "Dark skinned Cacuasian" garbage. So, they've come full circle. It's to the point where I doubt even footage from Ancient Kemet itself dating - back 4,000 to 5,000 years ago, would convince them. That's how far gone they are in regards to this subject.
But this is why they've been keeping black people (and others) out of their inner circles. So they can't upend all their tainted work in distorting the reality of the situation. And that has led us to this point of having to deal with the ignorant offspring of an extremely misinformed population, specifically with Europeans and Arabs or whatever mix of those groups in between.
Posted by Ty Daniels (Member # 23186) on :
@TubuYal23
Exactly!!
The Hypocrisy of it all is that they claim that Horn Africans are "Hamites", and Ancient Egyptians were "Hamites".
Yet in every illustration, historical reenactment, documentary, fantasy movie about Ancient Egypt, they don't use "Hamites", but "Whites in Dark Makeup".
If they actually believed that the Egyptians were "Hamites" and Horn Africans are "Hamites", the logical conclusion is: To use Horn Africans primarily in illustrations, Cartoons, Movies, Documentaries etc.. As Proxies for the Egyptians.
They don't do this because... Horn Africans are "Black Africans".
Using them for depictions of Egyptians leads to the ultimate conclusion:
"The Egyptians Were Black Africans".
The "Hamitic" label is just "Lip-Service" and a tool to divide Africans, and nothing more.
Posted by Mansamusa (Member # 22474) on :
quote:Originally posted by TubuYal23: @Ty Daniels
The same Hamitic myth that has led to millions of deaths and civil wars in Africa. And now we are back to the "Dark skinned Cacuasian" garbage. So, they've come full circle. It's to the point where I doubt even footage from Ancient Kemet itself dating - back 4,000 to 5,000 years ago, would convince them. That's how far gone they are in regards to this subject.
But this is why they've been keeping black people (and others) out their inner circles. So they can't upend all their tainted work in distorting the reality of the situation. And that has led us to this point of having to deal with the ignorant offspring of an extremely misinformed population, specifically with Europeans and Arabs or whatever mix of those groups in between.
At this point I think it will not even matter if it turns out that Eurasian-like ancestry in ancient Africans is African in origin or descended from Ancestral North African (ANA). They will try to rename N. Africa as part of Eurasia in trying to fulfill their new genetic-based Hamitic hypothesis.
Posted by TubuYal23 (Member # 23503) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mansamusa:
quote:Originally posted by TubuYal23: @Ty Daniels
The same Hamitic myth that has led to millions of deaths and civil wars in Africa. And now we are back to the "Dark skinned Cacuasian" garbage. So, they've come full circle. It's to the point where I doubt even footage from Ancient Kemet itself dating - back 4,000 to 5,000 years ago, would convince them. That's how far gone they are in regards to this subject.
But this is why they've been keeping black people (and others) out their inner circles. So they can't upend all their tainted work in distorting the reality of the situation. And that has led us to this point of having to deal with the ignorant offspring of an extremely misinformed population, specifically with Europeans and Arabs or whatever mix of those groups in between.
At this point I think it will not even matter if it turns out that Eurasian-like ancestry in ancient Africans is African in origin or descended from Ancestral North African (ANA). They will try to rename N. Africa as part of Eurasia in trying to fulfill their new genetic-based Hamitic hypothesis.
If that were to happen, it would be the height of their evil. I'd dare them to justify it.
quote:Originally posted by Ty Daniels: @TubuYal23
Exactly!!
The Hypocrisy of it all is that they claim that Horn Africans are "Hamites", and Ancient Egyptians were "Hamites".
Yet in every illustration, historical reenactment, documentary, fantasy movie about Ancient Egypt, they don't use "Hamites", but "Whites in Dark Makeup".
If they actually believed that the Egyptians were "Hamites" and Horn Africans are "Hamites", the logical conclusion is: To use Horn Africans primarily in illustrations, Cartoons, Movies, Documentaries etc.. As Proxies for the Egyptians.
They don't do this because... Horn Africans are "Black Africans".
Using them for depictions of Egyptians leads to the ultimate conclusion:
"The Egyptians Were Black Africans".
The "Hamitic" label is just "Lip-Service" and a tool to divide Africans, and nothing more.
You put it perfectly, to be honest. All that lip-service and confusion, but they never use Horn Africans in any of their depictions of so called 'Eurasians" North Africans or Anicent Egyptians.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Haplogroup U5 has its highest frequency in the Maghreb
No, that's U6 highest frequency in the Maghreb but highest diversity on the Iberian peninsula, (10 out of 19 sublineages are only found there)
U5a and U5b today form the highest population concentrations in the far north, among Sami, Finns, and Estonians.
Yes, I made a typo. My main point is that U6 was said to originate in the 'Near East' which is said to be the origin of the U clade, but U is a subclade of R which either originated in Arabia if not Africa.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: "very dark skin" is induced by high level of SSA therefore can't be native to our mediterranean area.
No. Very dark skin is induced by high level of MELANIN and has nothing to do with SSA ancestry. There are Australian Aborigines and Indians who have very dark skin i.e. black but have no recent African ancestry Sub-Saharan or otherwise. The Abusir study shows the Egyptians to have nil SSA ancestry yet histological studies of their mummies show they had skin "packed with melanin" comparable to "negroids". So stop with the Sub-Saharan excuse. Egyptians were still AFRICAN as North Africans and Sub-Saharans are still related.
quote:The berber genetic profile is mostly defined by EEF, IBM and natufian or steppe ancestry therefore "very dark skin" can't be regarded as indigenous berber trait. Many north africans today have black slave ancestry which can produce dark types but still they aren't perceive as black by their fellow countrymen.
That depends on which Berber tribe and which clan or family. Berbers on the coast have high European admixture. Berbers in the Sahara may have some Arab admixture but most don't. The Kel Tamashek (Tuareg) for example have very little Arab admixture but also very little Sub-Saharan admixture as well. Not only are the Tuareg matrilineal but they have a strict caste system with noble clans only marrying from other noble clans and many of those clans still have very dark skin. Europeans from Medieval times have described the Moors of the coast as black people to the point of wearing black-face when portraying Moors.
quote:Here a quick example so you understand : Obvious recent SSA ancestry but not seen as black by north africans or europeans :
Irrelevant.
Here is a Baladi man from Luxor
This man would obviously be considered 'black' in Europe and he is also considered such by the Arab and other lighter-skinned Egyptians who discriminate against Baladi like him.
quote:And Greeks/Romans didn't really call egyptians "black" or else they would have considered them "aethiopians". "Black" in some context simply meant dark/swarthy which is kind of obvious when you compare an average egyptian to greeks or italians.
That's a lie. The Greek word for black is "melanos" or "melanchroe". The Latin word for black is "niger" and sometimes they used the label "Maur" which likely comes from the name of a native tribe but was applied to all black natives. "Aethiopian" is actually an unknown foreign term that was adopted by the Greeks. The Greeks don't even know what the original meaning of the word was, but simply transliterate the term to mean "burnt face" in their language. The funny thing is that the first people the Greeks called "Aethiopian" were peoples in the West Asia, like the people of Joppa like Princess Andromeda which was likely in Phoenicia, and the people of Memnon further east either in Babylon or Elam! LOL
quote:People who knew them well could easily make the difference :
quote: As for the people of India, those in the south are like the Aethiopians in color, although they are like the rest in respect to countenance and hair (for on account of the humidity of the air their hair does not curl), whereas those in the north are like the Egyptians.
Strabo, Geography 15.1.13
Also don't bring herodotus pls this has been debunked again and again.
Nobody is denying that there are differences in complexion between Africans who are still considered 'black' varied in shade. In fact Strabo's description is later echoed by the Roman poet Marcus Manilius who goes as far as to list black peoples by geography and shade from darkest to lightest as well as white peoples by geography and shade from lightest to darkest until they meet in the Meditrranean zone. So yes, while the Greeks and Romans did compare the complexions of Egyptians to northern Indians, they still considered both peoples as black since North Indians especially in ancient times were not exactly the 'fair and lovely' types you see in Bollywood! LOL All of this is shown here. And no, not everything Herodotus wrote was debunked as explained here.
So again, all of your arguments were debunked years ago in this forum. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
TubuYal23, could you and Antalas take your arguments somewhere else?! I for one am done with the loser but if you want to argue about Egyptians' black identity then please do so somewhere else preferably in the Deshret section of the forum. I would like to get back on track with actual Egyptology and specifically the ethnic identity of the Copts and NOT about their color!
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Now getting back to the topic of the Copts..
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Famile Copte (Coptic Family) Autour du monde, aquarelles, souvenirs de voyages, fascicules i à xii. (1890s)
Figure 2: Coptic scribe, late 19th century, photographer unidentified collections of Paul Frecker, British 19th century photography dealer based in London. Notice the white turban which Copts only started wearing after 1856, when the old Islamic injunction to confine Copts to wear only black or dark turbans, to distinguish them from Muslims, was revoked after intervention from the European Powers.
“Coptic priest.” I, however, doubt this. I would say this is a Coptic deacon, and perhaps was being trained under his father to become priest. The Coptic Church does not ordain a man priest until he reaches the age of 30 years. Priesthood often ran in families and a son follows a father at the same church. The photographer unidentified at or around 1869
According to a recent genomic analysis of modern Egyptians by National Geographic, modern Egyptians are 68% North African and 17% Arab along with admixture from other ancestries, though I believe the study is based on autosomal DNA.
Of course the study includes all modern Egyptians both Copt and Muslim. But if you add the 3% East African ancestry, then that gives us a total of 71% African ancestry.
Recall the autosomal comparison of the Abusir Mummies with modern Egyptians:
* ANA (Ancient North African) ancestry appears to be most heavily concentrated in Northeast African populations, although West and Central Africans, as well as ancient Maghrebis, have some ANA as well. * Various ancient populations in West Eurasia have small but significant ANA ancestry components as well. Minoans actually have a rather large chunk of it as far as EEF-descended populations go. * The Abusir el Meleq mummies have less ANA than modern Egyptians (either Coptic or Muslim). The former have approximately as much ANA as Natufians. Make of that what you will.
So modern Egyptians not only possess more SSA ancetry than the ancient (at least Abusir samples) but also ANA ancestry as well. What does this mean?
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
Ok guys It's about that time! Cache what you can... We're cleaning up
Comments which divert too far away from the OP's topic will be deleted.
Comments that focus solely on the skin color of whatever population will be deleted.
Comments with only the intent to insult or shame another user will be deleted.
If you see any comment you deem useful that might fall under any of these three category.. please archive them on your own
You have 24 hours ///MOD Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Thank you Elmaestro. Really these age old squabbles about the 'black' identity of Egyptians has been addressed far too many times in this forum for well over a decade that all one has to do look in the archives as I told Antalas and others. I say take that mess to Deshret where it belongs.
Posted by Baalberith (Member # 23079) on :
quote:They literally lived in the Sahara and used to enslave aethiopians (especially "troglodyte aethiopians") no surprise they became darker. Even a ancient african poet (Luxorius) actually criticized their dark skin :
The aesthetic prejudice appears with much clearness, at the end of the ancient period it is true, in Luxorius, African poet exerting at the court of the Vandal kings, at the beginning of the VIth century AD. He opposes, in one of his poems, to the pretty pontic girl, who symbolizes the Nordic woman, a garamante ugly girl (foeda), symbolizing if not the Ethiopian woman, at least the southern type the most distant from the Nordic type
Wouldn't he just be appealing to the Vandals racial superiority complex as oppose to actually "criticizing" Garamante women's Black/dark complexion? Especially during Vandal rule, anti-Black references were prevalent at the time.
quote:a form of racial profiling and racist thinking expressed through skin colour prejudices against black peoples emerges in Latin satiric epigrams from the Anthologia Latina as the power centre shifts between white, ‘neutral‐coloured,’ and black ethnic communities.
quote:Luxorius' accentuation of Garamantian blackness with local colour and venom, like epigram 1a, suggests that his recondite appeal to pontic whiteness reflects Vandal heritage.
quote:For Luxorius' audience of Vandal kings and Roman-African dignitaries, the Pontica/Garamas dichotomy succinctly localizes the Scythian/Ethiopian ethnographic axis as it idealizes the 'Nordic' beauty of white Germanic, Vandal women (Desanges 1976: 312 n. 148; Thompsom 1989: n. 63).
quote:One such inscription from the Palermo Stone records the acquisition of some 7000 male and female slaves from the “Land of the Blacks” along with some 20,000 herd animals including cattle, sheep, and goats and what appears to have been 40 ships laden with cedar, along with other raw materials.
Now this is just a bogus mistranslation. There's no way that a Pharaoh would have designated their southern neighbor as "the land of the Blacks", especially from the fourth dynasty and you want to know why, because there's was a similar mistranslation by the 12th Dynasty Egyptian pharaoh Sesostris III where he said that he was ridiculing the "Blacks" when actuality it just a mistranslation by these racialist Egyptologists. The word that was used was "Nehesu", "Nubian" not "Black". see here for more about the word's misusage:
Luckily I was able to find an old thread that address this very mistranslation and guess what it was a mistranslation, just as I thought!
Then this shill quotes from Budge: Page 51 "Raid in the Land of the Blacks (i.e. the Sudan)" --Now, the only way one can say "Land of the Blacks" in Ancient Egyptian would be to say Ta ni Kememou, which we know refers to Ancient Egypt itself.
--What Budge probably did, and I would bet on it was to transliterate the text which probably read something like "Ta Nahasou", which has NO color connotation whatsoever, into "Land of the Blacks"; Which should have accurately been rendered "Land of the Sudanese"
c) Any further reading of Budges document quoted here which began this topic, the word "Blacks" should be replaced by "Sudanese"; Any Egyptologist would agree with me on this point.
quote:One such inscription from the Palermo Stone records the acquisition of some 7000 male and female slaves from the “Land of the Blacks” along with some 20,000 herd animals including cattle, sheep, and goats and what appears to have been 40 ships laden with cedar, along with other raw materials.
Now this is just a bogus mistranslation. There's no way that a Pharaoh would have designated their southern neighbor as "the land of the Blacks", especially from the fourth dynasty and you want to know why, because there's was a similar mistranslation by the 12th Dynasty Egyptian pharaoh Sesostris III where he said that he was ridiculing the "Blacks" when actuality it just a mistranslation by these racialist Egyptologists. The word that was used was "Nehesu", "Nubian" not "Black". see here for more about the word's misusage:
Luckily I was able to find an old thread that address this very mistranslation and guess what it was a mistranslation, just as I thought!
Then this shill quotes from Budge: Page 51 "Raid in the Land of the Blacks (i.e. the Sudan)" --Now, the only way one can say "Land of the Blacks" in Ancient Egyptian would be to say Ta ni Kememou, which we know refers to Ancient Egypt itself.
--What Budge probably did, and I would bet on it was to transliterate the text which probably read something like "Ta Nahasou", which has NO color connotation whatsoever, into "Land of the Blacks"; Which should have accurately been rendered "Land of the Sudanese"
c) Any further reading of Budges document quoted here which began this topic, the word "Blacks" should be replaced by "Sudanese"; Any Egyptologist would agree with me on this point.
Very interesting, and it's clear that there's a bunch of assuming in regards to a sitting Pharaoh, meant by his words. He, certainly, wasn't talking in racialized modern terms and any Egyptologist or person thinks that he was, is purely delusional. This is like mis-translating, Latin text, when they start referring to the Greeks or their neighbors.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Will you take your these arguments on the black identity of North Africans here??
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
SO FAR ONLY 13 INANE OR OFF TOPIC POSTS WERE REMOVED.
SADLY THE MAJORITY OF THESE LAST TWO PAGES WERE FAR BEING THE INTENDED SCOPE OF THE TOPIC. NEARLY 60 OR SO WORTHY OF DELETION. TYPICALLY (AND ON MOST OTHER FORUMS) THIS WOULD RESULT IN THE THREAD BEING CLOSED. IF THE INITIAL TOPIC IS EXHAUSTED AT THIS POINT THIS THREAD WILL BE CLOSED.
DUE TO THE ACTUAL ORIGINAL POSTER NOT BEING ACTIVE I'LL DIFFER TO THE PERSON WHO BUMPED THE THREAD (DJEHUTI) ON THIS MATTER.
////MOD Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
Do I have to hand out suspensions during Thanksgiving? Again, like @Elmaestro said, stay on topic.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
The chair! Give em THE CHAIR!! Charbroil the bass tur...
Please delete Smith & Cross in the egg nog Askia That ol devil rumbullion is to blame for my ill attempt at 90s humour.
Have a lil Thanksgiving mercy on their blanched souls Askia kindly direct them to other threads or to make new threads? I learned a lot from Ty and Tuval about stuff 'I already knew'. I mean Hachid is like one of the top three aMazigh specialist ranked/noted by multidisciplinarians and respected by AmazighWorld.org too. Wouldn't happened without Aunt Alice, er, Antalas.
Maybe he not one of them but we get intelligent iMazighen once in a while and have even turned some open minds to raw data facts and less 16th-20th century type interpretations of less but still 'qualifyable' finds.
Wouldja believe Runtz w/t nog & rum
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Abstract The study of genetic correlation between ethnic groups, constituting one nation, is an important issue. This work aims to study the correlation between allele frequencies of nine Short Tandem Repeats (STRs) autosomal loci (D3S1358, VWA, FGA, THO1, TPOX, CSF1PO, D5S818, D13S317, and D7S820) for the main two Egyptian ethnic groups, Muslims and Christians, in order to test the hypothesis of a common ancestral for the whole Egyptian population. Each group is represented by a sample of 100 unrelated healthy individuals. The genetic correlation of the two ethnic groups is investigated using alleles' frequencies statistics, forensic efficiency parameters and populations' homogeneity charts. Graphical methods were used to check the harmony between the two ethnic groups. The results support that Egyptian Muslims and Egyptian Christians genetically originate from the same ancestors. Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Coptic Woman, Egypt Circa 1900 // Tirage argentique //
Abstract The study of genetic correlation between ethnic groups, constituting one nation, is an important issue. This work aims to study the correlation between allele frequencies of nine Short Tandem Repeats (STRs) autosomal loci (D3S1358, VWA, FGA, THO1, TPOX, CSF1PO, D5S818, D13S317, and D7S820) for the main two Egyptian ethnic groups, Muslims and Christians, in order to test the hypothesis of a common ancestral for the whole Egyptian population. Each group is represented by a sample of 100 unrelated healthy individuals. The genetic correlation of the two ethnic groups is investigated using alleles' frequencies statistics, forensic efficiency parameters and populations' homogeneity charts. Graphical methods were used to check the harmony between the two ethnic groups. The results support that Egyptian Muslims and Egyptian Christians genetically originate from the same ancestors.
Okay this confirms what everyone suspects but then what exactly are the differences between Muslims and Copts?? I suspect the main differences to be on the paternal side since ever since the Islamic conquest there has been a tradition of Muslim men kidnapping and/or forcing Coptic women into marriage.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
The 2004 Luis, Underhill, et ales. study shows modern Egyptians at least from the Cairo area to rougly possess 46.3% African paternal lineages (A, E3b, & E3a)
According to a recent genomic analysis of modern Egyptians by National Geographic, modern Egyptians are 68% North African and 17% Arab along with admixture from other ancestries, though I believe the study is based on autosomal DNA.
Of course the study includes all modern Egyptians both Copt and Muslim. But if you add the 3% East African ancestry, then that gives us a total of 71% African ancestry.
Recall the autosomal comparison of the Abusir Mummies with modern Egyptians:
* ANA (Ancient North African) ancestry appears to be most heavily concentrated in Northeast African populations, although West and Central Africans, as well as ancient Maghrebis, have some ANA as well. * Various ancient populations in West Eurasia have small but significant ANA ancestry components as well. Minoans actually have a rather large chunk of it as far as EEF-descended populations go. * The Abusir el Meleq mummies have less ANA than modern Egyptians (either Coptic or Muslim). The former have approximately as much ANA as Natufians. Make of that what you will.
So modern Egyptians not only possess more SSA ancetry than the ancient (at least Abusir samples) but also ANA ancestry as well. What does this mean?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ You can add the genetic data with what available data we have on skelatal features of Medieval and Modern Egyptians which isn't much. The material below is what I've been able to scrape in such short notice:
Ahmad Batrawi, (1945) "The Racial History of Egypt and Nubia", The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute
Since early neolithic times there existed two distinct but closely related types, a northern in Lower Egypt and a southern in Upper Egypt. The southern Egyptians were distinguished from the northerners by a smaller cranial index, a larger nasal index and greater prognathism. The geographical distinction between the two groups continued during the Pre-Dynastic Period. The Upper Egyptians, however, spread into lower Nubia during that period. By the beginning of the Dynastic era the northern Egyptian type is encountered for the first time in the Thebaïd, i.e., in the southern territory. The incursion, however, seems to have been transitory and the effects of the co-existence of the two types in one locality remained very transient until the 18th Dynasty. From this time onwards the northern type prevailed all over Egypt, as far south as Denderah, till the end of the Roman period. In Lower Nubia a slight infiltration of negroid influence is observed during the Middle Kingdom times. In the New Empire period, however, the southern Egyptian type prevails again. After the New Empire a fresh and much stronger negro influence becomes discernable till the end of the Roman period.
There is a wide gap in our knowledge of the racial history of the two countries during the Christian and Islamic periods, owing to the lack of an adequate amount of relevant material. The study of the available measurements of the living, however, apparently suggests that the modern population all over Egypt conforms more closely to the southern type. The mean measurements for the modern Nubians are rather curious. The average cephalic index for them is significantly larger than that for the Egyptians. This is contrary to expectation based on knowledge of the characteristics of the ancient populations. No satisfactory explanation could be suggested.
The distribution of blood groups in present-day Egypt shows that the mass of population is very homogeneous and there are no significant differences, in this respect, between the Moslems and the Copts. Comparisons of head and body measurements suggest the same conclusion.
Then there's Observations on Egyptian Ethnography Derived from Anatomy, History, and the Monuments by Samuel George Morton (1848)[scroll down to page 147 for his observation on the Copts]. I know, not only is this a very old piece of work but the author Morton is an overt racist however this does not invalidate his overall observations that modern Copts show more "negroid" features than dynastic Egyptians to which he considers the Coptic people by and large a "mulatto race".
Morton's successor Carlton Coon (another racist) makes a similar conclusion in his 1965 work Races of Man in his section on 'Races of Africa': The Egyptians When the invading Arabs reached the Nile Valley, some stayed in the cities, but most of them moved on, because the country was already densely populated, and with more than one kind of people. Since predynastic times, various invaders had settled in the Delta and on the banks of the Nile. And after the Arabs had come and gone, the Turks took over, bringing with them Caucasians, Albanians, and other fellow Muslims.
It is the fellahin and the Copts who most faithfully represent in a physical sense their already mixed ancestors, the Ancient Egyptians. They are people of medium stature and physique, brown-skinned, most of them with curly hair, with brown eyes except that 10 percent have mixed or light-colored eyes. They have straight nasal profiles, nasal tips of medium size, lips of medium thickness, and moderate beard development. They look like what they are – the product of an ancient blend of Europid and indigenous African elements, reinforced from time to time by Europid elements from Europe and Western Asia, and African elements from the Sudan.
Finally, I have the 1972 paper from M. F. Gaballah , El-Rakhawy & El-Eishi On the Craniological Study of Egyptians in Various Periods: The post- Roman period The post-Roman period, due to marked paucity of relevant material, is considered to be a gap in the knowledge about the physical history of Egypt (Morant, 1925 and Batrawi, 1946). A single sample of the early Christian period (4th—7th A. D.) was excavated from a cemetery near Magageh (Middle Egypt) and investigated by Munter. Out of the 78 skulls brought, 14 were found of young age and hence excluded, while the remaining 64 were treated as one group without sex separation. Morant (1928), however, sexed this material and found that 38 skull were males. These data (computed by Morant) were investigated by Batrawi (1946), using the reduced C. R. L. and were found to show no relation to any of the available Egyptian series. Accordingly, he suggested that this ancient Coptic group may be "a local community of alien origin". From the modern times only three series were recorded. Myers (1905), quoted by Batrawi (1946), studied 47 skulls said to be from Cairo, but due to their marked heterogeneity (the standard deviation of skull length is 8.02, these materials were considered unreliable for comparative purposes). The second modern cranial sample (60 males and 27 females) was collected by Mook from a cemetery near Cairo. The skulls were measured by E. Schmidt, their means were reduced by Alice Lee and then used by Fawcett (1902) for comparison with the predynastic material from Naqada. The material was described "to be almost certainly Copts". The third sample of modern skulls was examined by Sidney Smith (1926) during his work as an expert in the Forensic Department at Cairo. He studied 58 male skulls of both Moslems and Copts, 20 of them were said to be those of criminals, while the other 30 were brought out from a modern coptic cemetery. He pointed out that the modern Egyptian skull is characterized by having a markedly high and narrow calvaria with a very low acroplatic index (100 B-H'/L). The face is more Negroid and accordingly, he stated that the modern Egyptians are more similar to the predynastic than to the dynastic populations. S. Smith was of the opinion that this reversion of type towards that of the prehistoric times was due to progressive elimination of alien racial elements suggested to have been introduced into Egypt during the dynastic period. His c}ata were also analysed by Batrawi (1946) by the use of the reduced C.R.L. They were found to be closely related to those data of the early dynastic (private tombs, Abydos), middle dynastic (Koubanieh North) and middle predynastic series (Naqada A & Q). It is clear from the foregoing, that the post-Roman period was scarcely investigated and our knowledge about the racial history of Egypt during the last fourteen centuries is nearly lacking. Only one group was examined from the ancient Coptic period, practically no material was obtained from the early Islamic period and a few cranial samples were studied from the modern times.
So I take it Gaballah and them are suggesting some sort of reversion back to the Badarian type(?)
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
So far no Egyptian mummy tested that is older than late period has been determined North African
^ What other Egyptian mummies were DNA tested and their results published? As I understand it, multiple mummies from as early as the Old Kingdom were tested since the 90s but their results were not released to the public. Why is that?
Posted by SlimJim (Member # 23217) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ What other Egyptian mummies were DNA tested and their results published? As I understand it, multiple mummies from as early as the Old Kingdom were tested since the 90s but their results were not released to the public. Why is that?
Just something to look out for.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ What other Egyptian mummies were DNA tested and their results published? As I understand it, multiple mummies from as early as the Old Kingdom were tested since the 90s but their results were not released to the public. Why is that?
I think this may be the same upcoming sample that was described as "mostly North African" during the Old Kingdom here.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ What other Egyptian mummies were DNA tested and their results published? As I understand it, multiple mummies from as early as the Old Kingdom were tested since the 90s but their results were not released to the public. Why is that?
Fourteen mummies, New Kingdom & Middle Kingdom, none of the DNA classified as "North African"
total 11 mummies New Kingdom 4 Abusir el-Meleq, 6 Amarna, 2 Rameses and son
Three Middle Kingdom males but mtDNA only 2 Nakht-Ankh, Khnum-Nakht (brothers 12th dyn) 1 Djehutynakht (11th or 12th dyn)
Contents 1 Ancient DNA
1.1 2017 DNA study 1.2 2018 Nakht-Ankh and Khnum-Nakht 1.3 2018 mitochondrial DNA of Djehutynakht 1.4 2012, Ramesses III 1.5 2020 Tutankhamun and other mummies of the 18th Dynasty 1.6 2020 Paleogenetic Study of Ancient Mummies at the Kurchatov Institute
_____________________________________
The 4 Abusir New Kingdom (above table of contents as "2017 DNA study" all 4 mtDNA only, these are not the 3 tested for full genome
this, I believe is because the term can be defined in too many different ways and most often including ancestry mixed from the above groups,
West African
East African
Middle Eastern
European Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
^ What type(s) of genetic/genomic ancestry? Cerny started out honest a decade ago, I still trust him.
=-=-=-=
And just what is ANA? I honestly have no idea. Is it found in samples ancient or modern or is it just a made up statistical artifact? Not that that would necessarily make it invalid.
But do I recall Beduin and Natufi stats showing no Africa ancestry whereas their tangible physical remains data sniffed it out.
So if ANA is stats you all can have it, but please gimme the primer on it anyway, thanks tL and all. In fact I'd like all ANA 'advocates' to seperately and w/o collusion, post their understanding of it Monday at 6PM EST if at all possible.
Abstract The study of genetic correlation between ethnic groups, constituting one nation, is an important issue. This work aims to study the correlation between allele frequencies of nine Short Tandem Repeats (STRs) autosomal loci (D3S1358, VWA, FGA, THO1, TPOX, CSF1PO, D5S818, D13S317, and D7S820) for the main two Egyptian ethnic groups, Muslims and Christians, in order to test the hypothesis of a common ancestral for the whole Egyptian population. Each group is represented by a sample of 100 unrelated healthy individuals. The genetic correlation of the two ethnic groups is investigated using alleles' frequencies statistics, forensic efficiency parameters and populations' homogeneity charts. Graphical methods were used to check the harmony between the two ethnic groups. The results support that Egyptian Muslims and Egyptian Christians genetically originate from the same ancestors.
I like it when scientists findings fit history now enough of this (religious) Copts are Greeks or Judaeans when the word's usage was simply E g-y-p-t and Q-i-b-t applied to all native Egyptians "pure" or "admixed".
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
^ According to the above Sudanese Copts have slightly more Middle Eastern ancestry and no West African ancestry in contrast to the Egyptians who also have more European ancestry.
Compare with these admixture charts from other studies:
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
You should list sources, the keys are there
1) The genetics of East African populations: a Nilo-Saharan component in the African genetic landscape Begoña Dobon, 2015
2) lower is the Abusir-el-Meleq: Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods 2017
^^ In the upper chart, Dobon 2015, with the K runs >>
North African/Middle Eastern (dark blue),
Sub-Saharan (light blue),
Coptic (dark green),
Nilo-Saharan (light green)
and Fulani (pink).
MKK = Maasai from Kinyawa, Kenya; LWK = Luhya from Webuye, Kenya; YRI = Yoruba from Ibadan, Nigeria.
"European" not indicated
________________________________
compare to
fig 2
Human Genomic Diversity Where the Mediterranean Joins the Atlantic 2020
Iberia (IBS), Great Britain (GBR), Tuscany (TSI), CEU (Central European ancestry, Utah sample)
the SNPs would probably correspond to STR,
.
SNPs & STRs frequently do not correspond. I'm thinking as in the Amarna male royals.
Was the nrY R1b whilst the autosomes pointed mostly to Inner African but not to Bight of Biafra or Lake Tchad shored Africans where that nrY uniparental has always been concentrated.
The bi-parentals amounted to, was it, 8 or 16 pieces of information arbitrarily from both parents. SNPs, unless also autosomal, consistantly transmit 1 piece of information from either parent.
A person's or geographic population's SNPs show deep ancestry sometimes far back as the Pleistocene no matter the locale. various local geo-pops with the same SNP will have different STRs 'pin-pointing' their local sub-geography/region/'district' etc. Once thought good for only 500 years back, scientists now allow them accurate as early as the very beginning of the Holocene.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
Razib Khan's analysis of Copts
Listened to a podcast in which he was a guest.
Claims that Copts have zero European, and zero sub saharan african DNA and that makes them a pure middle eastern population par excellence.
Yes in one of his article he also highlights continuity between ancient and modern egyptians :
quote:Ideologically motivated arguments by American Afrocentrists, that ancient Egyptians were black and replaced later by invaders from the Arabian peninsula abound, while recently a British tabloid trumpeted the headline “Ancient Egyptians more closely related to Europeans than modern Egyptians, scientists claim.” But the genetic reality is a bit more complicated (or perhaps boring?) than either of these suspiciously dramatic caricatures. Unsurprisingly, if you dig into the actual abstruse statistics, and caveats in said paper, they rather undermine such glitzy conclusions. Contra the headline, the people of the pharaohs are surprisingly little changed in the intervening millennia and they are right where you’d expect them.
Ideologically motivated arguments by American Afrocentrists, that ancient Egyptians were black and replaced later by invaders from the Arabian.
Did he really say that? Because that didn't disprove the ancient Egyptians weren't Black and population movement did occur in Egypt and others part's of Africa.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Razib Khan's analysis of Copts
Listened to a podcast in which he was a guest.
Claims that Copts have zero European, and zero sub saharan african DNA and that makes them a pure middle eastern population par excellence.
I'm listening to some of this are there controls here to forward the podcast? It doesn't seem so
While some people might be of the same haplogroup as certain ancient Egyptians it doesn't mean the person has any actual descendant ancestry from an Egyptian.
A Copt may have more admixture but they also can be more likely to have some part actual genetic descendance from an ancient Egyptian
________________________________
wiki:
Copts
genetics
According to Y-DNA analysis by Hassan et al. (2008), around 45% of Copts in Sudan carry the Haplogroup J. The remainder mainly belong to the E1b1b clade (21%). Both paternal lineages are common among other local Afroasiatic-speaking populations (Beja, Ethiopians, Sudanese Arabs), as well as the Nubians.[139] E1b1b/E3b reaches its highest frequencies among North Africans, Levantine Middle Easterners, and Ethiopid East Africans.[140] The next most common haplogroups borne by Copts are the European-linked R1b clade (15%), as well as the archaic African B lineage (15%).[139]
Maternally, Hassan (2009) found that Copts in Sudan exclusively carry various descendants of the macrohaplogroup N. This mtDNA clade is likewise closely associated with local Afroasiatic-speaking populations, including Berbers and Ethiopid peoples. Of the N derivatives borne by Copts, U6 is most frequent (28%), followed by the haplogroup T (17%).[141]
A 2015 study by Dobon et al. identified an ancestral autosomal component of Western Eurasian origin that is common to many modern Afroasiatic-speaking populations in Northeast Africa. Known as the Coptic component, it peaks among Egyptian Copts who settled in Sudan over the past two centuries. In their analysis, Sudan's Copts formed a separated group in the PCA, a close outlier to other Egyptians, Afro-Asiatic-speaking Northeast Africans and Middle East populations. The scientists suggest that this points to a common origin for the general population of Egypt, or Middle Eastern and North African populations. Copts in general shared the same main ancestral component with North African/Middle Eastern populations. They also associate the Coptic component with Ancient Egyptian ancestry, without the later Arabian influence that is present among other Egyptians.[142]
Hollfelder et al. (2017) analysed various populations in Sudan and observed that Egyptians and Copts showed low levels of genetic differentiation and lower levels of genetic diversity compared to the northeast African groups. Copts and Egyptians displayed similar levels of European or Middle Eastern ancestry (Copts were estimated to be of 69.54% ± 2.57 European ancestry, and the Egyptians of 70.65% ± 2.47 European ancestry). The authors concluded that the Copts and the Egyptians have a common history linked to smaller population sizes, and that Sudanese Copts have remained relatively isolated since their arrival to Sudan with only low levels of admixture with local northeastern Sudanese groups.[143]
An allele frequency comparative study conducted in 2020 between the two main Egyptian ethnic groups, Muslims and Christians, supported the conclusion that Egyptian Muslims and Egyptian Christians genetically originate from the same ancestors.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
But specifically which Copts? 'Copt' technically speaking is a religious denomination. You have Copts from Alexandria to Aswan and even Sudan. You mean to tell me they all share the same exact ancestry?
You expect me to believe the Coptic man Antalas points in the Youtube video looks anything like the ancient portraits?
Also, they claim some 'North African' which like 'Sub-Saharan' ancestry is ambiguous and not that specific, especially considering that Northeast Africans are genetically distinct from Maghrebi (Northwest Africans) and again they tie North Africa to Middle-East to then create the amorphous MENA. Slim Jim knows what I'm getting at when they attempt to muddy the waters and ignore the implications on the nature and origins of Basal Eurasian. Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: Ideologically motivated arguments by American Afrocentrists, that ancient Egyptians were black and replaced later by invaders from the Arabian.
Did he really say that? Because that didn't disprove the ancient Egyptians weren't Black and population movement did occur in Egypt and others part's of Africa.
He was historically wrong on so much...
Kahn/Con tried to come across as blazey blazey on the subject of ancient Egyptians at the same time revealing how he hustle is as a social media geneticist...
Anyhoo.. his eternal nile begins around 1650 bc. during the known migration of the hyskos...
Hardly eternal
However, many Copts look like mixed black people to me. So if they are the "egyptian" population after thousands of years of mixing, it makes sense.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Id be careful at saying they're purely the result of "Mixing" because there were Asiatic/Levantine types in Egypt for a long time, even people like Keita points this out.
The Mixing could've occured way back even during Dynastic History and they'd be represented in AE...
But I get what you mean tho...
This is the man from Archeo's DNA video with another Egyptian (a family member I assume)..
J/S If they literally came to my family reunion and pretended to be related to the fam Like Oh Hey we found yall on Ancestry... no one would question them
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey:
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: Ideologically motivated arguments by American Afrocentrists, that ancient Egyptians were black and replaced later by invaders from the Arabian.
Did he really say that? Because that didn't disprove the ancient Egyptians weren't Black and population movement did occur in Egypt and others part's of Africa.
He was historically wrong on so much...
Kahn/Con tried to come across as blazey blazey on the subject of ancient Egyptians at the same time revealing how he hustle is as a social media geneticist...
Anyhoo.. his eternal nile begins around 1650 bc. during the known migration of the hyskos...
Hardly eternal
However, many Copts look like mixed black people to me. So if they are the "egyptian" population after thousands of years of mixing, it makes sense.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
Why do you guys always make comparison with afro-americans/afro-latinos ? These people have european if not amerindian admixture. No people in west africa would view these copts as "being related to the fam"
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Of course you are too obtuse to understand it's not about "West" Africans ancestry but African ancestry in general. Copts are NOT an ethnic group but a religious sect or denomination of Christianity. Why do you only post picture of fair-skinned (white) Copts from Alexandria who carry European ancestry but no Copts from Upper Egypt like Luxor, Sohag, or Minya??
Can you tell which are the Khawaga (foreigners) and which are the Baladi?
The most famous Coptic Saint, St. Maurius a.k.a. Maurice of Thebes.
Maurius was not his real name but was a title given to him due to an obvious physical trait.
Speaking of which here is an excellent article on the issue of Colorism in the Coptic Community: Historically, in just about every part of the world, those with lighter skin have been seen as more favorable and more attractive, as compared to those with darker skin. This has been especially prevalent in Asian, African and South American countries. This is referred to as colorism. Colorism is defined as “a form of racial discrimination based on the shade of an individual’s skin tone, typically favoring lighter skin. It can occur both within a specific ethnic group and across ethnic groups.”
To feed our curiosity about what our fellow Egyptians have experienced with colorism, Marianne Melleka Boules and I decided to compose a simple survey on Survey Monkey, consisting of 10 questions. In total, we received 33 responses: 24 women and nine men. The ages of respondents ranged from 21-56 years old. 21 respondents were born in the U.S., one was born in England, and 11 people were born in Egypt. Currently, one person resides in England, one in Germany, one in Egypt, and 30 in U.S.
On a scale of 0-100, 0 being the lightest skin tone, 100 being the darkest, the average answer was 44. Interestingly enough, the majority of responders perceived their skin tone as lighter than what they believed others perceived them to be.
Seven people responded that, yes, they had been bullied based on their skin tone. Some were told that they were “too dark.” Others were told they were too “fair skinned” to be Egyptian. One woman reported that while she wasn’t bullied based on her skin tone, but rather on her hair type; She was specifically told that her hair type resembled “pubic hair.”
10 of the 33 people remarked they had heard negative comments about their skin tone from their family or community. The majority of these 10 people reported that they were told that they are “too dark,” compared to lighter skinned cousins, and oftentimes advised to stay out of the sun. Surprisingly, a few noted they heard negative comments about being “too light-skinned” and being “adopted.”
Three people reported wanting to have darker skin when they were asked about wanting to change their skin tone. Two of the three noted wanting to have darker skin to look “more” Egyptian. One respondent said, “I used to wish that I had darker skin, so I could fit in with the Egyptian community at church.”
Another said, “I wish I could be darker, so I could be accepted as an Egyptian.” Two respondents reported to wishing their skin tone was lighter. One person said, “When I was a child I used to often wish I was blue-eyed and blonde… I used to cry in front of the mirror yelling ‘why me, it’s not fair I am so ugly… and I am a male.”
Another said, “I tried to scrub my ‘darkness’ away in the shower, and had civic fantasies about what I would look like if I was just a few shades lighter.”
Those reporting a desire to be lighter skinned was consistent to what we hypothesized we’d find, given the cultural pull towards lighter skin. The desire to be darker skinned, however, was surprising, but contextually sensible, result. Given the universal desire to fit in and belong, it appears as though those on the ends of the color spectrum just had a desire to be towards the middle and be closer to the norm. This mirrors my own experience. Having lighter skin, hair, and eyes, as a child, I longed for darker features in order to look more “Egyptian.”
I do find it refreshing and fascinating that the majority of responders reported feeling more content and accepting of their skin tone. I wonder if this is in response to much of the societal feedback we’ve received in recent years on “accepting ourselves as we are.”
So it looks like Copts face the same problems of colorism Diasporan blacks face everywhere else, except note that dark (black) skin is noted to be the 'normal' Coptic look.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
(I had to track this picture source down, other readers might not know how, they might just take it for granted these are Copts)
This man and his wife (?) visit a Coptic church in a small town in Luxor He says "I was unable to find anyone that spoke English so this is my view of things as seen."
and one of the photos on the blog also says in fine hard to notice print: "Locals in front of Mosque"
so we don't know who the people are in some of these photos, who is a member of the Coptic church, who is a member of the mosque and what the demographics are
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Of course you are too obtuse to understand it's not about "West" Africans ancestry but African ancestry in general. Copts are NOT an ethnic group but a religious sect or denomination of Christianity. Why do you only post picture of fair-skinned (white) Copts from Alexandria who carry European ancestry but no Copts from Upper Egypt like Luxor, Sohag, or Minya??
Can you tell which are the Khawaga (foreigners) and which are the Baladi?
The most famous Coptic Saint, St. Maurius a.k.a. Maurice of Thebes.
Maurius was not his real name but was a title given to him due to an obvious physical trait.
Speaking of which here is an excellent article on the issue of Colorism in the Coptic Community: Historically, in just about every part of the world, those with lighter skin have been seen as more favorable and more attractive, as compared to those with darker skin. This has been especially prevalent in Asian, African and South American countries. This is referred to as colorism. Colorism is defined as “a form of racial discrimination based on the shade of an individual’s skin tone, typically favoring lighter skin. It can occur both within a specific ethnic group and across ethnic groups.”
To feed our curiosity about what our fellow Egyptians have experienced with colorism, Marianne Melleka Boules and I decided to compose a simple survey on Survey Monkey, consisting of 10 questions. In total, we received 33 responses: 24 women and nine men. The ages of respondents ranged from 21-56 years old. 21 respondents were born in the U.S., one was born in England, and 11 people were born in Egypt. Currently, one person resides in England, one in Germany, one in Egypt, and 30 in U.S.
On a scale of 0-100, 0 being the lightest skin tone, 100 being the darkest, the average answer was 44. Interestingly enough, the majority of responders perceived their skin tone as lighter than what they believed others perceived them to be.
Seven people responded that, yes, they had been bullied based on their skin tone. Some were told that they were “too dark.” Others were told they were too “fair skinned” to be Egyptian. One woman reported that while she wasn’t bullied based on her skin tone, but rather on her hair type; She was specifically told that her hair type resembled “pubic hair.”
10 of the 33 people remarked they had heard negative comments about their skin tone from their family or community. The majority of these 10 people reported that they were told that they are “too dark,” compared to lighter skinned cousins, and oftentimes advised to stay out of the sun. Surprisingly, a few noted they heard negative comments about being “too light-skinned” and being “adopted.”
Three people reported wanting to have darker skin when they were asked about wanting to change their skin tone. Two of the three noted wanting to have darker skin to look “more” Egyptian. One respondent said, “I used to wish that I had darker skin, so I could fit in with the Egyptian community at church.”
Another said, “I wish I could be darker, so I could be accepted as an Egyptian.” Two respondents reported to wishing their skin tone was lighter. One person said, “When I was a child I used to often wish I was blue-eyed and blonde… I used to cry in front of the mirror yelling ‘why me, it’s not fair I am so ugly… and I am a male.”
Another said, “I tried to scrub my ‘darkness’ away in the shower, and had civic fantasies about what I would look like if I was just a few shades lighter.”
Those reporting a desire to be lighter skinned was consistent to what we hypothesized we’d find, given the cultural pull towards lighter skin. The desire to be darker skinned, however, was surprising, but contextually sensible, result. Given the universal desire to fit in and belong, it appears as though those on the ends of the color spectrum just had a desire to be towards the middle and be closer to the norm. This mirrors my own experience. Having lighter skin, hair, and eyes, as a child, I longed for darker features in order to look more “Egyptian.”
I do find it refreshing and fascinating that the majority of responders reported feeling more content and accepting of their skin tone. I wonder if this is in response to much of the societal feedback we’ve received in recent years on “accepting ourselves as we are.”
So it looks like Copts face the same problems of colorism Diasporan blacks face everywhere else, except note that dark (black) skin is noted to be the 'normal' Coptic look.
I actually already posted many examples of copts from upper egypt and Sudan here
Thanks for confirming they don't look black let alone like AAs and just stop being pathetic with your colorism pls nobody cares about skin color we debate over facial features and ancestry.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ All of your pictures only confirm my original point-- that Copts are not a single homogeneous group of singular ethnic ancestry but a heterogeneous mixture who form a religious community.
As for them not looking "black".
ROTFLOL
Because according to you 'black' means looking Congolese.
Meanwhile the colorism article makes it clear that dark-skin is identified with being "authentic Egyptian"; there's a reason Saint Maurius is portrayed the way he is; and why Diasporan blacks in the West who visit Egypt often get mistaken for a Baladi such was the case of the late Frank Yurco's Afro-Caribbean wife as well as so many countless cases as well as the converse-- Egyptians being mistaken for Black Diasporans in America, Canada, UK, Australia, etc. etc..
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ All of your pictures only confirm my original point-- that Copts are not a single homogeneous group of singular ethnic ancestry but a heterogeneous mixture who form a religious community.
sure and I suppose they can only be "mixed" when levantine ancestry is involved of course copts absorbing nubians or christian horners is certainly not going to alter anything
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: As for them not looking "black".
ROTFLOL
Because according to you 'black' means looking Congolese.
Meanwhile the colorism article makes it clear that dark-skin is identified with being "authentic Egyptian"; there's a reason Saint Maurius is portrayed the way he is; and why Diasporan blacks in the West who visit Egypt often get mistaken for a Baladi such was the case of the late Frank Yurco's Afro-Caribbean wife as well as so many countless cases as well as the converse-- Egyptians being mistaken for Black Diasporans in America, Canada, UK, Australia, etc. etc.. [/qb]
dark skin doesn't mean looking black it means looking like most egyptians
obviously these kind of egyptians :
We'll struggle to feel egyptian when they are surrounded by people who look like this :
also Like I said nobody cares about skin color this is not what defines the ancestry or "race" of a population. Egyptians whether today or in the past could have been pitch black like dinka they would have still not be black.
Posted by nee4speed111 (Member # 22573) on :
We are an ethno-religious group, the point about phenotype is a bit odd as copts as a whole are genetically close to one another, regional variation is quite small. We don't have a ethnic distinction between "light" or "dark" copts other than perhaps the obvious observation that some of us can be light and some of us can be darkskinned, but this doesn't really tell you much about our individual genetics.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Yes Copts form a single ethno-religious community but there are differences in look depending on region and local. Antalas though only counts the fair-skinned ones as legitimate and dismisses darker types as "Nubians". LOL
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: dark skin doesn't mean looking black it means looking like most egyptians
obviously these kind of egyptians :
^ Obviously the above Egyptians you posted are NOT dark-skinned at all but fair-skinned that is WHITE!! They are Afrangi who represent the ruling elites of the country and are not even of Arab ancestry but rather Turkish, Circassian, or even European descent!
quote:We'll struggle to feel egyptian when they are surrounded by people who look like this :
^ But anyone with eyes can clearly see the black faces in the top picture.
quote:also Like I said nobody cares about skin color this is not what defines the ancestry or "race" of a population. Egyptians whether today or in the past could have been pitch black like dinka they would have still not be black.
What you said makes absolutely NO sense. "Black" is a label referring to very dark skin color. How could someone be "pitch black" in color but not be black?! LMAO
As far as ancestry, they are African thus black African and NO black African is not confined to Sub-Sahara as was shown to you multiple times.
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Someone who has any info about the percentage of people who are "white", "black" or "medium" (regarding skin color) in todays Egypt? How is the percentage in other North African countries?
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
What you said makes absolutely NO sense. "Black" is a label referring to very dark skin color. How could someone be "pitch black" in color but not be black?! LMAO
Maybe the old designation "negroid" would be most suitable here. People can be "black" without being "negroid".
Here is one definition of negroid:
quote: Negroid (less commonly called Congoid) is an obsolete racial grouping of various people indigenous to Africa south of the area which stretched from the southern Sahara desert in the west to the African Great Lakes in the southeast, but also to isolated parts of South and Southeast Asia (Negritos). The term is derived from now-discredited conceptions of race as a biological category.
This Copt gentlemen resembles famed African American jazz singer Patti Austin
Posted by Tazarah (Member # 23365) on :
Document from the 7th century, translated from arabic. It's an eyewitness account that describes what the invading muslim arabs saw when they first arrived in Egypt.
According to the document, Copts, Abyssinians (Ethiopians) and Nubians were unable to be distinguished from one another.
Ethiopians and Nubians are both black "sub-saharan african" populations. So if another population could not be distinguished from them, then that's very telling.
"A Short History of the Copts and of Their Church" by The Rev. S.C. Malan, M.A., page 72 (1873) D. Nutt
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Someone who has any info about the percentage of people who are "white", "black" or "medium" (regarding skin color) in todays Egypt? How is the percentage in other North African countries?
That is a difficult task namely because such labels used in North Africa are the reverse of Western nations like the U.S. For example in the U.S. the so-called "one drop rule" or rather "black hint" is used where anyone with discernable African ancestry is called "black" no matter how light. People who are biracial or even "quadroon" 3-4ths white are still called 'black' as a historical way to bastardize blacks and prevent them from integrating into the greater white society. In Africa in general but especially North Africa, the practice is reversed where any white ancestry makes the person "white" and that includes Arab ancestry no matter how dark the skin coloring. This is why even North Sudanese either call themselves "white" or more commonly other euphemisms like "brown" or even "green" if very dark (black). To complicate things even more is that the U.S. federal census also used to classify all North Africans as "white". Hilariously, years ago a Nubian-Egyptian even sued the federal government for denying his black identity! LOL
quote: Maybe the old designation "negroid" would be most suitable here. People can be "black" without being "negroid".
Here is one definition of negroid:
quote: Negroid (less commonly called Congoid) is an obsolete racial grouping of various people indigenous to Africa south of the area which stretched from the southern Sahara desert in the west to the African Great Lakes in the southeast, but also to isolated parts of South and Southeast Asia (Negritos). The term is derived from now-discredited conceptions of race as a biological category.
Yes, and the wiki article explains why the racial term is obsolete. "Negroid" refers to a specific facial morphology which is not confined to Sub-Saharans.
Hence why you have Southeast Asian aboriginals are also "negroid" such as the Andamanese below:
Not to mention Paleo-Americans and prehistoric Siberians who also exhibit "negroid" features. The same holds true for so-called "caucasoid" classification and the morphological features associated with that.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tazarah: ..Ethiopians and Nubians are both black "sub-saharan african" populations. So if another population could not be distinguished from them, then that's very telling.
Actually, Nubians are not Sub-Saharans but North Africans. Ethiopians are Sub-Saharans but obviously there is relation between both and both are black peoples.
quote:
"A Short History of the Copts and of Their Church" by The Rev. S.C. Malan, M.A., page 72 (1873) D. Nutt
The other portion was the whole people of Egypt, who were Qibt, and were of mixed descent; among whom one could not distinguish Qibt from Abbysinian, Nubian, or Israelite; and they were all Jacobites. Some of them were writers in government offices, others were merchants and tradesmen, others were bishops and presbyters and such like, others were tillers of the land in the country, while others were of the class of servants and domestics. But between these and the Melkite ruling population, marriages were not allowed, from mutual hatred of each other, often carried to murders on either side.
---The Sheikh and Imam Taqi-ed-din El-Maqrizi of Cairo from Baalbek, History of the Copts and of their Church
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
What you said makes absolutely NO sense. "Black" is a label referring to very dark skin color. How could someone be "pitch black" in color but not be black?! LMAO
Maybe the old designation "negroid" would be most suitable here. People can be "black" without being "negroid".
Here is one definition of negroid:
quote: Negroid (less commonly called Congoid) is an obsolete racial grouping of various people indigenous to Africa south of the area which stretched from the southern Sahara desert in the west to the African Great Lakes in the southeast, but also to isolated parts of South and Southeast Asia (Negritos). The term is derived from now-discredited conceptions of race as a biological category.
"Negroid" isn't much better since it still has as an etymological root the Spanish word for the color black.
Personally, I feel that "equatorial African" would be more accurate for the suite of facial features and other physical traits that our French troll is intent on equating with "black". But then, I am pretty sure his opponent DJ does not maintain that ancient Egyptians or other ancient North Africans necessarily all had that equatorial phenotype. From what I have seen, DJ at least has been pretty consistent in using "black" and "white" to describe skin tones regardless of what ethnicity the people he's describing belong to. So, by insisting that AE etc. didn't look equatorial, our troll is either attacking a strawman or doesn't understand what his opposition actually believes.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Here is the rest of the passage:
The other portion was the whole people of Egypt, who were Qibt, and were of mixed descent; among whom one could not distinguish Qibt from Abbysinian, Nubian, or Israelite; and they were all Jacobites. Some of them were writers in government offices, others were merchants and tradesmen, others were bishops and presbyters and such like, others were tillers of the land in the country, while others were of the class of servants and domestics. But between these and the Melkite ruling population, marriages were not allowed, from mutual hatred of each other, often carried to murders on either side.
---The Sheikh and Imam Taqi-ed-din El-Maqrizi of Cairo from Baalbek, History of the Copts and of their Church
I wonder if those Melkites nonetheless somehow got absorbed into the Coptic population after the Islamic conquest? My understanding is that Egyptian Christians are generally endogamous, preferring to marry other Christians instead of interbreeding with the larger Muslim population.
Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
What you said makes absolutely NO sense. "Black" is a label referring to very dark skin color. How could someone be "pitch black" in color but not be black?! LMAO
As far as ancestry, they are African thus black African and NO black African is not confined to Sub-Sahara as was shown to you multiple times. [/QB]
No "black" usually refers to people from sub-saharan africa who tend to share many physical traits in common and tend to form their own genetic clusters. the label "black" is like "european" "east asian". Many people in india are dark skinned and still aren't black nor related to black africans and they are genetically closer to north europeans than people like west or central africans.
Also you claim it's only about skin color yet you claim "anyone with discernable African ancestry is called "black" no matter how light." ...
So if you want to consider these egyptians as "black" (so of course you can ultimately claim their history) then you would have to view me as black too at least if we follow your one-drop rule.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
@Antalas
1)can a dark skinned person with an afro be a Copt ?
2) true or false: all negroids have afro hair
3) true or false all sub-Saharans are negroids
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Not to mention Paleo-Americans and prehistoric Siberians who also exhibit "negroid" features. The same holds true for so-called "caucasoid" classification and the morphological features associated with that.
Some Paleo-Americans had such features, while others had not. Like four skulls from Quintana Roo where the oldest had traits reminding of todays Arctic people, one was more like Europeans, one had traits reminiscent of both Asians and modern Native Americans and one had traits reminding of todays South American natives but also of Japanese people ( Hubbe et al 2020 ). So the morphology varied some among the oldest Americans, but genetically they were related.
Even today skull morphology vary among Amerindians, which got some people in the 1800s to speculate about that "short skulled" natives were more related to Asians and "long skulled" natives were more similar to people from the Canary Islands ( Retzius 1864 )
Yeah, Caucasian is also a very broad term that encompasses all kinds of people, with different skin colors, people from Africa, Europe and Asia.
The so called "Negritos" are also interesting since they are not necessarily very close related to each other, or to Papuans and Australians.
So both Caucasoid and Negroid are rather superficial designations, just like Black and White.
But maybe we strayed away too far from the Copts
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: No "black" usually refers to people from sub-saharan africa who tend to share many physical traits in common and tend to form their own genetic clusters. the label "black" is like "european" "east asian". Many people in india are dark skinned and still aren't black nor related to black africans and they are genetically closer to north europeans than people like west or central africans.
"Black" is a COLOR label as in the color black. It has nothing to do with ancestry!
Here are a couple of definitions:
From Merriam-Webster 2. Black or less commonly black a: of or relating to any of various population groups of especially African ancestry often considered as having dark pigmentation of the skin but in fact having a wide range of skin colors
From Dictionary.com 1. a. relating or belonging to any of the various human populations characterized by dark skin pigmentation, specifically the dark-skinned peoples of Africa, Oceania, and Australia.
Thus the Andamanese people I posted are 'black' due to their dark skin color despite not being African.
quote:Also you claim it's only about skin color yet you claim "anyone with discernable African ancestry is called "black" no matter how light." ...
You idiot, I was referring to the social context it is used here in America, the same way "white" is used in Africa to describe blacks of mixed ancestry.
quote:So if you want to consider these egyptians as "black" (so of course you can ultimately claim their history) then you would have to view me as black too at least if we follow your one-drop rule.
LOL Why would I claim their history since I'm not even of African descent but Asian!
Just face the fact not only are you NOT Egyptian even though you are North African, but if you were to visit Egypt...
Your white self would be viewed as a khawaga and NOT Baladi! LOL Posted by Antalas (Member # 23506) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: "Black" is a COLOR label as in the color black. It has nothing to do with ancestry!
Here are a couple of definitions:
From Merriam-Webster 2. Black or less commonly black a: of or relating to any of various population groups of especially African ancestry often considered as having dark pigmentation of the skin but in fact having a wide range of skin colors
From Dictionary.com 1. a. relating or belonging to any of the various human populations characterized by dark skin pigmentation, specifically the dark-skinned peoples of Africa, Oceania, and Australia.
Thus the Andamanese people I posted are 'black' due to their dark skin color despite not being African.
It isn't or else people like stephen curry wouldn't be seen as "black" and if it was only a color label then it's useless and shouldn't be used. People use it to talk about black africans certainly not about indians or the few hundreds andaman islanders lol
Exceptions don't make the rule.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: You idiot, I was referring to the social context it is used here in America, the same way "white" is used in Africa to describe blacks of mixed ancestry.
LOL Why would I claim their history since I'm not even of African descent but Asian!
Ah so now you agree with me about the inaccuracy of your american identity labels ? Thanks.
and you aren't asian you really think you'll fool me ? Yes random filipino obsessed with black africans and pushing the afrocentrist narrative XD
You're probably some AA with a distant filipino ancestor and larp as a full one XD
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: [qb] No "black" usually refers to people from sub-saharan africa who tend to share many physical traits in common and tend to form their own genetic clusters. the label "black" is like "european" "east asian". Many people in india are dark skinned and still aren't black nor related to black africans and they are genetically closer to north europeans than people like west or central africans.
"Black" is a COLOR label as in the color black. It has nothing to do with ancestry!
Here are a couple of definitions:
From Merriam-Webster 2. Black or less commonly black a: of or relating to any of various population groups of especially African ancestry often considered as having dark pigmentation of the skin but in fact having a wide range of skin colors
From Dictionary.com 1. a. relating or belonging to any of the various human populations characterized by dark skin pigmentation, specifically the dark-skinned peoples of Africa, Oceania, and Australia.
Thus the Andamanese people I posted are 'black' due to their dark skin color despite not being African.
You are making little sense here
You say "Black is a COLOR label as in the color black. It has nothing to do with ancestry!"
yet the very definition you use lists people of geographic regions it does not just say
" a person of dark skin pigmentation"
the very definition says "specifically the dark-skinned peoples of Africa"
And they add "Oceania, and Australia."
Why?
because some of them specifically resemble Africans to an extent beyond just dark skin !
No examples are even necessary "dark skinned" is a concept so simple and self evident there is no need for examples apart from the use of the word black in a sentence to show it's grammatical context.
You are playing games here. You know full well East Indians or Pakistanis in America don't identify as black people yet many are as dark as average African American or darker than someone like LL Cool J
"Black" in Americas has a strong connotation for someone with afro hair or broad features as well as dark skin, stop pretending you don't know that
That is American word usage like it or not and that is why they say in the dictionary "specifically the dark-skinned peoples of Africa" and in effect intend >>
specifically the dark-skinned peoples of Africa and people who look like similar to them
- obviously not just in skin tone alone
Are they going to spell it out in detail No, it's a wink wink definition (to avoid problems) Every American knows what it is intended to mean and they give us the hint by referring to Africa
That is why the definition in Webster's dictionary of black does not simply say
black - a person or people with dark skin
.
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
What you said makes absolutely NO sense. "Black" is a label referring to very dark skin color. How could someone be "pitch black" in color but not be black?! LMAO
Maybe the old designation "negroid" would be most suitable here. People can be "black" without being "negroid".
Here is another term that was talked about years ago.
Africoid An inclusive term?
quote:
A broad term, Africoid is used not only to describe peoples of Sub-Saharan African descent, those people today called Congoids (formerly called "Negroids"), but is also used to refer to other peoples who also often are also referred to as black, but whom some anthropologists have termed Hamitic, Capoid, Australoid (also known as Veddoid when applied to Southeast Asians), and Sudroids or more inclusively Dravidians, because they exhibit certain faciocranial and other physical characteristics which are not commonly attributed to Congoid (formerly called "Negroid") peoples. Chief among these physical characteristics are limited or nonexistent prognathism,a brachycephalic cranium (in the case of Capoid blacks), or hair which is relatively straight and finer in texture (in the case of, again, some "Caucasoid", Sudroid, Veddoid, and Australoid people).
Polynesians are seen as part Africoid due to the admixture of Australoid and Mongoloid characteristics.
The Africoid concept is expounded upon in the works of Afrocentric scholars such as Cheikh Anta Diop, and Chancellor Williams.
Criticism of race categorization
Critics of the race classification school such as Alan Templeton, Rick Kittles and S.O.Y Keita generally reject emphasis on traditional racial categories. They hold that race is not very useful in understanding the movements and origins of peoples and that racial terms such as "Caucasoid" and "Negroid" too often seek to plug such peoples into stereotypical checkboxes and deny them the full range of human variability. This more race neutral view contradicts the assertions of some Afrocentrics as to idealized racial types but also echo concerns raised by writers like C.A. Diop, namely: why are European populations conceived of as varying so widely in skin color, features, hair, and other indices but not Africoids?
Africoid as a term incorporating Oceanic, Dravidian and Australoid peoples
Some Afrocentrists argue for the primacy of phenotypes in describing a broad cultural-genetic set of black peoples stretching from Africa to Australia to Asia. Other DNA data however, which details the genetic complexity of peoples, calls into question conceptions of a single, rigid black or "Africoid" type that cuts across broad areas including Asia and Australia. Physically there may be similarities (dark skin or curlier hair for example) but genetically the data are much more complex.
Indeed some supporters of the term Africoid (see Scholarly use section below) note that DNA and serological (blood)analysis for example, places populations like Australian Aborigines, Dravidians of India and dark-skinned Pacific/Indian Ocean peoples closer to the populations of mainland East Asia than the stereotypical sub-Saharan Negroid phenotype.
Scholarly use of the term Africoid descriptive of local populations Some mainstream scholars advocate a non-racial terminology more directly based on the local variability of the population data, and its changes over time, holding that this allows for a wide range of types and variation, and that continued use of racial definitions and concepts are problematic:
"Much of the previous work focused on “racial” analysis. The concept of race is problematic, and (‘racial” terms have been inconsistently defined and used in African historiography as noted recently (MacGaffey, 1966; Sanders, 1969; Vercoutter, 1978).. There is little demarcation between the predynastics and tropical series and even the early southern dynastic series. Definite trends are discernible in the analyses. This broadly shared "southern" metric pattern, along with the other mentioned characteristics to a greater or lesser degree, might be better described by the term Africoid, by definition connoting a tropical African microclade, microadaptation, and patristic affinity, thereby avoiding the nonevolutionary term "Negroid" and allowing for variation both real and conceptual."
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
I posted a shorter version above BUT here is longer one below.
Africoid peoples
PART 1
Africoid peoples
Africoid peoples are human populations of varying phenotypes who are considered black regardless of recent African ancestry..Rashidi, Runoko. The Global African Community. "The African Perspective in India." 1998. September 2, 2007. [http://saxakali.com/Saxakali-Publications/runoko19.htm] ] Bioanthropologist S.O.Y. Keita however, uses the term to describe African descent populations whose morphological variants originate exclusively within the African continent.S.O.Y. Keita. "Studies and Comments on The Biological Relationships of Ancient Egyptians". History in Africa, 20: 129-154 (1993)]
An inclusive term?
A broad usage of the term, "Africoid" is used not only to describe peoples of African descent, but is also used to refer to other peoples who also often are also referred to as black, but whom some anthropologists have in the past termed Hamitic, Capoid, Australoid (also known as Veddoid when applied to Southeast Asians), and Sudroids or more inclusively Dravidians, because they exhibit certain craniofacial and other physical characteristics which are not commonly attributed to so-called "Negroid" peoples. Chief among these physical characteristics are limited or nonexistent prognathismFact|date=February 2008, a brachycephalic cranium (in the case of Capoid blacks), or hair which is relatively straight and finer in texture (in the case of, again, some "Caucasoid", Sudroid, Veddoid, and Australoid people). Polynesians are seen as part Africoid due to the admixture of Australoid and Mongoloid characteristics. The Africoid concept is expounded upon in the works of Afrocentric scholars such as Cheikh Anta Diop, [ Cheikh Anta Diop, The African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality, (Lawrence Hill Books: 1974)] and Chancellor Williams. [Chancellor Williams, The Destruction of Black Civilization, (Third World Press: new ed. 1987)] Those such as Keita however, see little value in overextending the term to include relationships among genetically distinct peoples, such as Africans and "Australoids", preferring to use the term in context with biohistorical African populations of recent African extraction.
Users of the term point to Ethiopians, Eritreans, Somalis and Nubians who exhibit phenotypical traits such as orthognathism [Hanihara et al. (2000), [http://www.femininebeauty.info/hanihara.flatness.pdf Frontal and facial flatness of major human populations] Am J Phys Anthropol, 111, 105] , non-kinky hair texture,Carleton S. Coon, [http://www.snpa.nordish.net/chapter-XI8.htm "The Origin of Races"] , (New York: Knopf, 1962), chapter XI, section 8.] and keen facial features seen by some as being exclusive to Caucasoid peoples. They contend such variations are indigenous to these groups and cannot be attributed to invasions from outside Caucasoid peoples as suggested under the Dynastic Race Theory and in more recent biological studies. [Leiberman and Jackson 1995 "Race and Three Models of Human Origins" in American Anthropologist 97(2) 231-242] Such phenotypical variations, they argue, often occur within nuclear family groups and are inherent to Africoid peoples, much as there are broad variations in physical stature and body proportions between the Pygmies of the Congo, who generally reach a height of 4.5 feet, and of the Dinka or Tutsi of Rwanda, whose average height is 6.5 feet and who are described as "gracile", or gracefully slender. [Cheikh Anta Diop, The African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality, (Lawrence Hill Books (July 1, 1989), pp. 37-279] Similarly, they continue, African peoples commonly considered "Negroid" such as the Senegalese also may lack prognathism. [ Jean Hiernaux, American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 78, No. 2 (Jun., 1976)] .
Critics point outFact|date=August 2008 that the "elongated" physique common to many Ethiopians, Eritreans and Somalis is strictly an adaptive response to living in a tropical environment and not a sign of shared racial ancestry with neighboring black groups as has been proposed:
The elongation of the distal segments of the limbs is also clearly related to the dissipation of metabolically generated heat. Because heat stress and latitude are clearly related, one would expect to find a correlation between the two sets of traits that are associated with adaptation to survival in areas of great ambient temperature, namely, skin color and limb proportions. This is clearly the case in such areas as Equatorial Africa, the tropical portions of South Asia, and northern Australia, although there is little covariation with other sets of inherited traits. In this regard it is interesting to note that the limb proportions of the Predynastic Naqada in Upper Egypt are reported to be "super-Negroid", meaning that the distal segments are elongated in the fashion of tropical Africans. It would be just as accurate to call them "super-Veddoid" or "super-Carpentarian" because skin color intensification and distal limb elongation are apparent wherever people have been long-term residents of the tropics. The term "super-tropical" would be better, as it implies the results of selection associated with a given latitude rather than the more "racially loaded" term "Negroid. [Brace CL, Tracer DP, Yaroch LA, Robb J, Brandt K, Nelson AR (1993). "Clines and clusters versus "race:" a test in ancient Egypt and the case of a death on the Nile". [http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/110532242/ABSTRACT Yrbk Phys Anthropol 36:1–31] ".]
However, many anthropologists indeed contend that this elongated morphology, as seen in East Africa has been present since Paleolithic times, while suggesting that those early African ancestors should indeed be directly ancestral to the living populations of East Africa today, and that this variation should owe little to external influences. [Hiernaux, Jean. "The People of Africa", pp142. New York.]
Additionally, some argue that certain African peoples exhibit physical characteristics beyond the scope of the classic Negroid phenotype, including narrow nasal indices in the case of Ethiopians, Eritreans and Somalis, as well as a minority of the often very dark-skinned peoples of the Nile region. They also cite the epicanthic eyefolds evident in the Khoisan of southern Africa. [Diop, op. cit]
Their critics counter that the phenotypical differences between Horn of African peoples and sub-Saharan blacks run much deeper than mere facial features and are compounded by genetic differences:
East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations. Investigations of Y chromosome markers have shown that the East African populations were not significantly affected by the east bound Bantu expansion that took place approximately 3500 years ago, while a significant contact to Arab and Middle East populations can be deduced from the present distribution of the Y chromosomes in these areas. [Juan J Sanchez et al., "High frequencies of Y chromosome lineages characterized by E3b1, DYS19-11, DYS392-12 in Somali males," "European Journal of Human Genetics" (2005) 13, 856–866]
However, many geneticists who have found similar results, where populations straddling the horn of Africa are seen to possess intermediate genetic tendencies, suggest that such genetic diversity in Africa is expected, given the immense time depths of human habitation there [S.O.Y. Keita and Rick A. Kittles, American Anthropologist (1997)] , while Tishkoff (1996) found such variation to be as a result of natural drift and local evolution, also citing similarities with non-Africans due to her assertion that the horn of Africa populations are direct descendants of those migrants who left Africa to people the rest of the world. [Tishkoff, Sarah (1996). "Global patterns of linkage disequilibrium of the CD4 locus and Modern Human Origins]
Africoid critics also add that skin color is not an indication of racial affiliation, but a morphological adaptation to one's environment:
Skin color is one of the most conspicuous ways in which humans vary and has been widely used to define human races. Here we present new evidence indicating that variations in skin color are adaptive, and are related to the regulation of ultraviolet (UV) radiation penetration.... Skin coloration in humans is adaptive and labile. Skin pigmentation levels have changed more than once in human evolution. Because of this, skin coloration is of no value in determining phylogenetic relationships among modern human groups."Jablonski, Nina and George Chaplin. (2000) The Evolution of Human Skin Coloration. J Hum Evol; 39:57-106]
Many anthropologists have observed that "Caucasoid" is applied inconsistently and challenge as Eurocentric and inappropriate the use of a term which contains a European geographic referent to refer to people who are indigenous to the African continent. Further, they argue that the term is misleading and that, as a result, it erroneously has been conflated by some to mean non-Black or even White — despite the fact that so-called "Caucasoid" Africans range from brown to mahogany to extremely dark in skin tone. This is also the case with some "Caucasoid" peoples of the Indian subcontinent, i.e., the Dravidians, whom some Afrocentrists regard as Africoid, as well. [Diop, op. cit.; Williams op. cit. ]
Many contend that affixing the "Caucasoid" label to African peoples runs counter to phenotypical naming conventions, which historically have associated peoples with their geographic points of origin. They, therefore, have been the chief proponents and users of the term "Africoid" as what they consider to be a more accurate, inclusive and all-encompassing term for indigenous, dark-skinned peoples of the African continent and the African diaspora. [Diop, op. cit.; Williams op. cit. ]
Critics, on the other hand, point out that skin color is independent of race and is strictly a signifier of long term residence in tropical latitudes. Therefore, the term "Africoid" may be misleading in some settings since it allows its users to corral people of very different genetic backgrounds into one umbrella racial group based on loosely and inconsistently shared physical characteristics such as skin color -- characteristics that are a product of adaptation and not ancestry
However, skin color is not a criterion used in defining "Africoid" within its biogeographical (as opposed to social) context, which is a term used to describe Africans and their descendants who possess variants that independently arose in Africa. [S.O.Y. Keita. "A Brief Review of Studies and Comments on. Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships". International Journal of Anthropology, (1995)]
Criticism of race categorization
Critics of the race classification school such as Alan Templeton, [Human Races: A Genetic and Evolutionary Perspective, Alan R. Templeton. American Anthropologist, 1998, 100:632-650] Rick Kittles and S.O.Y Keita generally reject emphasis on traditional racial categories. They hold that race is not very useful in understanding the movements and origins of peoples and that racial terms such as "Caucasoid" and "Negroid" too often seek to plug such peoples into stereotypical checkboxes and deny them the full range of human variability. [S.O.Y. KEITA, "Studies of Ancient Crania From North", AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 83:35-48 (1990)] This more race-neutral view contradicts the assertions of some Afrocentrics as to idealized racial types [Williams, op. cit] but also echo concerns raised by writers like C.A. Diop, namely: why are European populations conceived of as varying so widely in skin color, features, hair, and other indices but not Africoids? [Diop, op. cit]
Critics of race categorization also dispute the notion of Caucasoid admixture in the case of the Wolof and other African peoples, holding that the differences found among the Africoid peoples are simply localized variations that do not rely on any mixture from an assortment of discrete races. [The Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence, S. O. Y. Keita, Rick A. Kittles, American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 99, No. 3 (Sep., 1997), pp. 534-544] Such concepts of admixture they hold, too often rely on stereotypical definitions of a "true negro" type, allowing reclassification of peoples like Somalis, Ethiopians, Nubians, etc to a "Caucasoid" grouping or mixed grouping with Caucasoids, sometimes using different labels like "Mediterranean" or "Middle Eastern." [Keita and Kittles, pp 534-44] Narrow naso-facial features for example are found among the oldest populations of East Africa, independently of any admixture with Caucasoid or Southwest Asiatic peoples. [Jean Hiernaux, The People of Africa (Encore Editions: 1975), pp. 17-204]
They also dispute the notion that East Africans are more related to Eurasians than other tropical Africans. To the contrary, they maintain that the East African peoples are much more related to other African populations than Europeans and Asians, and that supporters of traditional race theories typically use misleading labeling (such as 'Middle Eastern') to classify African DNA data so as to decontextualize it. For example, Ethiopians are very closely related to one of the oldest African populations, the Khosian peoples or Bushmen and cluster likewise with Senegalese on several Y-chromosomal measures. [Ornella Semino,1 A. Silvana Santachiara-Benerecetti,1 Francesco Falaschi,2 L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza,3 and Peter A. Underhill3, "Ethiopians and Khoisan Share the Deepest Clades of the Human Y-Chromosome Phylogeny," Am J Hum Genet. 2002 January; 70(1): 265–268] Chromosomal variants such as haplotype IV for example are found in high frequency in west, central, and sub-equatorial Africa in speakers of Niger-Congo, and to some extent among the Nubians. Another variant, Haplotype XI has its highest frequencies in the Horn and the Nile valley. Other types such as V and XI are found more heavily in Africa and the Nile Valley than among peoples such as Arabs, Turks or others. Haplotypes VII and VIII are most prevalent in the Near East, and XII and XV in Europe. [S.O.Y. Keita, A. J. Boyce, "Genetics, Egypt, and History: Interpreting Geographical Patterns of Y Chromosome Variation1," History in Africa 32 (2005) 221-246; see also S. O. Y and A.J. Boyce, "The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians", in in Egypt in Africa, Theodore Celenko (ed), Indiana University Press, 1996, pp. 20-33 url=http://www.forumcityusa.com/viewtopic.php?t=318&mforum=africa]
As regards reliance on the categories of forensic anthropology, they point out that the weight of forensic data shows Africoid peoples cannot be stereotyped as an extreme, or conceived of as mixes between idealized types, but vary widely in physical characteristics. For example:
Scientists have been studying remains from the Egyptian Nile Valley for years. Analysis of crania is the traditional approach to assessing ancient population origins, relationships, and diversity. In studies based on anatomical traits and measurements of crania, similarities have been found between Nile Valley crania from 30,000, 20,000 and 12,000 years ago and various African remains from more recent times (see Thoma 1984; Brauer and Rimbach 1990; Angel and Kelley 1986; Keita 1993). Studies of crania from southern predynastic Egypt, from the formative period (4000-3100 B.C.), show them usually to be more similar to the crania of ancient Nubians, Kushites, Saharans, or modern groups from the Horn of Africa than to those of dynastic northern Egyptians or ancient or modern southern Europeans. [S. O. Y and A.J. Boyce, "The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians", in in Egypt in Africa, Theodore Celenko (ed), Indiana University Press, 1996, pp. 20-33 url=http://www.forumcityusa.com/viewtopic.php?t=318&mforum=africa]
Issues in the study of Africoid populations
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
Part 2
Africoid peoples
Africoid as an approach to overcome bias in previous scholarship
Supporters of the term Africoid claim that there has been bias in previous scholarship on African or Africoid peoples and that this pattern is demonstrative of the need for more accurate terminology in describing African populations. These scholars assert that variations of phenotype found in places like Northeast Africa are simply examples of the natural biodiversity of indigenous populations, and that the definition of "African" should not be confined to a region south of the Sahara (Diop, Cheikh Anta, The African Origin of Civilization). [Cheikh Anta Diop, The African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality, (Lawrence Hill Books: 1974)] Among the points advanced:
*Bias seems to define Africoids as narrowly as possible while incorporating as much as possible in groupings labeled as Causacoid
*Shifting terminology and labeling of African peoples to downplay their diversity
Africoid as an approach to show population diversity
Modern re-analyses of previous studies shows a clear tendency to sometimes minimize variability within certain northeast African populations. This range of variation is the building block of the concept of Africoid populations, as opposed to their rigid separation into groupings like so-called "Caucasoid" and sub-Saharan Negroes. According to one recent re-evaluation of studies on the ancient Egyptians: :An overview of the data from the studies suggests that the major biological affinities of early southern Egyptians lay with tropical Africans. The range of indigenous tropical African phenotypes is great; and this range of variation must be considered in any discussion of the Nile Valley peoples. The early southern Egyptians belonged primarily to an African descent group which gained some Near Eastern affinity through gene flow with the passage of time. ("Keita, S. O. Y, "A brief review of studies and comments on ancient Egyptian biological relationships") [Keita, S. O. Y, "A brief review of studies and comments on ancient Egyptian biological relationships," Journal International Journal of Anthropology, Springer: Netherlands, ISSN 0393-9383, Issue Volume 10, Numbers 2-3 / April, 1995 , Pages 107-123 ] . In the classification of so-called "Negroid" peoples, traditional scholarship has established a baseline phenotype for a "true Negro" (generally a sub-Saharan type). Nonconforming characteristics in some Northeast African populations have been cause for incorporation of these peoples into a "Caucasoid" cluster. However, the same selective classification scheme is not applied to groups traditionally categorized as Negroid. Writers such as Carelton Coons report "Mediterranean" remains that seem to have "Negroid" traits, but do not mention the opposite. Nor do such scholars apply the same selective definition approach with populations of the Levant, Maghreb or those farther north. For example, scholars generally have made no similar attempt to define a "true white." [Keita, op. cit.] Others surveys of African peoples in the Nile Valley, Sahara and Sudan confirm the cultural, skeletal and material links between them from the earliest times. [ [http://www.search.com/reference/Badarian Strouhal, E., 1971, ‘Evidence of the early penetration of Negroes into prehistoric Egypt’, Journal of African History, 12: 1-9) ] ]
Lumping of Africoid population data under labels such as 'Mediterranean'
Re-analyses of scholarship also show a tendency to sometimes lump certain types of data, such as skeletical remains under broad clusters or categories such as Mediterranean. Numerous studies of Egyptian crania have been undertaken, with many showing a range of types, and workers often describing substantially Negroid remains. Often this type has been lumped into a Caucasoid cluster, typically using the term "Mediterranean." A majority of these studies show the strong influence of Sudanic and Saharan elements in the predynastic populations and yet classification systems often incorporate them into the Mediterranean grouping.
::"Analyses of Egyptian crania are numerous. Vercoutter (1978) notes that ancient Egyptian crania have frequently all been “lumped (implicitly or explicitly) as Mediterranean, although Negroid remains are recorded in substantial numbers by many workers.. The majority of the work describes a Negroid element, especially in the southern population and sometimes as predominating in the predynastic period (Falkenburger, 1947).. [ S.O.Y. KEITA, "Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa", AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 83:35-48 (1990)]
Use of racial categories in modern DNA studies
Some supporters of the term Africoid point to modern DNA studies (Templeton, Lewotinin, et. al) that show a broad range of physical variation organic to African peoples, maintaining that classifications like Caucasoid, Mediterranean and 'true' sub-Saharan negroes are artificial and stereotypical, and involve presorting ahead of time, rather than letting the DNA data speak for themselves. [Rick Kitties, and S. O. Y. Keita, "Interpreting African Genetic Diversity", African Archaeological Review, Vol. 16, No. 2,1999, p. 1-5] This broad mix of African genetic variation shown by DNA analysis, it is asserted, calls for inclusive concepts like Africoid to capture the genetic complexity on the ground. [John G. Jackson and Runoko Rashidi, Introduction To African Civilizations, (Citadel: 2001), ISBN-10: 0806521899, pp. 13-175]
Other DNA studies in turn throw doubt on "classical" racial categories. The nuclear DNA work of researcher Ann Bowcock (1991, 1994) for example, suggests that such primary groupings as Europeans may be flawed, and that such peoples arose as a consequence of admixture between certain already differentiated African and Asian ancestral stocks. Under this approach to the DNA data, Caucasians are thus not a primary grouping as in the classical categories, but a secondary type or race, due to their supposedly hybrid origins. [Bowcock AM, Kidd JR, Mountain JL, Hebert JM, Carotenuto L, Kidd KK, Cavalli-Sforza LL "Drift, admixture, and selection in human evolution: a study with DNA polymorphisms." Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1991; 88: 3: 839-43:] [A. M. Bowcock, High resolution of human evolutionary trees with polymorphic microsatellites, 1994, Nature, 368: pp.455-457]
Anthropologists such as Lieberman and Jackson (1995), also find numerous methodological and conceptual problems with using DNA sequencing and other phylogenetic methods to support concepts of race. They hold for example that: "the molecular and biochemical proponents of this model explicitly use racial categories in their initial grouping of samples" They suggest that the authors of these studies find support for racial distinctions only because they began assuming the validity of race (Leiberman and Jackson 1995 "Race and Three Models of Human Origins" in American Anthropologist 97(2) 231-242) [Leiberman and Jackson 1995 "Race and Three Models of Human Origins" in American Anthropologist 97(2) 231-242]
Whatever the approach used, modern DNA studies have in many ways undermined traditional racial categories in favor of a population variant/gradient or continuum approach. This continuum/gradient approach is embraced by supporters of the term Africoid [Jackson and Rashidi, op. cit.] as more accurate and realistic than various models that allocate peoples like Ethiopians to "Caucasoid" groupings.
Africoid as a term incorporating Oceanic, Dravidian and Australoid peoples
Some people argue for the primacy of phenotypes in describing a broad cultural-genetic set of black peoples stretching from Africa to Australia to Asia. [African Presence in Early Asia, Runoko Rashidi (Editor), Ivan Van Sertima (Editor), Transaction Publishers, 1987) pp. 79-208] Other DNA data however, which details the genetic complexity of peoples, calls into question conceptions of a single, rigid black or "Africoid" type that cuts across broad areas including Asia and Australia. Physically there may be similarities (dark skin or curlier hair for example) but genetically the data are much more complex.
Indeed some supporters of the term Africoid (see "Scholarly use" section below) note that DNA and serological (blood)analysis for example, places populations like Australian Aborigines, Dravidians of India and dark-skinned Pacific/Indian Ocean peoples closer to the populations of mainland East Asia than the stereotypical sub-Saharan Negroid phenotype. [The Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence, S. O. Y. Keita, Rick A. Kittles, American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 99, No. 3 (Sep., 1997), pp. 534-544]
Scholarly use of the term Africoid descriptive of local populations
Some mainstream scholars advocate a non-racial terminology more directly based on the local variability of the population data, and its changes over time, holding that this allows for a wide range of types and variation, and that continued use of racial definitions and concepts are problematic::"Much of the previous work focused on “racial” analysis. The concept of race is problematic, and (‘racial” terms have been inconsistently defined and used in African historiography as noted recently (MacGaffey, 1966; Sanders, 1969; Vercoutter, 1978).. There is little demarcation between the predynastics and tropical series and even the early southern dynastic series. Definite trends are discernible in the analyses. This broadly shared "southern" metric pattern, along with the other mentioned characteristics to a greater or lesser degree, might be better described by the term Africoid, by definition connoting a tropical African microclade, microadaptation, and patristic affinity, thereby avoiding the nonevolutionary term "Negroid" and allowing for variation both real and conceptual." [Keita, "Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa", op. cit.]
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Please forgive me but to me Africoid is a usless throwback to 1980s and 90s jargon.
Is africoid (Africa-like) hair * San beebee shots * a majority of Senegal-Niger-Congo-Kordafanian-baNtu speakers' naps * some Sahel & Sahra, Nile & NE Africa peoples' curls and waves * Mediterranean coastal folks' strings waves curls and 'bushes'?
Same can templated for skin, nose, lips, height, skull form, etc.
I feel face and body features are best described as they are without resort to continental fixation. Most continents share their sets of features with little exclusivity. The original package set of features the inventors of anthropology (colonialist, African slave holding Europeans, claimed to be objective scientists) developed geography based typologies that included * the Caucasus -- caucasian for European whites and caucasoid for African SE Asian and Zagros "whites" * Mongolia -- mongoloid for central to east and Pacific Asians extended to San Africans (nevermind the now defunct medical/mental term mongoloid idiot) * Ethiopia -- Ethiopian for all African peoples not subsumed under caucasoid or mongoloid ideologytypology. Due to slavery Ethiopian was ditched for negro, which is a condition not an ethnicity, nationality, language, geography, or faith.
Personally, I'd prefer reversion to Ethiopoid since Abyssinia does house a plethora of African phenotypes. I don't go for negro(iod) at all but would love honest admission there are white people with negroid tendencies who never get called that vile word. Prognathism, fleshy lips, broad noses, loose naps, for a few have never been strangers to European faces. Yes, I know Ethiopian as a phenotype catchword is a 2500 yr old throwback. A throwback to what was readily apparent to various ancient documenters of African phenotypes. Two generics, Aithiopian & Libyan with some of the latter known to entail the former typology or even earlier Nehesu & Tjemehu.
What to say about race since its such a dreaded term by those who have to bear its burden --as if denying race will dead racism-- but genetics and genomics both quite nicely affirm local bio-geographic populations via CODIS autosomal STaRs and STRUCTURE/ADMIXTURE SNiPs and 'whole' genomes.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: It isn't or else people like stephen curry wouldn't be seen as "black"..
I already explained to Archaeopteryx that in North America, black is attached to black ancestry i.e. African ancestry no matter how light the person's skin is. The converse is also true in Africa where Stephen Curry would be called "white". That still does not change the fact that Egyptians were not only indigenous Africans but did indeed have dark skin for them to be called melanchroi (black) by the Greeks and maure by the Romans! But that is what irks you doesn't it.
quote:..and if it was only a color label then it's useless and shouldn't be used...
And how is a label useless if it in fact serves its purpose, in this case describing color?!! You are obviously suffering from a psychological syndrome one that I and others in this forum see with a lot of fair-skinned (white) North Africans.
quote:People use it to talk about black africans certainly not about Indians or the few hundreds andaman islanders lol
Apparently you don't realize that very dark skinned Indians are called kalu (black) by lighter-skinned Indians, and Andamanese are not the only black peoples in Southeast Asia, there the other so-called Negrito groups like the Aeta of the Philippines, the Semang of Malaysia, Maniq people of southern Thailand, etc. Not to mention the Papuan New-Guineans, Melaneseians, and Papuan New-Guineans ALL are called 'black' by their Asian neighbors before the arrival of Europeans.
quote:Exceptions don't make the rule.
Indeed, they don't. The rule is very dark skin = black.
quote:Ah so now you agree with me about the inaccuracy of your American identity labels? Thanks.
How is it inaccurate if it is actually describing color??
quote:and you aren't Asian you really think you'll fool me? Yes random filipino obsessed with black africans and pushing the afrocentrist narrative XD
I'm not obsessed with Africans but with the TRUTH! Egypt is in Africa and its people are African so to call that Afrocentric is like saying someone who defends the whiteness of Celtic people is Eurocentric! LMAO it is just plain common sense.
By the way, I'm not the only Filipino. There's a guy name Paul Kekai Manansala who even had a whole web group on the black African identity of the Egyptians called Ta-Seti and even wrote articles proving it with bio-anthropological evidence!
quote:You're probably some AA with a distant filipino ancestor and larp as a full one XD
So one has to be African American to defend the truth that you are so desperate to deny? What about fellow poster Brandon who is white? Or better yet what of all the white academics and Egyptologists who also maintain Egypt's black identity like Dr. Kara Cooney, Dr. Sally-Ann Ashton or better yet Egyptian Egyptologists like Ahmed Saleh and Mostafa Gadalla?!! Are all of these people African Americans too?! LOL
Face it, you've lost the argument before you begun! I just use you as entertainment. Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
The terms "white" and "black" are virtually unavoidable in social interactions
But if you avoid them in anthropological discussion it eliminates many problems
"dark skinned" and "light skinned" are also subjective but with much less ambiguity and political implications than "white" or "black" (teams) therefore "dark skinned" and "light skinned" are better to use in more scientific discussions compared to white or black (if we must even talk about skin)
but people want to make it political so they will insist on declaring people by these labels
if it was not political people would use the actual color their eyes see > brown
The fact that "black" is used in place of the usually more accurate "brown" is another unmistakable hint that more that color is being discussed
So why do people insist on white or black? because we love racial categorization, some of us.
Someone can't say race doesn't exist and then start talking about "black and "white" when the vast majority of people called black are brown and those called white don't resemble the color of snow or sugar either
A lot of children learn colors by crayon colors. I recall a little girl becoming very confused as her African America father tried to explained he was black not brown while she was looking at him and her eyes were telling her brown
"White" and "Black" are clearly racial terms with a history to go with them and for the reasons above, much as some people would like to pretend they aren't (when convenient), they are
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Page 133
Among the first Europeans to reflect upon the race of ancient Egyp- tians was Count Constantine de Volney (1757-1820), who visited Egypt between 1783 and 1785. He wrote of the brown-skinned Chris- tian Copts, who formed a great part of the nonurban population, that ‘all have a bloated face, puffed up eyes, flat nose, thick lips; in a word, the true face of the mulatto.’ ’ The count was surprised and puz- zled at finding in Egypt this physical type with which he was familiar in Europe, where it had resulted from matings between white people and Africans or Blacks from the Caribbean. After viewing the Sphinx, he was convinced that a similar process of miscegenation had been at work in Africa, but with Blacks as the majority population and whites the minority in the initial mixture. This led him to write about the Sphinx in words that were disconcerting to the proslavery forces of his day:
Posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Someone who has any info about the percentage of people who are "white", "black" or "medium" (regarding skin color) in todays Egypt? How is the percentage in other North African countries?
That is a difficult task namely because such labels used in North Africa are the reverse of Western nations like the U.S. For example in the U.S. the so-called "one drop rule" or rather "black hint" is used where anyone with discernable African ancestry is called "black" no matter how light. People who are biracial or even "quadroon" 3-4ths white are still called 'black' as a historical way to bastardize blacks and prevent them from integrating into the greater white society. In Africa in general but especially North Africa, the practice is reversed where any white ancestry makes the person "white" and that includes Arab ancestry no matter how dark the skin coloring. This is why even North Sudanese either call themselves "white" or more commonly other euphemisms like "brown" or even "green" if very dark (black). To complicate things even more is that the U.S. federal census also used to classify all North Africans as "white". Hilariously, years ago a Nubian-Egyptian even sued the federal government for denying his black identity! LOL
quote: Maybe the old designation "negroid" would be most suitable here. People can be "black" without being "negroid".
Here is one definition of negroid:
quote: Negroid (less commonly called Congoid) is an obsolete racial grouping of various people indigenous to Africa south of the area which stretched from the southern Sahara desert in the west to the African Great Lakes in the southeast, but also to isolated parts of South and Southeast Asia (Negritos). The term is derived from now-discredited conceptions of race as a biological category.
Yes, and the wiki article explains why the racial term is obsolete. "Negroid" refers to a specific facial morphology which is not confined to Sub-Saharans.
Hence why you have Southeast Asian aboriginals are also "negroid" such as the Andamanese below:
Not to mention Paleo-Americans and prehistoric Siberians who also exhibit "negroid" features. The same holds true for so-called "caucasoid" classification and the morphological features associated with that.
Indeed. And according to the "one-drop" rule embraced by Euro-Americans especially, the ancient AEs would be black. Even "Afrocentric" critic Mary Lefkowitz had to admit the same. Some people think that by "reopening" and repeating these old question they can change the reality but they fail right off the bat.
As for the designation "black" as you well note for over a century it has not only included "sub-Saharan" people but people from all continents based on skin color, a definition which ALSO includes the color brown for over a century.
"sub-Saharan
Posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by Firewall: I posted a shorter version above BUT here is longer one below.
Africoid peoples
PART 1
Africoid peoples
Africoid peoples are human populations of varying phenotypes who are considered black regardless of recent African ancestry..Rashidi, Runoko. The Global African Community. "The African Perspective in India." 1998. September 2, 2007. [http://saxakali.com/Saxakali-Publications/runoko19.htm] ] Bioanthropologist S.O.Y. Keita however, uses the term to describe African descent populations whose morphological variants originate exclusively within the African continent.S.O.Y. Keita. "Studies and Comments on The Biological Relationships of Ancient Egyptians". History in Africa, 20: 129-154 (1993)]
An inclusive term?
A broad usage of the term, "Africoid" is used not only to describe peoples of African descent, but is also used to refer to other peoples who also often are also referred to as black, but whom some anthropologists have in the past termed Hamitic, Capoid, Australoid (also known as Veddoid when applied to Southeast Asians), and Sudroids or more inclusively Dravidians, because they exhibit certain craniofacial and other physical characteristics which are not commonly attributed to so-called "Negroid" peoples. Chief among these physical characteristics are limited or nonexistent prognathismFact|date=February 2008, a brachycephalic cranium (in the case of Capoid blacks), or hair which is relatively straight and finer in texture (in the case of, again, some "Caucasoid", Sudroid, Veddoid, and Australoid people). Polynesians are seen as part Africoid due to the admixture of Australoid and Mongoloid characteristics. The Africoid concept is expounded upon in the works of Afrocentric scholars such as Cheikh Anta Diop, [ Cheikh Anta Diop, The African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality, (Lawrence Hill Books: 1974)] and Chancellor Williams. [Chancellor Williams, The Destruction of Black Civilization, (Third World Press: new ed. 1987)] Those such as Keita however, see little value in overextending the term to include relationships among genetically distinct peoples, such as Africans and "Australoids", preferring to use the term in context with biohistorical African populations of recent African extraction.
Users of the term point to Ethiopians, Eritreans, Somalis and Nubians who exhibit phenotypical traits such as orthognathism [Hanihara et al. (2000), [http://www.femininebeauty.info/hanihara.flatness.pdf Frontal and facial flatness of major human populations] Am J Phys Anthropol, 111, 105] , non-kinky hair texture,Carleton S. Coon, [http://www.snpa.nordish.net/chapter-XI8.htm "The Origin of Races"] , (New York: Knopf, 1962), chapter XI, section 8.] and keen facial features seen by some as being exclusive to Caucasoid peoples. They contend such variations are indigenous to these groups and cannot be attributed to invasions from outside Caucasoid peoples as suggested under the Dynastic Race Theory and in more recent biological studies. [Leiberman and Jackson 1995 "Race and Three Models of Human Origins" in American Anthropologist 97(2) 231-242] Such phenotypical variations, they argue, often occur within nuclear family groups and are inherent to Africoid peoples, much as there are broad variations in physical stature and body proportions between the Pygmies of the Congo, who generally reach a height of 4.5 feet, and of the Dinka or Tutsi of Rwanda, whose average height is 6.5 feet and who are described as "gracile", or gracefully slender. [Cheikh Anta Diop, The African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality, (Lawrence Hill Books (July 1, 1989), pp. 37-279] Similarly, they continue, African peoples commonly considered "Negroid" such as the Senegalese also may lack prognathism. [ Jean Hiernaux, American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 78, No. 2 (Jun., 1976)] .
Critics point outFact|date=August 2008 that the "elongated" physique common to many Ethiopians, Eritreans and Somalis is strictly an adaptive response to living in a tropical environment and not a sign of shared racial ancestry with neighboring black groups as has been proposed:
The elongation of the distal segments of the limbs is also clearly related to the dissipation of metabolically generated heat. Because heat stress and latitude are clearly related, one would expect to find a correlation between the two sets of traits that are associated with adaptation to survival in areas of great ambient temperature, namely, skin color and limb proportions. This is clearly the case in such areas as Equatorial Africa, the tropical portions of South Asia, and northern Australia, although there is little covariation with other sets of inherited traits. In this regard it is interesting to note that the limb proportions of the Predynastic Naqada in Upper Egypt are reported to be "super-Negroid", meaning that the distal segments are elongated in the fashion of tropical Africans. It would be just as accurate to call them "super-Veddoid" or "super-Carpentarian" because skin color intensification and distal limb elongation are apparent wherever people have been long-term residents of the tropics. The term "super-tropical" would be better, as it implies the results of selection associated with a given latitude rather than the more "racially loaded" term "Negroid. [Brace CL, Tracer DP, Yaroch LA, Robb J, Brandt K, Nelson AR (1993). "Clines and clusters versus "race:" a test in ancient Egypt and the case of a death on the Nile". [http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/110532242/ABSTRACT Yrbk Phys Anthropol 36:1–31] ".]
However, many anthropologists indeed contend that this elongated morphology, as seen in East Africa has been present since Paleolithic times, while suggesting that those early African ancestors should indeed be directly ancestral to the living populations of East Africa today, and that this variation should owe little to external influences. [Hiernaux, Jean. "The People of Africa", pp142. New York.]
Additionally, some argue that certain African peoples exhibit physical characteristics beyond the scope of the classic Negroid phenotype, including narrow nasal indices in the case of Ethiopians, Eritreans and Somalis, as well as a minority of the often very dark-skinned peoples of the Nile region. They also cite the epicanthic eyefolds evident in the Khoisan of southern Africa. [Diop, op. cit]
Their critics counter that the phenotypical differences between Horn of African peoples and sub-Saharan blacks run much deeper than mere facial features and are compounded by genetic differences:
East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations. Investigations of Y chromosome markers have shown that the East African populations were not significantly affected by the east bound Bantu expansion that took place approximately 3500 years ago, while a significant contact to Arab and Middle East populations can be deduced from the present distribution of the Y chromosomes in these areas. [Juan J Sanchez et al., "High frequencies of Y chromosome lineages characterized by E3b1, DYS19-11, DYS392-12 in Somali males," "European Journal of Human Genetics" (2005) 13, 856–866]
However, many geneticists who have found similar results, where populations straddling the horn of Africa are seen to possess intermediate genetic tendencies, suggest that such genetic diversity in Africa is expected, given the immense time depths of human habitation there [S.O.Y. Keita and Rick A. Kittles, American Anthropologist (1997)] , while Tishkoff (1996) found such variation to be as a result of natural drift and local evolution, also citing similarities with non-Africans due to her assertion that the horn of Africa populations are direct descendants of those migrants who left Africa to people the rest of the world. [Tishkoff, Sarah (1996). "Global patterns of linkage disequilibrium of the CD4 locus and Modern Human Origins]
Africoid critics also add that skin color is not an indication of racial affiliation, but a morphological adaptation to one's environment:
Skin color is one of the most conspicuous ways in which humans vary and has been widely used to define human races. Here we present new evidence indicating that variations in skin color are adaptive, and are related to the regulation of ultraviolet (UV) radiation penetration.... Skin coloration in humans is adaptive and labile. Skin pigmentation levels have changed more than once in human evolution. Because of this, skin coloration is of no value in determining phylogenetic relationships among modern human groups."Jablonski, Nina and George Chaplin. (2000) The Evolution of Human Skin Coloration. J Hum Evol; 39:57-106]
Many anthropologists have observed that "Caucasoid" is applied inconsistently and challenge as Eurocentric and inappropriate the use of a term which contains a European geographic referent to refer to people who are indigenous to the African continent. Further, they argue that the term is misleading and that, as a result, it erroneously has been conflated by some to mean non-Black or even White — despite the fact that so-called "Caucasoid" Africans range from brown to mahogany to extremely dark in skin tone. This is also the case with some "Caucasoid" peoples of the Indian subcontinent, i.e., the Dravidians, whom some Afrocentrists regard as Africoid, as well. [Diop, op. cit.; Williams op. cit. ]
Many contend that affixing the "Caucasoid" label to African peoples runs counter to phenotypical naming conventions, which historically have associated peoples with their geographic points of origin. They, therefore, have been the chief proponents and users of the term "Africoid" as what they consider to be a more accurate, inclusive and all-encompassing term for indigenous, dark-skinned peoples of the African continent and the African diaspora. [Diop, op. cit.; Williams op. cit. ]
Critics, on the other hand, point out that skin color is independent of race and is strictly a signifier of long term residence in tropical latitudes. Therefore, the term "Africoid" may be misleading in some settings since it allows its users to corral people of very different genetic backgrounds into one umbrella racial group based on loosely and inconsistently shared physical characteristics such as skin color -- characteristics that are a product of adaptation and not ancestry
However, skin color is not a criterion used in defining "Africoid" within its biogeographical (as opposed to social) context, which is a term used to describe Africans and their descendants who possess variants that independently arose in Africa. [S.O.Y. Keita. "A Brief Review of Studies and Comments on. Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships". International Journal of Anthropology, (1995)]
Criticism of race categorization
Critics of the race classification school such as Alan Templeton, [Human Races: A Genetic and Evolutionary Perspective, Alan R. Templeton. American Anthropologist, 1998, 100:632-650] Rick Kittles and S.O.Y Keita generally reject emphasis on traditional racial categories. They hold that race is not very useful in understanding the movements and origins of peoples and that racial terms such as "Caucasoid" and "Negroid" too often seek to plug such peoples into stereotypical checkboxes and deny them the full range of human variability. [S.O.Y. KEITA, "Studies of Ancient Crania From North", AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 83:35-48 (1990)] This more race-neutral view contradicts the assertions of some Afrocentrics as to idealized racial types [Williams, op. cit] but also echo concerns raised by writers like C.A. Diop, namely: why are European populations conceived of as varying so widely in skin color, features, hair, and other indices but not Africoids? [Diop, op. cit]
Critics of race categorization also dispute the notion of Caucasoid admixture in the case of the Wolof and other African peoples, holding that the differences found among the Africoid peoples are simply localized variations that do not rely on any mixture from an assortment of discrete races. [The Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence, S. O. Y. Keita, Rick A. Kittles, American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 99, No. 3 (Sep., 1997), pp. 534-544] Such concepts of admixture they hold, too often rely on stereotypical definitions of a "true negro" type, allowing reclassification of peoples like Somalis, Ethiopians, Nubians, etc to a "Caucasoid" grouping or mixed grouping with Caucasoids, sometimes using different labels like "Mediterranean" or "Middle Eastern." [Keita and Kittles, pp 534-44] Narrow naso-facial features for example are found among the oldest populations of East Africa, independently of any admixture with Caucasoid or Southwest Asiatic peoples. [Jean Hiernaux, The People of Africa (Encore Editions: 1975), pp. 17-204]
They also dispute the notion that East Africans are more related to Eurasians than other tropical Africans. To the contrary, they maintain that the East African peoples are much more related to other African populations than Europeans and Asians, and that supporters of traditional race theories typically use misleading labeling (such as 'Middle Eastern') to classify African DNA data so as to decontextualize it. For example, Ethiopians are very closely related to one of the oldest African populations, the Khosian peoples or Bushmen and cluster likewise with Senegalese on several Y-chromosomal measures. [Ornella Semino,1 A. Silvana Santachiara-Benerecetti,1 Francesco Falaschi,2 L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza,3 and Peter A. Underhill3, "Ethiopians and Khoisan Share the Deepest Clades of the Human Y-Chromosome Phylogeny," Am J Hum Genet. 2002 January; 70(1): 265–268] Chromosomal variants such as haplotype IV for example are found in high frequency in west, central, and sub-equatorial Africa in speakers of Niger-Congo, and to some extent among the Nubians. Another variant, Haplotype XI has its highest frequencies in the Horn and the Nile valley. Other types such as V and XI are found more heavily in Africa and the Nile Valley than among peoples such as Arabs, Turks or others. Haplotypes VII and VIII are most prevalent in the Near East, and XII and XV in Europe. [S.O.Y. Keita, A. J. Boyce, "Genetics, Egypt, and History: Interpreting Geographical Patterns of Y Chromosome Variation1," History in Africa 32 (2005) 221-246; see also S. O. Y and A.J. Boyce, "The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians", in in Egypt in Africa, Theodore Celenko (ed), Indiana University Press, 1996, pp. 20-33 url=http://www.forumcityusa.com/viewtopic.php?t=318&mforum=africa]
As regards reliance on the categories of forensic anthropology, they point out that the weight of forensic data shows Africoid peoples cannot be stereotyped as an extreme, or conceived of as mixes between idealized types, but vary widely in physical characteristics. For example:
Scientists have been studying remains from the Egyptian Nile Valley for years. Analysis of crania is the traditional approach to assessing ancient population origins, relationships, and diversity. In studies based on anatomical traits and measurements of crania, similarities have been found between Nile Valley crania from 30,000, 20,000 and 12,000 years ago and various African remains from more recent times (see Thoma 1984; Brauer and Rimbach 1990; Angel and Kelley 1986; Keita 1993). Studies of crania from southern predynastic Egypt, from the formative period (4000-3100 B.C.), show them usually to be more similar to the crania of ancient Nubians, Kushites, Saharans, or modern groups from the Horn of Africa than to those of dynastic northern Egyptians or ancient or modern southern Europeans. [S. O. Y and A.J. Boyce, "The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians", in in Egypt in Africa, Theodore Celenko (ed), Indiana University Press, 1996, pp. 20-33 url=http://www.forumcityusa.com/viewtopic.php?t=318&mforum=africa]
Issues in the study of Africoid populations
Much of this is from a Wiki page I edited many years ago (06) giving the quoted definition of "Africoid" that a published scientist, S. Keita, gives, along with various other published scholars, not simple opinion or links to somebody's Youtube page. Assorted trolls & moles on Wikipedia killed the article, but then I discovered Egyptsearch and posted all the info they were trying to make "disappear," which rather than being buried on an obscure wiki receiving 5 hits a month, is picked up and shared via Google worldwide, just like now, rendering all the mole/troll sandbagging efforts a dismal failure.
Keita's definition of the term "Africoid" is RELATIVELY speaking, a more reasonable one reflective of African diversity than the stereotypical true "negroid" STILL being used in some parts of academia today:
"Much of the previous work focused on “racial” analysis. The concept of race is problematic, and (‘racial” terms have been inconsistently defined and used in African historiography as noted recently (MacGaffey, 1966; Sanders, 1969; Vercoutter, 1978).. There is little demarcation between the predynastics and tropical series and even the early southern dynastic series. Definite trends are discernible in the analyses. This broadly shared "southern" metric pattern, along with the other mentioned characteristics to a greater or lesser degree, might be better described by the term Africoid, by definition connoting a tropical African microclade, microadaptation, and patristic affinity, thereby avoiding the nonevolutionary term "Negroid" and allowing for variation both real and conceptual." --S. Keita. 1990. Studies of ancient crania from northern Africa. Am J Phys Anthropol. . 1990 Sep;83(1):35-48.
Posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
Personally, I feel that "equatorial African" would be more accurate for the suite of facial features and other physical traits that our French troll is intent on equating with "black". But then, I am pretty sure his opponent DJ does not maintain that ancient Egyptians or other ancient North Africans necessarily all had that equatorial phenotype. From what I have seen, DJ at least has been pretty consistent in using "black" and "white" to describe skin tones regardless of what ethnicity the people he's describing belong to. So, by insisting that AE etc. didn't look equatorial, our troll is either attacking a strawman or doesn't understand what his opposition actually believes.
Indeed. I think the term "equatorial" is not a bad one, but it seems too narrow. A better definition I think is "tropical African" - which incorporates a much broader geographic range, and ties into a clear data point- the tropical limb proportions- that characterize so much of AE and "sub-Saharan" Africa. It also includes a huge amount of micro-climates, from cool/cold cloud forest or mountain slope, to deserts, to stereotypical "jungle" or savannah which in part explains the diversity of the features of Africans, who, sad as it is to have to say in 2022, (some folk still haven't got the memo) "don't all look alike."
Posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ All of your pictures only confirm my original point-- that Copts are not a single homogeneous group of singular ethnic ancestry but a heterogeneous mixture who form a religious community.
As for them not looking "black".
ROTFLOL
Because according to you 'black' means looking Congolese.
Meanwhile the colorism article makes it clear that dark-skin is identified with being "authentic Egyptian"; there's a reason Saint Maurius is portrayed the way he is; and why Diasporan blacks in the West who visit Egypt often get mistaken for a Baladi such was the case of the late Frank Yurco's Afro-Caribbean wife as well as so many countless cases as well as the converse-- Egyptians being mistaken for Black Diasporans in America, Canada, UK, Australia, etc. etc..
LOL. Indeed. And light skin is nothing special in "sub-Saharan" African diversity.
And of course there are plenty of AEs who "look black" as have been shown on ES for over a decade now. Their pics are just not posted much. For those who still are stuck in the past- a snip from Reloaded:
Scholar Jablonski on skin color diversity in Africa - She notes that Africans have the most skin color diversity :- quote "more genetic diversity than all the rest of the world's people put together. This diversity is also reflected in skin pigmentation. Africans are not uniform or uniformly dark in their skin color. High levels of skin color diversity exist between different populations and also within most sub-Saharan African groups.6 This variation illustrates the complex interactions of evolutionary forces that contribute to patterns of variation in skin color at any point in time." --N. Jablonski 2012. Living Color: The Biological and Social Meaning of Skin Color
Posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: obviously these kind of egyptians :
^ Obviously the above Egyptians you posted are NOT dark-skinned at all but fair-skinned that is WHITE!! They are Afrangi
who represent the ruling elites of the country and are not even of Arab ancestry but rather Turkish, Circassian, or even European descent!
What you said makes absolutely NO sense. "Black" is a label referring to very dark skin color. How could someone be "pitch black" in color but not be black?! LMAO
As far as ancestry, they are African thus black African and NO black African is not confined to Sub-Sahara as was shown to you multiple times.
LOL. And said foreign derived Afrangi are not representative of the ancient peoples, nor are they necessarily representative of many of the modern masses- the baladi "sons of the soil.".
Ironically it took an Egyptian leader partially of the dreaded "negro blood" to come up with a reasonable strategy for restoring Egyptian military credibility, after they had gotten their asses kicked multiple times by the Israelis. But some still complained that he was "too black."
.
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:Originally posted by Firewall: I posted a shorter version above BUT here is longer one below.
Africoid peoples
PART 1
Africoid peoples
Africoid peoples are human populations of varying phenotypes who are considered black regardless of recent African ancestry..Rashidi, Runoko. The Global African Community. "The African Perspective in India." 1998. September 2, 2007. [http://saxakali.com/Saxakali-Publications/runoko19.htm] ] Bioanthropologist S.O.Y. Keita however, uses the term to describe African descent populations whose morphological variants originate exclusively within the African continent.S.O.Y. Keita. "Studies and Comments on The Biological Relationships of Ancient Egyptians". History in Africa, 20: 129-154 (1993)]
An inclusive term?
A broad usage of the term, "Africoid" is used not only to describe peoples of African descent, but is also used to refer to other peoples who also often are also referred to as black, but whom some anthropologists have in the past termed Hamitic, Capoid, Australoid (also known as Veddoid when applied to Southeast Asians), and Sudroids or more inclusively Dravidians, because they exhibit certain craniofacial and other physical characteristics which are not commonly attributed to so-called "Negroid" peoples. Chief among these physical characteristics are limited or nonexistent prognathismFact|date=February 2008, a brachycephalic cranium (in the case of Capoid blacks), or hair which is relatively straight and finer in texture (in the case of, again, some "Caucasoid", Sudroid, Veddoid, and Australoid people). Polynesians are seen as part Africoid due to the admixture of Australoid and Mongoloid characteristics. The Africoid concept is expounded upon in the works of Afrocentric scholars such as Cheikh Anta Diop, [ Cheikh Anta Diop, The African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality, (Lawrence Hill Books: 1974)] and Chancellor Williams. [Chancellor Williams, The Destruction of Black Civilization, (Third World Press: new ed. 1987)] Those such as Keita however, see little value in overextending the term to include relationships among genetically distinct peoples, such as Africans and "Australoids", preferring to use the term in context with biohistorical African populations of recent African extraction.
Users of the term point to Ethiopians, Eritreans, Somalis and Nubians who exhibit phenotypical traits such as orthognathism [Hanihara et al. (2000), [http://www.femininebeauty.info/hanihara.flatness.pdf Frontal and facial flatness of major human populations] Am J Phys Anthropol, 111, 105] , non-kinky hair texture,Carleton S. Coon, [http://www.snpa.nordish.net/chapter-XI8.htm "The Origin of Races"] , (New York: Knopf, 1962), chapter XI, section 8.] and keen facial features seen by some as being exclusive to Caucasoid peoples. They contend such variations are indigenous to these groups and cannot be attributed to invasions from outside Caucasoid peoples as suggested under the Dynastic Race Theory and in more recent biological studies. [Leiberman and Jackson 1995 "Race and Three Models of Human Origins" in American Anthropologist 97(2) 231-242] Such phenotypical variations, they argue, often occur within nuclear family groups and are inherent to Africoid peoples, much as there are broad variations in physical stature and body proportions between the Pygmies of the Congo, who generally reach a height of 4.5 feet, and of the Dinka or Tutsi of Rwanda, whose average height is 6.5 feet and who are described as "gracile", or gracefully slender. [Cheikh Anta Diop, The African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality, (Lawrence Hill Books (July 1, 1989), pp. 37-279] Similarly, they continue, African peoples commonly considered "Negroid" such as the Senegalese also may lack prognathism. [ Jean Hiernaux, American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 78, No. 2 (Jun., 1976)] .
Critics point outFact|date=August 2008 that the "elongated" physique common to many Ethiopians, Eritreans and Somalis is strictly an adaptive response to living in a tropical environment and not a sign of shared racial ancestry with neighboring black groups as has been proposed:
The elongation of the distal segments of the limbs is also clearly related to the dissipation of metabolically generated heat. Because heat stress and latitude are clearly related, one would expect to find a correlation between the two sets of traits that are associated with adaptation to survival in areas of great ambient temperature, namely, skin color and limb proportions. This is clearly the case in such areas as Equatorial Africa, the tropical portions of South Asia, and northern Australia, although there is little covariation with other sets of inherited traits. In this regard it is interesting to note that the limb proportions of the Predynastic Naqada in Upper Egypt are reported to be "super-Negroid", meaning that the distal segments are elongated in the fashion of tropical Africans. It would be just as accurate to call them "super-Veddoid" or "super-Carpentarian" because skin color intensification and distal limb elongation are apparent wherever people have been long-term residents of the tropics. The term "super-tropical" would be better, as it implies the results of selection associated with a given latitude rather than the more "racially loaded" term "Negroid. [Brace CL, Tracer DP, Yaroch LA, Robb J, Brandt K, Nelson AR (1993). "Clines and clusters versus "race:" a test in ancient Egypt and the case of a death on the Nile". [http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/110532242/ABSTRACT Yrbk Phys Anthropol 36:1–31] ".]
However, many anthropologists indeed contend that this elongated morphology, as seen in East Africa has been present since Paleolithic times, while suggesting that those early African ancestors should indeed be directly ancestral to the living populations of East Africa today, and that this variation should owe little to external influences. [Hiernaux, Jean. "The People of Africa", pp142. New York.]
Additionally, some argue that certain African peoples exhibit physical characteristics beyond the scope of the classic Negroid phenotype, including narrow nasal indices in the case of Ethiopians, Eritreans and Somalis, as well as a minority of the often very dark-skinned peoples of the Nile region. They also cite the epicanthic eyefolds evident in the Khoisan of southern Africa. [Diop, op. cit]
Their critics counter that the phenotypical differences between Horn of African peoples and sub-Saharan blacks run much deeper than mere facial features and are compounded by genetic differences:
East Africans are more related to Eurasians than to other African populations. Investigations of Y chromosome markers have shown that the East African populations were not significantly affected by the east bound Bantu expansion that took place approximately 3500 years ago, while a significant contact to Arab and Middle East populations can be deduced from the present distribution of the Y chromosomes in these areas. [Juan J Sanchez et al., "High frequencies of Y chromosome lineages characterized by E3b1, DYS19-11, DYS392-12 in Somali males," "European Journal of Human Genetics" (2005) 13, 856–866]
However, many geneticists who have found similar results, where populations straddling the horn of Africa are seen to possess intermediate genetic tendencies, suggest that such genetic diversity in Africa is expected, given the immense time depths of human habitation there [S.O.Y. Keita and Rick A. Kittles, American Anthropologist (1997)] , while Tishkoff (1996) found such variation to be as a result of natural drift and local evolution, also citing similarities with non-Africans due to her assertion that the horn of Africa populations are direct descendants of those migrants who left Africa to people the rest of the world. [Tishkoff, Sarah (1996). "Global patterns of linkage disequilibrium of the CD4 locus and Modern Human Origins]
Africoid critics also add that skin color is not an indication of racial affiliation, but a morphological adaptation to one's environment:
Skin color is one of the most conspicuous ways in which humans vary and has been widely used to define human races. Here we present new evidence indicating that variations in skin color are adaptive, and are related to the regulation of ultraviolet (UV) radiation penetration.... Skin coloration in humans is adaptive and labile. Skin pigmentation levels have changed more than once in human evolution. Because of this, skin coloration is of no value in determining phylogenetic relationships among modern human groups."Jablonski, Nina and George Chaplin. (2000) The Evolution of Human Skin Coloration. J Hum Evol; 39:57-106]
Many anthropologists have observed that "Caucasoid" is applied inconsistently and challenge as Eurocentric and inappropriate the use of a term which contains a European geographic referent to refer to people who are indigenous to the African continent. Further, they argue that the term is misleading and that, as a result, it erroneously has been conflated by some to mean non-Black or even White — despite the fact that so-called "Caucasoid" Africans range from brown to mahogany to extremely dark in skin tone. This is also the case with some "Caucasoid" peoples of the Indian subcontinent, i.e., the Dravidians, whom some Afrocentrists regard as Africoid, as well. [Diop, op. cit.; Williams op. cit. ]
Many contend that affixing the "Caucasoid" label to African peoples runs counter to phenotypical naming conventions, which historically have associated peoples with their geographic points of origin. They, therefore, have been the chief proponents and users of the term "Africoid" as what they consider to be a more accurate, inclusive and all-encompassing term for indigenous, dark-skinned peoples of the African continent and the African diaspora. [Diop, op. cit.; Williams op. cit. ]
Critics, on the other hand, point out that skin color is independent of race and is strictly a signifier of long term residence in tropical latitudes. Therefore, the term "Africoid" may be misleading in some settings since it allows its users to corral people of very different genetic backgrounds into one umbrella racial group based on loosely and inconsistently shared physical characteristics such as skin color -- characteristics that are a product of adaptation and not ancestry
However, skin color is not a criterion used in defining "Africoid" within its biogeographical (as opposed to social) context, which is a term used to describe Africans and their descendants who possess variants that independently arose in Africa. [S.O.Y. Keita. "A Brief Review of Studies and Comments on. Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships". International Journal of Anthropology, (1995)]
Criticism of race categorization
Critics of the race classification school such as Alan Templeton, [Human Races: A Genetic and Evolutionary Perspective, Alan R. Templeton. American Anthropologist, 1998, 100:632-650] Rick Kittles and S.O.Y Keita generally reject emphasis on traditional racial categories. They hold that race is not very useful in understanding the movements and origins of peoples and that racial terms such as "Caucasoid" and "Negroid" too often seek to plug such peoples into stereotypical checkboxes and deny them the full range of human variability. [S.O.Y. KEITA, "Studies of Ancient Crania From North", AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 83:35-48 (1990)] This more race-neutral view contradicts the assertions of some Afrocentrics as to idealized racial types [Williams, op. cit] but also echo concerns raised by writers like C.A. Diop, namely: why are European populations conceived of as varying so widely in skin color, features, hair, and other indices but not Africoids? [Diop, op. cit]
Critics of race categorization also dispute the notion of Caucasoid admixture in the case of the Wolof and other African peoples, holding that the differences found among the Africoid peoples are simply localized variations that do not rely on any mixture from an assortment of discrete races. [The Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence, S. O. Y. Keita, Rick A. Kittles, American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 99, No. 3 (Sep., 1997), pp. 534-544] Such concepts of admixture they hold, too often rely on stereotypical definitions of a "true negro" type, allowing reclassification of peoples like Somalis, Ethiopians, Nubians, etc to a "Caucasoid" grouping or mixed grouping with Caucasoids, sometimes using different labels like "Mediterranean" or "Middle Eastern." [Keita and Kittles, pp 534-44] Narrow naso-facial features for example are found among the oldest populations of East Africa, independently of any admixture with Caucasoid or Southwest Asiatic peoples. [Jean Hiernaux, The People of Africa (Encore Editions: 1975), pp. 17-204]
They also dispute the notion that East Africans are more related to Eurasians than other tropical Africans. To the contrary, they maintain that the East African peoples are much more related to other African populations than Europeans and Asians, and that supporters of traditional race theories typically use misleading labeling (such as 'Middle Eastern') to classify African DNA data so as to decontextualize it. For example, Ethiopians are very closely related to one of the oldest African populations, the Khosian peoples or Bushmen and cluster likewise with Senegalese on several Y-chromosomal measures. [Ornella Semino,1 A. Silvana Santachiara-Benerecetti,1 Francesco Falaschi,2 L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza,3 and Peter A. Underhill3, "Ethiopians and Khoisan Share the Deepest Clades of the Human Y-Chromosome Phylogeny," Am J Hum Genet. 2002 January; 70(1): 265–268] Chromosomal variants such as haplotype IV for example are found in high frequency in west, central, and sub-equatorial Africa in speakers of Niger-Congo, and to some extent among the Nubians. Another variant, Haplotype XI has its highest frequencies in the Horn and the Nile valley. Other types such as V and XI are found more heavily in Africa and the Nile Valley than among peoples such as Arabs, Turks or others. Haplotypes VII and VIII are most prevalent in the Near East, and XII and XV in Europe. [S.O.Y. Keita, A. J. Boyce, "Genetics, Egypt, and History: Interpreting Geographical Patterns of Y Chromosome Variation1," History in Africa 32 (2005) 221-246; see also S. O. Y and A.J. Boyce, "The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians", in in Egypt in Africa, Theodore Celenko (ed), Indiana University Press, 1996, pp. 20-33 url=http://www.forumcityusa.com/viewtopic.php?t=318&mforum=africa]
As regards reliance on the categories of forensic anthropology, they point out that the weight of forensic data shows Africoid peoples cannot be stereotyped as an extreme, or conceived of as mixes between idealized types, but vary widely in physical characteristics. For example:
Scientists have been studying remains from the Egyptian Nile Valley for years. Analysis of crania is the traditional approach to assessing ancient population origins, relationships, and diversity. In studies based on anatomical traits and measurements of crania, similarities have been found between Nile Valley crania from 30,000, 20,000 and 12,000 years ago and various African remains from more recent times (see Thoma 1984; Brauer and Rimbach 1990; Angel and Kelley 1986; Keita 1993). Studies of crania from southern predynastic Egypt, from the formative period (4000-3100 B.C.), show them usually to be more similar to the crania of ancient Nubians, Kushites, Saharans, or modern groups from the Horn of Africa than to those of dynastic northern Egyptians or ancient or modern southern Europeans. [S. O. Y and A.J. Boyce, "The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians", in in Egypt in Africa, Theodore Celenko (ed), Indiana University Press, 1996, pp. 20-33 url=http://www.forumcityusa.com/viewtopic.php?t=318&mforum=africa]
Issues in the study of Africoid populations
Much of this is from a Wiki page I edited many years ago (06) giving the quoted definition of "Africoid" that a published scientist, S. Keita, gives, along with various other published scholars, not simple opinion or links to somebody's Youtube page. Assorted trolls & moles on Wikipedia killed the article, but then I discovered Egyptsearch and posted all the info they were trying to make "disappear," which rather than being buried on an obscure wiki receiving 5 hits a month, is picked up and shared via Google worldwide, just like now, rendering all the mole/troll sandbagging efforts a dismal failure.
Keita's definition of the term "Africoid" is RELATIVELY speaking, a more reasonable one reflective of African diversity than the stereotypical true "negroid" STILL being used in some parts of academia today:
"Much of the previous work focused on “racial” analysis. The concept of race is problematic, and (‘racial” terms have been inconsistently defined and used in African historiography as noted recently (MacGaffey, 1966; Sanders, 1969; Vercoutter, 1978).. There is little demarcation between the predynastics and tropical series and even the early southern dynastic series. Definite trends are discernible in the analyses. This broadly shared "southern" metric pattern, along with the other mentioned characteristics to a greater or lesser degree, might be better described by the term Africoid, by definition connoting a tropical African microclade, microadaptation, and patristic affinity, thereby avoiding the nonevolutionary term "Negroid" and allowing for variation both real and conceptual." --S. Keita. 1990. Studies of ancient crania from northern Africa. Am J Phys Anthropol. . 1990 Sep;83(1):35-48.
Oh i did not see this reply until now. Interesting info.
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
I almost did not see this one.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Why do you guys always make comparison with afro-americans/afro-latinos ? These people have european if not amerindian admixture.
Nope,not all.
quote: Originally posted by Firewall: The way you write this you make it seem like it's all,but it's not true.
Unfortunately there isn't much the Egyptian government can do because the Copts are and have been a persecuted minority for centuries, over a thousand years to be exact. Ever since the Arab invasions as well as conversions (forced or bribed) among the original Coptic majority, the remnant Coptic population has lived a precarious existence. The persecution waxes and wanes depending on the political climate and while Copts still possess some rights under Egyptian law in theory, in practice they are under the mercy of their Islamic neighbors.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
>> thought such legends were laughably ridiculous! These infancy gospels were penned decades if not a century after his death, and some was blatantly Gnostic.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
