...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Question on the Pirke de R. Eliezer
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by africurious: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Swenet: [qb] [QUOTE] Originally posted by africurious: I find it strange that the Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer would be the only early source to mention something like this.[/QUOTE]Agree. What's also curious is that Shem in this scenario would be black, while all the major patriarchs that are allocated to him are historically known as light skinned Eurasian types. [/qb][/QUOTE][QUOTE]Originally posted by Djehuti: [qb] ^ But then we have Elam who is included in the progeny of Shem, and we all know how Elamites looked. So what are we to make of this? [/qb][/QUOTE]From what I’ve researched, the notion that Noah’s 3 sons refer to races or pseudo-racial ethnicities or color groups of peoples has been conclusively shown to be false. The earliest instance of assignment of darkness/blackness to Ham or his progeny is the 4th century CE, which is at least 900 yrs after what we know as the old testament was cobbled together. It is based on this labeling Ham as dark/black that later on Shem and Japhet too were assigned their individual color groupings. However, Ham was labeled black/dark because, centuries after the OT was written, scholars in their exegises figured that the name Ham came from a root word in Hebrew that meant burnt or hot. This opinion has been held ever since. However, in Hebrew the 1st letter in Ham can be 2 different sounds based on the word used (in the olden days when ancient Hebrew was spoken as an everyday lang it was easy to tell which sound was meant, similar to how in afroasiatic languages they didn’t write the vowels of the words because every native speaker at the time knew the sound that was meant). The sound for the 1st letter of the root word “burnt” or “hot” is a pharyngeal fricative (this would be that last sound after the “a” in the name “Noah”). While the other sound that could be meant is a velar fricative (this would be similar to the “g” sound in “Gaza”). Over time, the 2 sounds were confused because they begin with the same hebrew letter. Therefore, Ham doesn’t mean dark (and shem and japhet have no color bearings either as linguists simply tried to make them fit a color based on their belief that Ham meant black/dark). The meaning of the 3 names have yet to be demonstrated. So we shouldn’t be very concerned with what complexion grouping a mythical patriarchal head falls under since there were no complexion groupings. Linguists very late in the last century demonstrated the correct sound for the 1st letter in Ham by looking at Greek translations of Hebrew. The velar and pharyngeal fricatives of the Hebrew letter in question are differentiated in the Greek alphabet. [b]Back to Shem's darkness:[/b] I’ve found that the complexion of shem that is meant in the Pirke R. Eliezer is “dark” as in dark brown. The Hebrew word “Shehor” is used and it often means black but can mean a dark that approaches black or even a very deep shade of a color (these uses are actually identical to how the greek “mauros” ended up being used in romance languages). This is apparently why when it comes to Ham even though the same word “shehor” is used, the author added the qualifier “like the raven”, as in “dark like the raven” i.e. black. Furthermore, the Pirke that all current versions are based on is ultimately from the 8th-9th centuries and is written in a land controlled by muslims (apparently Palestine). It seems this early muslim influence is why the Pirke assigns shem a dark complexion as opposed to something like off-white or tan. The only other sources which assign shem dark complexions are all under early Islamic influence (most are Islamic and the 1 christian source was written by a christian living in Islamic territory). Arabic seems to have more words for color variation than Hebrew and in arabic “sumra” (dark brown) is used to describe shem while “sudan” (black) or another word meaning black is used to describe ham. The Arabs ultimately got the notion of color grouping Noah’s sons from christian and jewish sources. However, I believe the reason we have these descriptions of Shem as being dark brown in sources written in early Islamic lands is that the Arabs were originally dark (i.e. ranging from brown to black as they themselves state) and since they wanted to be descendants of Shem in order to cement their special status then they quite naturally described Shem in a way that was more similar to them as opposed to the off-white or tan descriptions that would later be prevalent in islam and the other 2 abrahamic religions. [/qb][/QUOTE]I didn't know that you saw saw the notion of skin colouration assignments as falling under ''race debate'', otherwise I wouldn't even have posted, because I simply have nothing to add outside of what I said. That being said, I don't base my view of Ham being associated with dark skinned peoples on some of the etymological suggestions, but rather, with the common denominator that binds all these groups. Its an inference. So, I agree with Tukuler in this regard. The grouping of numerous black (light brown to very dark skinned) people in the Southern Iraq (Cushites), Arabia (both Mizraimites [Ishmaelites] and Cushites), Crete (Mizraimites), Africa (both Mizraimites and Cushites) just seem too strong of a correlation to just disregard. Canaan, too, has numerous black people, although light skinned populations were present and also allocated to Canaan's progeny. But yeah, like I said, I never meant to stray from what you explicitly said you didn't want to discuss in this thread. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3