...
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 africurious: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Tukuler: [qb] The Hebrew passage in question does not use the word for dark it uses the word for black.[/qb][/QUOTE]From what I've read it would seem better to translate "shehor" in this instance of this Pirke as dark because the author was obviously talking about 2 different shades of a color and "shehor" was sometimes used to describe non-black (but dark) things such as kinds of wine and citron. It seems "shehor" may've originally denoted black but was eventually used to also describe very dark things that weren't black. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Tukuler: [qb] Muslim and Christian views are not Hebrew ones. To know Judaean ideology Hebrew texts are what's relevant. Because other peoples based their religions on ancient Hebrew texts doesn't make these others views legitimate Hebrew tenet. What I mean is Shem is a creation of the ancient Israelites and what later peoples who adopted the character made of him is hardly what the originals made up unless directly borrowed from a Hebrew text.[/qb][/QUOTE]We are in agreement that the views of Noah’s son’s held by Christians and Muslims are separate from the Jewish view when it was written. You seemed to have misunderstood me. I mention the chris/muslim views because I was interested in earlier (i.e. around 1,000ce or prior) views of Noah’s son. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Tukuler: [qb]Look at the Hham lands. What colour are people there? Same for Shem and Yapheth. What colour are the peoples there. I seriously doubt Israels had to wait hundreds of years for Xtian and Muslim views to see that peoples east and south of the Mediterranean were much darker than those north of it. At a certain point academic presumption equals foolishness. But of course it seems everybody knows more about Hebrew concepts than the Hebrews know themselves. I mean come on. Israelites and Judahites looked at Kushites (Sudanese and east/south Arabian) and at Egyptians and somehow never thought of Hham, their mythic progenitor as black until the 4th century CE and only then due to influence of other people? [/qb][/QUOTE]I never said the jewish tradition called Ham black in the 4th century because of others influence. It was under their own influence, specifically due to their confusion of the 1st phoneme in the name Ham. As to whether it’s obvious that Noah’s sons were a certain color based on the descendants assigned to them, that’s what I’m wondering i.e. is it obvious? I haven’t looked into that enough to have a strong opinion as you do. The thing with this too is that then we’d have to verify the colorings of the various descendants, which leads to 2 issues: A) Do we know conclusively who all the descendants mentioned are? B) Do we know conclusively what was the color of each? It seems we’d have a problem answering those 2 questions sufficiently for all descendants, but idk. This is something I’d want to look into at some point. [/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