...
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] Wow, Zarahan, it seems you weren't paying proper attention to the thread or the sources you cite. There is no discussion of any curse here so we need not go into that further, but as far what you say below... [QUOTE]Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: [qb] Africurious said" [b]The earliest instance of assignment of darkness/blackness to Ham or his progeny is the 4th century CE.. [/b] ^^Based on what source do you get a 4th century CE date? Says who? Please list your scholarly citation. One detailed source I have seen, (The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, 2005, By David M. Goldenberg) lists several instances before that. [/qb][/QUOTE]^You cited a source for me in what you wrote. See pg 155 of Goldenberg's book where he says the idea of a dark Ham cannot be dated with confidence before the 4th century, where it appears in the Palestinian Talmud. He does mention the possibility that a black ham may stem from tannaitic traditions in the 2nd century. In any case, both these sources are 800-1,000 yrs after the OT was put together. [QUOTE]Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:[qb] And indeed Diop quotes approvingly from Moses's writings, and notes the Hebrew lawgiver saw the Egyptians as indigenous Africans- that the name "Ham" is derived from Egyptian sources, which Moses used because he himself spent time in Egypt. Diop has no problem with the Biblical narrative on this score and gives the thumbs up to Moses. [/qb][/QUOTE]I don't accept a claim by any scholar just because I respect him and he said so--his reasoning must be sound. To do otherwise is hero worship. Several scholars before Diop had made the same claim and all are wrong. Diop (and others) argued that ham derived from the AE word for black (km) whose root word is "burnt". However, this cannot be so since the 1st phoneme in the hebrew spelling of Ham makes one of 2 possible sounds, [b]neither of which is the same as that for the AE "km"[/b] (see my earlier post for sound details or consult Goldenberg's book that you cited). Furthermore, no other religion's mythical tales are treated as historical unless demonstrated so there's no reason to do that for abrahamic religions i.e. the whole moses/slavery in egypt/exodus religious doctrine is not accepted as historical by the general biblical scholarship due to severe lack of evidence. Therefore what Diop or anyone claims Moses did in Egypt is irrelevant to verified history. [/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