Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Tracing Jewish Ancestry
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 9>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
IamJoseph View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 20-Sep-2008
Location: AUSTRALIA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 296 		  Quote IamJoseph Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Tracing Jewish Ancestry
    Posted: 21-Sep-2008 at 01:51
And Israel and Canaan and Philistia and.... Palestina was the Roman word for the area before 70 CE, and did not and still does not mean Judaea.
 
It was called Judea throughout the Roman period, and never referred to as Palestina pre-70 CE, a name earlier applied only by the Greeks, which refered to all of the Arabian region, including Syria - because the Greeks were kin of the original, foreign Philistines who were not middle-eastern, and un-related totoday's Palestinians. The Greeks referred to the original Philistines, who were destroted by David a 1000 years before the Romans resurrected this name and applied it upon the Jews in Judea.
 
 
It is however the familiar English-language name for the area which is why I used it.
 
It is now used as a means of negating Jewish connection with this land, and directed at the neo post-60's Arabs as a political tool. Today's Palestinians, a non-historical reference,  hated this name before the 60's, when it was hijacked by Arafat. Prior to this time, only Jews were referred to as palestinian. Today's Jerusalem Post was called The palestinian Post. No such think as a Muslim Palestinian pre-60s. The jews predate both the islamic religion, and the Arab race per se in this region - so do the Coptics, Drews and Kurds.
Moses - the First Zionist.
Back to Top
IamJoseph View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 20-Sep-2008
Location: AUSTRALIA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 296 		  Quote IamJoseph Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Sep-2008 at 02:29
It wasn't just involuntary. There was a large number, quite reasonably, of economic migrants  and soldier/colonists. (A lot of Jews had already stayed behind in Babylon after they were allowed to go.) Even St Paul came from a pre-70 CE diaspora family, and nothing to do with the exiles. 
 
By involuntary, I mean as a differential from an enforced exile subsequent to a war of destruction. In 70 CE, the Jews were forced out, their religion and language forbidden, and 100s  of 1000s were taken as slaves to the European continent. Common historical knowledge.
 
Alexander wasn't visiting anywhere in 300 BCE.
 
Alexander made a grand visit to Jerusalem in 300 BCE, whereby he was honored by the Temple preists. Unlike Rome, he granted full amnesty to the Jews, allowing them to conduct their own religion, and requested their Bible be translated to Greek - this was what caused the septuagint. Flavius Josephus states the Greeks also got their alphabetical writings from the Jewish hebrew writings during this time, and made intelligent numbering indexes of the Bible verses, applying names for the books, and seperating the vowels and numerals from the alphabets. The greeks also begat the 'V' alphabet from here, and the alpha beta from the Hebrew alef bet. There is no greek alphabetical writings before this date.
 
The Preists in Judea honored Alexander by calling all their first born males with this name, which is how this name also became accepted in Judaism. Following the Septuagint, the Hellenist Preists became chagrined when the greek people saw the Jewish bible laws as superior to their own. Alexander was soon assassinated thereafter, a syndrome which mirrored the story of Joseph in ancient Egypt. Mostly, the Greeks disdained some of the laws in the Bible, including those of Monotheism, Equal rights to the stranger as the inhabitant; inalieanable human rights [the greeks saw fit to kill off an ugly baby]; dietery laws; forbiddence of image worship; gay laws, etc, which threatened to nullify their priesthood powers. There is also an arguement Democrasy came from the Septuagint ['Do not follow a corrupt multitude; Let the majority decide']; the previous claimed greek version was not democrasy, but limited to selected sectors, citizens, males only, and greek property owners having a vote.
 
The Septuagint was commissioned by Ptolemy II Philadelphus, not by Alexander. In fact it was commissioned more than 50 years after Alexander's death. Ptolemy only came to the throne in 285 BCE.
 
Ptolemy, who took over after Alex's death, processed Alex's order, but did not initiate this translation.
 
And if most Jews had been living in Jerusalem or Palestine, the Septuagint would probably have been translated there. It was done in Alexandria because Alexandria was then the world's largest Jewish city.
 
The Septuagint was translated in Alexandria because the greeks wanted to oversee and control the translation - their held the jewish bible in greater esteem than any other writings. Alex hailed it as the only writings which described history prior to their own, depicting a period when no such books existed. The greeks, being a powerful philosophical nation, built a huge library in Alexandria.
 
Alexander's greatest contribution to humanity may well not be the wars but this event: it changed the world, begat a superior form of philosophy, and eventually was responsible for christianity via the greeks.
Moses - the First Zionist.
Back to Top
IamJoseph View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 20-Sep-2008
Location: AUSTRALIA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 296 		  Quote IamJoseph Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Sep-2008 at 02:59
 Hebrew and Phoenician evolved from the language known as Cannanite.   Please stop trying to make something mysterious when it is not.
 
I searched, but found no canaanite alphabetical books: how come, if they predated the Hebrews? Egypt, which for centuries before ruled its vasal state Canaan, also spoke no Hebrew: how come, if the Hebrew writings came from canaan? The canaanites were still around after the Hebrews entered, namely two of the eight Canaanitekingdoms sided with the Hebrews in a war, and lived peacable for centuries - still no hebrew-canaanite books: how come? In fact, Hebrew always remained a different language and was not spoken by any other peoples - thus there is a mytsery here.
 
 
King David is still considered by many to be fictional.  The discoveries at tel dan have been controversial at best from the very beginning.  I don't believe I have ever read where a scholar was or felt shamed by a discovery of something that can be interpreted in so many ways as the stele at tel dan.
 
The tel dan has been accepted by all scholars as a proof David was a true, historical figure, overturning the previous myth allocation. Aside from the tel dan, a host of finds have proven David and his son Solomon, the Temple and the numerous battles listed in the Hebrew bible. The tel dan discovery cannot be interpreted in forms which deny David - it alligns with the psalms and later historical writings of jeremiah and other authors, as well as writings of the Assyrians, with historically identifiable names, nations, wars and datings.
 
It's odd how the people who see David in the script are affiliated with the Israeli government in one way or another.  It has been a prime objective for years to find proof of David's existence in order to legitimize their claims to the region.
 
If this is meant to be a history thread, anyone with menial history knowledge will know there is no need to legitimise Israel's history: there is no nation or peoples anywhere with more historical proof than of Israel's history, nor of falsehoods invented to negate this history. Today, even the Jerusalem Temple is denied and called a myth by many anti-Israel sectors, including many christians who invented Muslim Pretend palestinians when the Pope shook hands with Arafat - this lie totally over-turns the Gospels which says one jesus visited this temple - and that there were no Palestinians after David conquered this peoples in Gaza 3000 years ago.
 
Previous to David, no nation was able to confront the Philistines, a foreign, non-semetic peoples who introduced iron in this region. A 1000 years later, in 70 CE, Rome resurrected this name to denote Judea and the davidic dynasty was no more, by placing the name of the ancient enemies of the Jews upon this land. In 1948, this name was again reversed to its original one in part of Palestine, and history was brought back to life. A host of false premises are also being raised today, subsequent to Israel's return being a great chagrin owing to a host of theological doctrines being over-turned. History is being both corrected and disdained.
 
 
 
 
Moses - the First Zionist.
Back to Top
IamJoseph View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 20-Sep-2008
Location: AUSTRALIA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 296 		  Quote IamJoseph Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Sep-2008 at 03:25
 
The earliest Greek text found so far i.e. Derveni papirus predates any known copy of the text in Hebrew ever found.
 
Not so where 'alphabetical' writings are concerned. There is no alphabetical greek writings prior to the Septuagint. With regard to cunieform and other picture writings, of course these existed before: the pyramids, as well as the writings etched in stone there, predate Abraham by 1200 years, Moses by 800 years.
 
 
 
 
Though if one talks just about inscriptions, letter fragments etc. they predate any Hebrew written artefacts for many centuries.
 
Not when it comes to alphabetical scripts, nor anything which disputes historical Hebrew writing depictions. The hebrew bible ushered in new, world-changing paradigms of philosophy, such as Monotheism and Creationism, in conjunction with a new, advanced form of alphabetical books and grammar. The five books of Moses [Torah] also represents the first alphabetical 'books' - namely multiple page continueing narratives. The Illiad, not alphabetical, has been re-dated by scholars to a much more recent period; the Egyptian book of the dead is also not alphabetical and is not a continueing multi-page narrative.
 
Even well after the emergence of the five books, numerous follow-up alphabetical books emerged, some 100 years apart, giving a continueing historically evidential thread of this region's history. At this time, such writings were still not seen anywhere in the region or elsewhere, which includes alphabetical hebrew books such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekial, Micah, The Psalms of David, etc. The history of Abraham is not recorded elsewhere, which descriptions also introduce a host of nations and countries not known of from other writings. Namely, the world owes knowledge of large chunks of ancient history solely from the Hebrew bible.
Moses - the First Zionist.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113 		  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Sep-2008 at 04:07
Originally posted by IamJoseph

 
The earliest Greek text found so far i.e. Derveni papirus predates any known copy of the text in Hebrew ever found.
 
Not so where 'alphabetical' writings are concerned. There is no alphabetical greek writings prior to the Septuagint. With regard to cunieform and other picture writings, of course these existed before: the pyramids, as well as the writings etched in stone there, predate Abraham by 1200 years, Moses by 800 years.
 
 
 
Have you even tried to read my post before writing this?  Of course there is Greek aphabetical writing samples before the Bible translations. Derveni Papirus was written before Alexander even stated to dream about the trip to Jerusalem.
 
The most ancient inscription in Greek alphabet is even more ancient, dated 8 century BC. And it's written in alphabetical letters not in hieroglyphs or cuneiform script.
 
 
So please, stop dessiminating false information.
 
 
 
 
 


Edited by Sarmat12 - 21-Sep-2008 at 04:08
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
IamJoseph View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 20-Sep-2008
Location: AUSTRALIA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 296 		  Quote IamJoseph Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Sep-2008 at 06:47

Have you even tried to read my post before writing this?  Of course there is Greek aphabetical writing samples before the Bible translations. Derveni Papirus was written before Alexander even stated to dream about the trip to Jerusalem.
 
The most ancient inscription in Greek alphabet is even more ancient, dated 8 century BC. And it's written in alphabetical letters not in hieroglyphs or cuneiform script.
 
 
So please, stop dessiminating false information.
 
I would think twice b4 calling my info false, or of comparing Free Wiki, which has many litigations and court demands for corrections - with a source such as the Britania. If your history was better, you would know of several Hebrew references which predate your example. Your example is also not an alphabetical book, nor is it backed by a continuous thread of follow-up alphabetical books issued periodically, as with the Hebrew - a sure sign of an error of its claims.
 
You have obviously failed to factor in that most European sites are biased against Israel [as per the tel dal issue], and focus on whatever alligns with the Gospels, as opposed real history. You will find that neigher the phoenecian nor the later greek were true alphabetics - they did not possess vowels, nor numerous other alphabetical consonants, nor musical notes, which were inclusive in the more pristine Hebrew alphabeticals. The Hebrew was different, in that it contained both vowels and numerals, later seperated by the greeks circa Septuagint. Have you not wondered why there are no greek alphabetical 'BOOKS' between your relic dating - and the Septuagint?!
 
 
 I pointed you to the Josephus Documents, which is 2000 years old - far more nearer contemporary than your source. My source quotes the Greeks themselves acknowledging their debt to the Hebrew, and one of the world's most revered sources:  

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.truthnet.org/pdf/Bible-Origins/4_How_was_the_Bible_written.pdf

 

 

The development of Alphabets

 Archeology has clearly demonstrated the existence of a written alphabetic communication dating to the time of Abraham, and an even earlier cuneiform methods.  There are several theories about the development of alphabets. An interesting point to note, the early Hebrew Alphabet is nearly identical with the Phoenician Alphabet, which is dated as early as the time of Joseph.  Greeks writers have even proposed the Hebrews as the inventors of the alphabet.   Quoting Encyclopedia Britannica, 

Over the centuries, various theories have been advanced to explain the origin of alphabetic writing, and, since classical times, the problem has been a matter of serious study. The Greeks and Romans considered five different peoples as the possible inventors of the alphabet—the Phoenicians, Egyptians, Assyrians, Cretans, and Hebrews. Among modern theories are some that are not very different from those of ancient days. Every country situated in or more or less near the eastern Mediterranean has been singled out for the honor. 

The early Hebrew alphabet, the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet could have been the source behind the Phoenician alphabet; since many agree that the Proto-Canaanite alphabet preceded the Phoenician, which was the source behind the Greek alphabet which is the source behind the alphabets in the Western world.  Encyclopedia Britannica continues regarding Hebrew as the origin of today’s alphabets. 
Moses - the First Zionist.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113 		  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Sep-2008 at 07:07
LOL
You're  trying to say something about Britnnica without looking through it and relying on the false sources which mislead readers by misinterpreting the real Britannica's article.
 
Here it is, and bad for you and for your fake source it doesn't say what you claim:
 
 
 
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
IamJoseph View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 20-Sep-2008
Location: AUSTRALIA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 296 		  Quote IamJoseph Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Sep-2008 at 07:44
This is the entirety of your link:
 

Development and diffusion of alphabets » The Canaanite alphabet

The two Canaanite branches may be subdivided into several secondary branches. First, Early Hebrew had three secondary branches—Moabite, Edomite, and Ammonite—and two offshoots—the script of Jewish coins and the Samaritan script, still in use today for liturgical purposes only. Second, Phoenician can be divided into Phoenician proper and “colonial” Phoenician. Out of the latter developed the Punic and neo-Punic scripts and probably also the Libyan and Iberian scripts.

The term Early Hebrew is used to distinguish this branch from the later so-called Square Hebrew. The Early Hebrew alphabet had already begun to acquire its distinctive character by the 11th century bc. It was used officially until the 6th century bc and lingered on for several centuries more. In a stylized form it was used on Jewish coins from 135 bc to ad 132–135. The most ancient example of Early Hebrew writing is that of the Gezer Calendar of the period of Saul or David (i.e., c. 1000 bc). The oldest extant example of the Early Hebrew ABCs is the 8th–7th-century-bc schoolboy graffito mentioned above. A cursive style reached its climax in the inscriptions at Tel Lakhish, dating from the beginning of the 6th century bc. The Leviticus and other small Early Hebrew fragments found in the Dead Sea caves, which are probably from the 3rd century bc, are the only remains of what is considered to be the Early Hebrew book, or literary, hand.

It is difficult to overestimate the importance of the Phoenician alphabet in the history of writing. The earliest definitely readable inscription in the North Semitic alphabet is the so-called Ahiram inscription found at Byblos in Phoenicia (now Lebanon), which probably dates from the 11th century bc. There is, however, no doubt that the Phoenician use of the North Semitic alphabet went further back. By being adopted and then adapted by the Greeks, the North Semitic, or Phoenician, alphabet became the direct ancestor of all Western alphabets. Only very few inscriptions have been found in Phoenicia proper. This rarity of indigenous documents is in contrast to the numbers of Phoenician inscriptions found elsewhere—on Cyprus, Malta, Sicily, and Sardinia, and in Greece, North Africa, Marseille, Spain, and other places.

 

While it says nothing of the Greek, it says Canaanite predates the pheonecian, and here it allocated Hebrew as 'FIRST' in that lineup. 

If your quest was sincere, you have to ask for a thread of alphabetical books continueing, or mark the source's claims as less than credible: would you be satisfied that Norway, for example, invented alphabetical writings, but have none but a stray pottery item, which is not really alphabetical, and has no imprints of continuation thereafter - unlike that of the Hebrew thread of alphabetical books? That is the different between quoting source points via googling, and doing research and applying some input what is being said by comparisons.
 
Now there is some variances of who introduced alphabetical writings, depending on which sources one respects, with Hebrew being in the first three by all such claims, namely listing the Canaanite, Pheonecian and Hebrew. But the Greek is not in this category. My questioning the Pheonecian is because it is less old than the Canaanite, and the Phoenceians were allies of the Hebrews, with their writings too similar to differentiate in the early writings: the Phaonecians were sailors of a Hebrew Kings [Solomon] navy, and supplied lebanon Timber for the building of Solomon's Temple - by this time we already had a host of alphabetical Hebrew books - where are the Pheonecian books - and how can they otherwise pass on to the Greeks, which you claim predates the Hebrew?
 
The other reason to question, is that we have no Canaanite alphabetical books, nor did that nation, or its ruling one, Egypt, speak or write Hebrew. These are legitimate reasons and you have not addressed them. The source I gave you is a ligitimate and credible one, and you accused me of dissing falsehoods. I beg to differ.
Moses - the First Zionist.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Sep-2008 at 14:24
Originally posted by IamJoseph

It wasn't just involuntary. There was a large number, quite reasonably, of economic migrants  and soldier/colonists. (A lot of Jews had already stayed behind in Babylon after they were allowed to go.) Even St Paul came from a pre-70 CE diaspora family, and nothing to do with the exiles. 
 
By involuntary, I mean as a differential from an enforced exile subsequent to a war of destruction. In 70 CE, the Jews were forced out, their religion and language forbidden, and 100s  of 1000s were taken as slaves to the European continent. Common historical knowledge.
If the Jews were forced out in 70 CE, who revolted under Bar Kochba in 132-135 CE? 
If their religion and language was forbidden, who taught at Jamnia, and what language did they use? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jamnia
In fact of course there are innumerable evidences of the existence of Jews in Palestine, Judaea or whatever you want to call it, after 70 CE, right up to modern times.
 
In any case that has nothing to do with the fact that large numbers of Jews had emigrated in the centuries before 70 CE and settled abroad (threatening the disappearance of Hebrew, one of the things the institution at Jamnia was bent on preserving.
Alexander wasn't visiting anywhere in 300 BCE.
 
Alexander made a grand visit to Jerusalem in 300 BCE, whereby he was honored by the Temple preists.
Alexander died in 323 BCE. Must have been his ghost.
 
 
Unlike Rome, he granted full amnesty to the Jews, allowing them to conduct their own religion, 
Actually most of the time so did the Romans.
and requested their Bible be translated to Greek - this was what caused the septuagint. Flavius Josephus states the Greeks also got their alphabetical writings from the Jewish hebrew writings during this time
That is simply nuts. Why do you think Josephus knew anything about the origin of the Greek alphabet? I don't mind taking Josephus as a reasonable witness to events in his time, but he has novalidity at all as a historian of Greece.
, and made intelligent numbering indexes of the Bible verses, applying names for the books, and seperating the vowels and numerals from the alphabets. The greeks also begat the 'V' alphabet from here, and the alpha beta from the Hebrew alef bet. There is no greek alphabetical writings before this date.
Nonsense.
As is the next bit. 
 
The Preists in Judea honored Alexander by calling all their first born males with this name, which is how this name also became accepted in Judaism. Following the Septuagint, the Hellenist Preists became chagrined when the greek people saw the Jewish bible laws as superior to their own. Alexander was soon assassinated thereafter, a syndrome which mirrored the story of Joseph in ancient Egypt.
Huh?
Joseph was assassinated? And do you have any idea what the word 'syndrome' means?
Mostly, the Greeks disdained some of the laws in the Bible,
You just said 'the greek people saw the Jewish bible laws as superior to their own'. Now you're saying they disdained them. You like to have your cake and eat it too?
 
Also where do you get the idea that 'Greece' was some kind of theocracy in the third century? I'm sure Ptolemy, Seleucus and Antigonus would have been surprised at that.
 
 
 including those of Monotheism, Equal rights to the stranger as the inhabitant; inalieanable human rights [the greeks saw fit to kill off an ugly baby]; dietery laws; forbiddence of image worship; gay laws, etc, which threatened to nullify their priesthood powers. There is also an arguement Democrasy came from the Septuagint ['Do not follow a corrupt multitude; Let the majority decide']; the previous claimed greek version was not democrasy, but limited to selected sectors, citizens, males only, and greek property owners having a vote.
And who had votes under the Torah, then?
The Septuagint was commissioned by Ptolemy II Philadelphus, not by Alexander. In fact it was commissioned more than 50 years after Alexander's death. Ptolemy only came to the throne in 285 BCE.
 
Ptolemy, who took over after Alex's death, processed Alex's order, but did not initiate this translation.
Look at the dates. Even if you know nothing about the history of the time, at least you could check the dates, which are a historian's primary material.  
 
Ptolemy II Philadelphus did not take over at Alexander's death. That's why he is number II. Otherwise he would be number I.
And if most Jews had been living in Jerusalem or Palestine, the Septuagint would probably have been translated there. It was done in Alexandria because Alexandria was then the world's largest Jewish city.
 
The Septuagint was translated in Alexandria because the greeks wanted to oversee and control the translation
Philadelphus also controlled Judaea. Neither Alexandria nor Jerusalem were actually in Greece (where anyway Philadelphus had no power). He could have controlled it just as well there. Anyway, if they held Jews in such high regard, why not leave it to the Jews to handle the translation? (Actually leave it to the Jews is what they did do - in Alexandria which is where the most Jewish scholars were.
 - their held the jewish bible in greater esteem than any other writings.
Says who?
Alex hailed it as the only writings which described history prior to their own,
Then he was wrong, wasn't he? In fact I'm pretty sure Alexander knew better: however historian he wasn't, general he was.
depicting a period when no such books existed. The greeks, being a powerful philosophical nation, built a huge library in Alexandria.
I think you can assume we all know that.
Alexander's greatest contribution to humanity may well not be the wars but this event: it changed the world, begat a superior form of philosophy, and eventually was responsible for christianity via the greeks.
Christianity came via the Greeks? How was that then?
Back to Top
Maharbbal View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2120 		  Quote Maharbbal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Sep-2008 at 14:48
lol recent historical studies have underlined the fact that many characters and events are only known to us through the bible and should be reconsidered (anything from the flight from Egypt to King David). 
I am a free donkey!
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Sep-2008 at 14:56
Originally posted by IamJoseph

This is the entirety of your link:
No it isn't, it's just part. This is from the same link:

Theories of the origin of the alphabet

The evolution of the alphabet involved two important achievements. The first was the step taken by a group of Semitic-speaking people, perhaps the Phoenicians, on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean between 1700 and 1500 bc. This was the invention of a consonantal writing system known as North Semitic. The second was the invention, by the Greeks, of characters for representing vowels. This step occurred between 800 and 700 bc. While some scholars consider the Semitic writing system an unvocalized syllabary and the Greek system the true alphabet, both are treated here as forms of the alphabet.

 

If your quest was sincere, you have to ask for a thread of alphabetical books continueing, or mark the source's claims as less than credible: would you be satisfied that Norway, for example, invented alphabetical writings, but have none but a stray pottery item, which is not really alphabetical, and has no imprints of continuation thereafter - unlike that of the Hebrew thread of alphabetical books? That is the different between quoting source points via googling, and doing research and applying some input what is being said by comparisons. 
We don't have any Hebrew documents from the period in question either, if you mean actual written documents rather than inscriptions, etc.
 
Now there is some variances of who introduced alphabetical writings, depending on which sources one respects, with Hebrew being in the first three by all such claims, namely listing the Canaanite, Pheonecian and Hebrew.
Not in all such claims.
 
Actually the earliest protoalphabetic script was that derived from a subset of Egyptian hieroglyphs, and in use there, and its sequel known as proto-Sinaitic. Almost as old are the various Ugaritic alphabetic scripts.  If you don't like wiki, try and find a copy of John Man's Alpha Beta.
 
 Anyway none of the semitic ones (at least in their form at that time) represented vowels. They weren't therefore complete alphabets.
 
But the Greek is not in this category.
Ancient Greek was a complete alphabet.
My questioning the Pheonecian is because it is less old than the Canaanite, and the Phoenceians were allies of the Hebrews, with their writings too similar to differentiate in the early writings: the Phaonecians were sailors of a Hebrew Kings [Solomon] navy, and supplied lebanon Timber for the building of Solomon's Temple - by this time we already had a host of alphabetical Hebrew books -
Come off it! Where are those 'books' stored? In whose library? The book in fact hadn't even been invented in Solomon's time. And we don't have any papyri or any kind of document that might pass for a book from that period.
 
 where are the Pheonecian books
And where are the Hebrew ones?
- and how can they otherwise pass on to the Greeks, which you claim predates the Hebrew?
 
The other reason to question, is that we have no Canaanite alphabetical books, nor did that nation, or its ruling one, Egypt, speak or write Hebrew. These are legitimate reasons and you have not addressed them. The source I gave you is a ligitimate and credible one, and you accused me of dissing falsehoods. I beg to differ.
 
One falsehood is the claim that we have a 'host' of alphabetical 'books' dating to King Solomon's time.


Edited by gcle2003 - 21-Sep-2008 at 14:59
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035 		  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Sep-2008 at 15:16
Originally posted by IamJoseph

And Israel and Canaan and Philistia and.... Palestina was the Roman word for the area before 70 CE, and did not and still does not mean Judaea.
 
It was called Judea throughout the Roman period, and never referred to as Palestina pre-70 CE, a name earlier applied only by the Greeks, which refered to all of the Arabian region, including Syria - because the Greeks were kin of the original, foreign Philistines who were not middle-eastern, and un-related totoday's Palestinians.
Palestina was used before 70CE, but not officially, because there was no province to be called that until the aftermath of the war.
 
There's no real reason to believe the Greeks were kin to the Philistines, except in the sense that all mankind is kin, or from the possibility that the Philistine language was Indo-European. There would be better reason to see them as connected to the Hittites or the mysterious Pelasgians.
 
That they traded with the Greeks is true, but that was after they had settled in Philistia and after the Greeks had arrived. It doesn't mean they were connected before that.
 
Etymologically yes the name comes from Greek, and derives as the land of the Philistines. But that has nothing to do with modern English, except for antiquarian interest. And yes, at any given time the borders of the area in the north varied. But Germany for instance was called 'Germany' in English long before the country was unified in 1871, and, in the same way, the strict boundaries of the region were not precisely defined.
 The Greeks referred to the original Philistines, who were destroted by David a 1000 years before the Romans resurrected this name and applied it upon the Jews in Judea.
They didn't just apply it to Judaea, but to the whole province.
 
 
It is however the familiar English-language name for the area which is why I used it.
 
It is now used as a means of negating Jewish connection with this land, and directed at the neo post-60's Arabs as a political tool.
Maybe. But irrelevant. It's still the common-or-garden name for the whole area in England, which is why it is idiotic to divide the area using the names 'Israel' and 'Palestine'. It wasn't so bad, linguistically, when it was divided between Israel and Jordan. Agreed we need a new name for the part of Palestine that is not Israel.
Today's Palestinians, a non-historical reference,  hated this name before the 60's, when it was hijacked by Arafat. Prior to this time, only Jews were referred to as palestinian.
Totally untrue. Jews, Arabs, Samaritans, whoever lived there were called 'Palestinians' under the British mandate at least.
 Today's Jerusalem Post was called The palestinian Post. No such think as a Muslim Palestinian pre-60s.
Ridiculous. There were Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Samaritan Palestinians and pretty well certainly atheists and agnostics as well. If you lived in Palestine you were Palestinian, and still should be referred to that way, just as Europeans are Europeans whether they are French or German or Danes or ...., and just as Britons are Britons whether Scots, Welsh, English, Irish, or whatever.
 The jews predate both the islamic religion, and the Arab race per se in this region - so do the Coptics, Drews and Kurds.
Don't you understand the difference between religion and race/ethnicity? Islam is a religion, Copts are a Christian denomination, the Druze are an Islamic denomination, the Kurds are an ethnic group, the Arabs are also an ethnic group, the Samaritans are an ethnic and religious group.
 
Most of the people who live in Palestine are descendants of the people who have lived there for millenia, irrespective of religion.


Edited by gcle2003 - 21-Sep-2008 at 15:24
Back to Top
IamJoseph View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 20-Sep-2008
Location: AUSTRALIA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 296 		  Quote IamJoseph Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Sep-2008 at 15:46
if the Jews were forced out in 70 CE, who revolted under Bar Kochba in 132-135 CE? 
If their religion and language was forbidden, who taught at Jamnia, and what language did they use? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jamnia
In fact of course there are innumerable evidences of the existence of Jews in Palestine, Judaea or whatever you want to call it, after 70 CE, right up to modern times.
 
Forced out yes, many were taken in exile, many fleed, over 1.2 M were killed in the 70 war alone. This does not mean no Jews were left. Many came back to Jerusalem from the surrounding cities. The war became re-ignited when another revolt occured in 130. Jews always had a presence in Judea, later Palestine. Hebrew teachings and the language was forbidden - a reason you find Jewish writings in Greek circa this time.
 
Alexander died in 323 BCE. Must have been his ghost.
 
Or that your history is wanting? You claimed Alex never visited Jerusalem - I corrected you. This visit was a big event.
 
Actually most of the time so did the Romans.
 
While its true the Romans generally allowed each nation within its empire to have their beliefs - it was also encumbent to honor Roman beliefs and deities. This posed no problem to Polytheist nations, and eventually disaster for the only monotheist one. The greeks, old enemies from the hanuka war, instigated Nero against the Jews, and the heresy charge was focused upon. The rest is history, namely when freedom of belief - became Mighty Rome's greatest war.
 
The world should, but wont [because!], give credit to those Jews who stood steadfast for their right of belief till the last man, woman and child slain. What occured in Masada was only a small example of what occured with the Temple destruction: Romes greatest chagrin and shame [Vespasian refused the crown of V at the Colosium]. When you put your thinking cap on, instead of extending on useless points - you have to see this event in 70 CE as the most pivotal event which changed the world, and concluded in today's world scenario. Imagine if this war did not occur: no Christianity, no Islam, no Palestine, no blue mosque in Jerusalem, no m/e conflict, no holocaust - need I go on? Yes, one more important thing: no freedom of belief - for this was the greatest example of it in all recorded history!
 
and requested their Bible be translated to Greek - this was what caused the septuagint. Flavius Josephus states the Greeks also got their alphabetical writings from the Jewish hebrew writings during this time
That is simply nuts. Why do you think Josephus knew anything about the origin of the Greek alphabet? I don't mind taking Josephus as a reasonable witness to events in his time, but he has novalidity at all as a historian of Greece.
 
Its factual history - not nuts. I mentioned Joseph as a more credible source than the sites you proposed - he was given total access to the entire Roman archives, where he wrote many volumes, listing the entire thread of Jewish history - including when Greece predated Rome. Josephus has total validity of the Greek history, and is hailed by his greek and roman contempoaries, as well as today's scholars, as an excellent historian. His archives are about the most dependable of all historical writings. Josephus states the Greeks derived their alphabeticals from the Hebrew - and you don't have a greek contemporary disputation of it. In fact I posted for you a link where the Greeks acknowledge this.
 
My Q: have you an agenda based problem that the Jews would had alphabetical writings predating that of greece?
 
In any case that has nothing to do with the fact that large numbers of Jews had emigrated in the centuries before 70 CE and settled abroad (threatening the disappearance of Hebrew, one of the things the institution at Jamnia was bent on preserving.
 
There is a tone you tell it with. Actually, Jews were always a migratory peoples, many remained in the diaspora even when their exile ended - eg. most Jews remained in Bagdad [Babylon] and did not return to rebuild the 2nd temple - by this time many were wealthy and settled in their new home, spoke the language of their new host nations, and made great contributions there. This does not alter that Hebrew was forbidden by Rome, then by Roman Catholicism, which continued the Heresy decree - eventually killing off even more than did Rome. History.
 
 
 
 
Moses - the First Zionist.
Back to Top
IamJoseph View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 20-Sep-2008
Location: AUSTRALIA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 296 		  Quote IamJoseph Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Sep-2008 at 16:14
lol recent historical studies have underlined the fact that many characters and events are only known to us through the bible and should be reconsidered (anything from the flight from Egypt to King David).  
 
Not all bibles and scriptures are based on 'belief'. One is absolutely historical and contemporary: where else can you find the routes to canaan via uncharted deserts, naming contemporary nations enroute which don't exist anymore - with the names of their kings? Or the distance between the cities of Goshen and Rameses? One has to be fair, honest and logical in a history thread or it recoils into a meaningless charade: David was a 3000 year old historical figure proven by archeology - where is your proof of Buddha, Jesus and Mohammed who came uch later?
Moses - the First Zionist.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113 		  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Sep-2008 at 16:20
Originally posted by IamJoseph

 
Its factual history - not nuts. I mentioned Joseph as a more credible source than the sites you proposed - he was given total access to the entire Roman archives, where he wrote many volumes, listing the entire thread of Jewish history - including when Greece predated Rome. Josephus has total validity of the Greek history, and is hailed by his greek and roman contempoaries, as well as today's scholars, as an excellent historian. His archives are about the most dependable of all historical writings. Josephus states the Greeks derived their alphabeticals from the Hebrew - and you don't have a greek contemporary disputation of it. In fact I posted for you a link where the Greeks acknowledge this.
 
My Q: have you an agenda based problem that the Jews would had alphabetical writings predating that of greece?
 
 
While Josephus is indeed a very important source on ancient Jewish history, he hardly can be called an authority on the origins of the Greek alphabet. Even his account of Alexander's visit to Jerusalem is called "fantastic" and doubted by Jewish sources themselves, let alone his theories about the origins of the Greek alphabet.
 
 
The only historical event connecting Alexander the Great with the Jews is his visit to Jerusalem, which is recorded by Josephus in a somewhat fantastic manner.
..............
The historical character of this account is, however, doubted by many scholars (see Pauly-Wissowa, "Realencyklopädie," i. col. 1422). Although, according to Josephus ("Contra Ap." ii. 4, quoting Hecatæus), Alexander permitted the Jews to hold the country of Samaria free from tribute as a reward for their fidelity to him, it was he who Hellenized its capital (Schürer, "Gesch." ii. 108). The Sibylline Books (iii. 383) speak of Alexander—who claimed to be the son of Zeus Amon—as "of the progeny of the Kronides, though spurious."
 
 
Now, you want to talk about the factual evidence. So, the factual evidence is that the earliest Greek alphabetical book (indigenously Greek, not the translation of Tanakh) that we know about predates any book written in Hebrew which we know about big period
 
It's OK to make hypothesis that the ancestors of Jewish people were using a some form of alphabet before Greeks. Though we can't definitely confirm this theory.
 
However, it's false to claim that Phoenician alphabet is derived from Hebrew and that Greek aphabet is derived from Hebrew. This is just a wishful thinking.
 
Moreover, if you insist on this theory, I can counter it by saying that there is another theory which claims that Hebrew and even Phoenician alphabets were derived from the aphabet invented by Philistines who were proto-Greeks according to some theories.
 
However, both these theories the former and the latter are just hypos unsupported by factual evidence.
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
IamJoseph View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 20-Sep-2008
Location: AUSTRALIA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 296 		  Quote IamJoseph Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Sep-2008 at 16:42
Palestina was used before 70CE, but not officially, because there was no province to be called that until the aftermath of the war.
 
Usually, this jargon is seen in Islamist forums, to spin a lie into truth. Fact is, while Greeks did call the entire region, including Assyria, as Palestinea - this referred to the original Philistines - not to the later Palestinian accorded to the Jews by Rome. IOW, today's Arab muslims are claiming the name Palestinian since the 60's - but what they wish to promote is not that they were related to the Philistines, but the Palestinians which the Jews were called for 2000 years - this is meant to negate Jewish connection to the Jewish homeland. Everyone knows this - no one wants to say they do.
 
 
There's no real reason to believe the Greeks were kin to the Philistines, except in the sense that all mankind is kin, or from the possibility that the Philistine language was Indo-European. There would be better reason to see them as connected to the Hittites or the mysterious Pelasgians.
 
Both were non semitic foreigners in Arabia, both hailed from the Agean. The Greeks, upon entering the region, collaborated with the Philistines, who settled themselves at the coastal city of Gaza. These also spoke the same language. They called the region by that name to infer a take-over.
 
That they traded with the Greeks is true, but that was after they had settled in Philistia and after the Greeks had arrived. It doesn't mean they were connected before that.
 
No - the Philistines entered Arabia well before the greeks, and were present during the time of Moses, and even before. The Israelites took a longer route leaving Egypt in their exodus, bypassing the coastal King's H'way to canaan, because their kin [tribe of Benjamin, son of Joseph] made an attempt to escape Egypt prior to Moses. This tribe was massacred by the Philistines on the coastal route, and it was predent to avoid the Israelites seeing their bones and carcasses, for fear they would turn back. The Philistines, like the Greeks, wanted to take over canaan, and thus prevent the exodus. They could not be conquered because of their new iron armoury and weapons - not even Samson was able to defeat them, though he slew Goliath - a Philistine giant. King David did finally prevail, and the Philistine disappeared from history. Their name was resurrected by Rome a 1000 years later, as a mark the west/european dieties prevailed the m/e, and as a revenge of David's victory.
 
The Greeks referred to the original Philistines, who were destroted by David a 1000 years before the Romans resurrected this name and applied it upon the Jews in Judea.
They didn't just apply it to Judaea, but to the whole province.
 
Exactly! That is why it is a nonsense for the Arabs to claim Palestine was called Palestine pre-70 CE, and thus negate Judea from the map of history, or that this name was exclusively cast upon the Jews. This is a precedent step employed by the Arabs to allign with the nonsense there was no Temple and Jews are blue eyed Europeans who dont belong in this region. The greeks referred not to Judea-Palestine, but Arabia-Philistine, which is not connected to the events of 70 CE and Judea at all. All of Christian Europe know this fact, being first hand witnesses, yet they support the historical lies perpertrated against Israel:
 
'WE WILL NEVER SUPPORT THE RETURN OF THE JEWS TO *THEIR HOMELAND* - BECAUSE THEY REJECTED JESUS' - A genocidal statement made by Pope not so Pious.
 
Does it mean Islam must take over Europe because the Christians rejected Mohammed?
Moses - the First Zionist.
Back to Top
Vorian View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2007
Location: Greece/Hellas
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 566 		  Quote Vorian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Sep-2008 at 17:07
This discussion with the sentence by sentence quotes is difficult to follow.

Did you claim that the Greek alphabet was borrowed by Jews i Alexander's time, or it's my idea?
Back to Top
IamJoseph View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 20-Sep-2008
Location: AUSTRALIA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 296 		  Quote IamJoseph Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Sep-2008 at 17:10
doubted by Jewish sources themselves
 
True. This event has not been much written of, primarilly because Europe focuses on that which suits its theology. We also don't see this in movies such as Troy, etc. Guess why! I mean, how many christians learn of the Jews' defense to Rome  in their history classes - its a huge event, but not even mentioned in the Gospels, which makes for a grotesque lie-by-omission.
 
 
The only historical event connecting Alexander the Great with the Jews is his visit to Jerusalem, which is recorded by Josephus in a somewhat fantastic manner.
 
True - he went all out in his descriptions - but that does not mean its not an historical event. There is also the Medrash, an ancient Hebrew work, which describes this event. Amazingly, the great conqueror actually bowed before the preists at the temple - which was the biggest manument in the world upto its destruction. Five times higher than the Spinyx or anything in Europe.
 
It's OK to make hypothesis that the ancestors of Jewish people were using a some form of alphabet before Greeks. Though we can't definitely confirm this theory.
 
I did not hypothise, but offered coherent reasonings, backed by well founded evidence. How do you account for the Bible texts claiming the Israelites entered canaan with the 5 books in hand, and that no peoples spoke Hebrew elsewhere? In fact we have no alphabetical books for centures thereafter - save for the Hebrew writings, which ceased after the Roman destruction.
 
However, it's false to claim that Phoenician alphabet is derived from Hebrew and that Greek aphabet is derived from Hebrew. This is just a wishful thinking.
 
Greek would have been derived from the Phonecian, but its alphabeticals came from the Hebrew with the septuagint: where else - there's no phoenecian books of this calibre? I offered links the canaanite predated the Phoenecian, and Hebrew is alligned with the canaanite writings.
 
In reality, none of the Arabian peoples had alphabetical books, or these are extremely rare incidents. The Phoenecians came from the Lebanon, and this peoples were in an awe of the israelite advancements. The Encyclopedia Britania's claims appear very sound, and are matched to the missing links of this region's historical threads, which has been disregarded by European christianity - mainly because Israel was assumed dead - so there was none to confront the Gospel writings - nor of the Quran - thus the obsession with Israel daring to still exist - what an affront of this country! No other depiction makes any sense, and produces more questions than they answer. We have five alphabetical, very historically inclined, books at hand - we have zilch on the other side.
Moses - the First Zionist.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113 		  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Sep-2008 at 17:27
The idea is that both Phoenician and Hebrew scripts are derived from Canaanite script, not that Phoenician is derived from Hebrew.
 
I don't understand why you have to cite Britannica again. Britannica didn't claim that Phonician alphabet is derived from Hebrew it claims the thesis which I referred to above.
 
And please, don't bring this "Christianity bias" stuff in the discussion. There are too many "Christian archeologists" obsessed with the idea that everything the Old Testaments says is true. Don't forget it's a part of the Christian Canon as well. The problem with this however, is that they aren't able to do so.
 
You also should now that according to Christian doctrine the Gospels don't contradict the Old Testaments but "built upon it" in the view of Christian theology.
 
Definite proof that all the events described in the Bible didn't in fact happened would only suppot the Christian view of history.
 
So this argument of yours doesn't work.
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Hebrewtext View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 24-Jan-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 88 		  Quote Hebrewtext Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Sep-2008 at 17:28

the source of the alphabet used by European lang. and Arabic, Amharic ,Thai, Hebrew(which is identical to Pheonician) and other, is the proto sinite and proto cananite ones which were ideographic writing systems, developed at the 15-17 cen. BC. in the land of Israel.

Pheonician and Hebrew which are identical languages begun to use it few centuries later.
the Greeks adapted this alphabet at the 9th. cen. BC. from the Pheonician who were sea people and traders.
 
the meaning of the letters is still kept in todays Hebrew :
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 9>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.