Pyramid Texts for Astral Travel

[crystal sage]

Hi Crystalsage, I owe you one for those links. Especially the one on Avaris as a potential Hyskos site. Anyway I dug a little deeper and found this decent site.

Recent excavations in the eastern Nile delta may have actually identified the location of Joseph’s residence in retirement, and even his tomb. At a site known as Tell el-Daba today, the Rameses of the Old Testament, extensive excavations have been carried out under the direction of Manfred Bietak of the Austrian Archaeological Institute, Cairo, since 1966. This site was strategically located at the eastern starting point to the Horus Road to Canaan and along the Nile’s easternmost branch, the Pelusiac. That may explain its name, Rowaty (“the door of the two roads”) in the days of Joseph and Jacob. The site has evidence for Asiatics as early as the mid-12th Dynasty (mid-19th century BC), the general period when Jacob entered Egypt. It was an unfortified rural settlement, although numerous enclosure walls probably kept animals. Living quarters consisted of rectangular huts built of sand bricks (Wood 1997: 55).

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/09/Israel-in-Egypt.aspx

Have you ever considered the dreamcoat story to be an initation into shamanism and astral travel. I am less than familiar with the actual biblical text but I have read some interesting connections on some sites like pleiades.

Thanks.. will look into it further...

[SlimJim22]

Maybe it was all edited out.. over thousands of years... I am sure not everything that was ever recorded in history.. or was meant for the bible actually made it through all their revisions... Some bits were perhaps not seen as politically or religiously relevant and was downplayed or rewritten... Note how much history is already being politicaly adjusted in modern times that will have our descendants speculating.. arguing.. scratching their heads...

I did read some time ago about various tablets of the Syrian regions that do mention many of the biblical characters and events... and there are many other historical references to the various tribes... of the "sons of Adam" LOL.. maybe even before they had fully developed their spiritual exclusivity their self branding..

...Some interesting explorations of these here..

by the Persians. Herodotus says that the Persians called the Sacae "Scythians." The Word Scythian only means nomad or wanderer, or one who lives in "booths." The word booth in Hebrew is Succoth, or scooth. The connections are obvious."]My link

My link

Once again the scythians and the cimmerians are two groups that fascinate me and when I hear they are but one and the same I can't help but smile. The scythains branching off as the milesians is also highly significant. Wanderer is the perfect translation as they seem to have stretched to the ends of the Earth and more than left their mark wherever they set foot.

What do you think is the relevance of dwelling in booths? On the one hand it could be tents as in nomads but in another sense it can be the tabernacle or bridal chamber where the priest communes with God. Sounds an awful lot like the isolation idea of astral travel.

there is some decent information in this link

http://www.giveshare.org/churchhistory/fletcher/chapter2.html

[cormac mac airt]

The Scythian language was Eastern Iranian, the Hebrew language is Semitic. Neither are directly related, so any similarity between the words Scythian and Succoth are meaningless.

In Herodotus History 4.6, the Scythians called themselves Skolotoi. The word Skythes, itself, is Greek.

The name Succoth comes from (sakak 1492) meaning block, shut off, cover. The derivative (sok 1492d), covert, thicket, booth, is used in Genesis 33:17.

Meaning, origin and etymology of the name Succoth

AFAIK, the Old Persian name for the Scythians Saka has nothing to do with booths, but specifically meaning either wanderer or nomad.

The connections are obvious.

Only in your own mind, crystal sage.

The scythians and the cimmerians are two groups that fascinate me and when I hear they are but one and the same I can't help but smile.

Sadly, Slim, there is no actual evidence that the Scythians and the Cimmerians were one and the same. The previous link that you are so excited about is poorly researched, to say the least. It smells of British Israelism. I'm disappointed by how easily you're taken in. Sad, that.

British Israelism

cormac

Edited June 1, 2010 by cormac mac airt

[kmt_sesh]

I did read some time ago about various tablets of the Syrian regions that do mention many of the biblical characters and events... and there are many other historical references to the various tribes... of the "sons of Adam" LOL.. maybe even before they had fully developed their spiritual exclusivity their self branding..

...Some interesting explorations of these here..

You're talking about the Ebla tablets, excavated beginning in 1974 within the ruins of a palace. These tablets are primarily administrative records, with a mixture of some literary fragments and lexical texts. They were written with Sumerian cuneiform but in a local Semitic tongue, and some of the earliest translators to work with the tablets had a bear of a time. The tablets are much better understood now. They do not in fact have any relevance to the Hebrew bible, nor do they mention any person or character or event appearing in the Hebrew bible (Akkermans & Schwartz 2006: 238-39). Unfortunately a lot of dubious websites (a lot of them Christian-based, I've noticed) still present the old distortions and misinformation as though they were valid. This is why I stress to people to close their web browsers and search out books written by people professionally trained in the subject.

[crystal sage]

You're talking about the Ebla tablets, excavated beginning in 1974 within the ruins of a palace. These tablets are primarily administrative records, with a mixture of some literary fragments and lexical texts. They were written with Sumerian cuneiform but in a local Semitic tongue, and some of the earliest translators to work with the tablets had a bear of a time. The tablets are much better understood now. They do not in fact have any relevance to the Hebrew bible, nor do they mention any person or character or event appearing in the Hebrew bible (Akkermans & Schwartz 2006: 238-39). Unfortunately a lot of dubious websites (a lot of them Christian-based, I've noticed) still present the old distortions and misinformation as though they were valid. This is why I stress to people to close their web browsers and search out books written by people professionally trained in the subject.

>>>

I think there were several loads of tablets found in various areas..

What about the Mari tablets

The Mari Tablets are a large group of tablets discovered by French archaeologists in the 1930s. More than 25000 tablets in Akkadian were found in the Mari

My link

Mari had been inhabited since the 5th millennium BC, but the real significance of the city was during the third and second millennia BC. The inhabitants of Mari were a Semitic people, thought to be part of the same Eblaite and Akkadian migration

My link

More recent tablets found in 2002

My link

'Cuneiform Texts From Ziyaret Tepe (Ancient Tushan), 2002-2003' State Archives of Assyria Bulletin 16.

]

One of the most interesting texts is a long letter from a man named Mannu-ki-Libbali to his lord, probably a treasurer at Ziyaret Tepe. Mannu-ki-Libbali explains in his letter that he is unable to do his job -- in this case to raise a chariotry unit for the army -- due to a lack of horses, officials, and artisans who are required to do so. He ends his letter with the glum note that: 'Death will come out of it!'. (Parpola 2006). This marks the end of the Assyrian occupation at Ziyaret Tepe/Tushhan.

another bit that may be of interest... you can actually buy replicas of some of these tablets for quite a reasonable sum !!!

They wouldn't!!!!!

When Matney and colleagues return to Ziyaret Tepe in 2010 to look for more tablets, they'll be racing against the clock: A planned hydroelectric dam project will swamp the region as early as 2013.

Nevertheless, Matney said, he Turkish government is supporting digs at places such as Ziyaret Tepe to discover as much as possible while such sites remain above water.

My link

A good way to finance further excavation!!!

The map shows the Eastern borders of the empire, the Persian gulf with trading ship, the Tigris and Euphrates rivers with the Star of "Ashur" the sun god and the Ziggurat of Ashur nearby. The western borders of Egypt (with Memphis as capital) and the northwestern borders near Cilicia being marked. Cyrus, then part of the Assyrian Empire for a time is also marked as well as several cities along the Mediterranean coast.

My link

[SlimJim22]

The Scythian language was Eastern Iranian, the Hebrew language is Semitic. Neither are directly related, so any similarity between the words “Scythian” and “Succoth” are meaningless.

In Herodotus’ History 4.6, the Scythians called themselves Skolotoi. The word Skythes, itself, is Greek.

Meaning, origin and etymology of the name Succoth

AFAIK, the Old Persian name for the Scythians “Saka” has nothing to do with booths, but specifically meaning either “wanderer” or “nomad”.

Only in your own mind, crystal sage.

Sadly, Slim, there is no actual evidence that the Scythians and the Cimmerians were one and the same. The previous link that you are so excited about is poorly researched, to say the least. It smells of British Israelism. I'm disappointed by how easily you're taken in. Sad, that.

British Israelism

cormac

The Scythian language was Eastern Iranian, the Hebrew language is Semitic. Neither are directly related, so any similarity between the words “Scythian” and “Succoth” are meaningless. In Herodotus’ History 4.6, the Scythians called themselves Skolotoi. The word Skythes, itself, is Greek.Meaning, origin and etymology of the name SuccothAFAIK, the Old Persian name for the Scythians “Saka” has nothing to do with booths, but specifically meaning either “wanderer” or “nomad”.Only in your own mind, crystal sage.Sadly, Slim, there is no actual evidence that the Scythians and the Cimmerians were one and the same. The previous link that you are so excited about is poorly researched, to say the least. It smells of British Israelism. I'm disappointed by how easily you're taken in. Sad, that.British Israelismcormac

Cormac, there is no need for such a derisory tone. You are making leaps in your judgment that do not apply to me as I see it. British Israelism is the belief in a connection between ancient Israel and the British Isles. I am fine with that part but I don't see the Royal family as descended from the House of David. You are assuming that I have come to conclusions when I have not. I really thought you understood my posiiton but I shall try and spell it out once again.Firstly, the hebrews were not exactly as we led to believe. For example, I don't think kosher was as it is today but revolved around sacrifice and ritual purity rather than day to day habits. If I am wrong and there is evidnece please show me. Secondly, is the issue of language. You seem to think that languages all evolved independently whereas I see them as all having some connections. They could be phonetic connections or in translation but I obviously don't know enough to give examples, I am just following my nose and what makes sense. It is all too easy to get hung up on semitic and IE languages but hebrew has a lot of similarities with welsh or cymric. Because the hebrews were know as Ombri and this changed into Gomri and Ciimerians, I think it is very importnat. The problem is that it is incredibly complex and I admit that I am often confused, who wouldn't be trying to digest this stuff?There are ten lost tribes that need to be accounted for if we consider that they were not extreminated. I think the most likely suggestion is that they integrated with various other tribes and some connection may have carried over. Fro me, Saccae as wandered makes sense as that is exactly what they were. There is enough connecting celtic and hebrew tarditions to say they had a shared origin in ancients times. The welsh triads stated that Hu the mighty was the first foreigner to settle Britain. I would equate Hu with Joshua but as you are aware Hu is a term that originates in sanskrit I believe. The links I read and post invariably have an agenda but this does not devalue the entirety of their argument. I try and discriminate between the useful and the useless information and there is usually a mix of both from my perspective. I totally admit that I am bias towards supporting the possibility of shared origins transferred through mystery traditions but I am actively trying to research the possibilities and remove the impossibiltiies. i am afraid that your arguments do not make me think that what I suggest is impossible, in fact the more I research the more unexpected connections I find. Debate the facts and stop trying to make this personal. I am keen to learn from you and others but please refrain from condemnations of my approach. There are only so many hours in the day and from my POV I am doing what I can and trying to do it in a way that is more academically acceptable. Granted I have a long way to go but at the same time I'm enjoying the trip, for the most part at least. Having read your links I can see where you are coming from but it seems like a debate that is far from finished. Sure the genetics do not support the theory but there is a fair bit that does within the same wiki link. Just because some people have used british-israelism to glorify the west does not mean that that is the only conclusion. Ever seen Conan? From what I can remmeber he was of a northern IE tribe who was taken prisoner by, presumably the Assyrians before he could take revenge. Obviously, this is not historically accurate after that point but the northern tribes were taken captive and who is to say that some escaped and set up home elsewhere. That some of them got organized as the celts would seem reasonable and the smiliarities in culture between celts and scythians is surely testament to this. The hebrew connection is more subtle but imo can be found in the traditions of the druids that became more and more pagan over time, perhaps to hide the truth.

http://www.sacredconnections.co.uk/holyland/celtohimalayan.htmhttp://www.uhcg.org/Lost-10-Tribes/tracing-dan3.html

http://www.viewzone.com/matlock.html

http://britam.org/language.html

I appreciate the Behistun rock can be interpreted in different ways but the sakka - scythian reltionship seems the most likely imo.

[crystal sage]

Here's a map that shows the sites mentioned above... those 25000 plus tablets from the Nineveh and the 23000 plus tablets from the Mari site...

My link

The other one...were tablets from ancient Tushhan was even further away..

My link

The discovery was made at the site of Ziyaret Tepe, along the banks of the Tigris River in the Diyarbakir Province of southeastern Turkey. Ziyaret Tepe was an important urban center during the late Iron Age, from 882 to 611 BC, and has been identified as the Assyrian Provincial capital of Tushan. Here, Matney discovered clay tablets with cuneiform script written and stored in the palace archives 3,000 years ago.

“This is one of the most important archaeological discoveries anywhere in the world this year,” says Dr. Michael Shott, UA professor of archaeology and chair of the university’s Department of Classical Studies, Anthropology and Archaeology.

Matney says his discovery of the cuneiform tablets, written in the Late Assyrian dialect, includes a list of women’s names. “Because the tablet was found in the reception room of the palace, we are possibly looking at a list of women who were employed by the palace as agricultural workers,” Matney says, adding that surprisingly none of the names on the tablets are Assyrian, but may represent another ethnic group in the area.

“This means that these women belonged either to the original indigenous population subordinated by the Assyrians in the 9th century BC, or to a group of foreigners who had been deported to Tushan. The precise identification of their linguistic background awaits detailed analysis and the results will shed an important light on the ethnic composition of this corner of the Assyrian Empire,” writes epigrapher and expedition team member Dr. John MacGinnis, a University of Cambridge archaeologist.

Some interesting background???

My link

..a review on Olmstead's work..

My link

With these new digs.. maybe the history can be rewritten a little..

Edited June 1, 2010 by crystal sage

[kmt_sesh]

>>>

I think there were several loads of tablets found in various areas..

What about the Mari tablets

My link

There have been a great many hoards of tablets found hither and yon, yes. The Ebla tablets are, however, the only ones with which I'm familiar that people have tried to attribute to the Old Testament. Texts and correspondence found at Mari would have even less to do with the Hebrew bible. These texts are principally important for shedding light on our understanding of the Mari ruler Zimrilim and his interactions with the Babylonian king Hammurabi. Hammurabi sacked and destroyed Mari around 1759 BCE, and Mari was never again occupied. This was over 500 years before the earliest attested evidence for the Hebrews.

Other hoards of tablets have surfaced at important Assyrian sites, as some of your other links mention. At least we're getting closer to the right timeframe--it was the Assyrians who destroyed the northern kingdom of Israel and unsuccessfully laid siege on Jerusalem--but I am not aware of any of their historical or religious records that one can realistically tie to the Hebrew bible beyond the Assyrians' records of conquests in the Levant.

[cormac mac airt]

You are making leaps in your judgment that do not apply to me as I see it.

Considering that only the last bit about British Israelism was addressed to you, I'm not making leaps of judgement. The connections aren't there, linguistically, although there are some (crystal sage) who apparently would like it to be true. And BI is not just about an alleged connection with Israel, but also with a poorly researched and unfounded "connection" from around the 17 century between Cimmerian and Cymry, which doesn't actually exist. Again, the site is baseless.

You are assuming that I have come to conclusions when I have not.

No, I'm noticing that you appear to be going all "Oh, Golly Gee, How Great" over something that is trash.

For example, I don't think kosher was as it is today but revolved around sacrifice and ritual purity rather than day to day habits.

I'd think that any Jewish Rabbi would consider that as a "no-brainer", especially since it is pretty apparent that that's the general idea as given in the Old Testament.

You seem to think that languages all evolved independently whereas I see them as all having some connections.

No, each language grew out of its part of the overall language family. Taking words from two or more disparate linguistic families, that sound similar, and claiming that there's a connection, is what there is no evidence for and therefore baseless, IMO.

They could be phonetic connections or in translation but I obviously don't know enough to give examples, I am just following my nose and what makes sense.

Not to sound harsh, but do you have enough knowledge of linguistics to know what actually has a basis in fact, or are you just going on "gut feeling"? If the latter, then you're only comparing apples to oranges.

Because the hebrews were know as Ombri and this changed into Gomri and Cimerians, I think it is very importnat.

This is where things go sour, as there is no actual evidence of this claim.

There are ten lost tribes that need to be accounted for...

No there aren't as there is no evidence amongst any Assyrian writings that they (the Assyrians) captured, or otherwise held, the entirety of 10 full Hebrew tribes. Amongst those who were taken, it can be reasonably assumed that they mixed with their captors, either by default or design. The real question here, is how many of those who returned to Israel afterwards would have been considered full Hebrews. Particularly as Hebrews were not supposed to mix with non-Hebrews.

Debate the facts and stop trying to make this personal.

Wasn't trying to make this personal, but I've yet to see any facts. If believing in every half-baked, poorly researched, fringe idea making "connections" is what you wish to do, though, then apparently my time is wasted. Sorry to interrupt your fantasy.

cormac

[kmt_sesh]

You seem to think that languages all evolved independently whereas I see them as all having some connections. They could be phonetic connections or in translation but I obviously don't know enough to give examples, I am just following my nose and what makes sense.

I just wanted to contribute a couple of comments, starting with this. Some of what I say might parrot remarks cormac has made, so forgive me if that's the case.

Languages are an incredibly complicated subject, and one must spend years of study to understand on a working level how languages originated, evolved, and spread; likewise, one must take care to apply serious research to how any two languages might or might not be related, particularly if they're from divergent families. As cormac warned, the fact that a couple of words from two different languages might sound alike, really doesn't matter on the face of it. There is a particular risk for the student struggling to find connections when he sees a couple of ancient words spelled in modern English and posits there must be a connection because they sound alike and are spelled similarly. Remember that languages like ancient Egyptian and Akkadian and Hebrew did not employ an alphabet, as we think of it. A word from an ancient script spelled in modern English is nothing more than an approximation on the part of the linguist to try to present something of how the word sounded when spoken.

Yes, all languages do have a connection. Linguists have been playing with this concept for a great many years, trying to reconstruct something of the original human tongue spoken somewhere in Africa tens of thousands of years ago. To date, all attempts to do so have been admittedly speculative and for the most part imaginary; the linguists themselves who have been struggling with this task often do not agree with one another. It's simply too far back in time to reconstruct. And simply put, after Homo sapien sapiens developed language skills, they migrated out of Africa so far back in time and spread out on such a vast scale that the original "mother tongue" diverged into dizzying numbers of wholly separate families. In other words, the connection that was once there was lost long, long ago.

It was only with the advent of writing that languages began to be preserved. In the scope of human history and for all of the millennia that mankind has been speaking, the advent of writing occurred but a blink ago. Written language is critical for the linguist to gain a full understanding of the tongues people have spoken, and sadly many, many more languages are dead and forgotten than those that are spoken today. And even today, languages are dying.

I've already droned on more than I intended to, so to cut it short, if you think there is a real connection between a word spoken in an ancient Semitic tongue and a word spoken in an Indo-European tongue, you have to be able to dig into the histories of the speakers and establish how this came to be. I can guarantee you, however, the fact that the word might sound similar in the two tongues is rarely going to be enough to prove the connection. The human vocal apparatus can produce only so many sounds, so there are bound to be examples of this all over the world. That does not mean there are linguistic connections, however.

Because the hebrews were know as Ombri and this changed into Gomri and Ciimerians, I think it is very importnat.

The Hebrews never collectively known as the Ombri. The actual word in English is Omri, to be picky. Omri was one of the most powerful kings of the northern kingdom of Israel and established a short-lived dynasty we call the House of Omri (Bit Humria). So you're talking about a king who founded a line of kings that lasted I believe for around 40 years, but not about an entire people.

The problem is that it is incredibly complex and I admit that I am often confused, who wouldn't be trying to digest this stuff?

Yes, it can be confusing. A very important part of research--and I cannot emphasize this enough--is the material one chooses to study. I know this oft-repeated warning of mine generally falls on deaf ears at UM, but the best material to choose is of course that written by people professionally trained to study and present the material in question. The internet is rarely a reliable basis for research. Recently you presented some web links in another post, Slim (I can't remember if it was in this thread or another), and I noted that you yourself warned that some of the information in those links smacked of fringe but that it was interesting. I was going to comment then but never got around to it, so here's my opportunity now. The fact that you yourself noticed the dubious nature of some of the information tells me you're more than intelligent enough to search out better-quality material. And if you yourself are reasonably certain that some of the material in a web page is dubious, then you can be safe in assuming that the entire web page is not worth your time. Yes, it may present some real facts, but the fact that it contains questionable material means the entire thing is suspect and ought not to be trusted. At all.

There, I'll climb down off my stump now and shut the hell up. This is really between you and cormac, but I wanted to jump in a bit, too.

[The Puzzler]

OK, I've been reading up some more on the pyramids design and the texts and everything...it does seem to me the pyramid has been built as basically a vehicle for astral travel as I said, for when he was DEAD. His soul travelled through the heavens to join with Osiris so it is astral travelling and since the soul wasn't really dead to them it does equate to an astral travelling experience from the pyramid. I'll add some of the book I have to type it out.

[crystal sage]

There have been a great many hoards of tablets found hither and yon, yes. The Ebla tablets are, however, the only ones with which I'm familiar that people have tried to attribute to the Old Testament. Texts and correspondence found at Mari would have even less to do with the Hebrew bible. These texts are principally important for shedding light on our understanding of the Mari ruler Zimrilim and his interactions with the Babylonian king Hammurabi. Hammurabi sacked and destroyed Mari around 1759 BCE, and Mari was never again occupied. This was over 500 years before the earliest attested evidence for the Hebrews.

Other hoards of tablets have surfaced at important Assyrian sites, as some of your other links mention. At least we're getting closer to the right timeframe--it was the Assyrians who destroyed the northern kingdom of Israel and unsuccessfully laid siege on Jerusalem--but I am not aware of any of their historical or religious records that one can realistically tie to the Hebrew bible beyond the Assyrians' records of conquests in the Levant.

You forget about the earlier characters of the bible.. some say they were from much earlier times...

The Akkadians established this empire from Babylon, northeast to Asshur, northwest to Haran, and across to the Mediterranean.

Abraham is believed to have existed during the reign of this Amorite kingdom.

His journey from Ur to Haran more than likely carried him through the city of Mari. The Akkadians in Mari kept impeccable records of their kingdom. These record would lead historians to rewrite the historical time line of the Ancient Near East.

My link

My link

That would place Abraham's entrance into Canaan at 2086 BC, and his birth at 2161 BC, since he was seventy-five years old when he left Haran for Canaan (Genesis 12:4). The Patriarchal period, then, would extend from 2086 BC to 1871 BC, and the Egyptian sojourn from 1871 to 1441 BC.

If we reject the synchronism of 1 Kings 6:1 and read the 480 as being short hand for twelve generations (12x40 = 480), then we can perhaps argue that a generation more realistically is only twenty years, so that puts the Exodus at about 1290 BC. Thus, Abraham then entered Palestine about 1935 BC, he was born about 2010 BC. If we use the LXX dates for the Egyptian sojourn, then Abraham entered Palestine about 1720 and was born about 1795.

. In this region of northwest Mesopotamia there is unmistakable evidence of the extended Hebrew residence in the vicinity of the Balikh and Habur rivers, two tributaries of the Euphrates east of the great bend south of ancient Carchemish.

A. Abraham's Sojourn at Haran:

The town of Haran (Gen. 11:31; 12:5) is still in existence on the Balikh River sixty miles west of Tell Halaf. It was a flourishing city in the nineteenth and eighteenth centuries BC, as is known from frequent references to it in cuneiform sources. The name appears in Assyrian documents as Harranu (road) likely because here the trade route from Damascus joined the highway from Nineveh to Carchemish. Sinularly enough, like Ur, Abraham's birthplace, it was also the seat of worship of the moon god from very ancient times. Whether Terah chose Haran as a place to settle because he had not broken with his idolatry, or perhaps from commercial reasons, can, of course, only be guessed at.

The city of Nahor, which was Rebekkah's home (Gen. 24:10), occurs often as Nakhur in the Mari tablets, discovered in 1935 and dating from the eighteenth century BC. To judge from the Mari references and Assyrian records of the seventh century BC, where Nahor occurs as Til-Nakhiri (the Mound of Nahor), it seems to have been located in the Balikh Valley below Haran. Beside the definite location of the patriarchal cities Haran and Nahor in northwestern Mesopotamia, hardly less clear indications of Hebrew residence in this region appear in the names of Abraha's forefathers, which correspond tothe names of towns near Haran: Serug (Assyrian Sarugi), Nahor, and Terah (Til Turakhi, "Mound of Terah", inAssyrian times). Other immediate ancestors and relatives of Abraham listed in Genesis 11:10-30 have left traces in this territory, called Paddan-Aram (Aramaic paddana, the field or plain of Aram) in Genesis 25:20, 26:6-7, and so on. Reu also corresponds to later names of towns in the Middle-Euphrates valley. Peleg, for example, recalls later Paliga on the Euphrates, just above the mouth of the Habur.

Beside definite geographical links between the Hebrew patriarchs and their earlier residence in northwest Mesopotamia, a number of the early patriarchal narratives indicate a formative influence from this region. Terah not only died in Haran (Gen. 11:31-32) from which city Abram then migrated to Canaan (Gen. 12:4), but a wife for Isaac was fetched from "the city of Nahor" (Gen. 24:10). Jacob fled to Haran (Gen. 27:43) from Esau's wrath, and he lived in Paddan-Aram at least twenty years while in Laban's employ (Gen. 29:1-31:55).

1. Abraham and the Discoveries at Nuzi:

Nuzi was excavated between 1925 and 1941. It is located southeast of Nineveh, not far from modern Kirkuk, and it has yielded several thousand documents. These tablets provide numerous illustations of the customs which figure in the patriarchal narratives. The people of Nuzi (or Nuzu) were Hurrians (the Horites of the KJV) Old Testament

. In the time of Abram (c. 2100 BC) Mari was one of the most flourishing and brilliant cities of the Mesopotamian world, and the patriarch and his father Terah probably passed through thise petropolis on their way to Haran. The large number of the tablets discovered present diplomatic correstpondence teween Zimri-Lim, the last king of Mari, with his ambassadors and agents and with Hammurappi, the king of Babylon (c. 1728-1685 BC).

Abraham's migration from Ur, according to the Biblical chronology, however, took place some four hundred years before the period of the Mari letters and the reign of Zimri-Lim. At this time "the region about Haran was probably under the control of Mari." The city of Nahor (Genesis 24:10) is mentioned quite frequently in the Mari letters.

In the light of the interesting fact that Abram is the first person in the Bible to bear the name Hebrew (`ibri) (Genesis 14:13), the occurrence of the term "Habiru" in the Mari letters (eighteenth century BC) and earlier in the Cappadocian texts (nineteenth century BC) as well as in the later Nuzi, Hittite, Amarna and Ugaritic texts (15th-14th centuries BC) is significant, since the philological equation Hebrew - Habiru seems not unreasonable. The wide occurance of the term Habiru shows that the term "is not an ethnic designation, for the Habiru of these various texts are of mixed racial origin, including both Semitic and non-Semitic elements, but its fundamental meaning seems to be 'wanderers', 'those who pass from place to place.'"

Placing the Habiru in a much wider context as a result of archeological discoveries is not an embarrssment to the Biblical representations. Eber as an ancestor of the Hebrews (Gen. 11:16f.) included more than Abraham and his descendants through Isaac and Jacob. Some of his posterity were evidently left in Babylonia when Terah migrated with his family, and some were left in northern Mesopotamia when Abram migrated from Haran.

My link

Edited June 2, 2010 by crystal sage

[SlimJim22]

Considering that only the last bit about British Israelism was addressed to you, I'm not making leaps of judgement. The connections aren't there, linguistically, although there are some (crystal sage) who apparently would like it to be true. And BI is not just about an alleged connection with Israel, but also with a poorly researched and unfounded "connection" from around the 17 century between Cimmerian and Cymry, which doesn't actually exist. Again, the site is baseless.

No, I'm noticing that you appear to be going all "Oh, Golly Gee, How Great" over something that is trash.

I'd think that any Jewish Rabbi would consider that as a "no-brainer", especially since it is pretty apparent that that's the general idea as given in the Old Testament.

No, each language grew out of its part of the overall language family. Taking words from two or more disparate linguistic families, that sound similar, and claiming that there's a connection, is what there is no evidence for and therefore baseless, IMO.

Not to sound harsh, but do you have enough knowledge of linguistics to know what actually has a basis in fact, or are you just going on "gut feeling"? If the latter, then you're only comparing apples to oranges.

This is where things go sour, as there is no actual evidence of this claim.

No there aren't as there is no evidence amongst any Assyrian writings that they (the Assyrians) captured, or otherwise held, the entirety of 10 full Hebrew tribes. Amongst those who were taken, it can be reasonably assumed that they mixed with their captors, either by default or design. The real question here, is how many of those who returned to Israel afterwards would have been considered full Hebrews. Particularly as Hebrews were not supposed to mix with non-Hebrews.

Wasn't trying to make this personal, but I've yet to see any facts. If believing in every half-baked, poorly researched, fringe idea making "connections" is what you wish to do, though, then apparently my time is wasted. Sorry to interrupt your fantasy.

cormac

Well that sure told me cormac. I do appreciate it though as in most cases you are right. My knowledge of linguistics is flawed but I am going on a combination of intuition and what I have picked up along the way. I'll try and narrow my points so hopefully any evidence will show through.

Here is a link with some good information and I'll try and verify it with ancient sources if I can later.

http://www.abcog.org/abp3a.htm

So, here are some things that intuition tells me is relevant. I will keep it restricted to Wales because that is what I know from experience. There are biblical sounding surnames sch as Adams, Isaac, Israel, Jacobs and some first names likes Boaz and jachin and relatively common compared to elsewhere.

As the five books of Moses took so long to be written down, can't we assume there was strong emphasis on oral traditions. The celtic bards had some of the strongest oral tradition but alone this is not enough to convey a link. For me the Eistedfods tradition of having twelve standing stones is linked to the twelve tribes bt no doubt you would argue that is a meaningless coincedence.

Not speaking welsh fluently or hebrew at all I am not qualified from making comparisons but I had a really good teacher for welsh and religion and he could speak both and claimed they were very closely connected. So, with all these little bits of information here and there you may see why I am drawn to a particular way of thinking. Especially for the purposes of research for my project and all the other baseless claims I have made on here.

Here is some information that could be contradictory or supportive but first could you clarify (anyone) if this is accurate or not. It seems to imply that the Cimmerians were forced out of their homeland by Scythians.

As Phrygian state was at its peak, under the king Midas, Anatolia was invaded by a new flog of people. This people were known as Gommers in the old testament, as Gimmirais in Assyrian records and Cimmerois in Greek sources, now we call the Cimmerians. Cimmerians, as told by Herodotus, lived on the Crimean peninsula to the north of Black Sea. When their land was attacked by Scythians, a wild and powerful people, they, in large groups, entered Anatolia and destroyed Urartian kingdom in the eastern Anatolia.

Assyrian king Sargon II, carried out many defense wars against Cimmerians, another Assyrian king Asahardon, agreed with Scythians, and drove Cimmerians from eastern to central Anatolia. Cimmerians, first time met Phrygians in this area, and defeated Phrygians in a battle in the year 676 BCE after which the king Midas killed himself by drinking bull blood.

The burial mound at Gordion is believed to be the king Midas'. The body found inside the burial chamber is of a short man at the age 60s. What surprised the archaeologists, who excavated this tomb, was the lack of gold in the burial chamber, because the king Midas was famous for his rich treasures. One of the reasons for that might be the Cimmerians, who probably looted the riches of Midas. About the same time, Gordion the capital city was burned and destroyed.

After destroying the Phrygians, Cimmerians continuing their march towards west, destroyed and sacked many Ionian cities including Miletus and Smyrna. Cimmerian invasion lasted for 80 years, and this period of 80 years in Anatolia was known as a period of terror and fear. The Assyrian king Asarhaddon gave Cimmerians a heavy attack in the year 679 BCE, and the remains of this people were destroyed by the Lydian king Alyattes in 609 BCE.

http://www.ancientanatolia.com/historical/phrygian_period.htm

I genuinely appreciate the feedback even if it does expsoe my inadequacies becase at least I can work on them, eh?

[cormac mac airt]

Here is a link with some good information and I'll try and verify it with ancient sources if I can later.

From the bottom of your link:

Anglo-Israelism, British Israelism, America in Prophecy

You’re pretty much making my point for me, Slim. There are NO ancient sources. And British Israelism is about as meaningless as Christian Apologetics, to actual verifiable history.

There are biblical sounding surnames such as Adams, Isaac, Israel, Jacobs and some first names likes Boaz and jachin and relatively common compared to elsewhere.

Which would be expected from a country that has been primarily Christian for much of the last 1500+ years. Many other names, dating to around that far back, show no evidence of a Biblical connection. Names such as: Cormac Mac Airt; Aidan mac Gabhran; Iago ap Beli; Aed Brosc; Brychan Brycheiniog; Budic II; Cerdic; Cadwallon ap Einion; Coel Hen; Rhun Hir; Conan Meriadog and Pabo Post Prydain. There is nothing biblical, or even biblical sounding, about any of these names.

As the five books of Moses took so long to be written down, can't we assume there was strong emphasis on oral traditions.

Sure, strong Hebrew traditions. Nothing celtic about them.

For me the Eistedfods tradition of having twelve standing stones is linked to the twelve tribes bt no doubt you would argue that is a meaningless coincedence.

That tradition is only around 1000 years old, or so. Nothing there to link it to the ancient Hebrews.

Here is some information that could be contradictory or supportive but first could you clarify (anyone) if this is accurate or not.

There is some likelihood that the Cimmerians were forced out of, or otherwise migrated from their homeland. But there is nothing to suggest any connection with the Israelites, nor any connections with the English or Welsh.

cormac

[kmt_sesh]

Names such as: Cormac Mac Airt...

I don't know. If you say it with enough guttural force and with a deep enough voice, this seems somewhat Klingon to me. So there you have it. Sounds like it, so Cormac Mac Airt must be evidence that the early Celtic peoples were Klingon. What does your forehead look like?

[cormac mac airt]

I don't know. If you say it with enough guttural force and with a deep enough voice, this seems somewhat Klingon to me. So there you have it. Sounds like it, so Cormac Mac Airt must be evidence that the early Celtic peoples were Klingon. What does your forehead look like?

Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam, kmt_sesh.

cormac

[kmt_sesh]

Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam, kmt_sesh.

cormac

Now, I don't know a word of Klingon, so I have to ask...were you just hitting on me?

(I'm only kidding!)

[cormac mac airt]

Now, I don't know a word of Klingon, so I have to ask...were you just hitting on me?

(I'm only kidding!)

Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam -- It is a good day to die!

cormac

[The Puzzler]

You forget about the earlier characters of the bible.. some say they were from much earlier times...

My link

My link

My link

Hi Crystal Sage and thanks for that interesting info.

The early characters from the Bible could be from earlier times.

My own personal opinion is that the Battle of The Giants is the actual clash of the Greek Titans original story which goes back to around 2492BC.

This story relates that of Hayk, the founder of the Armenian people and who I believe Hector (of Troy) is modelled on as well as the cult of Apollo.

This is Hayk:

Hayk was a handsome, friendly man, with curly hair, sparkling eyes, and strong arms. He was a man of giant stature, a mighty archer and fearless warrior. Hayk and his people, from the time of their forefathers Noah and Japheth, had migrated south toward the warmer lands near Babylon. In that land there ruled a wicked giant, Bel. Bel tried to impose his tyranny upon Hayk’s people. But proud Hayk refused to submit to Bel. As soon as his son Aramaneak was born, Hayk rose up, and led his people back to the land of his forefathers, the land of Ararat. At the foot of the mountains, he built his home, Haykashen.[5]

During Dyutsaznamart (Դյուցազնամարտ, "Battle of Giants"), near Julamerk southeast of Lake Van, dated to August 11, 2492 BC[8], Hayk slays Bel with an impossible shot using a long bow, sending his force into disarray.

Note he moves down into Babylon and is a grandson of Noah, through Japeth - Nimrod is also a grandson of Noah, through Ham. There is slight confusion as to whether the Battle of Hayk was with Bel or Nimrod, nevertheless Nimrod is a similar character and could be the same. That means the flood of Noah is probably based in Ararat as that is where Hayk flees back to after killing Bel (Nimrod) becoming an Armenian founder, the real people are the Hayasi and they are enemies of the early Hittites.

Bel the wicked giant is actually Hayk's cousin, since they are both grandsons of Noah, one through Japeth and one through Ham.

He establishes the castle of Haykaberd (Armenian: Հայկաբերդ) at the battle site and the town of Haykashen in the Armenian province of Taron (modern-day Turkey). He names the region of the battle Hayk‘ "Armenia", and the site of the battle Hayoc Dzor[9] (Armenian: Հայոց Ձոր, meaning gorge of the Armenians; 38°20′15″N 43°26′53″E / 38.337624°N 43.448080°E / 38.337624; 43.448080) which is in the Gürpınar district of the Van Province in Turkey.

But the hill where Bel with his warriors fell Hayk called Gerezmank.[10] Hayk embalmed the corpse of Bel and ordered it to be taken to Hark and to be buried in a high place in the view of his wives and sons.

The figure slain by Hayk's arrow is variously given as Bel or Nimrod. Hayk is also the name of the Orion constellation in the Armenian translation of the Bible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayk

Slim, did you notice the beginning said about a Lake Hayq in Ethiopia, dont forget all the Ethiopia connections in the Bible.

I also think Haykashen could be the real Troy. Simply beacuse of the way Plato tells us Homer states: after a long time (after the deluge) they finally built Troy after the memories of the great deluge had left them, under a mountain, said to be Ida...(Laws Book 3). Mysterious everywhere Ida.

Hayk embalms Bel, which is apparent to me of an Egyptian mummification practice, Bel, who was probably Nimrod, becomes a God, that is Bel, Lord, who is later known as Zeus.

I say the real flood of Noah is in the North exactly at Ararat and after it migrations headed south reaching Sumeria. These people built the city and Nimrod who didn't like his own God anymore (probably because of the flood) rebelled against him. The Hebrews say their language is the one before Babel confusion. It is the language therefore of Noah from the area of Ararat and Armenia, people who headed down into Sumeria after the flood. Hayk probably spoke Hebrew.

Edited June 3, 2010 by The Puzzler

[SlimJim22]

From the bottom of your link:

Anglo-Israelism, British Israelism, America in Prophecy

You’re pretty much making my point for me, Slim. There are NO ancient sources. And British Israelism is about as meaningless as Christian Apologetics, to actual verifiable history.

Which would be expected from a country that has been primarily Christian for much of the last 1500+ years. Many other names, dating to around that far back, show no evidence of a Biblical connection. Names such as: Cormac Mac Airt; Aidan mac Gabhran; Iago ap Beli; Aed Brosc; Brychan Brycheiniog; Budic II; Cerdic; Cadwallon ap Einion; Coel Hen; Rhun Hir; Conan Meriadog and Pabo Post Prydain. There is nothing biblical, or even biblical sounding, about any of these names.

Sure, strong Hebrew traditions. Nothing celtic about them.

That tradition is only around 1000 years old, or so. Nothing there to link it to the ancient Hebrews.

There is some likelihood that the Cimmerians were forced out of, or otherwise migrated from their homeland. But there is nothing to suggest any connection with the Israelites, nor any connections with the English or Welsh.

cormac

Hey cormac, I'm not sure if we may be misunderstanding each other as regards the ten lost tribes. You may be under the impression that I think they were practising hebrews/Israelites. This is unlikely to be the case because there are passages where it states that they have turned away from the one true God. Well to be fair if your eople were getting massacred and imprisoned you would surely think God hath forsaken you. This is why perhaps paganism thrived so much in the north as the ten tribes dispersed mainly west at this time of the captivity. So, altough I see the celts and druids as having a hebraic origin, I say the same thing about the norse and their pagan origins. Just because they may have shared some common origin does not make them firm allies and chances are they soon forgot where they had come from and found themselves in a battle for survival. Alongside this was probably an impetus to redefine the cultural identites and hence the differences we find.

Clearly, I see the captivity and the ten tribes as being more significant that you do. I can respect your position and admit that I may be flogging a dead horse but I have stamina to take it a little further at least and see what can be found. Consider if what I am saying has any truth then how intentions may have been made to remove all traces just as attempts were made to preserve them.

Puzzler, I will have to look more into the Hayk connection with Ethiopia as it sounds really interesting.

http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/evidenceoflostisrael.html

http://www.religioustolerance.org/druid2.htm

http://www.1335.com/hebrew.html

http://www.bibleprobe.com/lost.htm

http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/idr/idr30.htm

[SlimJim22]

I am struggling to find any sources, other than the tablets already mentioned, that date to before the 11th century CE. That is not to mean that they did not exist before that but it seems that they were not written down prior to this time. I imagine that it was because to record such things was forbade but when the very existence of the bards became threatened it became necessary to retain a permanent copy. Here is a nice link that makes some strong connection in my view. Interesting to note that the 'Ox' was the tribe of Ephraim.

http://www.biblesearchers.com/hebrewchurch/primitive/losttribesisrael8.shtml

[cormac mac airt]

You may be under the impression that I think they were practising hebrews/Israelites.

In the least, they would have started out that way. Besides, many times in the Bible they turned away from God, only to have that decision come back and bite them in the ****.

This is why perhaps paganism thrived so much in the north as the ten tribes dispersed mainly west at this time of the captivity.

And again, there is no evidence that there were 10 lost tribes, nor that they dispersed mainly west. What is known from Assyrian texts don't even corroborate that claim. Several tribes of Hebrews didn't just up and go missing. Nor is there any relevancy to the Celts, as there were already Celtic peoples in Europe before the Captivity.

So, altough I see the celts and druids as having a hebraic origin...

Considering that the Celts date back to at least c.1200 BC and the Babylonian Captivity to c. 597 BC, there is nothing to suggest that the Celts have an Hebraic origin. Different timeline.

cormac

[The Puzzler]

The Hebrew story starts way back, even before Noah with an apple, a pomegranate, more than likely. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomegranate

Thinking about Noah in Ararat and then Hayk killing Bel(Nimrod)in Babylon and coming back to the home of his forefathers to settle places Noah squarely in Armenia, right where Mt Ararat is. This is 2 generations after the deluge.

That to me places the origin of Abrahams story in the same area, as he does seem to pick it up as he is in the Harran area. What Abraham has done is left Ur, like Hayk, unhappy with the rule of Bel (Nimrod) and as he heads north he encounters his forefathers people and their religion. The religion Abraham takes on is his forefathers one that he had migrated south away from. The reason he has bought a plot for Sarah from a Hittite is clear, it is the Northern Hittite Armenian area that has sprouted his new found old religion. Sarah is buried there because it his own home, the place from where his people left when they migrated down to Sumeria. The God he encounters is his own God, a God he lost when moved south to Ur and Babylon as Bel/Nimrod had rejected this northern God, Abraham re-establishes his old religion of his forefathers, that is from Ararat and Armenia.

The story of Troy is Hector (Hayk) against Zeus (Bel), Zeus, a heathen God, it is reported that Saturn was a monotheistic God and Zeus was heathen. Troy may have been an early Hebrew town settled by Hayk as I said before in some other post.

This can place the story of the Hebrew people (if we are to refer to them as the (race) people who descended from those who lived in the area of the deluge of Noah and carried this tradition through until it was recorded in 6th century BC Hebrew language most likely in or after Babylon) from much earlier than their language testifies.

[The Puzzler]

I'm going to link this, it's a comparison of Abraham and the Greek Minyan Athamas.

http://church-of-yehovah.org/minyans.html

The story of Athamas is the Minyan version of the story about Abraham. He began a movement with the aim of abolishing that age old, and widespread, religious concept of human sacrifice -- and it’s companion tradition, cannibalism. Although we praise Abraham for his role in this abolition, it seems that some factions of the ancient Greeks were of a different opinion. They considered their Abrahamic equivalent Athamas -- and his descendants as well -- to be cursed for their part in the civilizing of mankind. Intricate details of Abraham’s life appear as parts of the Greek myth as well. I can’t think of another pair of ancient stories which are so similar, but never compared! Both were divinely commanded to sacrifice their own son with a knife on a mountain top, and each was about to comply when the child was saved by the miraculous appearance of a ram.

The ram was considered to have been supplied by God, and was said to have been acceptable to Him as a replacement sacrifice instead of the son of man. The symbol of the sacrificed lamb of God seems to have been a constant one, lasting from Abraham down through the Passover lamb of the Hebrew exodus -- and on as the image of the sacrificed Christ. For our present purposes however, let us not forget one important stop over, for this symbol, which was outside of the usual Judeo-Christian religious continuum, appears to have served the sea people of Greece as the quest of the Argonautic expedition.

The symbol of the sacrificed lamb of God appears in the Greek Myth complete with an association to the Hebrew story of the garden of Eden. The quest of the Argonauts, like the Biblical quest of all mankind, hangs in a tree in a sacred grove. There is a serpent, and the way is guarded. This association begs for the conclusion that these Greeks had some knowledge about the Hebrew concept of the original sin. No doubt they did, for they knew many intricate details of the Hebrew story -- including the sophisticated religious symbolism inherent in the parable of Abraham’s two wives.

Both Abraham and Athamas are said to have had a pair of competing wives, each of whom were obvious allegories of differing religious concepts. Offspring was born to each of the wives, and the quarrel concerned whose offspring and their attending religious concept, would be favored. This is true in both stories. Ino is the equivalent of Hagar, while Nephele is the equivalent of Sarah. Consider the Ino, Hagar identification first: The Greeks considered Ino to be the loser of the wifely quarrel. She was exiled and had to flee from her family home with her child in her arms, and was at the point of death when god intervened, granting Ino powerful miraculous abilities over water. This saved the lives of Ino and her son Melicertes, and they were appointed to become great religious icons among the people who lived in the land of her exile -- which we are told was Corinth in Greece. All of these motifs are straight from the life of Hagar, who was looked upon as symbolic of earthly Zion -- the covenant with slavery and death -- while Sarah was symbolic of freedom, the Heavenly Zion and the wife of God.

Now consider the identification of Nephele with Sarah: Nephele was created as a duplicate of Hera, the heavenly wife of god. Hers were the favored offspring who were carried off to the "land of Egypt" (Colchis) from which they eventually had a miraculous epic deliverance (Argonautica). The son of Nephele was called Phrixus. Phrixus is the Minyan version of Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph -- all rolled into one. As Isaac he is almost offered up as a sacrifice by his father on a mountain top, but is saved at the last minute by the miraculous appearance of a ram. As Jacob he goes off to the "land of Egypt" where he stays until the end of his life. In each case his descendants returned and his bones are carried back home for burial. As Joseph, Phrixus has an episode with the wife of Aeetes (son of Helios, and king of Colchis), which is an obvious doublet of the same story told about Joseph with Potiphar.

[SlimJim22]

In the least, they would have started out that way. Besides, many times in the Bible they turned away from God, only to have that decision come back and bite them in the ****.

And again, there is no evidence that there were 10 lost tribes, nor that they dispersed mainly west. What is known from Assyrian texts don't even corroborate that claim. Several tribes of Hebrews didn't just up and go missing. Nor is there any relevancy to the Celts, as there were already Celtic peoples in Europe before the Captivity.

Considering that the Celts date back to at least c.1200 BC and the Babylonian Captivity to c. 597 BC, there is nothing to suggest that the Celts have an Hebraic origin. Different timeline.

cormac

Yes dating of the captivity is 7th century indeed but the dating of Abraham.. What between 2,200-1,500bce? Also, the Joshua I mentioned before, the first Hu pre-dates Abraham I am guessing, so we have hebrew connections as far as the British Isles from the bronze age. I presume this is tied in with phoenician mining operations in north wales.

So, the twelve tribes exist for a minimum of 800 years prior to the captivity but some of that time was spent at war with the Phillistines, the Elamaites and the Amorites to name a few. From Puzzlers information a link between hebrews and the Hittites seems reasonable. One suggestion for the origins of the Hittites is the sons of Heth. Heth is the fourth son of Canaan the cursed son of Ham and grandson of Noah. The assertion some are making is that the canaanites were under the other tribes in some capacity. I eman to say that they allegedly served them as in the tribes of the sons of Japheth and Shem. I don't really know what relevance this has but just because the captivity caused a quicken in migrations it is not to say that the tribes of Israel had not spread earlier. We have already discussed, though inconclusively, the role of the milesians in Iberia and the western isles, both being importnat to the tin trade. It is not an easy thing to pin down clearly but I think our perceptions of hebrews as jews is somewhat skewed by the literature that came out of Babylon.

The idea in principle is that the celts, hebrews, aryans, scythians etc held something in common in spite of racial and lingual differences. I'll shut up now but that is what I am getting at if anyone missed it.

I had never heard of Athamas so thanks heaps Puzz.