Are Jews Egyptians ?

[Abramelin]

I take it then that he conveniently left out an explanation for the Jordan River and Sea of Galilee not being in the maps you posted?

Edit to add: It's kind of hard to miss things like the Dead Sea, Jordan River and Sea of Galilee. As the saying goes "it's all in the details".

cormac

You didn't click my links, or you would have known the anser to what you asked.

.

Edited February 4, 2013 by Abramelin

[cormac mac airt]

You didn't click my links, or you would have known the anser to what you asked.

.

Actually I did, several times. Downloading PDF's has been a problem the last few days. Finally got it to work though. And no, it doesn't answer my question. It's actually a rather glaring omission IMO. Along with alot of faulty reasoning. But hey, if he's going to be wrong he might as well have been verbose about it.

cormac

[kmt_sesh]

Most sites mentioned in the Old Testament are known archaeologically within the Holy Land. One need not go looking afar. Moreover, numerous lowland and highland sites are known in extrabiblical accounts, namely from the Assyrians and Egyptians.

What's probably the most obvious is archaeology itself. From Megiddo strata of the ninth century BCE to the Dead Sea Scrolls of Qumran in the first centuries CE, the vast preponderance of ancient Hebraic material culture is found in the Holy Land, not Arabia.

We could go on all day debating whether there was ever a king named Solomon and to what extent, if any, there was even a United Monarchy, as well as any number of other interesting questions, but I rather doubt we could ever logically question the land the ancient Jews called home. I think we can safely classify Kamal Salibi as an historical revisionist, whatever his agenda and motivations may have been. Worth debating, perhaps, but I would never take his conclusions seriously.

[kmt_sesh]

To add to the above, I had meant to post my thoughts on this some time ago but remembered to only now—and that is the idea that the Phoenicians and Hebrews were the same people. They were not, of course.

The fact that the two groups originated from more or less the same ethnic stock is not in question. They were both Semitic peoples speaking a similar dialect and no doubt sharing numerous similar cultural practices until the Hebrews branched out on their own in the development of the Yahweh cult. But that's about as far as we can take the connection.

The Phoenicians as a cultural entity emerged probably several centuries earlier than the Hebrews, although there is still a lot we cannot answer about the socio-politics and economics of the Phoenicians. Misconceptions abound, right down to our name for them—Phoenicians. This word comes from the Greeks and ultimately from one of the generic terms the ancient Egyptians used to classify Canaanites, so it can be misleading to the modern reader. The Phoenicians were never a nation-state but were at most a loose federation of city-states with independent rulers. They were devoutly polytheistic from start to finish and venerated the usual assortment of Levantine deities, so that alone differentiates them from the Hebrews (at least in so far as the course of cultural development the Hebrews ultimately took).

So while the two groups may have come from the same basic ethnic stock, they were definitely not the same people.

[Abramelin]

Actually I did, several times. Downloading PDF's has been a problem the last few days. Finally got it to work though. And no, it doesn't answer my question. It's actually a rather glaring omission IMO. Along with alot of faulty reasoning. But hey, if he's going to be wrong he might as well have been verbose about it.

cormac

I know he said the Jordan River wasn't even a river.

And he also said the Jews left South-Western Arabia and settled in what's now Israel and renamed places according to the paces in their original homeland.

Btw, there are more people than just Salibi who came to this conclusion independently.

I can tell you: when I read his book the first time I thought it was just another wacky theory.

.

Edited February 5, 2013 by Abramelin

[Abramelin]

To add to the above, I had meant to post my thoughts on this some time ago but remembered to only now—and that is the idea that the Phoenicians and Hebrews were the same people. They were not, of course.

The fact that the two groups originated from more or less the same ethnic stock is not in question. They were both Semitic peoples speaking a similar dialect and no doubt sharing numerous similar cultural practices until the Hebrews branched out on their own in the development of the Yahweh cult. But that's about as far as we can take the connection.

The Phoenicians as a cultural entity emerged probably several centuries earlier than the Hebrews, although there is still a lot we cannot answer about the socio-politics and economics of the Phoenicians. Misconceptions abound, right down to our name for them—Phoenicians. This word comes from the Greeks and ultimately from one of the generic terms the ancient Egyptians used to classify Canaanites, so it can be misleading to the modern reader. The Phoenicians were never a nation-state but were at most a loose federation of city-states with independent rulers. They were devoutly polytheistic from start to finish and venerated the usual assortment of Levantine deities, so that alone differentiates them from the Hebrews (at least in so far as the course of cultural development the Hebrews ultimately took).

So while the two groups may have come from the same basic ethnic stock, they were definitely not the same people.

This Israelian professor thought differently:

http://www.whowerethephoenicians.com/

And read all the chapters of his online book.

[cormac mac airt]

I know he said the Jordan River wasn't even a river.

And he also said the Jews left South-Western Arabia and settled in what's now Israel and renamed places according to the paces in their original homeland.

Btw, there are more people than just Salibi who came to this conclusion independently.

I can tell you: when I read his book the first time I thought it was just another wacky theory.

At first his theory was

Which means that he thought the early writers of the Bible must have been too stupid to know the difference between an escarpment and a river. It's rather hard to mistake the two, particularly in a semi-arid or arid climate.

By his reckoning, using similarities in names, I guess we ought to believe that the Egyptians actually lived in Memphis, Tennessee. Damn, I wonder if anyone's told Harte yet?

Many people reaching a wrong conclusion doesn't make that conclusion right.

I think "wacky" is an understatement.

cormac

[Abramelin]

Which means that he thought the early writers of the Bible must have been too stupid to know the difference between an escarpment and a river. It's rather hard to mistake the two, particularly in a semi-arid or arid climate.

By his reckoning, using similarities in names, I guess we ought to believe that the Egyptians actually lived in Memphis, Tennessee. Damn, I wonder if anyone's told Harte yet?

Many people reaching a wrong conclusion doesn't make that conclusion right.

I think "wacky" is an understatement.

cormac

You haven't read his book, that much is clear.

And you should before you judge.

The reason I changed my mind about his theory is because others came to the same conclusion, independently.

.

Edited February 5, 2013 by Abramelin

[cormac mac airt]

You haven't read his book, that much is clear.

And you should before you judge.

The reason I changed my mind about his theory is because others came to the same conclusion, independently.

.

I've read enough to know that where Genesis says the Israelites are in the vicinity of the Plains of Jordan, which is located near the Salt Sea (Dead Sea) that that doesn't mean both the Dead Sea and the Jordan River got up and moved to southwest Arabia. And since even Ugaritic texts, amongst others, use 'msrm' as a name for Egypt then these other places wouldn't have confused Egypt with southwestern Arabia. Unless your contention is that nobody knew where Egypt was.

cormac

[Abramelin]

I've read enough to know that where Genesis says the Israelites are in the vicinity of the Plains of Jordan, which is located near the Salt Sea (Dead Sea) that that doesn't mean both the Dead Sea and the Jordan River got up and moved to southwest Arabia. And since even Ugaritic texts, amongst others, use 'msrm' as a name for Egypt then these other places wouldn't have confused Egypt with southwestern Arabia. Unless your contention is that nobody knew where Egypt was.

cormac

But you haven't read the book and so you don't know how this Salibi explains it. I wish it was online somewehere, so I wouldn't have to translate all of it from Dutch into English. Egypt is still where it always was, but there are more places with 'msrm' as a denomination.

He even has a whole chapter about the invasion of Sheshonq I (Biblical Shishaq) into Judah. Just that it didn't take place in what we know to be Judah. He locates it in Western Arabia.

.

Edited February 5, 2013 by Abramelin

[cormac mac airt]

But you haven't read the book and so you don't know how this Salibi explains it. I wish it was online somewehere, so I wouldn't have to translate all of it from Dutch into English. Egypt is still where it always was, but there are more places with 'msrm' as a denomination.

He even has a whole chapter about the invasion of Sheshonq I (Biblical Shishaq) into Judah. Just that it didn't take place in what we know to be Judah. He locates it in Western Arabia.

.

I have read a very much related PDF that can be found here entitled "Al- Hijaz, Homeland of Abraham and the Israeli prophets An Arab's geographical map for Abraham's journey based on Arabia historical accounts".

http://www.tajdeed.org/attachments/Al_Hijaz_Homeland_of_Abraham.pdf

I find it misleading, to say the least, how the writer claims that "Misr" was never known as another name for Egypt by any of its contemporary neighbors when the Ugaritic texts as well as the Assyrians and Babylonians knew and mentioned Egypt by that name. And each greatly predated the alleged timeframe for the Exodus. I see this as an Arabic attempt at revisionist history.

cormac

[Abramelin]

I have read a very much related PDF that can be found here entitled "Al- Hijaz, Homeland of Abraham and the Israeli prophets An Arab's geographical map for Abraham's journey based on Arabia historical accounts".

http://www.tajdeed.o..._of_Abraham.pdf

I find it misleading, to say the least, how the writer claims that "Misr" was never known as another name for Egypt by any of its contemporary neighbors when the Ugaritic texts as well as the Assyrians and Babylonians knew and mentioned Egypt by that name. And each greatly predated the alleged timeframe for the Exodus. I see this as an Arabic attempt at revisionist history.

cormac

I agree, I just read it.

And it doesn't quite follow Salibi's way of reasoning.

Btw, Salibi was

-1- pro-Israel

-2- a Christian (a protestant), not a Muslim

-3- a Lebanese, not an Arab.

[goodconversations]

Lebanese are not Arab?

[Abramelin]

Lebanese are not Arab?

They are not even sure about that themselves:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090117183356AA5Uyfa

But I once asked a women, "Are you an Arab?" T o which she replied, "No, I am Lebanese."

[Artaxerxes]

I've often wondered the same thing. - Art

[kmt_sesh]

Egyptians are the same, even though they're from the same basic ethnic stock as most others from the Middle East. Egyptians like to be called Egyptians, not Arabs.

And the same goes for Iranians, who definitely don't want to be called Arabs. They're not, actually. They're Persians, and they like to be identified as such.

Goodness, all of us modern people and our fixation with labels.

Edited March 29, 2013 by kmt_sesh
Clarification

[Eldorado]

Aye... they never had tribalism and bigotry back in the good old ancient times. (lol)

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

I would think that though the AE's depictions of foreigners is somewhat stereotypical, stereotypes are based on a general reality. AE depicted their neighbours and other foreigners as they viewed them, that is as different to Egyptians and different to each other. With exceptions such as AE as a unified state, back in those days identity was by what city you came from. You could be as hostile to a nearby city inhabited by people who had the same language and customs as yourself, as too some far off city full of genuine strangers. Probably this is still true in places.... However, I think it unlikely that any peoples would not have a concrete idea of who they were, except when we get to Hebrews who seem, to me, to be an amalgam of various tribal groups from the Levant who eventually became one unified group. But they were not Egyptians, I see no evidence of that at all, nothing, except of course for the possible faint echoes from Akhenaten. But that only as a religious idea, certainly not as evidence of Hebrews originating in Egypt.

edit to add that the contention in the video that amen is from Amenhotep is ridiculous and shows no understanding of Egyptian names or gods. Like many such videos on youtube, there is no direct provable lie, but there are very important omissions that totally distort reality. Youtube is for foamheads, er, except for my videos of course

Edited March 29, 2013 by Atentutankh-pasheri

[goodconversations]

They are not even sure about that themselves:

http://answers.yahoo...17183356AA5Uyfa

But I once asked a women, "Are you an Arab?" T o which she replied, "No, I am Lebanese."

Interesting. Politics Vs. Origin/Race, i guess.

[

Edited March 29, 2013 by goodconversations

[goodconversations]

Egyptians are the same, even though they're from the same basic ethnic stock as most others from the Middle East. Egyptians like to be called Egyptians, not Arabs.

And the same goes for Iranians, who definitely don't want to be called Arabs. They're not, actually. They're Persians, and they like to be identified as such.

Goodness, all of us modern people and are fixation with labels.

From my experience, all Egyptians take huge pride in being Egyptian and they have unconditional love for Egypt. Muslim Egyptians take equally huge pride in being Arab and in Arabism. Coptic Egyptians not so much. Recently, i hear many of them refer to themselves as the descendants of the Pharaohs or Nubian Kings.

I think all the Arab states by politics not origin are begining to dig up their roots.

[Abramelin]

Interesting. Politics Vs. Origin/Race, i guess.

Interesting. Politics Vs. Origin/Race, i guess.

I think many want see themselves as direct descendents of the Phoenicians.

[Tor_Hershman]

You folks surly make some mighty fine points.

[keninsc]

The reason Jews are called "Jews", is simply because they come from Judaea. Just as Palestinians come from Palestine, or Germans come from Germany, or Americans comes from America. People are called largely by the name of the place they come from.

[jaylemurph]

The reason Jews are called "Jews", is simply because they come from Judaea. Just as Palestinians come from Palestine, or Germans come from Germany, or Americans comes from America. People are called largely by the name of the place they come from.

...actually, it's the other way around. Judaea is a Latin named that comes from the name of the tribe descended from Judah ("Y'hudah"), the son of Jacob. (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=jew&searchmode=none)

For that matter, we have no evidence of a Germanic group who ever called themselves German -- it was a term coined and used by Caesar to describe people in Gaul, which is now France. There's no evidence for a place called "Germany" with people called "Germans" until much, much later. And it's still not the word people used to describe themselves there.

--Jaylemurph

[keninsc]