Christian and Jewish influences in Tolkien's work?

[The Telcontarion]

Repost: What do you think of this:

We all know Tolkien was heavily influenced by christianity. Now look at the simularities.

1. Israel was split into two kingdoms, the Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah - So was the Dúnedain in ME

2. The north kingdom, kingdom of Israel was larger - So was Arnor

3. The Kingdom of Israel was eventually over run and scattered - So was Arnor

4. Kingdom of Judah remained - So did Gondor

5. Eldarion's birth united the royal half elvin lines - The birth of Jesus united the two royal lines of king David.

I have been meaning to bring this up but as you can see I have been busy.

[Willow Oran]

I distinctly recall Tolkien writing of an intense dislike for allegorical interpretations of Lord of the Rings. There are very christian tones in the Ainulindale and some of his writings on Eldarin culture. But I sincerely doubt he meant such a close parallel as you've presented in the plot of his primary work.

[The Telcontarion]

I distinctly recall Tolkien writing of an intense dislike for allegorical interpretations of Lord of the Rings. There are very christian tones in the Ainulindale and some of his writings on Eldarin culture. But I sincerely doubt he meant such a close parallel as you've presented in the plot of his primary work.

Yet, there it is...

It is widely known however that his faith did have a huge impact on his work.

[Curufin]

Yet, there it is...

It is widely known however that his faith did have a huge impact on his work.

At least it's there for you. You could draw a WWII parallel just as closely. People see in a work what they want to see. Christianity is important to you - it's not surprising that you see it, whether Tolkien intended it or not.

[The Telcontarion]

At least it's there for you. You could draw a WWII parallel just as closely. People see in a work what they want to see. Christianity is important to you - it's not surprising that you see it, whether Tolkien intended it or not.

Tolkien was a devote catholic...even the DVD of LOTR movies got into that issue of the influence of JRRT's religion on his work.

There are indeed many parallels that can be drawn upon when it comes to the experiences and interests of a writer and the evolution of his/her work:

"The way in which a story-germ uses the soil of experience is a complex thing, and any attempt to characterize the process are at best guesses from inadequate and ambiguous evidence." (JRRT, Introduction to the Fellowship of The Rings)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

You might be on to something there, Tel. Of course, I feel sure that Tolkien didn't intend it, but it's quite possible that the history of the Dunadan kingdoms was influenced by his knowledge of the history of the kingdom of Israel.

[The Telcontarion]

You might be on to something there, Tel. Of course, I feel sure that Tolkien didn't intend it, but it's quite possible that the history of the Dunadan kingdoms was influenced by his knowledge of the history of the kingdom of Israel.

Yeah...it just seems to me to make a lot of sense and fits together nicely; a perfect circle you might say.

[Curufin]

"The way in which a story-germ uses the soil of experience is a complex thing, and any attempt to characterize the process are at best guesses from inadequate and ambiguous evidence."

Er, that supports my point, Tel, not yours.

[The Telcontarion]

Er, that supports my point, Tel, not yours.

In regards to this, of course it's just a best guess "skillful" one. I do believe however that due to the evidence provided that it was a good one.

[inked]

At least it's there for you. You could draw a WWII parallel just as closely. People see in a work what they want to see. Christianity is important to you - it's not surprising that you see it, whether Tolkien intended it or not.

Curufin, you need to read Tolkien's LETTERS. He expressly disavows the WWII parallels (other than as necessarily incidental in a world in which good and evil are opposed) and addresses the Christian influences.

It is not merely the reader seeing what is wished for; it is substantially present. Tolkien's words (paraphrasing from memory) were that Christianity was present unconsciously in the writing, consciously in the revising, and Catholic (Roman) throughout! See the BBC interview video on utube cited in the thread on that topic for THE MAN saying so. On videotape, so it must be true, eh?!

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

But Inked, literary critics (including individual readers) are entitled to draw independent conclusions. People in general, are, for that matter.

So if my spouse drops his socks in the middle of the livingroom floor, he can write as many letters, or blog posts, or give interviews as he wants saying, "My intent in dropping my socks was to create a moment of modern art in the midst of our humdrum existance" and I'm still entitled to say, "I'm offended by this behavior, you're treating me like a servant, or, worse, your mother. Cut it out." :D

No less is Rinke entitled to say, "The resonance of this piece for me is its criticism of moderity" and be correct, even if that isn't the aspect JRRT fancied was the important one.

The reader is not controlled by the author, still less by his "intent."

[inked]

SACA,
"I'm still entitled to say, "I'm offended by this behavior, you're treating me like a servant, or, worse, your mother. Cut it out.""

I take it then that your husband is not controlled by the intent of your words any more than a reader by the intent of the author? For the author has intent in writing (though more than consciously realised, to be sure) just as you have intent in adressing your husband's propensity for modern art. He also has intent in his art. ARe you getting his intent as well as he yours?:p

I fear that when an author says he has an intent or specifically denies an attributed intent by a reader or critic, I have to listen to the author. Really listen to the author, though I may yet make my case. I suspect that it is easier to attribute intent when the author cannot so make clear the purposes intended or not. For instance, when your husband attributes his reading of your intent in your words, do you find you always agree? Do you grant him the say authority with your words as he arrogates to himself;)?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Short form, I'm a behaviorist. I don't care about his motivation or intent, but I do about his behavior.

In literature, then, as in law, I tend to be fairly textualist. I think it's too bad that people intend to say things that didn't go into the final draft, but, such is life. That's why I'm utterly uninterested in a lot of ancillary materials *cough*Silmarillion*cough* when I'm looking at The Hobbit. Either it's there on the page, or it's not. And if it's not, the viewpoint of the reader is equally valid as the expressed desire of the author.

Don't get my intent. Get your socks. :D

[Curufin]

I have read Letters, Inked. And I know all that stuff is in there. I don't deny that Christianity had a great influence on Tolkien's work - I simply contest the fact that Lord of the Rings is a Christian allegory - like Tel is implying.

[The Telcontarion]

I have read Letters, Inked. And I know all that stuff is in there. I don't deny that Christianity had a great influence on Tolkien's work - I simply contest the fact that Lord of the Rings is a Christian allegory - like Tel is implying.

When did I say that? I was very specific if I recall. The title was "The story of the Dúnedain in middle - earth is based on the history of Israel" and:

Repost: What do you think of this:

We all know Tolkien was heavily influenced by christianity. Now look at the simularities.

1. Israel was split into two kingdoms, the Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah - So was the Dúnedain in ME

2. The north kingdom, kingdom of Israel was larger - So was Arnor

3. The Kingdom of Israel was eventually over run and scattered - So was Arnor

4. Kingdom of Judah remained - So did Gondor

5. Eldarion's birth united the royal half elvin lines - The birth of Jesus united the two royal lines of king David.

I have been meaning to bring this up but as you can see I have been busy.

The story of the Dunedain, not the entire book; though christian influences can be found throughout JRRT's work.

[The Telcontarion]

Curufin, you need to read Tolkien's LETTERS. He expressly disavows the WWII parallels (other than as necessarily incidental in a world in which good and evil are opposed) and addresses the Christian influences.

It is not merely the reader seeing what is wished for; it is substantially present. Tolkien's words (paraphrasing from memory) were that Christianity was present unconsciously in the writing, consciously in the revising, and Catholic (Roman) throughout! See the BBC interview video on utube cited in the thread on that topic for THE MAN saying so. On videotape, so it must be true, eh?!

That is all I am saying.

[The Telcontarion]

SACA,
"I'm still entitled to say, "I'm offended by this behavior, you're treating me like a servant, or, worse, your mother. Cut it out.""

I take it then that your husband is not controlled by the intent of your words any more than a reader by the intent of the author? For the author has intent in writing (though more than consciously realised, to be sure) just as you have intent in adressing your husband's propensity for modern art. He also has intent in his art. ARe you getting his intent as well as he yours?:p

I fear that when an author says he has an intent or specifically denies an attributed intent by a reader or critic, I have to listen to the author. Really listen to the author, though I may yet make my case. I suspect that it is easier to attribute intent when the author cannot so make clear the purposes intended or not. For instance, when your husband attributes his reading of your intent in your words, do you find you always agree? Do you grant him the say authority with your words as he arrogates to himself;)?

...Again, whole heartedly. For me the intent of the author is paramount as mine is the study of the human condition. To read and derive meaning from a literary work is an understanding based solely on one perspective, your own. Which does not lend to a greater understanding of the different perspectives and intents possible, which leads to greater understanding in general.

If I read JRRT's letters, his interviews and even his academic lectures I will come to comprehend much of his own perspective, i.e. the embedded biases and affections of the author. Leading to a greater and a even more profound revelation, of the meanings behind the words he actually wrote.

[inked]

I have read Letters, Inked. And I know all that stuff is in there. I don't deny that Christianity had a great influence on Tolkien's work - I simply contest the fact that Lord of the Rings is a Christian allegory - like Tel is implying.

I agree wholeheartedly that it is NOT an allegory.

[inked]

Short form, I'm a behaviorist. I don't care about his motivation or intent, but I do about his behavior.

In literature, then, as in law, I tend to be fairly textualist. I think it's too bad that people intend to say things that didn't go into the final draft, but, such is life. That's why I'm utterly uninterested in a lot of ancillary materials *cough*Silmarillion*cough* when I'm looking at The Hobbit. Either it's there on the page, or it's not. And if it's not, the viewpoint of the reader is equally valid as the expressed desire of the author.

Don't get my intent. Get your socks. :D

Then, SACA, we agreed. We are textualists.:eek:

[Curufin]

I agree wholeheartedly that it is NOT an allegory.

Good, cause that's all I was saying. ;) I was never trying to imply that it wasn't influenced by Christianity.

[GrayMouser]

SACA,


I fear that when an author says he has an intent or specifically denies an attributed intent by a reader or critic, I have to listen to the author. Really listen to the author, though I may yet make my case. I suspect that it is easier to attribute intent when the author cannot so make clear the purposes intended or not.

Except, of course, when that author is JK Rowling...

[D.Sullivan]

Except, of course, when that author is JK Rowling...

Lol. That's what I was thinking, too.

[inked]

Except, of course, when that author is JK Rowling...

You have what in mind, GM?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

You have what in mind, GM?

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and guess "Dumbledore is gay."

[Curufin]

*rolls eyes*

Oh, for God's sake, who cares about Dumbledore's sexuality? It's not like it has anything to do with the story whatsoever...

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

*rolls eyes*

Oh, for God's sake, who cares about Dumbledore's sexuality? It's not like it has anything to do with the story whatsoever...
You don't think so?

[inked]

Not a whit. Find one textual evidence of it.

And JKR's remark was that "she always thought of Dumbledore as gay". She just never wrote him that way. (See accioquotes for the remarks at a reading session in, IIRC, New York.) And the author is bound by the texts written ever so much as the reader.

When the revised editions come out, then we can talk about that aspect of non-disclosure being corrected by the author.

There's not a whiff of evidence otherwise in the published texts.

That'd be the equivalent of saying Sam Gamgee was always "gay" by Tolkien. There is no textual proof of the claim and much to refute it. Same for JKR and Dumby.:p

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Not a whit. Find one textual evidence of it.

And JKR's remark was that "she always thought of Dumbledore as gay". She just never wrote him that way. (See accioquotes for the remarks at a reading session in, IIRC, New York.) And the author is bound by the texts written ever so much as the reader.

When the revised editions come out, then we can talk about that aspect of non-disclosure being corrected by the author.

There's not a whiff of evidence otherwise in the published texts.

That'd be the equivalent of saying Sam Gamgee was always "gay" by Tolkien. There is no textual proof of the claim and much to refute it. Same for JKR and Dumby.:pI agree. I just think she was being obnoxious. :D

Of course, I also think she just wrote down whatever came into her head without any interest in what she'd previously written, and no concern at all for what might come after, and that she needed an editor with some chutzpah to keep her accountable, but...

But if one allowed it in, it would have huge ramifications for the story. That's the kind of trouble one gets in, when one departs from the text. :)

[Tessar]

I agree there is no evidence in the books that Dumbledore is gay, and I think it's a bit ridiculous of her to be talking about it after everything is said and done.

... but seriously?... If, and this is an if that I don't think is true because I don't consider Dumbledore to be gay....... but.... IF... Dumbledore were gay, he would be.... like... the coolest gay character EVAR!!!!! O.o

... assuming we exclude the steaming pile of crap that was book 7. Aside from that he was totally awesome.

[brownjenkins]

There's not a whiff of evidence otherwise in the published texts.

There isn't a whiff of evidence that he is heterosexual either.

[Willow Oran]

Possibly because he is derived from the archetypal 'elderly mentor' and thus harder for most readers to associate with either form of sexuality?

To try and shift this slightly back on topic... the mentoring character in any story is usually the one to provide spiritual guidance to the protagonist, placing constraints of what the author's real and invented cultures see as a moral person on that character's development. Had Rowling been brave enough to write her full idea of Dumbledore's character into the books it would have been a much stronger breakthrough for cultural minorities in mainstream literature. At the same time, it would have given the people arguing for the books being banned one more thing to latch onto. Now personally, I think she was just a lazy author. But one could make the argument that she was prevented from writing a character as she truly saw him by cultural intimidation in which religion can be said to have played a part.

We know authors are (often intentionally) influenced by their internal beliefs, but how do external ideas concerning God and religion effect pieces of writing where the author writes from a secular standpoint? Can these be filtered out or will the author inevitably find themselves forced to stay within certain boundaries? And finally, what effect does theology have on authors who by the nature of their writing must play god?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

We know authors are (often intentionally) influenced by their internal beliefs, but how do external ideas concerning God and religion effect pieces of writing where the author writes from a secular standpoint? Can these be filtered out or will the author inevitably find themselves forced to stay within certain boundaries? When you're in the business of deciding what "influenced, even unintenionally" a writer, you're way into guessing.

Now, I'm okay with that. I frequently think I know more about what someone has implied than they understand. :D But, that's what it is.;)

And finally, what effect does theology have on authors who by the nature of their writing must play god?I guess it depends on whether you see the writer as 'playing god" or as "channeling" something. Up North, here, there seem to be a few voices that see Tolkien, for example, as reporting something true. That's the same POV of some people re: the Bible. In those cases, there would not be the problem of error based on the author's bias.

However, if you see the authors of these works as a person who wrote things down, then their biases are certainly fair game for interpretation. ;)

[The Telcontarion]

Repost: What do you think of this:

We all know Tolkien was heavily influenced by christianity. Now look at the simularities.

1. Israel was split into two kingdoms, the Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah - So was the Dúnedain in ME

2. The north kingdom, kingdom of Israel was larger - So was Arnor

3. The Kingdom of Israel was eventually over run and scattered - So was Arnor

4. Kingdom of Judah remained - So did Gondor

5. Eldarion's birth united the royal half elvin lines - The birth of Jesus united the two royal lines of king David.

I have been meaning to bring this up but as you can see I have been busy.

Here (http://biblical-studies.ca/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/07/GKC-Alphabet-Chart.jpg)
The far left is the paleo version of hebrew.

And here... (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/Tetragrammaton_scripts.svg)
The top line is the paleo hebrew.

I know I know you will say that the runes are norse and german etc. but keep in mind none of those cultures created letters. The ones in popular use today are aramaic.

[Earniel]

Bah, seeking correlations in shape only between two unrelated scripts is something the majority of philologues are very, very careful about, if they cannot avoid it all together. It's not something that consitutes a solid basis for sound theories. Correlation is not causation.

While the exact origins of Futhark are still speculative, there is to my knowledge no viable theory that it was in origin Hebrew. A common origin is however possible.

And Aramaic is a language, by the way, and not a script. Nor did the Israelites develop the Hebrew alphabet on their own, so I do not see why you saying that the Norse and Germanic cultures didn't create letters (which is IMO a false assumption) is an argument for your position at all.

Not that this has anything to do with Theology, I realise now. I'm sure there are better suited threads for this.

[The Telcontarion]

I do agree to some extent but my only goal really was to show the relations between the texts and suggest some common origin. I will be the first to say I would need more of a correlation and more research.

Off topic a bit but still relates in that we still are talking about the original biblical language and the impact of Israel on the entire world in general and it's influence or non influence on my favorite author.

[The Telcontarion]

Bah, seeking correlations in shape only between two unrelated scripts is something the majority of philologues are very, very careful about, if they cannot avoid it all together. It's not something that consitutes a solid basis for sound theories. Correlation is not causation.

While the exact origins of Futhark are still speculative, there is to my knowledge no viable theory that it was in origin Hebrew. A common origin is however possible.

And Aramaic is a language, by the way, and not a script. Nor did the Israelites develop the Hebrew alphabet on their own, so I do not see why you saying that the Norse and Germanic cultures didn't create letters (which is IMO a false assumption) is an argument for your position at all.

Not that this has anything to do with Theology, I realise now. I'm sure there are better suited threads for this.

The Israelites did not create Hebrew period. It was the original language from the beginning. But only the righteous seed (Israel) inherited it.

Here follows the origins of all the original European languages and culture. The Israelite connection, the complete history revealed:

You want academic proof, watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwscza3mRFo&eurl=http://thebenjamite.blogspot.com/&feature=player_embedded) entire video and the part after.


As I have said before, the Africans were not capturing and selling into slavery other Africans, they were selling the refugees of Israel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSRnSWvozSQ) after it was sacked in 70AD. Over a period of about 1500 years we kept migrating from the east coast of Africa to the west coast. The greater part settled in west Africa and there our enemies eventually rounded us up and put us into bondage.

Many of us were living in Europe (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o06fMfbNuxo) at the time and 1000s of Israelite slaves were taken from Europe into slavery. In fact, we are the original kings and queens of those lands. We founded those countries. That was what the renaissance was about. After our downfall it was meant to revise all things, history and the images which is merely a by product of the original rulers (us, Israelites) being brought down and their enemies now coming into full power.

Here follows academic proof.

Do you know what the Book of Ballymote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Ballymote) is or the Yellow Book of Lecan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_Book_of_Lecan) for that matter? These are European books of history and genealogy. In the link above were it states the contents of the Book of Ballymote, it mentions the history of the "Jews"/Israelites. Why is that? Because The christian kings were the jews (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwscza3mRFo). Also in the Book of Ballymote, there is a copy of the Lebor Gabála Érenn, which states that the original monarchs and peoples of the Gaels were in fact descendants of the Scythians.

The original video above shows you clips of an academic documentary that shows that the Israelites in Europe were descendants of the Scyths and the other evidents (the books I provided here) show that they were intern the founders of the European monarchies and countries. They were all one people, the scattered Israelites after Israel was sacked in 70 AD, who were all black people and the eventual slaves in the Americas.

Psalms 83:2-6
2 For, lo, thine enemies make a tumult: and they that hate thee have lifted up the head. 3 They have taken crafty counsel against thy people, and consulted against thy hidden ones. 4 They have said, Come, and let us cut them off from [being] a nation; that the name of Israel may be no more in remembrance. 5 For they have consulted together with one consent: they are confederate against thee: 6 The tabernacles of EDOM, and the Ishmaelites; of Moab, and the Hagarenes; 12 Who said, Let us take to ourselves the houses of God in possession.

We lost our identity, it says "no more in remembrance;" the narrator in the embedded video said the exact same thing. We do not know because we lost it during the long migration over the years. We then lost our most recent history as rulers and founders of Europe as it was taken away/beaten out of us during slavery.

So with that it is easy to see that, not just all the European letters but language, culture and myths owe a great deal to the Israelites. Now it even makes more sense why the queen of england sits on the stone of Jacob (which she has no right to do since she is not an Israelite - pretentious lier).

[brownjenkins]

The Israelites did not create Hebrew period. It was the original language from the beginning. But only the righteous seed (Israel) inherited it.

Here follows the origins of all the original European languages and culture. The Israelite connection, the complete history revealed:

You want academic proof, watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwscza3mRFo&eurl=http://thebenjamite.blogspot.com/&feature=player_embedded) entire video and the part after.


As I have said before, the Africans were not capturing and selling into slavery other Africans, they were selling the refugees of Israel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSRnSWvozSQ) after it was sacked in 70AD. Over a period of about 1500 years we kept migrating from the east coast of Africa to the west coast. The greater part settled in west Africa and there our enemies eventually rounded us up and put us into bondage.

Many of us were living in Europe (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o06fMfbNuxo) at the time and 1000s of Israelite slaves were taken from Europe into slavery. In fact, we are the original kings and queens of those lands. We founded those countries. That was what the renaissance was about. After our downfall it was meant to revise all things, history and the images which is merely a by product of the original rulers (us, Israelites) being brought down and their enemies now coming into full power.

Here follows academic proof.

Do you know what the Book of Ballymote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Ballymote) is or the Yellow Book of Lecan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_Book_of_Lecan) for that matter? These are European books of history and genealogy. In the link above were it states the contents of the Book of Ballymote, it mentions the history of the "Jews"/Israelites. Why is that? Because The christian kings were the jews (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwscza3mRFo). Also in the Book of Ballymote, there is a copy of the Lebor Gabála Érenn, which states that the original monarchs and peoples of the Gaels were in fact descendants of the Scythians.

The original video above shows you clips of an academic documentary that shows that the Israelites in Europe were descendants of the Scyths and the other evidents (the books I provided here) show that they were intern the founders of the European monarchies and countries. They were all one people, the scattered Israelites after Israel was sacked in 70 AD, who were all black people and the eventual slaves in the Americas.

Psalms 83:2-6
2 For, lo, thine enemies make a tumult: and they that hate thee have lifted up the head. 3 They have taken crafty counsel against thy people, and consulted against thy hidden ones. 4 They have said, Come, and let us cut them off from [being] a nation; that the name of Israel may be no more in remembrance. 5 For they have consulted together with one consent: they are confederate against thee: 6 The tabernacles of EDOM, and the Ishmaelites; of Moab, and the Hagarenes; 12 Who said, Let us take to ourselves the houses of God in possession.

We lost our identity, it says "no more in remembrance;" the narrator in the embedded video said the exact same thing. We do not know because we lost it during the long migration over the years. We then lost our most recent history as rulers and founders of Europe as it was taken away/beaten out of us during slavery.

So with that it is easy to see that, not just all the European letters but language, culture and myths owe a great deal to the Israelites. Now it even makes more sense why the queen of england sits on the stone of Jacob (which she has no right to do since she is not an Israelite - pretentious lier).

You are taking an awful lot of credit for the development of today's cultures. What's interesting is everything you choose to omit.

[The Telcontarion]

You are taking an awful lot of credit for the development of today's cultures. What's interesting is everything you choose to omit.

Like...

I am not taking credit for "todays culture," I had nothing to day with the chinese or japanese culture to name a few. What I am doing is reclaiming my own. Which yes, is a very significant culture in world history but not because of our, "greatness:"

Deuteronomy 9:5
Not for thy righteousness, or for the uprightness of thine heart, dost thou go to possess their land: but for the wickedness of these nations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee, and that he may perform the word which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

It was for the wickedness/vain practices/idolatry/chrismas trees:D of the other nations we were raised up above them.

[The Telcontarion]

All that is gold does not glitter, (Zech 13:9), (2 Tim 2:20) (Is 13:12)
Not all those who wander are lost; (Ba 2:29-31), (Zeph 3:19), (Jer 31:10), (Ez 11:17)
The old that is strong does not wither, (Jer 51:19-20)
Deep roots are not reached by the frost. (Rev 22:16)
From the ashes a fire shall be woken,
A light from the shadows shall spring;
Renewed shall be blade that was broken, (Matt 10:34), (Rev 2:16), (Rev 19:21)
The crownless again shall be king!!! (Rev 14:14), (Rev 4:4)


The bible and consequently the story of Israel, is responsible for much of Tolkien's writings.

"You owe me your fealty."

The Tar Minyaturion.

[Earniel]

The Israelites did not create Hebrew period. It was the original language from the beginning. But only the righteous seed (Israel) inherited it.

Here follows the origins of all the original European languages and culture. The Israelite connection, the complete history revealed:
Not sure why you quoted me if nothing of what you say has anything to do with my post. But I'm with BJ on this. It never ceases to amaze me how people will try and claim other people's achievements and history. Somewhat like all those people convinced the ancient Brittons could never have built Stonehenge without modern technology and therefore must have had help from the aliens, or how the Maya could never have built those temples without help from either the ancient Egyptians or 'nother set of aliens...

[The Telcontarion]

Not sure why you quoted me if nothing of what you say has anything to do with my post.

Ok...

Bah, seeking correlations in shape only between two unrelated scripts is something the majority of philologues are very, very careful about, if they cannot avoid it all together.

This proves that they are not unrelated:

You want academic proof, watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwscza3mRFo&eurl=http://thebenjamite.blogspot.com/&feature=player_embedded) entire video and the part after.

And this:

Do you know what the Book of Ballymote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Ballymote) is or the Yellow Book of Lecan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_Book_of_Lecan) for that matter? These are European books of history and genealogy. In the link above were it states the contents of the Book of Ballymote, it mentions the history of the "Jews"/Israelites. Why is that? Because The christian kings were the jews (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwscza3mRFo). Also in the Book of Ballymote, there is a copy of the Lebor Gabála Érenn, which states that the original monarchs and peoples of the Gaels were in fact descendants of the Scythians.

The original video above shows you clips of an academic documentary that shows that the Israelites in Europe were descendants of the Scyths and the other evidents (the books I provided here) show that they were intern the founders of the European monarchies and countries.

The quote above also answers your quote below:

While the exact origins of Futhark are still speculative, there is to my knowledge no viable theory that it was in origin Hebrew. A common origin is however possible.

It shows not just that a common origin was possible but that it was a fact.

[Earniel]

You want academic proof, watch this entire video and the part after.
Sorry, but I am not going to waste time on 10 minute-long youtube videos, that are shakingly filmed, hardly understandable, and posted without even a properly spelled name. I'm afraid I have higher standards of what I deem academic proof.

Do you know what the Book of Ballymote is or the Yellow Book of Lecan for that matter? These are European books of history and genealogy. In the link above were it states the contents of the Book of Ballymote, it mentions the history of the "Jews"/Israelites. Why is that? Because The christian kings were the jews. Also in the Book of Ballymote, there is a copy of the Lebor Gabála Érenn, which states that the original monarchs and peoples of the Gaels were in fact descendants of the Scythians.I did not know about about both books, at first glance they sound interesting, but rather poor sources to base your theories on. For one, they're a lot more recent. A book from the Middle-ages is not without any doubt a correct or reliable record of events happening several centuries before.

Besides, Christianity has been firmly established in Ireland by then, so retelling Jewish history in a book is hardly out of the ordinary. Not to mention that Christianity has always had had a thing to use and/or warp existing historical and mythological stories and elements for their own purpose. So just because the writer adapted Irish history to his liking to have as much parallels to the Jewish history as he wanted, does not make this in any way accurate, especially not if other sources or material contradicts.

Have you read that Wikipedia article or read further? Especially the article on Lebor Gabála Érenn contains some critical views of its accuracy that I think you should not ignore. For example:
While scholars are still highly critical of the work, there is a general consensus that LGE does contain an account of the early history of Ireland, albeit a distorted one. The most contested claim in the work is the assertion that the Gaelic conquest took place in the remote past—around 1500 BCE—and that all the inhabitants of Christian Ireland were descendants of these early Gaelic invaders. In fact the Gaelic conquest, depicted in LGE as the Milesian settlement, was the latest of the Celtic occupations of Ireland, taking place probably after 150 BCE, and many of Ireland's pre-Gaelic peoples continued to flourish for centuries after it.[5]

It shows not just that a common origin was possible but that it was a fact.Fact? Not at all. At best, you have shown a link between Israel to the Celtic Isles, if a very contentious and most likely fabricated one. It hardly accounts for the whole of Europe as you claim! You are not mixing up Gaels and Gauls by any chance?

I find it somewhat amusing you'd use the Scythians as a vehicle to transport the jewish people to European kingship all around (I can think of at least two instances of bad research that would lead to such a conclusion) and it kind of effectively kills any chance you had to link Futhark (of which existing evidence rather suggests it is Germanic in origin, not Gaelic) to Hebrew. You see, the Scythians had no known writing system of their own...

So according to your theory, you would have Isrealites using Hebrew morph into Scythians with no own writing, morph into Gaels who then adopted the Germanic Furthark that happens to have a few similarities to Hebrew, but that's just because they were secretely Israelites all along? Hm...

No, if I were you, I'd just forget about this whole idea, it's just too shoddily researched and supported.

I suppose my main gripe with considering the Judaic history as main source for Tolkien's world-building is that Tolkien was a great scholar, one who knew a lot of several different European mythologies. I'm sure there are parallels, intended or not. But I think Tolkien drew on far more sources than that and to ignore this is to sell him short. What about parallels between the Dunedain kingdoms and the two Roman empires? You could do a lot with that comparion. And what about Tolkien's clearly Edda-inspired Dwarves?

[Amanda]

It's amazing I never thought about this until now. Israel is quite a close parallel with the Dunedain scenario. Being Jewish myself, it almost makes me feel like I am a descendant of the Dunedain! :cool: But however I'm not!:o Here I'm just member # 8209.:)

[The Telcontarion]

Sorry, but I am not going to waste time on 10 minute-long youtube videos, that are shakingly filmed, hardly understandable, and posted without even a properly spelled name. I'm afraid I have higher standards of what I deem academic proof.

Not having a "properly spelled name" is not a legit reason to not look at the evidence. The documentary clips in the video are from the history channel and the speaker was a anthropologist, that fact makes it scientific and academic Eärniel;most likely peer reviewed. I have done more research, the fact that the Gaelic people came from the Scythians is common knowledge in academic circles (http://www.friendsofsabbath.org/ABC/Church%20of%20God%20History/The%20Incredible%20History%20of%20God's%20True%20C hurch.pdf). Link provided was a PDF, read chapter 2, it gives very compelling proof.

I did not know about about both books, at first glance they sound interesting, but rather poor sources to base your theories on. For one, they're a lot more recent. A book from the Middle-ages is not without any doubt a correct or reliable record of events happening several centuries before.

The books go in conjunction with the video clips, they are not the sole source of evidence for my argument. Presented are two independent sources of information arriving at the same conclusion. To be frank, I don't understand your statement.

For one, they're a lot more recent. A book from the Middle-ages is not without any doubt a correct or reliable record of events happening several centuries before.

You have to explain that to me, makes no sense.

Besides, Christianity has been firmly established in Ireland by then, so retelling Jewish history in a book is hardly out of the ordinary. Not to mention that Christianity has always had had a thing to use and/or warp existing historical and mythological stories and elements for their own purpose. So just because the writer adapted Irish history to his liking to have as much parallels to the Jewish history as he wanted, does not make this in any way accurate, especially not if other sources or material contradicts.

Academics, science backs it up, anthropology backs it up. You can find people to disagree about anything, the point is that in academic cirlces it is widely accepted that the Gaels are in fact the scythians.

Have you read that Wikipedia article or read further? Especially the article on Lebor Gabála Érenn contains some critical views of its accuracy that I think you should not ignore. For example:

I do remember reading that (why you did not give a link to the article itself), and there are things that the books get into that I completely disagree with. Like it's claim that after the egyptian captivity they then migrated to Iberian peninsula after 440 years of wondering the world; meaning they skipped living in Israel like the rest of the jews. Sounds like them creating their own historical identity to me.

However, that is why this information is presented with the video clips. I am only interested in the lineage from the Scythians since that is the only part that I can verify academically elsewere, ie the clips. I notice you keep bringing up the books and not the vids, makes no sense you attempt to debate me on something when you have not looked all the evidence provided.

I find it somewhat amusing you'd use the Scythians as a vehicle to transport the jewish people to European kingship all around (I can think of at least two instances of bad research that would lead to such a conclusion) and it kind of effectively kills any chance you had to link Futhark (of which existing evidence rather suggests it is Germanic in origin, not Gaelic) to Hebrew. You see, the Scythians had no known writing system of their own...

I used the Scythians because that is what the evidence allows.


So according to your theory, you would have Isrealites using Hebrew morph into Scythians with no own writing, morph into Gaels who then adopted the Germanic Furthark that happens to have a few similarities to Hebrew, but that's just because they were secretely Israelites all along? Hm...

Obviously if they were jews they did. It is not a fact that they did not have writing, it is stated to be a speculation (most likely a lie).

No, if I were you, I'd just forget about this whole idea, it's just too shoddily researched and supported.

Whatever, it is one of the oldest and most often researched things in anthropology.

I suppose my main gripe with considering the Judaic history as main source for Tolkien's world-building is that Tolkien was a great scholar, one who knew a lot of several different European mythologies. I'm sure there are parallels, intended or not. But I think Tolkien drew on far more sources than that and to ignore this is to sell him short. What about parallels between the Dunedain kingdoms and the two Roman empires? You could do a lot with that comparion. And what about Tolkien's clearly Edda-inspired Dwarves?

I never said there weren't other influences, I have said that JRRT's work is heavily influenced by Israelite history and the bible in general. How the present debate came about was by me pointing out that those runes, used by german as well as the gaelic peoples seem to have there origins in hebrew. I then provided evidence to show how that could be.

While I do believe that there were other influences on the dunedain kingdoms creation, I do not think the roman empire is one of them, I could not do alot with that comparison because it is not true. Besides the thread is "Christian and Jewish influences in Tolkien's work." There are far more similarities with the Kingdoms of Israel than the romans, period. I had never even mentioned dwarves but I have mentioned specifically, the Dunedain.

[Count Comfect]

Tel -

I commend you to Andrew Hadfield's article in Irish Historical Studies, "Briton and Scythian: Tudor Representations of Irish Origins". Vol. 28, No. 112 (1993), pp. 390-408

He traces the idea of Scythian origins for the Irish (Gaelic to the core) to 1571 and the Chronicle of Ireland, as a story mixed up in Arthurian legend and a desire by the "civilized" British to cast the Irish as Scythian and thus barbaric. He then follows it back to the Romans, Diodorus Sicilius who relates that the Irish are like the barbaric Scythians in being cannibals and Strabo who explicitly stated that cannibalism was practiced by the Irish and "the Scythians also;" both authors distinguished Scythians and Irish however.

Edmund Spenser (and Hanmer, the author of the above-mentioned Chronicle) tried to hammer this into a Scythian origin for the Irish, again to barbarize them. Fundamentally, it is based on (quoting Spenser) the idea that "as Scythians are to Greeks, and wild men are to the civil, so are the Irish to the English." It also appears in some 12th century chroniclers' work more obliquely, but for the same reason. And as Hadfield concludes "the material used to make this case [for the barbarism of the Irish via the Scythians] seems to demonstrate that when writing about Ireland, English historians and politicians will often believe almost anything."

[Count Comfect]

Further: from the American Journal of Archaeology, vol 49, no 4 (1945) p 586

Treating the issue of the Scythian origin of the Gaels, the reviewer remarks "the story is unknown to the really ancient Irish texts" [NB: this is what Earniel meant by counseling you against reliance on medieval texts for ancient history. They are often inconsistent with earlier texts AND later texts, and given the absolute lack of archaeological or historiographical discipline in the medieval period there is no reason to take them at face value against texts either more thoroughly vetted by modern standards or written closer to the event].

Furthermore, he states that "it is believed to form not so much a piece of genuine folklore as a late attempt to connect Ireland with the ancient Mediterranean world."

The most recent peer-reviewed article my searches in the JSTOR archive can retrieve that treats this hypothesis with anything but extreme doubt (if not outright disbelief) is from 1918 in The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol. 48, pp. 155-178, and even that source hedges its bets. Anthrosource provides nothing on the topic.

[The Telcontarion]

Tel -

I commend you to Andrew Hadfield's article in Irish Historical Studies, "Briton and Scythian: Tudor Representations of Irish Origins". Vol. 28, No. 112 (1993), pp. 390-408

He traces the idea of Scythian origins for the Irish (Gaelic to the core) to 1571 and the Chronicle of Ireland, as a story mixed up in Arthurian legend and a desire by the "civilized" British to cast the Irish as Scythian and thus barbaric. He then follows it back to the Romans, Diodorus Sicilius who relates that the Irish are like the barbaric Scythians in being cannibals and Strabo who explicitly stated that cannibalism was practiced by the Irish and "the Scythians also;" both authors distinguished Scythians and Irish however.

Edmund Spenser (and Hanmer, the author of the above-mentioned Chronicle) tried to hammer this into a Scythian origin for the Irish, again to barbarize them. Fundamentally, it is based on (quoting Spenser) the idea that "as Scythians are to Greeks, and wild men are to the civil, so are the Irish to the English." It also appears in some 12th century chroniclers' work more obliquely, but for the same reason. And as Hadfield concludes "the material used to make this case [for the barbarism of the Irish via the Scythians] seems to demonstrate that when writing about Ireland, English historians and politicians will often believe almost anything."

Listen, the reason why I am focusing on the Scythians is because both pieces of evidence I provided mentioned them but the Scythians are not the only people mentioned in the clips of the video or the other videos I presented in other threads. The cimmerians as well as the massagetae were among the groups. Also it is not just the Irish that descend from the Scythians and the others but the english and the scottish as well...and the germans.

[Count Comfect]

You see, the reason I focused on the Irish-Scythian connection is because that's the only one discussed in any peer-reviewed literature I could find.

The Celtic record is pretty good, archaeologically speaking, and even more importantly, so is the evidence that there was no major migration from the East Med basin to Western Europe during the right time. Add to that that the language the Scythians spoke was from a distinctly different branch of Indo-European from all the languages of Europe (it's much closer to Avestan or Farsi than to Gaelic, German, Frisian, Danish, English, etc all of which are relatively close relatives in comparison).

[Count Comfect]

The Israelites did not create Hebrew period. It was the original language from the beginning. But only the righteous seed (Israel) inherited it.

Here follows the origins of all the original European languages and culture. The Israelite connection, the complete history revealed:

You want academic proof, watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwscza3mRFo&eurl=http://thebenjamite.blogspot.com/&feature=player_embedded) entire video and the part after.


As I have said before, the Africans were not capturing and selling into slavery other Africans, they were selling the refugees of Israel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSRnSWvozSQ) after it was sacked in 70AD. Over a period of about 1500 years we kept migrating from the east coast of Africa to the west coast. The greater part settled in west Africa and there our enemies eventually rounded us up and put us into bondage.

Inaccurate. The trade in black, native Africans was established early; the people being enslaved and traded were definitely of a different ethnolinguistic group from the Jews (and skin color and body shape do not change that quickly); and the Spanish, who had Jewish slaves from North Africa for comparison, were very definite about the differences between those slaves and the African slaves they bought from West Africa. See Black African Slaves at Valencia, 1482-1516: An Onomastic Inquiry, P. E. H. Hair, History in Africa, Vol. 7, (1980), pp. 119-139 for a start of a discussion about the identities of slave groups.

Many of us were living in Europe (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o06fMfbNuxo) at the time and 1000s of Israelite slaves were taken from Europe into slavery. In fact, we are the original kings and queens of those lands. We founded those countries. That was what the renaissance was about. After our downfall it was meant to revise all things, history and the images which is merely a by product of the original rulers (us, Israelites) being brought down and their enemies now coming into full power.

Here follows academic proof.

First of all, when were the Israelites ever in Europe in the first place? There is good Biblical, historical, archaeological, and linguistic evidence for a Mesopotamia/Levant origin for the Hebrew tribe, culture, and language. There is none for an invasion of that territory by a tribe from Europe before the Greeks, nor of a mass migration (even if there had been no conflict). Nor is there evidence of major slave-taking expeditions to Europe (Sudan was a popular target, however, as were one's neighbors).

Do you know what the Book of Ballymote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Ballymote) is or the Yellow Book of Lecan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_Book_of_Lecan) for that matter? These are European books of history and genealogy. In the link above were it states the contents of the Book of Ballymote, it mentions the history of the "Jews"/Israelites. Why is that? Because The christian kings were the jews (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwscza3mRFo). Also in the Book of Ballymote, there is a copy of the Lebor Gabála Érenn, which states that the original monarchs and peoples of the Gaels were in fact descendants of the Scythians.
I've dealt with that above, see the details on the Irish and Scythian connection.

The original video above shows you clips of an academic documentary that shows that the Israelites in Europe were descendants of the Scyths and the other evidents (the books I provided here) show that they were intern the founders of the European monarchies and countries. They were all one people, the scattered Israelites after Israel was sacked in 70 AD, who were all black people and the eventual slaves in the Americas.
After 70 AD we have VERY good historical-archaeological data, and none of it supports a mass migration of anyone out of the Middle East during Roman times or during the Dark Ages. Out of the steppes, yes, but not out of the Levant.

Psalms 83:2-6
2 For, lo, thine enemies make a tumult: and they that hate thee have lifted up the head. 3 They have taken crafty counsel against thy people, and consulted against thy hidden ones. 4 They have said, Come, and let us cut them off from [being] a nation; that the name of Israel may be no more in remembrance. 5 For they have consulted together with one consent: they are confederate against thee: 6 The tabernacles of EDOM, and the Ishmaelites; of Moab, and the Hagarenes; 12 Who said, Let us take to ourselves the houses of God in possession.

A) Metaphor, B) exagerration, C) "They have said" does not mean 'they have done,' D) Israel WAS conquered, subjected, and no longer a nation. They just kept their identity IN THEIR ORIGINAL LOCATION. As a subject people. Also, this quote is out of chronological order if you're citing things after 70AD, since Psalms dates to the time of David, c. 1000 BC.

We lost our identity, it says "no more in remembrance;" the narrator in the embedded video said the exact same thing. We do not know because we lost it during the long migration over the years. We then lost our most recent history as rulers and founders of Europe as it was taken away/beaten out of us during slavery.

So with that it is easy to see that, not just all the European letters but language, culture and myths owe a great deal to the Israelites. Now it even makes more sense why the queen of england sits on the stone of Jacob (which she has no right to do since she is not an Israelite - pretentious lier).

European letters Earniel has dealt with; there is also no "stone of Jacob" in Jewish lore. The Stone of Scone claims to have been his pillow when he saw the angels, but that's a late attribution to legitimize already Scottish kings, not a historical detail traceable back to fact.

There's just too much evidence about the populations and cultural changes in the locations you're citing, none of which backs up this overbroad idea of Israelite influence on everything.

[Coffeehouse]

Inaccurate. The trade in black, native Africans was established early; the people being enslaved and traded were definitely of a different ethnolinguistic group from the Jews (and skin color and body shape do not change that quickly); and the Spanish, who had Jewish slaves from North Africa for comparison, were very definite about the differences between those slaves and the African slaves they bought from West Africa. See Black African Slaves at Valencia, 1482-1516: An Onomastic Inquiry, P. E. H. Hair, History in Africa, Vol. 7, (1980), pp. 119-139 for a start of a discussion about the identities of slave groups.

First of all, when were the Israelites ever in Europe in the first place? There is good Biblical, historical, archaeological, and linguistic evidence for a Mesopotamia/Levant origin for the Hebrew tribe, culture, and language. There is none for an invasion of that territory by a tribe from Europe before the Greeks, nor of a mass migration (even if there had been no conflict). Nor is there evidence of major slave-taking expeditions to Europe (Sudan was a popular target, however, as were one's neighbors).
I've dealt with that above, see the details on the Irish and Scythian connection.
After 70 AD we have VERY good historical-archaeological data, and none of it supports a mass migration of anyone out of the Middle East during Roman times or during the Dark Ages. Out of the steppes, yes, but not out of the Levant.

A) Metaphor, B) exagerration, C) "They have said" does not mean 'they have done,' D) Israel WAS conquered, subjected, and no longer a nation. They just kept their identity IN THEIR ORIGINAL LOCATION. As a subject people. Also, this quote is out of chronological order if you're citing things after 70AD, since Psalms dates to the time of David, c. 1000 BC.


European letters Earniel has dealt with; there is also no "stone of Jacob" in Jewish lore. The Stone of Scone claims to have been his pillow when he saw the angels, but that's a late attribution to legitimize already Scottish kings, not a historical detail traceable back to fact.

There's just too much evidence about the populations and cultural changes in the locations you're citing, none of which backs up this overbroad idea of Israelite influence on everything.

I think that's an excellent rebuttal.

[The Telcontarion]

Inaccurate. The trade in black, native Africans was established early; the people being enslaved and traded were definitely of a different ethnolinguistic group from the Jews (and skin color and body shape do not change that quickly); and the Spanish, who had Jewish slaves from North Africa for comparison, were very definite about the differences between those slaves and the African slaves they bought from West Africa. See Black African Slaves at Valencia, 1482-1516: An Onomastic Inquiry, P. E. H. Hair, History in Africa, Vol. 7, (1980), pp. 119-139 for a start of a discussion about the identities of slave groups.

"Skin color and body shape." The Jews were originally black (http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showpost.php?p=635912&postcount=409) and if you can't get that, you won't get any of this. I have provided tons of evidence on this issue alone.

Gamal Abdul Nasser, who was the president of the United Arab Republic said in 1956:
‘I could not respect the present Jews because they left Israel black and came back white.’

First of all, when were the Israelites ever in Europe in the first place? There is good Biblical, historical, archaeological, and linguistic evidence for a Mesopotamia/Levant origin for the Hebrew tribe, culture, and language. There is none for an invasion of that territory by a tribe from Europe before the Greeks, nor of a mass migration (even if there had been no conflict). Nor is there evidence of major slave-taking expeditions to Europe (Sudan was a popular target, however, as were one's neighbors).

Oh really. So it was not the "wandering Jews of Africa" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSRnSWvozSQ) they were capturing?

I answered this already, here (http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showpost.php?p=635875&postcount=405), and here (http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showpost.php?p=637537&postcount=563).

A quote from the latter link above:

"Expulsion of the Jews from Sicily: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Jews_from_Sicily)

I came to this revelation after reading the article, Expulsion of the Jews from Sicily given above. The article said that the jews were expelled from italy in 1492. I wondered at this year because I remember some significants. 1492 was there in blue within the article so I clicked on it. 1492 is the year Columbus (the demon) came to the Americas...wow!!! (the events of that year are listed-must read). At the bottom of the article it talks about how the jews were waving to their former neighbors as they were taken away on "ships!!!!" (Duet. 28:68)"

History is a lie ok, get over it. Would anyone go to such lengths to lie, oooh yeah. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfb15ySoAVQ)

After 70 AD we have VERY good historical-archaeological data, and none of it supports a mass migration of anyone out of the Middle East during Roman times or during the Dark Ages. Out of the steppes, yes, but not out of the Levant.

*Sigh*

A) Metaphor, B) exagerration, C) "They have said" does not mean 'they have done,' D) Israel WAS conquered, subjected, and no longer a nation. They just kept their identity IN THEIR ORIGINAL LOCATION. As a subject people. Also, this quote is out of chronological order if you're citing things after 70AD, since Psalms dates to the time of David, c. 1000 BC.

*Sigh* the scriptures are not citing any specific time. The Moabites are the Chinese, when did they come against us in recent history as a nation, only before and during the time of King David. An Though we always fought with Edom they never ruled us until the advent of the romans, who even the false Jews today call the Edomites.

Psalm 83:16-17
16 Fill their faces with shame; that they may seek thy name, O LORD.17 Let them be confounded and troubled for ever; yea, let them be put to shame, and perish:

Have any of those nations been put to shame yet and made to seek the name of god, no because it did not happen yet, it is prophecy, foretold in Isaiah to happen on the day of judgment. So Psalms 83:2-6 is talking about the overall relationship Israel had/has with these nations in a prophetic as well as historical way.

European letters Earniel has dealt with; there is also no "stone of Jacob" in Jewish lore. The Stone of Scone claims to have been his pillow when he saw the angels, but that's a late attribution to legitimize already Scottish kings, not a historical detail traceable back to fact.

This is a lie, the stone of Jacob, is in Genesis 28:10-18. lol...you know, this is very funny to me, the point is why could the stone of Jacob (sure it may not be the original) legitimize Scottish (which means burned man) kings if they were not in origin Jews. Why not something pagan like an object of the pantheon gods, isn't your argument that the Eurpeans are Greeks:

There is none for an invasion of that territory by a tribe from Europe before the Greeks,

Yeah right. This is a load of flaming, steaming, horse filth.

There's just too much evidence about the populations and cultural changes in the locations you're citing, none of which backs up this overbroad idea of Israelite influence on everything.

Scottish means burned man (why).

Anglo-saxon means sons of Isaac.

Why?

[Count Comfect]

Why would the (supposed) pillow of Jacob legitimize Scottish kings? Because they're Christian. Obviously.

I know the story of Jacob's ladder; he set the stone for a pillar and called it Beth-El (the house of God). What there are NOT is Jewish myths about that stone having been acquired or taken by anyone else, least of all to Scotland, or about any legitimizing power it had over anything or anyone.

As for the meaning of Scot, OED:
[OE. *Scot, pl. Scottas, ad. late L. Scottus; first in writers of c 400. Late Latin had a variant Sctus (cf. med.Gr. ), which became the usual form in med.L. A third form, Sctus, may perh. be inferred from the ON. Skotar pl., though the examples of it in med. Latin verse are prob. mere mistakes.
The source of the late Latin word is obscure. There is no evidence that it represents the native name of any Gaelic-speaking people (the Irish Scot, an Irishman, pl. Scuit, appears to be a learned word from Latin), nor does it exist in Welsh, though Welshmen in writing Latin have from the earliest times used Scoti as the rendering of Gwyddel (Gaels). It may possibly be an adoption of a name bestowed at an early period by Britons or Gauls on a Gaelic people (cf. the Gaulish personal names Scottos, Scottios); Sir J. Rhs has suggested that it may have meant ‘tattooed’, cogn. w. Welsh ysgwthr a cutting, carving, or sculpturing; other conjectures have also been offered.
Anglo-Saxon does not mean son of Isaac. It is a joining of two tribal names - Angles and Saxons. The Saxons are well known as inhabitants of what is now Saxony in Germany, their name derives from their weaponry (c.f. Old English saex, knife). The Angles (c.f. East Anglia) have a name of Greek derivation, so named for the Engles, a related tribe, from what is now Schleswig in Northern Germany.

The Moabites are not the Chinese. They are the people of Moab. It's a region around the Dead Sea. Edom is due south of it overlapping the Negev. Both kingdoms HAVE been destroyed (not that I think the Bible is always accurate or prophetic, but this is one point on which it is correct).

Of course 1492 is the year the Jews were expelled (from Sicily and from other Aragonese and Castilian provinces). The very reason Columbus was able to go on his voyage (which post-dates the expulsion) was because of the victory in Grenada and the Christianization of Spain (involving the expulsion or conversion by force of both Jews and Muslims). And how else would you leave Sicily but by ship? Boat I guess. The history of the Sephardim is well known (they could write, you know).

I never denied there were black slaves in Spain by 1492. Many. In fact, the article I cited speaks of the slave trade in a period beginning in 1482, ten years earlier, that was already well-established bringing in black slaves. The issue is that these were not Jews, they were a distinct population speaking their own, non-Semitic, languages with their own culture and their own history. Not Jews, ex-Jews, or forgotten Jews. Also, the Zulu are from far Southern Africa, Shaka dates from the 17-1800s, and they have nothing to do with the Atlantic slave trade.

Everyone was once black-skinned, because we came out of Africa. But the Jews are, and were, Semites. Just like the Egyptians (Nasser was talking about Europeanization with his white/black comments) (since the 'United Arab Republic' was Syria+Egypt). They aren't black. Hell, I might point to the Song of Songs: "My beloved is white and ruddy, the chiefest among ten thousand." Song of Songs 5-10.

And that's probably all from me. You don't like peer-reviewed evidence, do you?

[The Telcontarion]

Why would the (supposed) pillow of Jacob legitimize Scottish kings? Because they're Christian. Obviously.

I know the story of Jacob's ladder; he set the stone for a pillar and called it Beth-El (the house of God). What there are NOT is Jewish myths about that stone having been acquired or taken by anyone else, least of all to Scotland, or about any legitimizing power it had over anything or anyone.

As for the meaning of Scot, OED:

Anglo-Saxon does not mean son of Isaac. It is a joining of two tribal names - Angles and Saxons. The Saxons are well known as inhabitants of what is now Saxony in Germany, their name derives from their weaponry (c.f. Old English saex, knife). The Angles (c.f. East Anglia) have a name of Greek derivation, so named for the Engles, a related tribe, from what is now Schleswig in Northern Germany.

The Moabites are not the Chinese. They are the people of Moab. It's a region around the Dead Sea. Edom is due south of it overlapping the Negev. Both kingdoms HAVE been destroyed (not that I think the Bible is always accurate or prophetic, but this is one point on which it is correct).

Of course 1492 is the year the Jews were expelled (from Sicily and from other Aragonese and Castilian provinces). The very reason Columbus was able to go on his voyage (which post-dates the expulsion) was because of the victory in Grenada and the Christianization of Spain (involving the expulsion or conversion by force of both Jews and Muslims). And how else would you leave Sicily but by ship? Boat I guess. The history of the Sephardim is well known (they could write, you know).

I never denied there were black slaves in Spain by 1492. Many. In fact, the article I cited speaks of the slave trade in a period beginning in 1482, ten years earlier, that was already well-established bringing in black slaves. The issue is that these were not Jews, they were a distinct population speaking their own, non-Semitic, languages with their own culture and their own history. Not Jews, ex-Jews, or forgotten Jews. Also, the Zulu are from far Southern Africa, Shaka dates from the 17-1800s, and they have nothing to do with the Atlantic slave trade.

Everyone was once black-skinned, because we came out of Africa. But the Jews are, and were, Semites. Just like the Egyptians (Nasser was talking about Europeanization with his white/black comments) (since the 'United Arab Republic' was Syria+Egypt). They aren't black. Hell, I might point to the Song of Songs: "My beloved is white and ruddy, the chiefest among ten thousand." Song of Songs 5-10.

And that's probably all from me. You don't like peer-reviewed evidence, do you?

You have addressed almost none of the issues I brought up specifically and you don't provide links to things you bring up. You just bring up more questions without resolving the issues before. This is not going anywhere.

You have not even addressed any of the scriptures that I brought out. Shaka Zulu is from 1700 so he nothing to do with the slave trade? They were still catching slaves 1860, *sigh*.

And:

Just like the Egyptians (Nasser was talking about Europeanization with his white/black comments) (since the 'United Arab Republic' was Syria+Egypt). They aren't black.

What man?!!! Whatever...you playin games, but know this:

Matthew 12:36
But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

You are not getting away with "covering up the faces of the jugdes" ok, believe it, "the wages of sin is blood."

[Coffeehouse]

Shaka Zulu is from 1700 so he nothing to do with the slave trade? They were still catching slaves 1860,

What does Shaka Zulu have to do with any of your arguments?

For one he was the ruler of the Zulu Kingdom, in the southern-most part of Africa, in a province now named KwaZulu-Natal in modern-day South Africa. The Zulus have no documented relationship of any kind with either the slave trade between the Atlantic coastlines of Africa and America/Europe, nor the slave trade of North Africa, nor the Indian Ocean slave-trade from modern-day Mozambique up to modern-day Somalia. In fact the area of present-day KwaZulu-Natal, still mostly populated by Zulus (an ethnic group in South Africa), was one of the last places that Europeans came into contact with. The Portuguese came across the coastline of the area on Christmas Day, thus Natal (Christmas in Portuguese). The slave-trade never had any substantial impact on this area of Africa, apart from later, but solely local Boer and British conquests in the latter half of the 19th century and onto the apartheid era of the 20th century.

[The Telcontarion]

You see, the reason I focused on the Irish-Scythian connection is because that's the only one discussed in any peer-reviewed literature I could find.


But yet you post no links to them.

[The Telcontarion]

Also, the Zulu are from far Southern Africa, Shaka dates from the 17-1800s, and they have nothing to do with the Atlantic slave trade.


This is what you said, suggesting that the time of Shaka is from a different era. I answered and said that they (this is ridiculous), as in the slave traders, were still trading slaves up until 1860, so it's not a different era. For your information, there are people to this day who live in south Africa that claim to be lost Jews, that live seperate and apart from their surrounding tribes as they are bigoted against.

For one he was the ruler of the Zulu Kingdom, in the southern-most part of Africa, in a province now named KwaZulu-Natal in modern-day South Africa. The Zulus have no documented relationship of any kind with either the slave trade between the Atlantic coastlines of Africa and America/Europe, nor the slave trade of North Africa, nor the Indian Ocean slave-trade from modern-day Mozambique up to modern-day Somalia. In fact the area of present-day KwaZulu-Natal, still mostly populated by Zulus (an ethnic group in South Africa), was one of the last places that Europeans came into contact with. The Portuguese came across the coastline of the area on Christmas Day, thus Natal (Christmas in Portuguese). The slave-trade never had any substantial impact on this area of Africa, apart from later, but solely local Boer and British conquests in the latter half of the 19th century and onto the apartheid era of the 20th century.

Any reference to the zulus I made had to do with the vid I provided as reference. What is this above about?

And where is your references/links to your information. I am trying not to ignore you but I am not telling you again. I know you are young and may not have experience in research but I am not going to argue none points and poorly backed POVs; beneath me really.

You want to know what is relevant to this thread. I am interested in hearing what you think about the black Icons that were repainted white in Russia, that's what has to do with this thread. I want to hear about the videos I posted about the knights of middle ages being black men. I want to hear about the arguments I presented stating the great lie that the moors were muslim africans and not black hebrew Israelites. That is what is relevant to this thread and showing that the European culture thus the works of JRRT is just the Israelite culture with another twist. That is relevant to this thread not running around in circles with no works cited, no links for me to varify, about issues that remotely have relevants hear, that was mentioned in passing, along the way to proving more significant points!!!!

Inaccurate. The trade in black, native Africans was established early; the people being enslaved and traded were definitely of a different ethnolinguistic group from the Jews (and skin color and body shape do not change that quickly)

So at one point you say, that they could not have been black 500 years ago because they could not turn from black to white in such a short time. Then:


Everyone was once black-skinned, because we came out of Africa. But the Jews are, and were, Semites. Just like the Egyptians (Nasser was talking about Europeanization with his white/black comments) (since the 'United Arab Republic' was Syria+Egypt). They aren't black. Hell, I might point to the Song of Songs: "My beloved is white and ruddy, the chiefest among ten thousand." Song of Songs 5-10.

This above was in response to scriptures I gave that related the color of Jesus and the Israelites from 2000 years ago. So the jews were black then but not 500 years ago because it was too short a time span but 2000 years was enough for you to change from black to white. Sure...

"My beloved is white and ruddy, the chiefest among ten thousand." Song of Songs 5-10.

What the hell do you mean by this? So you believe we were all black? But a single verse will convince you otherwise, I see...

All I am going to say to you is that you have some nerve (Kahunas) to so eagerly go along with continuing to cover up the identity of the real Israelites who were taken into slavery. You are a braver man than I am because I could not do it, I am terrified of god. Good luck with that (not): read my signiture.

Matthew 10:26
Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known.

...and I will whisper...no (hell no!!!)

[Coffeehouse]

What?



This is what you said, suggesting that the time of Shaka is from a different era. I answered and said that they (this is ridiculous), as in the slave traders, were still trading slaves up until 1860, so it's not a different era. For your information, there are people to this day who live in south Africa that claim to be lost Jews, that live seperate and apart from their surrounding tribes as they are bigoted against.



Any reference to the zulus I made had to do with the vid I provided as reference. What is this above about?

And where is your references/links to your information. I am trying not to ignore you but I am not telling you again. I know you are young and may not have experience in research but I am not going to argue none points and poorly backed POVs; beneath me really.

You want to know what is relevant to this thread. I am interested in hearing what you think about the black Icons that were repainted white in Russia, that's what has to do with this thread. I want to hear about the videos I posted about the knights of middle ages being black men. I want to hear about the arguments I presented stating the great lie that the moors were muslim africans and not black hebrew Israelites. That is what is relevant to this thread and showing that the European culture thus the works of JRRT is just the Israelite culture with another twist. That is relevant to this thread not running around in circles with no works cited, no links for me to varify, about issues that remotely have relevants hear, that was mentioned in passing, along the way to proving more significant points!!!!



So at one point you say, that they could not have been black 500 years ago because they could not turn from black to white in such a short time. Then:



This above was in response to scriptures I gave that related the color of Jesus and the Israelites from 2000 years ago. So the jews were black then but not 500 years ago because it was too short a time span but 2000 years was enough for you to change from black to white. Sure...



What the hell do you mean by this? So you believe we were all black? But a single verse will convince you otherwise, I see...

All I am going to say to you is that you have some nerve (Kahunas) to so eagerly go along with continuing to cover up the identity of the real Israelites who were taken into slavery. You are a braver man than I am because I could not do it, I am terrified of god. Good luck with that (not): read my signiture.

Matthew 10:26
Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known.

...and I will whisper...no (hell no!!!)

Telcontarian.. I think you are mixing up me (Coffeehouse) with Count Comfect. Lot's of C's I guess.. You'll have to take his views and arguments up with him, not me;)
My only input in this debate has been about Shaka Zulu:) And I see that you've attributed my post to him in the form of a quote.. Re-read it!

[The Telcontarion]

Telcontarian.. I think you are mixing up me (Coffeehouse) with Count Comfect. Lot's of C's I guess.. You'll have to take his views and arguments up with him, not me;)
My only input in this debate has been about Shaka Zulu:) And I see that you've attributed my post to him in the form of a quote.. Re-read it!

Tired today, can you tell:eek:, sorry, will edit:)

did I answer your inquiry though?

[Coffeehouse]

No problem! But I want to ask, where in the Shaka youtube clip you presented is the phrase "wandering Jews of Africa"? If you could give me the time it pops up I'll look at it.

[The Telcontarion]

No problem! But I want to ask, where in the Shaka youtube clip you presented is the phrase "wandering Jews of Africa"? If you could give me the time it pops up I'll look at it.

It's at 0:55, check it out.

[Coffeehouse]

Perhaps you should re-watch that segment because the character (the doctor) in this film/series is making a good point, but it is an analogy, as he talks about the vanishing tribes in south-east Africa (which is the southern part of Mozambique, nations of Swaziland and Lesotho and eastern part of South Africa where KwaZulu-Natal now lies). If you're acquainted with the history of the Zulus you would realise that he is in fact speaking of the Mfecane, or the 'Great Spread', which was a long-lasting sociopolitical and ethnic upheaval in the region during the militaristic rule of Shaka Zulu where many tribes dispersed, many migrated and some disappeared altogether leaving the Zulu people in control of large areas of land and people.

Now to the analogy. When the doctor-character in the clip says something like: "In a way Lieutenant, they are the ultimate victims of recent history.
If you favor my comparison, they are the wandering Jews of Africa" he is not speaking literally of wandering Jews in Africa, as he makes clear by stating it is a comparison. His is as much an analogy as that analogy that is often used about Shaka Zulu, the Black Napoleon of Africa.
You'll find that the character is merely describing the Mfecane, or the dispersal of several tribes in the area (also a macro-trend in Africa during the 1700 and 1800s involving large migrations of kingdoms and tribes which left the continent in such a disarray that when Europe decided to take a hold of Africa for real the land was ripe for the picking).

[The Telcontarion]

The whole issue with africa and the jews is that threw out history we have always had relations with africa starting with our failed union with the Egyptians.

Jesus, fleeing king herod fled into egypt to hide among them to avoid capture. Moses married an egyptian woman and so did Solomon.

So when the Edomites/the Romans sacked Jerusalem in 70 AD, were did most of us flee, Africa. The European jews fled to already established colonies in and about the Iberian peninsula and Eurasia and migrated on into Europe proper: Germany, Scottland, Ireland and England.

Though I have to say, your interpretation of what he said is possibly correct. My own knowldge of the subject is by no means dependant on that video but far more on the videos on black icons, moors (for the most part) were jews, the knights being black jews and the royal families also being originally, jews.

So, start from #405...

[Coffeehouse]

The whole issue with africa and the jews is that threw out history we have always had relations with africa starting with our failed union with the Egyptians.

Jesus, fleeing king herod fled into egypt to hide among them to avoid capture. Moses married an egyptian woman and so did Solomon.

So when the Edomites/the Romans sacked Jerusalem in 70 AD, were did most of us flee, Africa. The European jews fled to already established colonies in and about the Iberian peninsula and Eurasia and migrated on into Europe proper: Germany, Scottland, Ireland and England.

Do you agree then that the clip you presented does not say what you initially stated it said?

I think also it's important not to confuse Egypt and the rest of Northern Africa (Egypt to the modern-day Moroccan annexed Western Sahara) with Sub-Saharan Africa. When the Romans fought against Carthage, or the British fought against Rommel's army in Libya or when the French had a revolt on their hands in Algeria one rarely speaks of Africa, but North Africa or even the Maghreb. Additionally some would include the northern part of Sudan as a part of North Africa due to its strong Egyptian ties. In terms of culture, identities and language Africa north and south of the Sahara desert are in many ways two separate continents.
When you then write West Africa or western Africa that would be the western arm of Africa south of the Sahara (beginning with Mauritania going southwards).

[Count Comfect]

Tel - Do you actually want me to link to every article I've read that DOESN'T refer to your argument being correct? Because that's a very odd way to do research. I have done a significant amount of academic research and I have never seen anyone cite articles by their lack of evidence for the contrary position.

Strange also is your insistence on links when I have provided full academic citations for several articles. No, they're not clickable links - if you have the JSTOR access you'll need to reach them, since they're behind a paid academic firewall, you can just go into JSTOR and search the titles. I didn't think it useful to provide links where I have provided full citations. Similarly when I cite the OED - that is a citation, I have provided my sources.

Of course the slave trade continued well past the time of Shaka - I was calling it a different period because you were talking about the slave trade c.1492. Slavery in Brazil continued to the late nineteenth century and it is still going on in Sudan. But there is no documented link between the conquering general Shaka Zulu and the slave trade, nor is citing the video (which Coffeehouse has very adequately deconstructed) evidence of such a link.

I never said the Jews changed from black to white in any historical time span, whether 500 years or 2000 years. They did not. They changed from black to white somewhere in the, say, 300,000 years between the differentiation of H. heidelbergensis and H. sapiens. Probably somewhere in the 100,000 years since the most recent H. sapiens incursion into the Levant. My intent in quoting the Song of Songs was to indicate that perhaps your Biblical quotations do not indicate a monopoly on the Bible as support for your position. I have seen no evidence of actual blackness (and I might note that Nasser is no historian, anthropologist, or scholar).

On a more frivolous note, cojones is a common term for balls/nerve; kahuna is a Hawaiian priest, although I guess they were rather courageous.

I do not believe that the Scripture is a valid historical source, nor that it trumps careful investigation of other evidence. Nor do I believe that you are interpreting Scripture correctly, see for example Genesis 11:27 Now these are the generations of Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begat Lot.
28 And Haran died before his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees.

Ur of the Chaldeans is in northern Mesopotamia. It is not in Africa, nor in Europe.

Genesis 11:31 And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son's son, and Sarai his daughter-in-law, his son Abram's wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there.
Canaan is the Levant. This marks a northeast to southwest movement of the forebears of the Israelites (Yisrael, so named from Jacob's struggle with God - the descendants of Jacob and therefore of Abram). In no way does it indicate a European or an African origin.
Genesis 24:3, Abraham's command to his servant: and I will make thee swear by the LORD, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth, that thou shalt not take a wife unto my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell:
4 but thou shalt go unto my country, and to my kindred, and take a wife unto my son Isaac.
So Jacob's mother also hails from Ur of the Chaldeans, from Mesopotamia.

As for the "lie that the Moors were Muslim Africans and not Black Hebrew Israelites,"
First, what is the term in Spanish for a false Muslim 'convert' to Christianity who retained their Muslim identity? A "morisco." Moor.
Second, what was the section of Northern Africa consisting of Algeria and Morocco called by the Romans? Mauretania. Moor. [for these, see the OED]
Third, there's a reason the (now racist) term "Blackamoor" or "Blackamore" was invented. It was to distinguish black Africans from those traditionally identified as "Moors," the lighter-skinned (but still dark to the Europeans) inhabitants of North Africa, sometimes referred to as "white Moors." Again see the OED. It also was used as a synonym with "Man of Ind" in 1526 - are we therefore to assume that these same "Moors" you identify with your idea of the Israelites are somehow ALSO the people of India? AGAIN see the OED.
If you want to know who a word refers to, see a dictionary. If you want to see how it evolved and who it has referred to in the past, see one with a good etymology. I strongly suggest the Oxford English Dictionary, but any good etymological dictionary will do. And if you want the technical citation, "Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Ed. (1989), s.v. Moor, blackamoor, blackamorian."
And the Moors were definitely not Jews; hence the SEPARATE expulsions in 1492 of Moors and Jews, and the separate words "morisco" and "marrano" for lapsed converts from each group.

[Count Comfect]

As to Moses's "Egyptian wife" - not true
Exodus, Chapter 2
15: Now when Pharaoh heard this thing, he sought to slay Moses. But Moses fled from the face of Pharaoh, and dwelt in the land of Midian: and he sat down by a well.
16: Now the priest of Midian had seven daughters: and they came and drew water, and filled the troughs to water their father's flock.
17: And the shepherds came and drove them away: but Moses stood up and helped them, and watered their flock.
18: And when they came to Reuel their father, he said, How is it that ye are come so soon to day?
19: And they said, An Egyptian delivered us out of the hand of the shepherds, and also drew water enough for us, and watered the flock.
20: And he said unto his daughters, And where is he? why is it that ye have left the man? call him, that he may eat bread.
21: And Moses was content to dwell with the man: and he gave Moses Zipporah his daughter.
22: And she bare him a son, and he called his name Gershom: for he said, I have been a stranger in a strange land.

Check Wikipedia if you want to see where Midian was: here's a hint, it's near modern day Israel. "Midian was a land bordered by the Arabah between Moab and Elat and by the Gulf of Aqaba and the Red Sea. Its East had no borders."

As for the flight of the Jews in 70AD, not true. They were enslaved in the Roman Empire (slaves, mind you, not masters) and spread about there, but not into SubSaharan Africa, to which the empire did not extend. And most of them stuck around at least until Bar Kochba's revolt in 135, when they were again dispersed within the Empire. That's where the Northern African Jews (still there, still culturally distinct from the descendants of the Muslim Moors; there's an active Tunisian group I know), the Ashkenazim and the Sephardim come from, the different areas of dispersion. If you'd like a citation for this, even though I already knew it, check out the Wikipedia on Jewish diaspora (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_diaspora)

That's not to say there are NO black Jews. Yemeni and Ethiopian Jews would be very hurt to hear that. But the Jewish people as a whole are NOT black and never were. Their origins stem from uncertain roots, but most likely an immigration c.900BC (not an origin there) and then INTERMARRIAGE with the existing local population (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Jews#DNA_evidence). Nor were they taken as slaves to Europe or Africa, since they remained in Ethiopia and Yemen until returning to Israel under the Law of Return, and some cases some impressive Israeli maneuvers.

[The Telcontarion]

Do you agree then that the clip you presented does not say what you initially stated it said?

I think also it's important not to confuse Egypt and the rest of Northern Africa (Egypt to the modern-day Moroccan annexed Western Sahara) with Sub-Saharan Africa. When the Romans fought against Carthage, or the British fought against Rommel's army in Libya or when the French had a revolt on their hands in Algeria one rarely speaks of Africa, but North Africa or even the Maghreb. Additionally some would include the northern part of Sudan as a part of North Africa due to its strong Egyptian ties. In terms of culture, identities and language Africa north and south of the Sahara desert are in many ways two separate continents.
When you then write West Africa or western Africa that would be the western arm of Africa south of the Sahara (beginning with Mauritania going southwards).

I would never confuse Egypt with sub-Saharan Africa. I would not confuse any part of Africa with another.

But why do you say this? If you are suggestion a racial difference then it is completely insane and it was one of the worst lies ever told; which infuriates me to no end. I could show you just one example, of a true Egyptian, his name is St.Maurice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Maurice). Notice in the article I linked to about St. Maurice at the very top, it shows the coptic image of St. Maurice (I have never seen this image before) as caucasian, yet the original images (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Saint_Maurice_Magdeburg.jpg) of the man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Saint_maurice.jpg) are all black. This is a key point, as Iconclasm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iconoclasm) is the main reason why the world is confused about who the real Jews are; the icons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Seventh_ecumenical_council_(Icon).jpg) left as they were, clearly show that the Israelites were all black.

But I am not sure exactly what you meant. To be sure, all the sons of Ham, Cush (Ethiopians), Mizraim (Egyptians), Phut (West Africans), and Canaan (south africans and the biblical canaanites (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHz7CbOxTV8), in present day palestine (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XbxeEgCNtY), and surrounding areas) were all black people.

The sons of Shem however were also black and so was Jephet, Adam as well.

[Coffeehouse]

I'm pointing it out partly in relation to the claim you laid forward in the Theology thread (which I keep mixing with this one since we're discussing Africa and Jews in both) that Israelis from the 70 AD sack of Jerusalem ended up on a migratory journey to West Africa. I'm wondering if you mean western North Africa or West Africa because the difference makes a world.

Also isn't it fair to state that Ancient Egypt was a mosaic of skin colors? Here came peoples from all over the world, south-eastern Europe, the Semitic lands, Persia, even India and perhaps China, from Iberian Europe and certainly from the lands south of Nubia (from modern-day Sudan to Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia, northern Kenya). It most likely was the melting pot of the world.

[Earniel]

Not having a "properly spelled name" is not a legit reason to not look at the evidence. The documentary clips in the video are from the history channel and the speaker was a anthropologist, that fact makes it scientific and academic Eärniel;most likely peer reviewed.
The improperly spelled name was for me already an indication about the quality of the video. It proved to be correct. I have now wasted a good twenty minutes looking at those shoddy clips and -good god- you call that 'academic proof'?! We certainly have a different definitions of what academic proof should be.

Your 'proof' consists of two guys pointing out several black and white prints of depictions of knights, stating enthousiastically "See! See! He's black! That's the truth, man!"

Yeah, duh, the prints are in BLACK inkt! :rolleyes: Reeeeally compelling evidence, that.

They go on to say that lions are Israelite symbols, so 'clearly' any knight with a lion in his shield is an Israelite. That's not proof, that's just ignoring a good part of Medieval heraldry for convenience.

They then go on to say that the Arthur legend 'proves' that Arthur was black because he is called a Christian king and 'everybody knows that the Christians were black'. Right. The less said about that the better.

They go over this twice, each time in each clip, and no, it does not become more 'compelling evidence' the second time around.

The later part -or middle part- starts far more interesting with someone looking vaguely like he knows what he's talking about, starting with a translation from a cuneiform tablet, until he not only breaks out a couple of bible-verses as proof but goes on to call the Cimmerians Israelites without much proof, and from them the Israelites supposedly spread out to well... the whole of Europe. Not a single European tribe is allowed to have an origin seperate of the Israelites. But he cites rather no evidence for this assumption, instead it is presented as reality and look! He has solved the mystery of the Lost Tribes! Hooray!

The books go in conjunction with the video clips, they are not the sole source of evidence for my argument. Presented are two independent sources of information arriving at the same conclusion. To be frank, I don't understand your statement.
No, these are not two independent sources of information. You give a few fragments, a lot of assumptions presented as undeniable truth and absolutely no archaeological evidence whatsover. Heck, even this Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Israelism) has more decent arguments for this hypothesis than the books and the videos combined!

You have to explain that to me, makes no sense.
It should be fairly straightforward, lets see if I can clear it up further. We are dealing with book written centuries after the events they describe. It would be dangerous to just assume that all that information was passed down for centuries correctly and entirely. In what measure do these books rely on other books that have survived? In what degree do we find this information in other sources? In what degree does other archaeological or historical information agree or diverge? That should all be taken into account.

Sounds like them creating their own historical identity to me.Which in one go, also makes it a rather untrustworthy support for the idea that the Gaels were Israelites.

Obviously if they were jews they did. It is not a fact that they did not have writing, it is stated to be a speculation (most likely a lie).
Oh no, you don't. That sort of language is totally unbefitting a scientific discussion. If you want to maintain any credibility you do not make such bold claims that you cannot back up with evidence.

If the Scythians had a script of their own, this should be painfully easy to prove: show me an artifact with Scythian script. (If possible with a location where it is found, or in which museum collection it resides.)

If no such artefact can be produced, then you can propose that absence of one, does not prove it never existed. You could even also argue most of Scythian artefacts come from burials and that that only gives as a limited view of their society. You know, sensible arguments. You cannot just throw out it is most likely a lie just because you don't like what it would mean for your hypothesis.

Hebrew is a semitic language (falling under African-Asian languages if I recall correctly), the Scythian language was considered part of the Iranian languages under Indo-European languages, which is this way unrelated to Hebrew. In Europe the Gaelic and Germanic languages are also families under Indo-European languages, no relation with Hebrew either.

So even in the unlikely event that the Israelites became Scythians, became Celts, the chances of identifying the latter with Israelites are terribly slim. All the above strongly suggests there is no sound basis to give Futhark (and therefore Tolkien's runes) a Hebrew origin. The changes occured in culture and languages are too profound.

Also, explain me this: Israel was defeated by the Assyrians around 720BC. Around 714BC the Cimmirians are said to migrate into the area, where they bug the other people, and but a few years later they even battle with the Assyrians. Now, if the defeated Israelites are the Cimmirians, how do you explain that within 20 years after their initial defeat, the Israelites have changed their entire culture, language and all, to be suddenly identified as Cimmerians instead, and arrive in numbers great enough to do battle with the Assyrians? And if there was anything Israelitish still left in the Cimmerians, why did they not move back towards their supposed home lands?

Whatever, it is one of the oldest and most often researched things in anthropology.And yet this is the first time I have ever heard of such a thing. While that may not prove anything at all, I took the liberty of asking two archaeological acquitances (specialised in Middle-eastern areas). Neither of them had heard about it either. One of them is interested enough to look into it further if you can tell him which Israelite tribe has morphed into Scythians.

I never said there weren't other influences, I have said that JRRT's work is heavily influenced by Israelite history and the bible in general. How the present debate came about was by me pointing out that those runes, used by german as well as the gaelic peoples seem to have there origins in hebrew. I then provided evidence to show how that could be.
I dare say Tolkien was more influenced by his Christian upbringing in regard to the themes he chose to weave into his work, but I maintain there are other sources he used more in relation to parallels between Middle-earth history and ours.

And you have not provided any conclusive proof that Hebrew has any influence on Futhark.

While I do believe that there were other influences on the dunedain kingdoms creation, I do not think the roman empire is one of them, I could not do alot with that comparison because it is not true. Besides the thread is "Christian and Jewish influences in Tolkien's work." There are far more similarities with the Kingdoms of Israel than the romans, period.
Oh, don't be too quick to dismiss it so easily. Alcuin has a very interesting post about comparing Gondor to Byzantium here. (http://www.entmoot.com/showpost.php?p=548091&postcount=16) And in that same thread Gordis makes a good remark concerning Tolkien finding inspiration for Arnor and Gondor in Egypt. (http://www.entmoot.com/showpost.php?p=548450&postcount=19)

I had never even mentioned dwarves but I have mentioned specifically, the Dunedain.Not directly, no. But Dwarves are mainly the ones we see using runes in Tolkien's work. And Tolkien's Dwarves are clearly influenced by Scandivian mythology.

[Coffeehouse]

They then go on to say that the Arthur legend 'proves' that Arthur was black because he is called a Christian king and 'everybody knows that the Christians were black'. Right. The less said about that the better.

Mhm lol...


Not a single European tribe is allowed to have an origin seperate of the Israelites.

Can any of you provide the moment in time in the clip that this is said? Also I can't seem to find that clip.


Hebrew is a semitic language (falling under African-Asian languages if I recall correctly), the Scythian language was considered part of the Iranian languages under Indo-European languages, which is this way unrelated to Hebrew. In Europe the Gaelic and Germanic languages are also families under Indo-European languages, no relation with Hebrew either.

I think Telcontarian, as Eärniel points out, why would the linguistic similarities between, say Norwegians and Swedes, and Hebrew, be next to non-existant if they were of the same people? Given that Israelis spread out from Jerusalem after the sack in 70 AD at an amazing speed, that gives my Norwegian ancestors less than 600-700 years (between 70 AD and the widespread appearance of old Norse tablets and inscriptions in 600-800s AD) to develop an entirely different language, including the development of the rune alphabet.
Thus any influence of your hypothetic all-covering ancient Israeli culture in Europe essentially becomes of no importance since entirely new languages and cultures (Germanic, Roman, Finnish, Hungarian) indeed have performed a severe cut-off from this Israeli heritage. One could perform that illogical mind game or just acknowledge: that there is no evidence that it ever happened.


Oh, don't be too quick to dismiss it so easily. Alcuin has a very interesting post about comparing Gondor to Byzantium here. (http://www.entmoot.com/showpost.php?p=548091&postcount=16) And in that same thread Gordis makes a good remark concerning Tolkien finding inspiration for Arnor and Gondor in Egypt. (http://www.entmoot.com/showpost.php?p=548450&postcount=19)

Not directly, no. But Dwarves are mainly the ones we see using runes in Tolkien's work. And Tolkien's Dwarves are clearly influenced by Scandivian mythology.

The influence of Scandinavian mythology can be seen here:
http://www.entmoot.com/showthread.php?t=14904

[Earniel]

Can any of you provide the moment in time in the clip that this is said? Also I can't seem to find that clip.It's in the following clip, part 12.

[Coffeehouse]

Think you forgot to post the link!

[Count Comfect]

Earniel, thanks for the link to the British Israelism wiki. I was struck by one of their examples of "legendary claims" which I think provides an interesting example of the ahistoricism of the general argument.
Galileans or Galatians of the Sea of Galilee region, Israel have a similar tribal name with that of Gaels or Gauls of Western Europe.
This is apparently a correct attribution (my source for this, and most of what follows, is Nicholas Ostler's Empires of the Word (http://www.amazon.com/Empires-Word-Language-History-World/dp/0066210860)). However, it is the REASON that it is correct that deserves notice. The reason the Galatians and Gauls are fundamentally from the same root is that the Gauls, as with most Western European peoples, began on the steppes of Eastern Europe before pressure from the East pushed them to invade Europe. One group went West to become the Gauls, overrunning the Romans, Celts, and other previous inhabitants (see: Basques). Another group of these tribal warriors was hired by the Romans to fight in and around Anatolia (a standard Roman trick of co-opting enemies). They were eventually rewarded with land in the north of Judea/south of Anatolia-Syria area. Hence the presence of the Galatians (not an original tribe to the area) just in time for St. Paul. That is to say, the reason there are Gauls and Galatians is because they came from the center and some went west and the others southeast, NOT because they started in the southeast and all went northwest. Galatians never became Gauls, nor vice-versa. Rather, some proto-group (call them the Gaulatians, for the pun) split up to produce Gauls and Galatians.

Semitic languages are indeed Afro-Asiatic, a major grouping of which they are the most northern extent. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Asiatic_languages] They are one major branch of the group, highly distinct from the Chadic branch spoken in the area in West Africa (source of most traded slaves in the Atlantic slave trade) or the Niger-Congo languages even more prevalent there (of which the Bantu language family is probably most famous, though it comes from the subgroup Niger-Congo B rather than the Niger-Congo A spoken in West Africa). [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger-Congo_languages] Quite simply, there are MAJOR linguistic differences to be overcome if you want to argue that these are all the same peoples. Added to which, you've also lumped in the very different Indo-Iranian [with the Scythians] and European branches of Indo-European languages [another separate group entirely] and the Finno-Ugric languages (yet another family). There are some MASSIVE differences between languages in these groups, not just of vocabulary, but of word and sentence order, conceptualization, word functions, basically everything you can imagine being different between languages (and probably some you can't unless you're multilingual).

As for similarities of shape in letters between runes and the Semitic scripts, it's not surprising that they are in some way similar, as each began by scratching marks onto a surface (rock, wood, clay) with a pointed object. Compare for example the Maya scripts that began with painting and are much more fluid. But if there were direct influence, these two [http://www.omniglot.com/writing/aramaic.htm], [http://faculty.arts.ubc.ca/sechard/492runes.htm] would look a lot more alike, rather than simply sharing the fact that yes, they are all simple combinations of straight lines, some of which overlap (but very rarely in reference to the same sound, which is usually the key to telling if they are actually related. You don't take a B and suddenly make it the U sound if you're conserving the same language).

[The Telcontarion]

Also isn't it fair to state that Ancient Egypt was a mosaic of skin colors? Here came peoples from all over the world, south-eastern Europe, the Semitic lands, Persia, even India and perhaps China, from Iberian Europe and certainly from the lands south of Nubia (from modern-day Sudan to Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia, northern Kenya). It most likely was the melting pot of the world.

So you are saying that the chinese people that were in egypt built the pyramids...that the pharoahs were what? Indians? Egypt was ruled and founded by the children of Mizraim, africans, very similar to the Ethiopians. At the time it was a world power, and many came from all around but it was by no means a melting pot like say america is today or that any of the foreigners had any real power.

This supposition is not rational to the point of me responding is an exercise in wasting time.

I would never confuse Egypt with sub-Saharan Africa. I would not confuse any part of Africa with another.

But why do you say this? If you are suggestion a racial difference then completely insane and it was one of the worst lies ever told; which infuriates me to no end. I could show you just one example, of a true Egyptian, his name is St.Maurice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Maurice). Notice in the article I linked to about St. Maurice at the very top, it shows the coptic image of St. Maurice (I have never seen this image before) as caucasian, yet the original images (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Saint_Maurice_Magdeburg.jpg) of the man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Saint_maurice.jpg) are all black. This a key point, as Iconclasm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iconoclasm) is the main reason why the world is confused about who the real Jews are; the icons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Seventh_ecumenical_council_(Icon).jpg) left as they were, clearly show that the Israelites were all black.

But I am not sure exactly what you meant. To be sure, all the sons of Ham, Cush (Ethiopians), Mizraim (Egyptians), Phut (West Africans), and Canaan (south africans and the biblical canaanites (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHz7CbOxTV8), in present day palestine (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XbxeEgCNtY), and surrounding areas).

The sons of Shem however were also black and so was Jephet, Adam as well.

I want to know what you think of the above post. Of St. Maurice, of the black palestinians, of iconoclasm etc. Especially about iconoclasm, which is what this whole thread is about. I don't know were you get chinese and indians:rolleyes:, in this.

Anymore ridiculous responses I won't bother to respond, you can claim the Chinese built the pyramids, without citing anything on your own time.

I'm pointing it out partly in relation to the claim you laid forward in the Theology thread (which I keep mixing with this one since we're discussing Africa and Jews in both) that Israelis from the 70 AD sack of Jerusalem ended up on a migratory journey to West Africa. I'm wondering if you mean western North Africa or West Africa because the difference makes a world.

They went south of The Kingdom of Judah entering into Africa from the north east. After which some ended up on western north Africa (then ended up in already established colonies on the Iberian peninsula), west africa proper and even in south africa. Today there are still remnants of people who call themselves Israelites all over africa; north south east and west.

[Coffeehouse]

So you are saying that the chinese people that were in egypt built the pyramids...that the pharoahs were what? Indians?


Anymore ridiculous responses I won't bother to respond, you can claim the Chinese built the pyramids, without citing anything on your own time.

Okay I have no idea where you got those assertions from. I haven't made them. Telcontarian, this is what I wrote:
"Also isn't it fair to state that Ancient Egypt was a mosaic of skin colors? Here came peoples from all over the world, south-eastern Europe, the Semitic lands, Persia, even India and perhaps China, from Iberian Europe and certainly from the lands south of Nubia (from modern-day Sudan to Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia, northern Kenya). It most likely was the melting pot of the world."

..How did you translate that into me asserting that the Chinese built the pyramids and that the Indians were the Pharaohs?:)

[The Telcontarion]

Okay I have no idea where you got those assertions from. I haven't made them. Telcontarian, this is what I wrote:
"Also isn't it fair to state that Ancient Egypt was a mosaic of skin colors? Here came peoples from all over the world, south-eastern Europe, the Semitic lands, Persia, even India and perhaps China, from Iberian Europe and certainly from the lands south of Nubia (from modern-day Sudan to Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia, northern Kenya). It most likely was the melting pot of the world."

..How did you translate that into me asserting that the Chinese built the pyramids and that the Indians were the Pharaohs?:)

Because it was in response to my post of the racial makeup of Egypt which is black. So it is either you agree or disagree that they are black; I took your reply as a disagreement. That no, in fact the Egyptians were not African but of many different people, isn't that what your post is saying. That a multicultural society in north africa (africa!!!) 5 - 10,000 years ago, under a multicultural pharaoh, created the Egyptian culture and it's achievements. All this by the way, without citing anything or refuting what I said and were.

What else would you have me say to that.

And I am not trying to be difficult, put I wanted you to understand my approach to all this and how I will respond from here on. It is hard enough to have to respond at all, let alone having to come back and clarify what you said because you don't quote me or cite what you are referring too; which I believe would greatly reduce these issues.

[Coffeehouse]

Because it was in response to my post of the racial makeup of Egypt which is black. So it is either you agree or disagree that they are black; I took your reply as a disagreement. That no, in fact the Egyptians were not African but of many different people, isn't that what your post is saying. That a multicultural society in north africa (africa!!!) 5 - 10,000 years ago, under a multicultural pharaoh, created the Egyptian culture and it's achievements. All this by the way, without citing anything or refuting what I said and were.

What else would you have me say to that.

And I am not trying to be difficult, put I wanted you to understand my approach to all this and how I will respond from here on. It is hard enough to have to respond at all, let alone having to come back and clarify what you said because you don't quote me or cite what you are referring too; which I believe would greatly reduce these issues.

I understand your position. But I disagree with the notion that a multicultural society could not exist in Egypt, one of the most advanced societies of Antiquity.
Multicultural societies and advances in human development are not as you seem to suggest, mutually exclusive. On the contrary I would argue they are strongly complementary as can be shown in the case of the Chinese civilization, Indian sub-continent civilizations, Persian, Greek, Roman, Byzantian, Italian city-states, Spain, Portugal and the British Empire.
Certainly Egypt, of all places on Earth, is the ground zero for the interfusion of different skin colors and cultures: from Europe, from the Caucausus, from China, Persia, India and of course Africa.
In any case there are many hieroglyphics depicting peoples with entirely different skin colors: black Nubians coming to brown-skinned Pharaohs, and other more northerly and pale-skinned persons. The archeological evidence is there.

[The Telcontarion]

I understand your position. But I disagree with the notion that a multicultural society could not exist in Egypt, one of the most advanced societies of Antiquity.
Multicultural societies and advances in human development are not as you seem to suggest, mutually exclusive. On the contrary I would argue they are strongly complementary as can be shown in the case of the Chinese civilization, Indian sub-continent civilizations, Persian, Greek, Roman, Byzantian, Italian city-states, Spain, Portugal and the British Empire.
Certainly Egypt, of all places on Earth, is the ground zero for the interfusion of different skin colors and cultures: from Europe, from the Caucausus, from China, Persia, India and of course Africa.
In any case there are many hieroglyphics depicting peoples with entirely different skin colors: black Nubians coming to brown-skinned Pharaohs, and other more northerly and pale-skinned persons. The archeological evidence is there.

Iconoclasm, black palestinians, what do you think.

[Coffeehouse]

Iconoclasm, black palestinians, what do you think.

I looked at the wiki entry on Saint Maurice and it seems that he has been known to be a Moor, in fact his name Maurice meaning Moor. How does he relate to your argument concerning Jewdom and Tolkien?

[The Telcontarion]

I looked at the wiki entry on Saint Maurice and it seems that he has been known to be a Moor, in fact his name Maurice meaning Moor. How does he relate to your argument concerning Jewdom and Tolkien?

Because you said. "it's important not to confuse Egypt and the rest of Northern Africa (Egypt to the modern-day Moroccan annexed Western Sahara) with Sub-Saharan Africa." To which I replied to with post #66 (http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showpost.php?p=640679&postcount=66) Which turns out to be a good source of info for the topic of this thread ie iconoclasm. Which is at the root of all my suppositions.

So what do you think about iconoclasm and the black palestinians. I understand that you agree that St. Maurice is a black man (from Egypt, which was the point) but you did not mention the plane example in that same article that showed a caucasoid representation of him which is a false image; a lie. Which ties into the false images of jesus and the disciples being caucasoid as well. Which gives him, a jew and his people a false identity ("covering up the faces of the judges"), which resulted in the jews themselves (my people) forgetting who they are, where they come from. Allowing another group who looks like the false images of the jews, to claim that heritage and every achievement ever made by them. One of which being the original European culture: language, script and religion.

[Coffeehouse]

Because you said. "it's important not to confuse Egypt and the rest of Northern Africa (Egypt to the modern-day Moroccan annexed Western Sahara) with Sub-Saharan Africa." To which I replied to with post #66 (http://entmoot.tolkientrail.com/showpost.php?p=640679&postcount=66) Which turns out to be a good source of info for the topic of this thread ie iconoclasm. Which is at the root of all my suppositions.

So what do you think about iconoclasm and the black palestinians. I understand that you agree that St. Maurice is a black man (from Egypt, which was the point) but you did not mention the plane example in that same article that showed a caucasoid representation of him which is a false image; a lie. Which ties into the false images of jesus and the disciples being caucasoid as well. Which gives him, a jew and his people a false identity ("covering up the faces of the judges"), which resulted in the jews themselves (my people) forgetting who they are, where they come from. Allowing another group who looks like the false images of the jews, to claim that heritage and every achievement ever made by them. One of which being the original European culture: language, script and religion.

It certainly is possible and even very likely that St. Maurice was black. I think the likelihood of him being black is strengthened by the geographical location in Egypt that his legion took its name from. Having been enrolled in the Roman Thebes legion, which takes its name from Thebes, the Egyptian city halfway between the Mediterranean coast and the Sudanese border (the further south you venture in Egypt the darker the skin), makes it more than plausible that he had roots from the area or even further south.

It makes for a good point if there are many depictions of St. Maurice as a white-skinned Caucasian-looking fellow. But I fail to see how the more than likely black skin color of St. Maurice (being from Thebes, far south in Egypt) makes you so sure everyone else further north in Egypt, even further north in Palestine and the area must be black as well.. There's not automatic logic in that.

[The Telcontarion]

It certainly is possible and even very likely that St. Maurice was black. I think the likelihood of him being black is strengthened by the geographical location in Egypt that his legion took its name from. Having been enrolled in the Roman Thebes legion, which takes its name from Thebes, the Egyptian city halfway between the Mediterranean coast and the Sudanese border (the further south you venture in Egypt the darker the skin), makes it more than plausible that he had roots from the area or even further south.

It makes for a good point if there are many depictions of St. Maurice as a white-skinned Caucasian-looking fellow. But I fail to see how the more than likely black skin color of St. Maurice (being from Thebes, far south in Egypt) makes you so sure everyone else further north in Egypt, even further north in Palestine and the area must be black as well.. There's not automatic logic in that.

What you are suggesting is the same as saying that the white people in south Africa are original south Africans. All of Egypt were black people, the other groups are invaders. The Arabs in Egypt (the latest invaders) today have only been there for a few hundred years after they invaded sometime in 640 AD. That is why they are found in the north were the capital is.

Yes you are right about the fact that the further south you go in egypt you find darker skin people. That is were the original Egyptians fled to during the invasion. A taxi cab driver in new york confirmed this for me when I inquired about the original Egyptians being the same as the people that are there today - that was what an Arab co-worker of mind said. The cab driver then informed me that he was indeed an Egyptian and that the Arab was lieing. He was the one telling me that the original people are now found mostly on the south and away from the main capitols as they face bigotry there and god knows what else in the past.

Sure enough when I went back and confronted the Arab with this he had nothing to say. But that is history, their history. So even though he knew his history (who knows, he could have been ignorant about it) he still said he was an original Egyptian, the same as those who built the pyramids yet history clearly shows that the Arabs are invaders.

[Coffeehouse]

What you are suggesting is the same as saying that the white people in south Africa are original south Africans. All of Egypt were black people, the other groups are invaders. The Arabs in Egypt (the latest invaders) today have only been there for a few hundred years after they invaded sometime in 640 AD. That is why they are found in the north were the capital is.

Yes you are right about the fact that the further south you go in egypt you find darker skin people. That is were the original Egyptians fled to during the invasion. A taxi cab driver in new york confirmed this for me when I inquired about the original Egyptians being the same as the people that are thee today - that was what an Arab co-worker of mind said. The cab driver then informed me that he was indeed an Egyptian and that the Arab was lieing. He was the one telling me that the original people are now found mostly on the south and away from the main capitols as they face bigotry there and god knows what else in the past.

Sure enough when I went back and confronted the Arab with this he had nothing to say. But that is history, their history. So even though he knew his history (who knows, he could have been ignorant about it) he still said he was an original Egyptian, the same as those who built the pyramids yet history clearly shows that the Arabs are invaders.

I agree with your basic premise that the majority of Egyptians in Cairo today have inherited external traits such as skin color that probably is lighter than what the average Egyptian looked like before the Muslim invasions after the death of the prophet Mohammed.
But that does not mean that most Egyptians necessarily were as black as the average Congolese is today.
If you take a look southwards, beyond the southern border of Egypt you'll at first find very dark-skinned Sudanese (some of the blackest peoples in Africa). Yet just east of Sudan lies Ethiopia with a population of much lighter skin. Go even further east you come upon Somalia, where, again, the population has a blacker skin than Ethiopians but not as much as the average Sudanese (or ancient Nubians). There are many African groups south of the Sahara that do not have very black skin: Populations in Kenya, Eritrea, Uganda, Tchad and Djibouti.
We can agree that Egyptians prior to the Ummayyad invasions of the Arabian Peninsula Muslims (Mohammed & co) were probably darker skinned in general than their invaders, but it does not follow that all Egyptians were of the same skin color.

But you know, be they brown, black or something inbetween, what does it really matter? They were Africans, and there's more diversity in language, culture and appearance among Africans than among Europeans so it seems pointless to generalize.

[BeardofPants]

Not sure what ANY of this has to do with Tolkien, but whatevs.

Nubians were clearly darker skinned than their northern, egyptian, counterparts. This is displayed quite clearly surviving frescos from the middle kingdom. In any case, I think it is fair to say that there was likely a variety of skin colours.

Nubia: Nubians in Egypt

The evidence for Nubians in Egypt may be divided into written sources and archaeological record: the human remains from the latter would provide the most direct or primary sources, but they have not been analysed in numbers or methods suitable for demographic studies.

The classic Middle Egyptian phase of the Egyptian language provides evidence for Egyptian attitudes to the inhabitants of lands immediately south of Egypt: there seem to have been two main words used, Nehesy (nHsy) for inhabitants of the river valley, and Medjay (mDAy) for a group or groups from the deserts east of the Nubian Nile Valley. This indicates the view from Egypt, as mediated through language: it is possible that it represents a simplifying generalisation for a more complex linguistic and ethnic map of Nubia.

The evidence for Nubians living in Middle Kingdom Egypt is open to several interpretations. The name Nehesy - 'Nubian' appears several times: does it refer to a Nubian, either born in Egypt or someone who changed their foreign name? Was it just a 'fashion' to call somebody 'Nubian' or was the child darker-skinned than usual so that the parents decided to give him that name? What does darker skin mean? This question leads to the modern debate over race in ancient Egypt.

Dark skinned people are sometimes depicted in Middle Kingdom art. It is again very difficult to draw any conclusion from this. It seems almost impossible to decide, whether these were Nubians or whether the dark skin is chosen for other reasons ('rebirth'). Further research is needed, with a comprehensive catalogue illustrated in colour for all examples of each period. For the Second Intermediate Period there is good evidence from material culture that inhabitants from the Nubian eastern desert settled in Egypt (pan-graves).

http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/nubia/nubians.html

[BeardofPants]

double post

[Coffeehouse]

Not sure what ANY of this has to do with Tolkien, but whatevs.

Nubians were clearly darker skinned than their northern, egyptian, counterparts. This is displayed quite clearly surviving frescos from the middle kingdom. In any case, I think it is fair to say that there was likely a variety of skin colours.



http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/nubia/nubians.html

I think the reason we're into this discussion is the hypothesis by Telcontarion that much of Tolkien's Middle Earth drew inspiration from Christian and Jewish history, though it's branched off into a discussion about who the real Jews are(if they're black or not?) it seems. We may be off topic;)

Like the above sources suggest, there is indications that Nubians were darker skinned (which you would expect). I think there's a really good possibility that Egypt was a mosaic of skin colors due to its geographical location, its far-reaching trade and power, and its wars for the extent of time that it (Egyptian Empire) reigned the Near East and North Africa.

[GrayMouser]

I believe that there's pretty strong DNA and bone structural evidence evidence that the modern Egyptians are direct descendants of the ancient Egyptians.

A lot of conquests are turning out to have less racial/ethnic effect than previously thought- like Turkey: while the religion, language, elites, and some customs have changed, the bulk of the population remains descendants of Hittites rather than Turks.

Even vaguely recall reading that there's rather more Briton and less Anglo-Saxon in the modern English than was believed.

[Coffeehouse]

The Turkish nation is a very good example of a people who have not replaced but mixed with the peoples they conquered. Originating from the Central Asian steppes, they moved westwards, but did not replace the peoples they conquered but intermarried and fused in their own Turkish legacy with the local customs and culture. You can see that legacy in Turkey today, as being Turkish is less about what skin color you are or where along the line you became 'Turkish', but adhering to the idea of Turkey or a Turkish societal code (of which Kurdish Turks seem to be notoriously unwilling to subdue to;)), which in many ways is similar to the idea of America.

Just because a new conqueror appears in a territory already inhabited by another people (Mongols in China, Turks in Asia Minor, Arabs in Egypt or Muslims in India) it must accordingly displace the general racial mix is a wrong assumption. Alexander the Great and the Greeks, for all their conquests, only spiced, but did not replace their new subjects.

[The Telcontarion]

The Turkish nation is a very good example of a people who have not replaced but mixed with the peoples they conquered. Originating from the Central Asian steppes, they moved westwards, but did not replace the peoples they conquered but intermarried and fused in their own Turkish legacy with the local customs and culture. You can see that legacy in Turkey today, as being Turkish is less about what skin color you are or where along the line you became 'Turkish', but adhering to the idea of Turkey or a Turkish societal code (of which Kurdish Turks seem to be notoriously unwilling to subdue to;)), which in many ways is similar to the idea of America.

Just because a new conqueror appears in a territory already inhabited by another people (Mongols in China, Turks in Asia Minor, Arabs in Egypt or Muslims in India) it must accordingly displace the general racial mix is a wrong assumption. Alexander the Great and the Greeks, for all their conquests, only spiced, but did not replace their new subjects.

The original nile valley inhabitants were as black as any other african group. Biblically Mizraim, the forefather of the Egyptians, the second eldest son of Ham (Ham, meaning burned) was as dark as his eldest brother Cush. They were darker than the south african bushman, who no one would say is white or Arabic; the average bushman was a light brown complexion but they are still black. So even if the Egyptians were lighter, they still definately had the negroid curly hair, lips, nose and other features.

This argument amuses me to no end and telling you why I say so brings us back to the issue that is relivant to this thread, iconoclasm. Which I keep asking for comments on but everyone keeps dodging with great skill. I have already mentioned the issue with St. Maurice, being a black Egyptian yet they have a caucasian image of the man. Nimrod, maker of the tower of babel was the eldest son of Cush. Yet I have never seen him depicted as black, in movies or in images, him and his people in movies were always depicted as white; that is iconoclasm. Let any say here that Nimrod, first of the Ethiopians was white and I know I need not continue with this debate. Still no one has commented on the black Palestinians (the original Canaanites, Canaan the last son of Ham).

This is why today all the images of Jesus, Mary and the Apostles (all jews) that were originally black images in Europe, today are white. Iconoclasm is at the root of it all; smashing of the noses off statues in egypt, defacing paintings in europe and in the middle east. So, the cultural effects of the Israelites history on the world and specifically to this thread, on JRRT's work, is not recognized and is lost among a myriad of names, languages and cultures in Europe that all have one origin, the Israelites.

If a coptic child grew up looking at a blond hair blue eyed image of St. Maurice all his life, would he not believe that is how he looked; yet it is shown here in this thread that he was in fact, black. If he believed, that is how he looked then he would also be likely to believe that, if not that all the original Egyptians were white, that the caucasian type had more influence and were more significant than reality allows; certainly he would think the Saint was a white man, with blond hair no less:eek:. Is this scenario not likely concerning jesus and his people given the evidents presented. Not just of the jews (which is immence) but similar peoples, whether Egyptian (Maurice), Ethiopian (Nimrod) or Canaanites (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHz7CbOxTV8) (In Palestine and Israel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XbxeEgCNtY)).

Just a side note, in the video with the black Palestinians the one being interviewed said quite cleary that his people were taken from Palestine, then into Africa and then eventually into slavery; the jews also took this route, it would seem most by fleeing but undoubtedly others were over taken and brought by force.

So again...lol, please address the issue of Iconoclasm, instead of going on and on about how the Egyptians were light skin africans:rolleyes:, lol...yeah right, light skin like their brother Nimrod and the rest of the Ethiopians:rolleyes::confused:.

The Israelites were black, that is plane, in the bible.

Amos 9:7
Are ye not as children of the Ethiopians unto me, O children of Israel?

It planely says we are like the ethiopians (not the imaginary white Ethipians, you know, Nimrods people...lol - this is stupid, this is so stupid).

Now this is the killer for me.

Lamentations 5:10
Our skin was black like an oven because of the terrible famine.

Now when black people are suffering due to a famine/starving their skin gets darker and darker. A white person becomes paler and paler. so this is another cut tothose people who are claiming to be Israelites. They are not but do lie as the scriptures say.

Lamentations 4:8
8 Their visage is blacker than a coal;

"I know it said coal, but just like white chocolate, there is white coal too,"... lol:p. Anymore stupid statements and I am going to just start being completely frank about all this and why the hell I think it is happening and let you all have it with both barrels. I was content to prove that the Israelite culture, influenced JRRT's work in language, writing and on some as of yet unmeasurable, spiritual level, but now I can really get into it. As to the latter:

"And because all Elves had been found in groups of twelve, twelve became the number they counted with ever after, and 144 was for long their highest number, and in none of their later tongues was there therefore any common name for a greater number." (http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Awakening_of_the_Elves)

12 tribes of Israel and the chosen 144,000. The number 144 - which is also mentioned in relation to the dimensions of the 12-gated New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:17) - is of course 12 times 12, or 12 squared.

Like I said, it is all about Israel.

The whole world and all the events since the rise of Israel (even before, since we were chosen before the world was made) was all about us. So suck it!!!!

The runes in tolkien is from us, the Israelites. The migrations, sunderings, divisions and the subsequent different evolved languages of the elves is modeled after the experiences of the Israelites. The strong European culture throughout Tolkien, The kingdoms of the Dunedain, Eldarion, all of it, is inspired by Israel!!!

[BeardofPants]

http://www.public.asu.edu/~usman/images/images-Africa/Nubian-kemsit.jpg



*shrug*

[inked]

Well, Phillip Pullman thinks there are Christian influences in Tolkien's work! See here: http://entmoot.com/showthread.php?t=15002

Of course, PP thinks that's a reason to discredit Tollers! But I'd bet PP would protest anyone discounting his work because it was written by an atheist who thought his world view explained everything as PP discounts Tolkien's Roman Catholicism.

And Tolkien's account of the Creation is certainly Hebraically influenced and blended with Norse and other mythologies in addition to its Christian content - to start at the beginning, as it were.

[The Telcontarion]

Well, Phillip Pullman thinks there are Christian influences in Tolkien's work! See here: http://entmoot.com/showthread.php?t=15002

Of course, PP thinks that's a reason to discredit Tollers! But I'd bet PP would protest anyone discounting his work because it was written by an atheist who thought his world view explained everything as PP discounts Tolkien's Roman Catholicism.

And Tolkien's account of the Creation is certainly Hebraically influenced and blended with Norse and other mythologies in addition to its Christian content - to start at the beginning, as it were.

I will reply in the "Lwis vs Tolkien vs Pullman: Death Match in the Cage!" thread.

[The Telcontarion]

Read 1st and 2nd kings in the bible. there you will see that the relationship between Gondor and Arnor was firmly based on the events of those books.

While Gondor only came to the defense of Arnor once - during the which kings invasion - in the bible the, the South Kingdom/the kingdom of Judah, came to the aid of the North Kingdom/the kingdom of Israel reeatedly, with the Judite king always stating that "My horses, my people, my swords and the thy people are as one."

Tolkien clearly did not make his version of the story with such a close relationship of them always going to war together (as tolkienites, that was always a dream that they could have a closer more unified relationship), after all it would have been to obvious a rippoff; he had to change it but it's clear. The single most important inspiration of Tolkien's work is the bible and subsequently, the story of the jews.

PS. I noticed no one addressed my previous post about the numbers 12 and the 144. Come on, it's not hard, don't run....hahahaaa!!!

[inked]

El Tel, JRRT did not simply re-write the Bible.

12 tribes/gates
12 apostles/foundation stones of New Jerusalem
144 (12x12) includes the Jews and the Gentiles
1000 incomprehensibly huge number

144,000 in the Apocalypse (aka Revelation) = the symbolic number of the incomprehensibly huge number of those whom God is saving (perhaps equal to everyone in all times and places?)

Not to mention gematria - which ought to give you a field day!

[The Telcontarion]

144,000 in the Apocalypse (aka Revelation) = the symbolic number of the incomprehensibly huge number of those whom God is saving (perhaps equal to everyone in all times and places?)

Not to mention gematria - which ought to give you a field day!

Give me a field day?

Revelation 7:4-6

4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.

5 Of the tribe of Juda were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Reuben were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Gad were sealed twelve thousand. 6 Of the tribe of Aser were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Nephthalim were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Manasses were sealed twelve thousand. 7 Of the tribe of Simeon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Levi were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Issachar were sealed twelve thousand. 8 Of the tribe of Zabulon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Joseph were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Benjamin were sealed twelve thousand.

So 144,000 is not talking about everyone that ever was, just 12,000 from each of the 12 tribes of Israel.

Now as for Tolkien rewriting the bible, it sure does seem that he did in a great many different places; 1st and second kings, to be specific in but one instances.

And the point is that 144,000 is a straight rip from the bible and that, it and other things are closely based on the life and prophecies pertaining to the Israelites.

[brownjenkins]

The base twelve system is Summeric in origin. Arabic, as we understand it today, not Israelite. They just embraced the traditions of previous cultures.

[Count Comfect]

The base twelve system is Summeric in origin. Arabic, as we understand it today, not Israelite. They just embraced the traditions of previous cultures.

Yes - simply having a base 12 system need not be a Biblical reference. It would be like saying having a base 8 system is necessarily an homage to spiders.

[The Telcontarion]

Yes - simply having a base 12 system need not be a Biblical reference. It would be like saying having a base 8 system is necessarily an homage to spiders.

[Flaming removed. Consider this your final warning. Eärniel] It's like the interviews about the fake moon landing in that documentary "What really happened on the way to the Moon."

[EllethValatari]

I distinctly recall Tolkien writing of an intense dislike for allegorical interpretations of Lord of the Rings. There are very christian tones in the Ainulindale and some of his writings on Eldarin culture. But I sincerely doubt he meant such a close parallel as you've presented in the plot of his primary work.

Thank you for pointing this out! I was just about to do so and then read your post...yes, I do not think these parallels are intentional or necessary to a full understanding of LoTR and other writings.