Re: [TIED] Hebrew and Arabic

John Croft wrote:

>
> Marc Verhaegen wrote:
> >
> > Hebrew seems very definitely to belong to the geographically
> north-western group of Semitic dialects with Phoenician and other
> "Canaanite" dialects such as Eblaite, Ugaritic etc. Arabic does not.
> So, if the Israelites originated in south-west Arabia, why didn't
> they speak a south Semitic (e.g. Sabaean) or Arabic dialect?

Gerry: Err, if the Isrealites originated in south-west Arabia, then
they should speak a Sabaean or Arabiic dialect. Is it possible that the
evidence for Isrealites in s-w Arabia is wrong?

> Also while there is evidence of the neo-Babylonian Khaldi in western
> Arabia there is no evidence at all of a presence in Saba.
>
> > If that is so, Salibi must be wrong. I always wondered why I never
> saw a serious discussion of his idea.
> >
> > This is all a bit off-subject for this group, but if you're
> interested in this kind of thing, you should check out Ahmed Osman
> ("The House of the Messiah", "Moses:Pharaoh of Egypt"). He basically
> claims (more plausibly IMO) that Moses was Akhnaten, and the
> Israelites his Egyptian followers.

Gerry: What would be the arguments *against* Moses being Akhnaten?
?

> Ever since James Henry Breasted claimed Akhenaton to have been a
> monotheistic pharaoh there have been people linking Moses and
> Akhenaton. Freud was one, Emmanuel Velikovski was another, in his
> case linking Akhenaton with Oedipus (via a common association between
> the Sphinx and Thebes!
>
> There has been a recent re-evaluation of Akhenaton's monotheism. It
> would appear that rather than a strict monotheist, Akhenaton was a
> henotheist. He only worshipped one god, Aten, but his god was not
> asserted to be the only god. Only the temple of Amon-Ra in Thebes
>

Gerry: Akhenaton, Akhenaten, Akhenamon ... are all three the same ruler
or is each one different. Or did the great ruler change his name when
he embraced his monotheistic god?

was

> shut down, and it would appear that Akhenaton was peculiarly
> anti-Amonite in his theology. Canopic jars, bearing the four divine
> heads, (baboon for Thoth, falcon for Horus, jackal for Anubis and a
> woman for Maat) were made for burial during the Amarna period. Maat,
> as truth, continued to be venerated in the Amarna period, and Isis
> (as
> the throne) was also continually worshipped. Indeed, some have
> declared that the monotheistic god Akhenaton really worshipped was
> himself. The royal family, Akhenaton, Nefertiti and their daughters
> replaced the Osirian family in royal iconography. There is also no
> connection between Amarna period and Joshua's invasion of Palestine.
> There is also no possible connection between Nefertiti, the daughter
> of Ay and Tey, sister of Mutmodjmet, wife of Horemhab, and Moses'
> wife daughter of Jethro. Akhenaton dad not been crown prince. His
> brother Thutmose had predeceased him, but his mother Tiy, daughter of
> Huya and Thuya, sister to Ay, were Egyptian and not Hebrew. The
> evidence of the Amarna letters speak of Apiru (from whence came the
> word Hebrew), but saw them as enemies of Akhenaton, rather than
> allies. Aziru, the Apiru chief of Amurru in northern Syria managed
> to
> disconnect his state from Egyptian influence to Hittite suzerainty.
> Apiru were deported from Amki, and an Egyptian governor was
> established in Jerusalem to keep the Apiru at bay. There was a
> plague
> that may have decimated the royal family, but it probably killed
> Akhenaton as well.

Gerry: I thought Akhenaton with bulbous hips and fleshy thighs actually
became a god only a god with human qualities unlike the earlier prim and
staunch monarchs of the Old Kingdom of Egypt.

> > On the other hand there's David Rohl ("A Test of Time") who equates
>
> > the biblical pharaoh Shishak with Ramses II, and thereby "proves"
> the
> > historical accuracy of the OT. However, to do this he has to remove
> > some 300 years from history, thus bringing events such as the
> > Invasions of the Sea Peoples down to about 900BCE or later.
>
> Once again, the attempt of Rohl has been to create a concordance
> between his schema of the Biblical dates and the Egyptian records.
> Removing 300 years from the Egyptian records not only requires a
> modification of the Egyptian history, but also the Hittite,
> Babylonian
> and Mycenaean. It removes the Anatolian dark age altogether, and
> with
> the Dorian invasion 1000 BCE and the Aeolian, Ionian and Doric
> settlements of Anatolian coast from 900-800 BCE, also needing major
> modifications. Carbon 14 correspondences are all thrown out all over
> the place too. In IE studies it effects the Urn Field and Villanovan
> cultures dates which have been set at 1200 BCE, and would also need
> to
> be set at 900 BCE. This throws out central European Carbon 14 and
> means that there is no association between Steppe movements, the
> spread of the Urn Field cultures and the chain reaction of movements
> leading to the Peoples of the Sea.

Gerry: Seems to me that when one throw out C-14 dating, even though
some contamination might be present, one throws out the entire corpus on
which archaeology hangs it hat!

> > I rather suspect contemporary political motives behind such
> > writings.

Gerry: Can't think of any other reason actually unless you include
religious motivation.

> I suspect the attempts to placate religious constituencies is rather
> more involved. Rohl has particularly good credentials but is a pity
> that he has gone into the Archaeological who-dunnit best seller mode.
>
> His latest best seller "Legend", attempts to prove the accuracy of
> the
> whole bble and locates Eden besides Lake Van!

Gerry: Well, from political to religious to monetary. We've come the
full sweep and all three smack of poor scholarship. Do you think
they'll make a movie from "Legend" ;-)

Gerry