> "anglo-Israel" ... IE peoples are Semitic
> ..support his claim by a bit he
> constantly posts from the Bible.
> Maccabees 12:21-23
If you are gong to go on arguing with someone who is unlikely to listen,
tell him that :
(a) 1 Maccabees is not Bible for Jews, Protestants and Anglicans.
(b) Even if it were, he needs to look at the context. Jonathan is trying
to get support from Sparta, so he'll claim anything. The Jews claim that
the Spartans acknowledge a prior claim to connection. That doesn't mean
they did.
(c) "brothers" and even "of the same family" can mean a whole lot of things
in that cultural context. It does not necessarily support blood connection.
(d) The use of the Bible as a source of scientific knowledge is simply not
possible these days. (For example, 1 Chronicles says that the mathematical
value pi is exactly 3. Does he really believe that?) We need a much less
simple approach to the Bible, if we are going to understand it properly. A
literal approach devalues it.
(d) The Biblical devision of the races of the world into three racial
types, based on descendants of Abraham, is not scientifically acceptable.
It must be interpreted differently - it is a simple attempt to explain the
obvious differences in skin colour that the early Jews found.
Your Greek scholar said:
> "Concerning the Lacedaemonians, there may be a valid argument that
> they are (at least in part) Semitic peoples, descended from the
> Minoan Civilization (which we know to be Semitic because of their
> Language).
Absolute balderdash. Firstly we cannot translate Minoan (if by that he
means Linear A - Linear B is simply early Greek). There have been attempts
to connect it with various groups, but none has yet found wide support.
Secondly even if the Minoans were Semitic, why would the Spartans be
descended from them?
But you are surely arguing with those who do not have ears to hear.
Peter