Subject: Re: Shang script among Olmecs
From: bdiebold@pantheon.yale.edu (Benjamin H. Diebold)
Date: 25 Nov 1996 19:10:46 GMT
Yuri Kuchinsky (yuku@io.org) wrote:
: Benjamin H. Diebold (bdiebold@pantheon.yale.edu) wrote:
[snip]
: : I'm still waiting for the
: : first site report of a site with old world material culture in North or
: : South America (Vikings excepted, of course).
: Such site reports are plentiful, it seems. In particular, ancient Old
: World coin evidence, and ship-wrecks. I think much of it is obscure, or
: disputed. This is the reason I have not pursued this line of investigation
: as of now. I've seen long lists of Old World (mostly Mediterrenian)
: artifacts found in the Americas. Barry Fell includes many of them in his
: books. Have you sorted out his lists to see if _some of them_ may be
: valid? I haven't. (A DISCLAIMER: I, Yuri, have no connection with Barry
: Fell whatsoever.)
I'm surprised that you consider such site reports "plentiful", when
there is not a single one that I have ever heard of. Naturally, there's an
infinite amount of stuff I have never heard of, and I know nothing of
Mesoamerican or Shang archaeology, so let me describe for you
what I entail by a "site report of a site with old world material culture
in North or South America (Vikings excepted, of course)", as I wrote
above.
I mean a site that has been excavated by modern scientific standards,
whose results have been published in a peer-reviewed, creditable scholarly
journal, which demonstrates the unambiguous presence of an old world
cultural prescence in the New World. Stray artifacts lacking
archaeological context, random bits of ogham, paleo-Hebrew, or
pseudo-Norse inscriptions scratched on rocks, and unexcavated sites do not
count.
This may seem like a tough standard, but it is not unreachable. The case
for the Norse presence in North America has satisfied it. In my own area,
there are clear "colony" sites that appear in northern mesopotamia (and
beyond) in the fourth millennium that have material culture and
architectural patterns indistinguishable from southern mesopotamia.
If the Shang reached Mesoamerica, the obvious answer is to find a Shang
site. If Shang people brought over a glyptic tradition, they very likely
brought over their pottery, their architecture, their agricultural
technologies, and other *material* evidence of their life. It may not
have gone far, but it ought to be somewhere: glyptic traditions do not
float on the wind. Find that, and diffusion is an acceptable hypothesis.
(Of course, what the diffusion *means* in terms of real cultural impact
will still be a point of debate.) Until then, as Peter correctly points
out, you are just telling stories without providing any serious evidence
for them.
: : Curious that after all these
: : years and so much energy invested in diffusionism that has never happened.
: I don't think that if some archaeologist, tomorrow, will find another
: Roman statue in an undisturbed ancient American stratum, this will change
: anybody's mind, really. I can see the debate going on for years about
: whether s/he is really honest -- or in the pay of the Atlantians, was it
: really undisturbed, was it really Roman statue, etc, etc.
I disagree. Find a good site, excavate it well, and people will take it
seriously. Hard to argue with L'Anse aux Meadows (sp?), or with Jebel
Aruda and Habuba Kabira (Southern sites in Syria).
Anyway, until you have that, you don't really have anything.
Ben
Subject: Re: Sanskrit: was: Re: Etruscans [was: Re: The Coming of the Greeks]
From: kalie@sn.no (Kaare Albert Lie)
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 20:05:21 GMT
whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
Encyclopedia-surfing has its obvious dangers. Along with a lot of
correct, but disconnected bits of information, you are also
completely at the mercy of the editors of the encyclopedia - and
you run the far more grave risk of imagining that you understand
a subject without really doing so. Encyclopedia-surfing may be a
nice pastime, but a person who wishes to explore a subject in
depth and form new theories, should never feel content with
disconnected scraps of information - some of which are correct,
some of which are just misplaced, and some of which are wrong.
>It isn't a dead language, at least not so far as I know. It's
>"like Latin in being a priestly, learned and cultivated language
>in India", but "its still taught in the schools there" along with
>its "more modern forms Prakit and Pali which probably bear to it
>about the same relationship as do the Romance languages with Latin".
>"India abounds with all kinds of scientific literature written in
>tolerably good Sanskrit even to the present day" F&W; ,vol 21:p 101
>The first Sanskrit grammar to be published in Europe (Rome, 1790)
>led to a fascination with the language which continued through
>about 1860. My expectation would be that it should have a good
>vocabulary, roughly equivalent to Latin, if not to a contemporary
>language like English, and that your modern, up to date dictionary
>would reflect that.
Correct. But the main bulk of the vocabulary is not modern.
>When my Encyclopedia was written, Written Sanskrit was considered
>to be a vestige of an older language of which little or no written
>evidence was preserved in its original form. I don't know if that
>is still considered true or not.
Of course this is true, for Sanskrit as for any language!
>Documentation of the earlier Sanskrit was considered to date
>from the 4th century BC and to be primarily a collection of
>literature from earlier sources; "in later dialects of Sanskrit
>like Pali and Prakit wherein Sanskrit was "perfected" by the
>grammarian Panini." IBID
This is Encyclopedia-surfing on its worst. Panini created the
classical standard for Sanskrit. He had nothing at all to do with
Pali.
>More recent sources claim a considerably earlier date for the
>origins of Sanskrit itself.
Usually the origins of X will be found at an earlier date than X.
So what?
>Sanskrit apparently means "adorned", "cultivated", "perfected"
>and is considered to be the ancient and sacred language of the
>Hindus, but also to be distinguished from the even older forms
>of Indian speech "preserved in the religious literature of the
>Brahmanas, Vedas and Upanishids" and known collectively as Vedic.
I hardly think anyone would say that the Upanishads were written
in Vedic.
>Both Vedic and Sanskrit were apparently originally caste languages.
>Vedic, Sanskrit, Avestan and Old Persian are apparently all dialects
>of an older common idiom known as Indo Iranian.
As the language split into more dialects, Sanskrit functioned as
a mainly literary - but also spoken - lingua franca for the
learned and higher classes.
>Sanskrit apparently preserves Indo European better than any other
>language with the possible exception of ancient Greek. Agreement
>between the two allows Verners law to explain some exceptions to
>Grimms law.
This opinion is based on the theory that IE was very much like
Sanskrit. Once that theory is held, it follows as a matter of
course that "Sanskrit preserves IE better than any other
language". This is a circular argument. A closer study of IE
isoglosses show, however, that this is based upon a
misunderstanding.
Verner's law describe a feature of Germanic consonants. For the
laws of Grimm, Verner, etc. read N. E. Collinge: The Laws of
Indo-European, Amsterdam/Philadelphia 1985.
>The Vedic texts are primarily of a religious nature while Sanskrit
>is essentially secular.
Therer are scular texts written in Sanskrit. There are religious
texts written in Sanskrit. Calling Sanskrit essentially secular
is sheer nonsense.
>I want to allow that the Mittani were speaking Sanskrit c 1500 BC
>so that gives me 1100 years to infill. The Jatakas, a collection
>of Budhist fables written in the 4th century BC in Pali, a later
>dialect of Sanskrit, suggest that Sanskrit itself was developed
>earlier and for that matter there are etymological studies of
>Sanskrit which go back to the 4th century BC.
Here you go with disconnect scraps of information, disinformation
and speculation. Why in the world do you single out the Jatakas?
They are Buddhist fables, written in Pali - OK. They were NOT
written in the 4th century BC, but considerably later. If you
knew anything about the Pali literature, and wished to use this
as an argument for dating the language, you would definitely not
choose the Jatakas!
Indian history is beridden with dating problems. A much better
linguistic dating can be had from the inscriptions of Asoka than
from the Jatakas. These inscriptions are in dialects that are
younger than the dialects that classical Sanskrit was based upon.
etc. etc. etc.
My sincere advice to you is this: If you really want to form
reasoned theories on these subjects, take some years off from
surfing and Internet, and study the fundamentals.
I have given you this advice more than once, but you obviously
seem to fear that knowledge of facts might hamper your flights of
fantasy. And indeed it might.
______________________________________________________________
Kåre Albert Lie
kalie@sn.no
Subject: Re: BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY CONT'D
From: tsimms@nbnet.nb.ca (Thomas M. Simms)
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 15:25:37 AST
PROPHECY
To get a coin in his bowl a market storyteller cannot be just
a retailer of the past. A recitation of past events everyone in
hearing already knows will not sing for his supper. He must add
something.
The item added must agree with what the hearers already know.
It must be believable. For the storyteller ringed with listeners,
proof of his additions need not be at hand. However, he must con-
vince his audience of the truth of his additions.
The oldest literary device to do this is the prophecy. The
yarn spinner can describe meeting on his travels someone who told
a prophecy which came true. He draws in his listeners with
fabulosities of how the event unfolded. Writing was in its beginn-
ings. The storyteller could now solemnly claim that the document
he clutches in his hand is a copy he made of the tale he tells.
The document may even be the creation of the storyteller himself.
He'll never tell. His credibility would vanish at once if he did.
To most readers, someone wrote the Book of Daniel during the
Babylonian Captivity of the Hebrew people. This began in 588 B.C.
Today most scholars say the authors wrote the book in the Third
Century B.C. Here is why.
Jeshua Ben Sirach is Ecclesiasticus. He wrote about 180 B.C.
(He had nothing to do with Ecclesiastes.) He mentioned neither
Daniel nor the Book of Daniel in his otherwise complete list of
leading Jewish figures.
The internal evidence of the book compels accepting the late
date of composition. To start with, the beginning is wrong. It
assigns the siege and capture of Jerusalem to the third year of the
reign of Jehoiakim. This is not so. The error is subtle but
there, nonetheless. The writers took Jehoiakim either for Jeho-
iachin or Zedekiah. There are more errors. Read any good en-
cyclopedia. Here are some:
The date of the complete work appears in the latter half of
the book, the visions. The Seleucid King Antiochus IV Epiphanes
desecrated the temple in December, 167 B.C., as we see in Daniel
viii. 11Ä14. Verse viii, 14 implies the writer has seen the rede-
dication of the sanctuary in December, 164 B.C. The passage xi,
40Ä45 shows that the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes was in the
future. The Seleucid King died in April, 163 B.C. We can thereby
date the visions almost to the month. They are clearly an immedi-
ate apocalyptic forecast.
For further confirmation, consider the following:
At the beginning of the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, a
conflict broke out between two members of the High Priest Levite
family. The conflict resulted in High Priest Onias III going to
Egypt. There he set up a new temple at Heliopolis northeast of
what is now Cairo. This temple functioned until 70 A.D. when the
Romans destroyed it along with the one in Jerusalem.
Jason, the other High Priest, paid large tribute to the King.
This way he stayed in charge until 172 B.C. At that time, factions
of Jews objected to his closeness to the Greek king. So they sent
him to exile in Sparta. A lapsed Jew named Menelaus in 170 B.C.
bought the High Priestly office. To outraged Orthodox Jews, the
Temple sacrifice became an abomination. In 168 B.C., Jason
returned from Sparta and deposed Menelaus.
During this time, Antiochus was campaigning against Egypt.
Jason soon fell under the suspicions of the King who thought the
returned High Priest was conspiring against him. The king then
came back from his conflict with Egypt, entered Jerusalem, and
slaughtered his opponents. As punishment for this supposed
conspiracy, in 167 B.C. he dedicated the Temple to the Olympian
Zeus. This blunder, as noted above, aroused the Jews to murderous
fury. The fury restored the Temple in 164 B.C.
Few readers noted that two thousand, three hundred days had
passed since Menelaus unlawfully took the position of High Priest
in 170 B.C. to the restoration of the sanctuary in 164 B.C. There-
fore the prophecy of days was exactly that, one of days and not
days of weeks or of years. The cleansing of the Temple took place
in December, 164 B.C.!
This same historical data explains the forecast of Weeks at
the end of the book of Daniel ix, 24Ä27. Today we do not commonly
understand much about those days before Jesus. Then there was a
priestly or Aaronic Messiah (Anointed One) and a princely or
Davidic Messiah. The High Priest Jason was legitimate in the eyes
of many Jews. So the words "shall Messiah be cut off" relate
directly to the Greek King personally returning and dedicating the
Temple to Zeus. He sacrificed swine on the altar! The historical
intervals of these episodes compare directly to the Prophecy of
Weeks. The Weeks were of days and of nothing else!
In like manner we deal with the forecasts of days given at the
end of the Book of Daniel (xii, 11Ä12). The numbers are "a
thousand two hundred and ninety days" or "the thousand three
hundred and five and thirty days". They relate to the time to the
restoration of the sanctuary from either the beginning or the end
of Jason's second time as High Priest. The days of the forecast
are days, only days and nothing else!
The composers of the book did not have full archives of
journals. They did not have other records easy at hand. They did
not have the easy comparisons to datings we enjoy. If the figures
in this explanation do not precisely add up, they are well in the
ballpark. A reading of the Apocryphal book I Maccabees will show
the frame of this argument is right. Teasing exactness out of the
account is likely beyond us. The minor discrepancies add to the
certainty scribes composed the book of Daniel well after the fact.
Once again, the simplest explanation is the best!
As we have just discussed, they wrote Daniel after the fact.
Yet they presented it as a tale from the captivity. They had two
immediate reasons to do so. The first had to do within Jewry. The
law of the Kings of Israel and Judah made writing scripture a
capital offense. The officers of the temple would complain about
new scriptures even to a foreign ruler. The second had to do with
simple practical politics. Writing about the Greek ruler himself
could mean the loss of the writers' heads.
So the writers cast their work as the composition of someone
from years before. (Scholars call such writings pseudepigraphic.)
Writing texts this way gained its prophesies much weight for its
readers and hearers. When it became apocalyptic, predicting an im-
mediate end-time, it roused much enthusiasm among its Jewish audi-
ence.
Rapidly the apocalyptic visions failed. With the arrival of
Rome, the forecast took a new life. People put Rome in place of
the Seleucid Dynasty in its hoped for end-time. They quickly
forgot that up to that time they considered the four kingdoms of
the successors to Alexander the Great were the feet of iron and
clay of Daniel's vision before Nebuchadnezzar.
In like fashion, they forgot the comparison of the four beasts
of Daniel's prophecy in the first year of Belshazzar's rule with
the predecessors to Alexander and to Alexander himself. They
forgot he was often called "two horned" or "of ready horn" from his
image showing him with the horns of Ammon stamped on his succes-
sors' coins after his death. His `ready horned' name is often
recalled in Arabic.
As for the ten horns in the prophecy, these are the kingdoms
of the descendants of the Diadochi, Alexander's successors, in the
Second Century, B.C.. The prophecy did not see the coming of Rome.
This lack confirms further the date of composition of the book of
Daniel.
Tom Simms
For another look at this topic and others see -
My latest book, "Behind The Bible" - surprising and newly uncovered
historical information about the events of the Bible.
--->Info at my book/video storefront - gopher.infor.com<---
--->Search for "Behind The Bible" under "Titles"<---
******************************************************
AVAILABLE ONLY BY MAIL ORDER
from P. O. Box 475, HOULTON, ME 04730, US$19.95+3.95S&H; = US$23.90
******************************************************
Quick Method: e-mail snail address, mail check,
we ship before your stamp dries. On 22 Nov 1996 03:18:22 GMT, sudsm@aol.com writes:
>X-Newsreader: AOL Offline
Reader
>
>
>Jesus was born the night beginning 4 October 4 BC, by our (Gregor-
>ian) calendar. The following is how that conclusion is arrived at.
>..
> DATING JESUS
>
> "Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of
>the commandment to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem unto the
>Messiah the Prince (shall be) seven weeks, three score and two
>weeks." [Daniel 9:25] The Divine commandment to rebuild the temple
>came by Haggai the prophet "In the second year of Darius the king,
>in the sixth month, in the first day of the month" [Haggai 1:1-8]
>which by our Gregorian calendar (extrapolated back) was 22-23 Aug.
>520 B.C. There were several earthly commands to rebuild and,
>these have been used in different efforts to date Messiah, but
>since we are dealing with "Divine prophecy" only the Divine
>command to rebuild need concern us.
> The problem is, how long was Daniel's Hebdomad (or "week")?
>At one time, the Jews (according to Josephus) picked 9 lunar
>months as the length of each of the "days" in Daniel's "week" or
>Hebdomad. The mean lunar month is 29.530588 days, therefore 69
>"weeks" of 9-month days is 69 x 7 x 9 x 29.531 days = 351.5 years.
>And 351.5 years from Aug. 520 B.C. gets to 168 B.C. The Jews then
>added to that, Daniel's 1260 or 1335 days (Dan. 12:11-12) or 3.5
>to 3.75 years, to get to 165 B.C., the year in which the temple
>was cleansed of Antiochus' desecrations by Judas Maccabeus. The
>purpose was to identify Maccabeus as the Messiah. But "9" as a
>number had little or no symbolic meaning to the Jews. A number
>with greater symbolic significance, such as 7, 12, or 14, would
>have been more impressive. Which calls for a brief explanation of
>biblical numerical symbolism. The symbolism arises quite simply
>(from the order of creation) as follows:
> 1, 2, and 3 = God the Father, God the Son (Christ), and God
>the Holy Spirit; 4 = the world; 5 = man; 6 = man's labor or works
>(666 the Beast); 7 = Divine intercession (the day of rest); 8 =
>Jesus ("the Word" Incarnate) the "Octave" of Creation; 9 =
>judgment; 10 = the Law; 11 (111, 1111, etc.) = the sign of God the
>Father again; 12 = the Church, (the disciples); 13 =
>"displacement" from redemption; 14 = the double-measure of Divine
>intercession through redemption by Christ Jesus.
> Also 286 or 22 x 13 symbolizes displacement of the material
>from the spiritual world of Christ. In interpretations of
>prophecy, 286 is often called the "displacement factor". 22, 222
>&c.; is the sign of Christ again, and so with 33, 333, or 44 and
>444, and so on. (Be careful not to confuse this symbolic use of
>numbers with "numerology", which is a corruption of numerical
>symbolism.)
> The simplest interpretation of Daniel's week would make each
>week 7 years. In that case the 69 weeks from Aug. 520 B.C. ends
>in 37 B.C., and there is little doubt that the Jews expected the
>Messiah in 37 B.C. As Sir Isaac Newton noted, with the Messiah
>expected in 37 A.D., Herod the Great procured the execution of
>Antigonus to make himself sole king of Judea in 37 B.C. The
>Herodians of Matt. 22:16 and Mark 3:6 and 12:13 were Jews who had
>identified Herod as the Messiah. The failure of Herod, and his
>death, had discredited that idea. Apparently Daniel's hebdomad
>did not mean seven 1-year "days".
> The next possible symbolic day for Daniel's week is 14 lunar
>months. The symbolic significance of 14 is the double-measure of
>Divine intercession, which immediately connects the symbol with
>the ministry of Jesus Christ. Not only that, but Daniel didn't
>say three score and nine (69) weeks, he said seven weeks, sixty
>and two weeks. Weeks with 14-month "days" makes each week =
>98 "months", and 98 is recognized as the number of lambs
>sacrificed during the week of the Feast of Tabernacles (Lev.
>23:34, Num. 29:12-33).
> If a Feast of Tabernacles is when our Lord was born--when
>"the word became flesh and tabernacled [the Greek says]
>among us" (John 1:14, literally) _ then we have an explanation of
>Daniel's otherwise cryptic "seven weeks", sixty, and "two weeks" _
>instead of simply three score and nine (69) weeks. His "seven
>weeks" and "two weeks" reveals the numerical symbol 98 (7 x 14),
>for the Feast of Tabernacles. With 98-month "weeks" Daniel's 69
>weeks ended 13 May 28 A.D.
> On 13 May 28 A.D. our Lord "suddenly" went to Jerusalem for
>the unidentified feast (Pentecost, John 5:1) where, upon hearing
>that the ministry of John the Baptist had ended with John's
>imprisonment, he hurried back to Galilee. Malachi had said:
>"Behold I shall send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way
>before me; and the Lord whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his
>temple" (Mal. 3:1). While in Jerusalem our Lord heard of the
>imprisonment of His messenger (John the Baptist), and as suddenly
>as he had "come to His temple" in Jerusalem, he hurried back into
>Galilee.
> Malachi's prophecy was fulfilled both as to the messenger,
>and our Lord's sudden coming to his temple in Jerusalem. And
>Matthew says that His hurried return to Galilee, fulfilled the
>prophecy of Isaiah 9:1-2. Matthew says: "Now when Jesus heard
>that John was cast into prison, he departed into Galilee * *
>[saying] * * Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt.
>4:12-17).
> Mark is similarly emphatic that at this terminal of Daniel's
>69weeks a time-prophecy had been fulfilled, for he says: "Now
>after John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching
>the Gospel of the kingdom of God. And saying, the time is
>fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and
>believe the Gospel" (Mark 1:14-15).
> So we find that the end of Daniel's seven weeks and sixty and
>two weeks began what we may call the intensive period of Jesus'
>ministry. Another prophecy concerning His coming to Jerusalem yet
>remained to be fulfilled. Zechariah said: "Jerusalem: behold thy
>King cometh unto thee: He is just and having salvation; lowly and
>riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass."
> In the evening beginning 10th Nisan, six days before the
>Passover of 30 A.D., Jesus lodged in Bethany where the lambs,
>selected on 10th Nisan for the Passover sacrifice, were held. The
>following morning, 10th Nisan was our Palm Sunday, and Jesus
>fulfilled Zechariah's prophecy that day. The time between His
>sudden coming to His temple for Pentecost (on the Sabbath, 13 May
>28 A.D.), and His coming to Bethany on 9th Nisan (the Sabbath, 30
>March 30 A.D.) was exactly 98 weeks--again the number of the
>sacrificed lambs.
> The three synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) are
>quite clear that the day following the crucifixion was a Sabbath.
>That does not necessarily put the crucifixion on Friday since
>"Sabbath" applies to any of the appointed holy days of rest. Only
>the regular weekly Sabbath on Saturday would make, the day before
>the Sabbath, a Friday. But John 19:14, from which arises the
>doubt that the day of the crucifixion was Friday, is actually what
>demonstrates that it was indeed a Friday!
> John says: "And it was the *paraskeue* of the Passover".
>Unfortunately, since "paraskeue" means "preparation", the KJV
>translates this "And it was the preparation of the Passover"
>thereby making it appear that the crucifixion was on the day
>before the "Feast" that John calls the Passover. At the time of
>Christ, however, (and into at least the third century A.D.) the
>day we call Friday was called Paraskeue. Properly translated,
>therefore, John reads: "And it was Friday of the Passover".
>Nowhere in contemporary records do we find "paraskeue" used to
>identify the day before any Sabbath other than a Saturday, thus
>confirming that "Paraskue" meant Friday.
> You should also be aware that what John calls the Passover
>Feast was actually the Feast of Unleavened Bread, during the
>day following Passover. The Passover began on Thursday 14 Nisan,
>and the paschal supper was eaten after sundown ending 14 Nisan.
>The following day, 15 Nisan, was the day of the Feast of
>Unleavened Bread _ when our Lord was crucified. When Matthew,
>Mark, and Luke refer to the Passover they mean beginning with the
>sacrifice of the lambs on 14 Nisan and the Paschal supper eaten
>after sundown ending 14 Nisan _ the night beginning 15 Nisan.
>But John follows the custom of the Jews, identified in Luke 22:1,
>"Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh which is called
>the Passover".
>..
> The Exodus followed the Paschal Supper in the night of the
>full moon of 15 Nisan (15 Nisan began at sundown of 14 Nisan).
>The Israelites (and a mixed multitude with them _ Ex. 12:38),
>after the Passover meal, fled without eating again until they
>reached Succoth where, having made good their escape, they paused
>long enough to have their first meal, with unleavened bread.
>Therefore 15 Nisan was commemorated as the Feast of Unleavened
>Bread (Lev. 23:6). On the "Feast" day of the crucifixion, you
>will recall, "the governor was wont to release unto the people a
>prisoner" (Matt. 27:15). No other record of that custom has
>survived, but it is clearly appropriate to the Feast of Unleavened
>Bread which celebrated Israel's own release from bondage in Egypt.
> But there is another, and independent confirmation that the
>crucifixion was on Friday, at the Feast of Unleavened Bread. John
>tells us that after questioning by the high priest Caiaphas, the
>priests led "Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it
>was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall,
>lest they be defiled; but that they might eat the Passover." That
>makes it definite that John is calling the Feast of Unleavened
>Bread "the Passover" (which, as Luke says, was usual). Josephus
>also notes that the Jews called the Feast of Unleavened Bread "the
>Passover".
> But the Feast of Unleavened Bread commemorated the unleavened
>bread eaten at Succoth after an all-night flight. What is
>commonly overlooked is that that feast must have been eaten during
>the day, probably beginning at noon, but certainly not after
>sundown, like the Paschal meal, since sundown began 16 Nisan. And
>the priests who were afraid they would be defiled and unable to
>eat "the Passover" had to be referring to a feast eaten before
>sundown. That is necessarily so because anyone defiled by going
>into the hall of judgment, had only to wash and "when the sun is
>down, he shall be clean, and shall afterward eat of the holy
>things" (Lev. 22:6-7).
> The Passover lambs were selected on 10 Nisan (Ex. 12:3) and
>held until 14 Nisan when they were to be sacrificed "between the
>two evenings" (Ex. 12:6; see RSV footnote). The "two evenings"
>expression is easily explained. We have two mornings. When we
>speak of the "wee small hours of the morning" we mean the morning
>that begins at midnight. Our second morning begins at sunrise.
>Similarly, since (at the time of Christ) the Jewish calendar date
>changed at sunset, the Jews had two evenings, the first beginning
>at noon, and the second beginning at sundown.
> At the time of Christ the selected Passover lambs were held
>in Bethany, from 10 Nisan to 14 Nisan. Our Lord therefore lodged
>in Bethany (with the lambs selected for sacrifice) from 10 Nisan,
>as required by Ex. 12:3. But the lambs for sacrifice had to be
>selected while still "a male of the first year" (Ex. 12:5). And
>our Lord had been selected the sacrificial " Lamb of God", at his
>Baptism, while he was still "a male of the first year", i.e. was
>still not quite 365 months = 30 years of age.
> The "first year" in the life of a man, but especially in the
>life of a king or ruler, was always a "year of months" i.e. 365
>months, or thirty years. That is when his fitness to be king was
>first judged (and in early ancient Egypt his fitness was
>affirmed at a "Sed Festival" every thirty years). Which is
>why we are told that Joseph was elevated to become a ruler in
>Egypt when he was thirty (Gen. 41:46) and why David was thirty
>when he began to reign (2 Sam. 5:4).
> Our Lord was selected to be "the Lamb of God" when he was
>baptized and the heavens opened up and the Voice declared "This is
>my beloved son, today have I begotten thee" (Luke 3:22; see RSV
>footnote for "today have I begotten thee". Cf. Acts 13:33 and Ps.
>2:7). This version seems to have been replaced in order probably,
>to avoid the Ebionite heresy.
> But it was not Divinity that Jesus received at His baptism
>(as the Ebionites argued) but selection of the "Lamb of God" was
>"begotten" that day. And Luke takes care to tell us that "Jesus
>himself began to be about thirty years of age" a rather awkward
>way of saying that Jesus was not quite thirty and therefore He was
>selected while still a "male of the first year" not yet 365 months
>old. Once again a seemingly gratuitous bit of information turns
>out to be symbolically significant.
> Daniel had said of Messiah that after sixty-nine weeks (from
>the Divine commandment to rebuild Jerusalem) "shall Messiah be cut
>off, but not for himself" (Dan. 9:26). I have noted above that
>Daniel's 69th week ended on the day when Jesus suddenly came to
>His temple in Jerusalem, and just as
>suddenly returned proclaiming "The time is fulfilled!" _ at
>that time beginning the final intensive period of His ministry,
>prior to His crucifixion.
>
>
>
>DARWIN IS BURIED IN WESTMINSTER ABBEY WITH OTHER CHURCH OF ENGLAND GREATS
>
Subject: Re: Etruscans [was: Re: The Coming of the Greeks]
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 25 Nov 1996 20:44:19 GMT
In article , piotrm@umich.edu says...
>
>In article <57ci1j$a8@fridge-nf0.shore.net> whittet@shore.net (Steve
Whittet) writes:
>
>>We have archaeological evidence of shell seals from India found
>>in Mesopotamia and seals from Mesopotamia found in India. Is this
>>what you mean by a short journey? The Upper and Lower oceans were
>>represented as the cities of Tyre and Dilmun "yoked as two oxen"
>>is this the sort of reference to pack animals you refer to?
>
>...Tyre and Dilmun as represented as "yoked as two oxen",
Eshardon describes himself as king of the kings of Dilmun
Makkan and Meluhha, obviously implying suzerainty but not
direct rule.Dilmun appears for the last time in the reign
of Ashurbanipal (668-627 BC) whose later years saw the
beginning of Assyrias final decline. On a foundation
cylinder from Uruk (LAR II,970) he claims I established
my rule over Tyre in the midst of the upper sea and Dilmun
in the midst of the lower sea and they drew my yoke."
>...the long distance Gulf trade
It would seem that Piotrs admission that there are 600 years
worth of contact is sufficient to make the point.
>...the evidence for Harappan objects in Mesopotamian sites
>does not precede c. 2400 BCE and seems to end
>during the 18th century BCE
Of 17 Indus seals listed in"Indus and Gulf type seals from UR"
TC Mitchell BTTA p 279 8 datable contexts include
(1) Early Dynastic III,
(2) Akkadian,
(5) Larsa plus (1) sealed tablet
>...Mesopotamian artifacts found in the Indus Valley civilization,
>...evidence of materials going the other way.
>...on the Indian subcontinent,
>...as far as I know,
>...only one Dilmun type stamp seal
This is the most important Mesopotamian object found in India.
Putting aside the proliferation of Harrapan objects found in
Mesopotamia and the number of Mesopotamian objects found
en route to India in places like Oman there are some other
Mesopotamian objects found in India.
"Animal Designs and Gulf Chronology" E C L During Caspers
(3) stone rams from Mohenjo-Daro Pakistan matching (2) rams
from Diraz, Bahrain
"Eyestones and Pearls" T Howard Carter
(3) eye stones among beads from Lothal India
dated early second millenium
"Bahrain and the Indus Civilization" A H Dani BTTHA
"S R Rao found a Dilmun type seal at Lothal
stealite of a light grey colour with a creamy center"
>...hardly Mesopotamian,
Tell Asmar in the Diyala region of Central Iraq
"It was in this and other hords from Akkadian houses at Tell Asmar
that etched carnelian beads, bone inlays, stamp seals, a cylinder seal,
and a distinctive type of knobbed pottery, all these with strong
harrapan stylistic parallels were found" IBID
Ubaid pottery at Dilmun, Kassite rulers
>...has been discovered, during the digs at Lothal.
Also other long distance trade
Indus script on a Dilmun seal from Faikala
pearls at Warka, c 3000 BC
pearls at Gezer, Palestine
pearls at Failaka
pearls at Ninevah
400-500 pearls at Susa
>...overland trade routes in antiquity,
>...W. W. Hallo, "The Road to Emar," Journal of Cuneiform
>Studies 18 (1964) 57ff. and
>...A. L. Oppenheim, "Essay on Overland Trade in the
>Forst Millennium B.C." same journal 21 (1967) 236ff.
>Moshe Elat, "Phoenician Overland Trade within the
>Mesopotamian Empires," in Cogan and Eph'al, Studies.... Tadmor.
S R Rao "Lothal and the Indus Civilization, 1973
Shashi Asthana "History and Archaeology of Indias contact with other
countries(from earliest times to 300 BC)", 1976
Shereen Batnagar "Encounters:The westerly trade of the Harrapan Civilization"
Dr Dilip K Chakrabarti "External trade durring the Harrapa period"1977
Jim Schaffer " Harrapan External Trade a critical assessment" 1977
>
>>
>>> Although the horse was known in Mesopotamia and Syria as early
>>>as the 3rd millennium (some would even claim the 4th), it was
>>>the donkey and the onager that moved people about.
>
>>What no camels? No ox carts? Yes Piotr, I agree that donkeys were
>>used to carry small loads short distances. I doubt any one donkey
>>was used to go the whole length of a caravan route anymore than
>>one boat was used to go the whole length of a water route.
>
>...donkeys were the basis for much overland trade,
>...epigraphic material to prove it,
>...the Kanesh trade being only one of the better documented examples.
>...Just ask all the Biblical scholars
>...who used this information to reconstruct the "age of the patricarchs"
>...Albright and others who recognized the importance of donkey caravans
>...before the widespread use of the domesticated camel.
>...Camels were not in general use in the Ancient Near East for transport
>until about 1200 BCE; see R. Bulliet, The Camel and the Wheel (Cambridge,
>1975).
From: "The Pre and Proto History of the Arabian Penninsula" Nayeem
"Camel is yet another important and common feature of the Rock art
from Saudi Arabia. The domestication of the camel, its various
purposes for which it was urtilized different aspects of a camels
life are the common theme of the rock art. In fact rock carvings
from Saudi Arabi lend support to the dating of the camels domestication
which is an obscure picture."
"The domestication of camel in Arabia implied a form of soccio
behavioral contract between man and the gregarious species The
petroglyh of Bronze age depicts the act of taming of the camel
by a human using a stick in his right hand. Other petroglyph
shows camel riding while another depict camel caravan. "
"These petroglyphs depicting domesticated camels must be dated to
fourth-third millenium BC."
"Thus we may conclude that the domestication of the camel must have occured
not later than the fourth millenium BC (Ripinsky, 1975;295-297)
(Compagnoni &Tosi; 1978:91ff)
steve
Subject: The Dead Sea Scrolls
From: Dominic Green
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 23:08:49 +0000
Some have declared the Dead Sea Scrolls to be a history of Early
Christianity, whereas some have claimed them to be proofs that Jesus
never died on the Cross, but rather, on the toilet wearing a Nappy
filled with Drugs, and that the Church has covered this up due to the
cost of Global Logo Replacement and the unsuitability of the slogan
'Jesus Died on the Toilet For You'. However, both these claims can now
be exposed as the monstrous fictions that they are. The Dead Sea
Scrolls ARE A GUIDE TO CREATING AN ALIEN from the Elements that make up
the Human Body. Had this Alien been successfully created by the
Essenes, no Christian goat-owning family would have been safe. Luckily,
Western Civilization was saved by the fact that Aliens contain a special
element located between Helium and Hydrogen in the Periodic Table, which
is not present on this planet, but which has been seen by NASA in the
spectra of Islands of Frogs which circle over the Earth and swim
croaking around Apollo space vessels*. This element is more brittle
than Hydrogen, whilst not being quite as bendy as Helium.
Where did the Essenes acquire these Elements? Living Human Beings and
the Bottoms of Cattle. It has long been claimed by Moslem
Fundamentalists that the Fundaments of Moslems are Out Of This World.
It may be furthermore presumed that the same is true of the Fundaments
of Cows, our fellow Mammals, and that they represent a form of 'Star
Gate' to another Dimension. Possibly soon we may see a major feature
film involving Kurt Russell with his US Marine Uniform round his ankles
inside a Texas Longhorn, proclaiming, No, No, Officer, You Must Not Drag
Me Away, I Must Penetrate The Doors of Heaven With My Intergalactic
Probe.
Yours
Reverend Colonel Ignatius Churchward Von Berlitz M.A. (Dom. Sci.) Oxon.
(Oklahoma)
*NASA know of these Giant Space Frogs, having analyzed one such creature
which Rained to the Ground in New Mexico in 1956, and have equipped it
with a saddle, covered it in superlight alloys, and called it a 'Stealth
Bomber'. Why is this vehicle impenetrable to radar? Because the
Americans have *deliberately built it* to be impenetrable to radar.
After all, would *you* want, after your nation has boasted of having
conquered superstition with the Light of Science, to be seen in public
Riding a Giant Frog? Imagine the shame of it. The Stealth Bomber *does
not fly*, but merely hops great distances for miles at a time, and when
it reaches its target, either launches a Radar-Impenetrable Stealth
Missile (which is to say, a giant tadpole equipped with a saddle and
steered by a tiny astronaut no taller than my knee), or flicks out its
Powerful Male-Velcro-Coated Bionic Tongue and destroys the target,
assuming that the target is coated in Female Velcro. The difficulty of
getting one's enemy to coat his armies in Female Velcro has long been
appreciated by NASA scientists, and research is in progress to develop
Bisexual Velcro at NASA's Secret Research Laboratories in Greenwich
Village. Homosexual Velcro of great power has already been developed at
Santa Fe, leading to great difficulties in Prising Apart Lesbian
Astronauts. The Soviet Space Programme, of course, fell behind largely
due to its failure to develop Velcro, and cosmonauts were reduced to
walking around their vessels on colossal balls of Blu-Tak and fastening
their Space Suit Flies with safety pins, resulting in Fatal But Not
Unpleasant Decompression.**
**American Moon Landing Astronauts, meanwhile, bypassed the need for
flies completely with the use of revolutionary new 'Wee In Your Pants'
technology pioneered by Grumman and Pampers.
Subject: Re: "Out of India"
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 25 Nov 1996 22:56:25 GMT
In article <57augi$b3o@halley.pi.net>, mcv@pi.netÁ says...
>
>vidynath@math.ohio-state.edu (Vidhyanath K. Rao) wrote:
>
>>In article <576vu0$s81@halley.pi.net>,
>>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:
>
>>>Scythian, an Iranian language still spoken in the Northern Caucasus by
>>>the Ossetes of Russia and Georgia.
>
>>Isn't Scythian supposed to be an Eastern Iranian language? And
>>Herodatus (sp?) record the tradition that Scythians expanded westwards
>>from around the Caspian?
>
>Yes. The Scythians originally occupied the area around the Caspian and
>further to the East and South along the Syrdarya and Amudarya rivers
>(Oxus and Jaxartes).
I am apparently finding different information in my sources:
Herodotus places the Scythians on the Crimea so does Mallory p 48
This is the Sredney Stog, Dereivka area.
Generally by c 650 BC the Scythians were to the West of the Crimea
and the Sarmatians to its east.
On the Syr Darya and Amu Darya there are two separate groups
of the Zaman Baba, one group around Kavat where the Amu Dayra
enters the Aral sea is dated c 4500 - 1800 BC while a separate
group near Tashkent on the Syr Dayra is dated c 1800-1200 BC
neither were Scythians.
> Around 650 BC they overran the Russian/Ukrainian
>steppe, inhabitated until that time by Cimmerians. The Cimmerian
>refugees fled into Anatolia, where they caused quite some trouble,
>especially to the Urartian kingdom of Van and to the Phrygians.
Herodotus says:
The wandering Scythians once lived in Asia and there warred with
the Massagetae, but with ill success; they therefore quitted their
homes, crossed the Araxes and entered the land of Cimmeria. For
the land which is now inhabited by the Scyths was formerly the
country of the Cimmerians.
Now if the Massagetae did live between the Amu Dayra and the Syr Dayra
then their territory extended to the other side of the Caspian Sea
because the Araxes runs from the Caspian Sea to the Black Sea
and that would place the original home of the Scythians north of
Armenia.
The Cimmerians, when they fled into Asia to escape the Scyths
made a settlement in the peninsual where the Greek city of Sinope
was afterwards built. The Scyths, it is plain, pursued them and
missing their road, poured into Media. For the Cimmerians kept
the line which led along the sea shore.
Then there was this:
"Above these dwell the Scythian husbandmen whom the Greeks living
near the Hypanis call Borysthenites, while they call themselves
Olbiopolites. These husbandman extend three days journey to a river
bearing the name of Panticapes, while northward the country is theirs
for *eleven days sail up the course of the Borysthenes*. Further inland
there is a vast tract which is uninhabited."
"Crossing the Panticaps and proceeding eastward of the Husbandmen
we come upon the wandering Scythians who neither plow nor sow.
Their country and the whole of this region, except Hylaea is quite bare
of trees. They extend toward the east a distance of fourteen days journey
occupying a tract which reaches to the river Gerrhus."
"On the opposite side of the Gerrhus is the Royal district, as it
is called: here dwells the largest and bravest of all the Scythian
tribes ...to the river Tanais. When one reaches the Tainais one is
no longer in Scythia the first region on crossing is that of the
Sauromatae."
The Tanais is the river leading out of the sea of Azov, twenty
geographic degrees or about 1400 miles to the west of the Amu Dyara.
>The Cimmerians in the Crimea (the Tauri) were left alone and shortly
>afterwards became allies of the Greek colonists in the Black Sea.
This is about a millenium later than the period we were discussing
Darius invades Scythia c 513 BC and is repulsed.
>
>The Scythians who stayed at home in Central Asia were known as Sakas
>(they later invaded the Indus Valley when Central Asia was overrun by
>the Yueh-Chi and the Huns).
From Mallory page 49
"Further to the east lay the bearers of Khotanese Saka, an Iranian
language situated in Chinese Turkhestan."
There just simply is no connection whatsoever between Saka and the
Scythians of c 650 BC. If your linguistics assume this they are wrong.
The Scythians were similar to other peoples like the Geloni, Budini
and Thyssagetae who occupied Russia as far west as the Caspian Sea
and the Ural river, but they can hardly have had much to do with
the lands to the east for when they pursue the Cimmerians in that
direction far enough to run into the Medes, Darius fights them
over it c 513 BC.
The Scythians who were defeated by the Parthiansc 129 BC were part
of the Selucid empire. They then turned around and encountered the
Yeuh Chi/Saka/Kushans about a decade later.
> Between Western Scythians and Eastern Sakas, the Sarmatians
>to the North of the Caspian made up a third branch
>of the Scythian people.
The Sarmatians were to the north of the Black Sea.
> Around 200 BC, they did to the Scyths what the
>Scyths had done to the Cimmerians, invading the S. Russian/Ukrainian
>steppe. Eventually the Iazygians and Roxolani (two Sarmatian tribes)
>were crushed between the Ostrogoths coming in from the west, and the
>Huns from teh East. The largest Sarmatian tribe, the Alans, had one
>clan participating in the Germanic Voelkerwanderung, who ended up in
>Portugal being slaughtered by the Visigoths. The main Alan contingent
>stayed behind in the Northern Caucasus however, where they are now known
>as Ossetes.
Iran was part of the Selucid kingdom until 247 BC The Parthians
revolted when Ptolomy III claimed Syria. The Ostrogoths and Huns
and Alans all come after the breakup of the Roman Empire.
The Ostrogoths ended up in the Region which had been Scythia
c 150-370 AD and the Alans in what had been Sarmatia c 370
where they were overrun by Huns.
This sort of skips over the Empires of Persia and the fact that they
neighbored the Saka in the east. Can we go back and walk through
the part with Darius and then maybe mention Alexander before discussing
the connection between the Selucid Scythians and the Yeuh Chi?
>
>The term "Eastern Iranian" is a linguistic one, and geographically
>slightly confusing. The Iranian languages are classified as follows:
>
>Eastern Iranian:
How about some mention of Persia and Alexander?
I would really like to see you take all of the following
one at a time. (I have so many books out they are avalanching...)
> Northeast Iranian:
> (OLD) (MIDDLE) (NEW)
> -- Scythian-Sarmatian Ossetic
> Avestan Khwarezmian --
> -- Sogdian Yaghnobi
> -- Bactrian --
> -- Saka (Khotanese) Pashto, Pamiri
>
> Southeast Iranian
> -- -- Parachi, Ormuri
>
>Western Iranian:
> Northwest Iranian:
> Median Parthian, Pehlevi --
> -- -- Yazdi
> -- -- Semnani
> -- -- Caspian (Gilaki, Mazanderani)
> -- -- Talysh
> -- -- Zaza-Gorani
> -- -- Baluchi
> -- -- Kurdish
> Southwest Iranian:
> Old Persian Middle Persian Persian, Tajiki
> -- -- Fars, Lari
> -- -- Luri, Kumzari
> -- -- Tati
>
>
>As can be seen, Eastern Scythian lives on in Pashto (Paxto), the
>official language of Afghanistan, and in Yaghnobi (W. Tadzhikia) and the
>languages of the Pamir (E. Tadzhikia/Afghanistan).
I am sorry, maybe I'm slow but I don't see where the Scythians
of 650 BC ever got anywhere close to connecting with the Pamir.
>
>
>==
>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
steve
