| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"johac" |
| Date: |
02 Feb 2007 01:43:28 AM |
| Object: |
Earliest instance of Semitic language presented... |
A spell to keep away snakes, of course.
---
The first public presentation on the earliest connected Semitic text
ever deciphered has taken place at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
The presentation was made by Prof. Richard Steiner, professor of Semitic
languages and literature at Yeshiva University in New York, in a lecture
entitled "Proto-Canaanite Spells in the Pyramid Texts: a First Look at
the History of Hebrew in the Third Millennium B.C.E." The lecture was
sponsored by the Academy of the Hebrew Language in cooperation with the
Hebrew University and the World Union of Jewish Studies.
Prof. Steiner, a past fellow of the Institute for Advanced Studies at
the Hebrew University and a member of the Academy of the Hebrew
Language, has deciphered a number of Semitic texts in various Egyptian
scripts over the past 25 years. In his lecture he interpreted Semitic
passages in Egyptian texts that were discovered more than a century ago,
inscribed on the subterranean walls of the pyramid of King Unas at
Saqqara in Egypt. The pyramid dates from the 24th century B.C.E., but
Egyptologists agree that the texts are older. The dates proposed for
them range from the 25th to the 30th centuries B.C.E. No continuous
Semitic texts from this period have ever been deciphered before.
The passages, serpent spells written in hieroglyphic characters, had
puzzled scholars who tried to read them as if they were ordinary
Egyptian texts. In August, 2002, Prof. Steiner received an email message
from Robert Ritner, professor of Egyptology at the University of
Chicago, asking whether any of them could be Semitic. "I immediately
recognized the Semitic words for `mother snake,'" said Steiner. "Later
it became clear that the surrounding spells, composed in Egyptian rather
than Semitic, also speak of the mother snake, and that the Egyptian and
Semitic texts elucidate each other."
Although written in Egyptian characters, the texts turned out to be
composed in the Semitic language spoken by the Canaanites in the third
millennium B.C.E., a very archaic form of the languages later known as
Phoenician and Hebrew. The Canaanite priests of the ancient city of
Byblos, in present-day Lebanon, provided these texts to the kings of
Egypt.
The port city of Byblos was of vital importance for the ancient
Egyptians. It was from there that they imported timber for construction
and resin for mummification. The new discovery shows that they also
imported magical spells to protect royal mummies against poisonous
snakes that were thought to understand Canaanite. Although the
Egyptians viewed their culture as far superior to that of their
neighbors, their morbid fear of snakes made them open to the borrowing
of Semitic magic.
###
"This finding should be of great interest to cultural historians," said
Prof. Steiner. "Linguists, too, will be interested in these texts. They
show that Proto-Canaanite, the common ancestor of Phoenician, Moabite,
Ammonite and Hebrew, existed already in the third millennium B.C.E as a
language distinct from Aramaic, Ugaritic, and the other Semitic
languages. And they provide the first direct evidence for the
pronunciation of Egyptian in this early period." The texts will also be
important to biblical scholars, since they shed light on several rare
words in the Bible, he said. "This is a sensational discovery," said
Moshe Bar-Asher, Bialik Professor of Hebrew Language at the Hebrew
University and president of the Academy of the Hebrew Language. "It is
the earliest attestation of a Semitic language, in general, and
Proto-Canaanite, in particular."
###
---
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-01/thuo-pmi012907.php
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Earliest instance of Semitic language presented... |
02 Feb 2007 02:37:11 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 23:43:28 -0800, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <jhachmann-C9A07E.23432801022007@news.giganews.com>
A spell to keep away snakes, of course.
---
The first public presentation on the earliest connected Semitic text
ever deciphered has taken place at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
The presentation was made by Prof. Richard Steiner, professor of Semitic
languages and literature at Yeshiva University in New York, in a lecture
entitled "Proto-Canaanite Spells in the Pyramid Texts: a First Look at
the History of Hebrew in the Third Millennium B.C.E." The lecture was
sponsored by the Academy of the Hebrew Language in cooperation with the
Hebrew University and the World Union of Jewish Studies.
Prof. Steiner, a past fellow of the Institute for Advanced Studies at
the Hebrew University and a member of the Academy of the Hebrew
Language, has deciphered a number of Semitic texts in various Egyptian
scripts over the past 25 years. In his lecture he interpreted Semitic
passages in Egyptian texts that were discovered more than a century ago,
inscribed on the subterranean walls of the pyramid of King Unas at
Saqqara in Egypt. The pyramid dates from the 24th century B.C.E., but
Egyptologists agree that the texts are older.
WTF????
So, the pyramid was built around some writing in that was already
hanging in the air??
The dates proposed for
them range from the 25th to the 30th centuries B.C.E. No continuous
Semitic texts from this period have ever been deciphered before.
The passages, serpent spells written in hieroglyphic characters, had
puzzled scholars who tried to read them as if they were ordinary
Egyptian texts. In August, 2002, Prof. Steiner received an email message
from Robert Ritner, professor of Egyptology at the University of
Chicago, asking whether any of them could be Semitic. "I immediately
recognized the Semitic words for `mother snake,'" said Steiner. "Later
This sounds suspicious, too.
If it were that obvious, a *real* linguist would have to have had to
actively suppress the thought on the very first reading.
it became clear that the surrounding spells, composed in Egyptian rather
than Semitic, also speak of the mother snake, and that the Egyptian and
Semitic texts elucidate each other."
Sounds like he read what he wanted to.
Change languages part way through?
Very suspicious, especially given the funding sources.
I would dearly like to see both the raw scripts, and his purported
analysis to check the hanky-panky myself.
The reference shows a "spell" with only 17 glyphs, with a VERY dodgy
explanation.
(I would hesistate to call it a translation.)
It does mention "drivel", which is a bit of a give-away.
(Checks calendar to see how close it is to April 1)
Although written in Egyptian characters, the texts turned out to be
composed in the Semitic language spoken by the Canaanites in the third
millennium B.C.E., a very archaic form of the languages later known as
Phoenician and Hebrew. The Canaanite priests of the ancient city of
Byblos, in present-day Lebanon, provided these texts to the kings of
Egypt.
And they know that these specific texts were "presented" to the Kings
of Egypt persoanlly by Canaanite Priests how, exactly????
This stinks to high heaven of "making it up as you go along".
The port city of Byblos was of vital importance for the ancient
Egyptians. It was from there that they imported timber for construction
and resin for mummification. The new discovery shows that they also
imported magical spells to protect royal mummies against poisonous
snakes that were thought to understand Canaanite. Although the
Egyptians viewed their culture as far superior to that of their
neighbors, their morbid fear of snakes made them open to the borrowing
of Semitic magic.
More specious invention of motives.
Where's the proof?
###
"This finding should be of great interest to cultural historians," said
Prof. Steiner. "Linguists, too, will be interested in these texts. They
Yes, I am.
show that Proto-Canaanite, the common ancestor of Phoenician, Moabite,
Ammonite and Hebrew, existed already in the third millennium B.C.E as a
language distinct from Aramaic, Ugaritic, and the other Semitic
languages. And they provide the first direct evidence for the
pronunciation of Egyptian in this early period." The texts will also be
important to biblical scholars, since they shed light on several rare
words in the Bible, he said. "This is a sensational discovery," said
How very convenient!
The source would not be biased in any way now, would it?
Moshe Bar-Asher, Bialik Professor of Hebrew Language at the Hebrew
University and president of the Academy of the Hebrew Language. "It is
the earliest attestation of a Semitic language, in general, and
Proto-Canaanite, in particular."
###
---
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-01/thuo-pmi012907.php
Thanks for this.
It sets my ***** detector twitching at defcon 3.
Show me the full scripts!
(With his interpretation/guesses)
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Smiler" |
|
| Title: Re: Earliest instance of Semitic language presented... |
02 Feb 2007 10:11:18 PM |
|
|
"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:um77s21rckiojkbfpgnsvvqdtie8areh06@4ax.com...
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 23:43:28 -0800, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <jhachmann-C9A07E.23432801022007@news.giganews.com>
A spell to keep away snakes, of course.
---
The first public presentation on the earliest connected Semitic text
ever deciphered has taken place at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
The presentation was made by Prof. Richard Steiner, professor of Semitic
languages and literature at Yeshiva University in New York, in a lecture
entitled "Proto-Canaanite Spells in the Pyramid Texts: a First Look at
the History of Hebrew in the Third Millennium B.C.E." The lecture was
sponsored by the Academy of the Hebrew Language in cooperation with the
Hebrew University and the World Union of Jewish Studies.
Prof. Steiner, a past fellow of the Institute for Advanced Studies at
the Hebrew University and a member of the Academy of the Hebrew
Language, has deciphered a number of Semitic texts in various Egyptian
scripts over the past 25 years. In his lecture he interpreted Semitic
passages in Egyptian texts that were discovered more than a century ago,
inscribed on the subterranean walls of the pyramid of King Unas at
Saqqara in Egypt. The pyramid dates from the 24th century B.C.E., but
Egyptologists agree that the texts are older.
WTF????
So, the pyramid was built around some writing in that was already
hanging in the air??
One possibility is that the inscriptions were on stones elsewhere and these
were incorporated into the tomb during it's construction.
Not saying that this *is* the case, but it is possible.
Smiler,
The godless one
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Earliest instance of Semitic language presented... |
03 Feb 2007 02:51:27 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 04:11:18 GMT, "Smiler" <Smiler@Joe.King.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <GXTwh.3821$KC.999@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>
"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:um77s21rckiojkbfpgnsvvqdtie8areh06@4ax.com...
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 23:43:28 -0800, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <jhachmann-C9A07E.23432801022007@news.giganews.com>
A spell to keep away snakes, of course.
---
The first public presentation on the earliest connected Semitic text
ever deciphered has taken place at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
The presentation was made by Prof. Richard Steiner, professor of Semitic
languages and literature at Yeshiva University in New York, in a lecture
entitled "Proto-Canaanite Spells in the Pyramid Texts: a First Look at
the History of Hebrew in the Third Millennium B.C.E." The lecture was
sponsored by the Academy of the Hebrew Language in cooperation with the
Hebrew University and the World Union of Jewish Studies.
Prof. Steiner, a past fellow of the Institute for Advanced Studies at
the Hebrew University and a member of the Academy of the Hebrew
Language, has deciphered a number of Semitic texts in various Egyptian
scripts over the past 25 years. In his lecture he interpreted Semitic
passages in Egyptian texts that were discovered more than a century ago,
inscribed on the subterranean walls of the pyramid of King Unas at
Saqqara in Egypt. The pyramid dates from the 24th century B.C.E., but
Egyptologists agree that the texts are older.
WTF????
So, the pyramid was built around some writing in that was already
hanging in the air??
One possibility is that the inscriptions were on stones elsewhere and these
were incorporated into the tomb during it's construction.
Not saying that this *is* the case, but it is possible.
From what I know of Egyptian tomb construction, and their religious
rites re hieroglyphs, that *IS* absolutely 101% impossible.
The mere thought that the religious elite of the time would defer to
some filthy foreign non-Egyptian unwashed ignorant illiterate
goat-herder's writings, written in THE MAGICAL HOLY script as sent
exclusively to the select of Egyptian hierarchy by the pick of the
Gods, in a filthy semitic language, is utterly beyond even
unreasonable belief.
It is utterly impossible for such a thing to have even lasted for 10
seconds without being smashed by the priests to a crumbled powder, let
alone being incorporated into a Pharonic tomb.
No, no, no!!
This whole thing stinks to high heaving!
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Earliest instance of Semitic language presented... |
03 Feb 2007 12:17:06 AM |
|
|
In article <um77s21rckiojkbfpgnsvvqdtie8areh06@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 23:43:28 -0800, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <jhachmann-C9A07E.23432801022007@news.giganews.com>
A spell to keep away snakes, of course.
---
The first public presentation on the earliest connected Semitic text
ever deciphered has taken place at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
The presentation was made by Prof. Richard Steiner, professor of Semitic
languages and literature at k, in a lecture
entitled "Proto-Canaanite Spells in the Pyramid Texts: a First Look at
the History of Hebrew in the Third Millennium B.C.E." The lecture was
sponsored by the Academy of the Hebrew Language in cooperation with the
Hebrew University and the World Union of Jewish Studies.
Prof. Steiner, a past fellow of the Institute for Advanced Studies at
the Hebrew University and a member of the Academy of the Hebrew
Language, has deciphered a number of Semitic texts in various Egyptian
scripts over the past 25 years. In his lecture he interpreted Semitic
passages in Egyptian texts that were discovered more than a century ago,
inscribed on the subterranean walls of the pyramid of King Unas at
Saqqara in Egypt. The pyramid dates from the 24th century B.C.E., but
Egyptologists agree that the texts are older.
WTF????
So, the pyramid was built around some writing in that was already
hanging in the air??
It may have been that the builders of the pyramid may have copied the
text from a preexisting document.
The dates proposed for
them range from the 25th to the 30th centuries B.C.E. No continuous
Semitic texts from this period have ever been deciphered before.
The passages, serpent spells written in hieroglyphic characters, had
puzzled scholars who tried to read them as if they were ordinary
Egyptian texts. In August, 2002, Prof. Steiner received an email message
from Robert Ritner, professor of Egyptology at the University of
Chicago, asking whether any of them could be Semitic. "I immediately
recognized the Semitic words for `mother snake,'" said Steiner. "Later
This sounds suspicious, too.
If it were that obvious, a *real* linguist would have to have had to
actively suppress the thought on the very first reading.
it became clear that the surrounding spells, composed in Egyptian rather
than Semitic, also speak of the mother snake, and that the Egyptian and
Semitic texts elucidate each other."
Sounds like he read what he wanted to.
Change languages part way through?
Very suspicious, especially given the funding sources.
I would dearly like to see both the raw scripts, and his purported
analysis to check the hanky-panky myself.
Unfortunately they only show a fragment at the Eurekalert website.
The reference shows a "spell" with only 17 glyphs, with a VERY dodgy
explanation.
(I would hesistate to call it a translation.)
It does mention "drivel", which is a bit of a give-away.
(Checks calendar to see how close it is to April 1)
I think he's using 'drivel' to refer the snakes venom.
Although written in Egyptian characters, the texts turned out to be
composed in the Semitic language spoken by the Canaanites in the third
millennium B.C.E., a very archaic form of the languages later known as
Phoenician and Hebrew. The Canaanite priests of the ancient city of
Byblos, in present-day Lebanon, provided these texts to the kings of
Egypt.
And they know that these specific texts were "presented" to the Kings
of Egypt persoanlly by Canaanite Priests how, exactly????
This stinks to high heaven of "making it up as you go along".
If these were 'magic' spells, wouldn't magic be the provenance of
priests? The priests could have sent scrolls to the kings rather than
bring them personally.
The port city of Byblos was of vital importance for the ancient
Egyptians. It was from there that they imported timber for construction
and resin for mummification. The new discovery shows that they also
imported magical spells to protect royal mummies against poisonous
snakes that were thought to understand Canaanite. Although the
Egyptians viewed their culture as far superior to that of their
neighbors, their morbid fear of snakes made them open to the borrowing
of Semitic magic.
"...snakes that were thought to understand Canaanite" This my main
reason for posting this. I thought it was rather amusing that the
ancients might have thought that snakes might understand one human
language and not another.
More specious invention of motives.
Where's the proof?
###
"This finding should be of great interest to cultural historians," said
Prof. Steiner. "Linguists, too, will be interested in these texts. They
Yes, I am.
show that Proto-Canaanite, the common ancestor of Phoenician, Moabite,
Ammonite and Hebrew, existed already in the third millennium B.C.E as a
language distinct from Aramaic, Ugaritic, and the other Semitic
languages. And they provide the first direct evidence for the
pronunciation of Egyptian in this early period." The texts will also be
important to biblical scholars, since they shed light on several rare
words in the Bible, he said. "This is a sensational discovery," said
How very convenient!
The source would not be biased in any way now, would it?
Moshe Bar-Asher, Bialik Professor of Hebrew Language at the Hebrew
University and president of the Academy of the Hebrew Language. "It is
the earliest attestation of a Semitic language, in general, and
Proto-Canaanite, in particular."
###
---
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-01/thuo-pmi012907.php
Thanks for this.
It sets my ***** detector twitching at defcon 3.
Show me the full scripts!
(With his interpretation/guesses)
I agree that the evidence in the press release is rather sketchy.
Yeshiva University has essentially the same amount of information at
it's website:
http://spider.mc.yu.edu/news/articles/article.cfm?id=101302
but does have a link to the address given in Israel. Unfortunately, the
site is in Hebrew, which I don't read.
I'm not criticizing, you seem to be very knowledgeable about these
languages, but why do you think this is bogus?
--
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Earliest instance of Semitic language presented... |
03 Feb 2007 03:42:04 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 22:17:06 -0800, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <jhachmann-F48B3E.22170602022007@news.giganews.com>
In article <um77s21rckiojkbfpgnsvvqdtie8areh06@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 23:43:28 -0800, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <jhachmann-C9A07E.23432801022007@news.giganews.com>
A spell to keep away snakes, of course.
---
The first public presentation on the earliest connected Semitic text
ever deciphered has taken place at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
The presentation was made by Prof. Richard Steiner, professor of Semitic
languages and literature at k, in a lecture
entitled "Proto-Canaanite Spells in the Pyramid Texts: a First Look at
the History of Hebrew in the Third Millennium B.C.E." The lecture was
sponsored by the Academy of the Hebrew Language in cooperation with the
Hebrew University and the World Union of Jewish Studies.
Prof. Steiner, a past fellow of the Institute for Advanced Studies at
the Hebrew University and a member of the Academy of the Hebrew
Language, has deciphered a number of Semitic texts in various Egyptian
scripts over the past 25 years. In his lecture he interpreted Semitic
passages in Egyptian texts that were discovered more than a century ago,
inscribed on the subterranean walls of the pyramid of King Unas at
Saqqara in Egypt. The pyramid dates from the 24th century B.C.E., but
Egyptologists agree that the texts are older.
WTF????
So, the pyramid was built around some writing in that was already
hanging in the air??
It may have been that the builders of the pyramid may have copied the
text from a preexisting document.
This is most highly improbable, as I have mildly outlined in a
response to a similar suggestion in another post above.
David Hume might have something to say about the explanation being far
more improbable than the null hypothesis: they are mistaken, or making
it up.
Either way it is what we scientists summarize as: "probably *****".
The dates proposed for
them range from the 25th to the 30th centuries B.C.E. No continuous
Semitic texts from this period have ever been deciphered before.
The passages, serpent spells written in hieroglyphic characters, had
puzzled scholars who tried to read them as if they were ordinary
Egyptian texts. In August, 2002, Prof. Steiner received an email message
from Robert Ritner, professor of Egyptology at the University of
Chicago, asking whether any of them could be Semitic. "I immediately
recognized the Semitic words for `mother snake,'" said Steiner. "Later
This sounds suspicious, too.
If it were that obvious, a *real* linguist would have to have had to
actively suppress the thought on the very first reading.
it became clear that the surrounding spells, composed in Egyptian rather
than Semitic, also speak of the mother snake, and that the Egyptian and
Semitic texts elucidate each other."
Sounds like he read what he wanted to.
Change languages part way through?
Very suspicious, especially given the funding sources.
I would dearly like to see both the raw scripts, and his purported
analysis to check the hanky-panky myself.
Unfortunately they only show a fragment at the Eurekalert website.
And that is all I have found 'on-line'.
I have yet to attempt anything more than a cursory translation of it
myself, but intend to set aside time to do so next week.
(I learned Egyptian Hieroglyphics in the early 80's, and have now
managed to forget most of it.)
The reference shows a "spell" with only 17 glyphs, with a VERY dodgy
explanation.
(I would hesistate to call it a translation.)
It does mention "drivel", which is a bit of a give-away.
(Checks calendar to see how close it is to April 1)
I think he's using 'drivel' to refer the snakes venom.
Oh, how sharper than a serpent's tooth is a thankless poster!
Yes, I knew that, thanks.
I was employing it as a seemingly "toothless" academic 'barb'.
It fell flat, I see.
Although written in Egyptian characters, the texts turned out to be
composed in the Semitic language spoken by the Canaanites in the third
millennium B.C.E., a very archaic form of the languages later known as
Phoenician and Hebrew. The Canaanite priests of the ancient city of
Byblos, in present-day Lebanon, provided these texts to the kings of
Egypt.
And they know that these specific texts were "presented" to the Kings
of Egypt persoanlly by Canaanite Priests how, exactly????
This stinks to high heaven of "making it up as you go along".
If these were 'magic' spells, wouldn't magic be the provenance of
priests? The priests could have sent scrolls to the kings rather than
bring them personally.
Everything was the provenance of the priests.
The Pharaoh can be compared to Dubya: powerful but utterly deluded,
naive and clueless.
The Priests are the Cheney's, the Wolfowitlesses, the Rupert Murdochs
etc.; they are/were really in executive authority over the province.
It's no wonder that we STILL USE the parallel term for these powerful
controlling elite: "Hierarchy", a.k.a. the Priesthood.
If the priests chose to bring the papyri to Dubya, (sorry: the spoilt
Pharaoh), they'd have had a plan for more power for THEM up their
sleeve.
No power whatsoever could be derived from the insertion of an
inscription whose genesis was the result of the theft of their sacred
god-given holy script, and the copying thereof in a Royal and blessed
Tomb, of a bunch of filthy low-life goat herders ravings in a
primitive foreign non-egyptian language!
I could probably have put this in a more elegant and Dawkinesque kind
of way, if I were to write a book on the subject, (which I may do in
the future), but I cannot spare the time at the moment, other than to
provide this cursory rant.
I just hope that in my own inadequate and inarticulate manner, I have
put the point across effectively.
It is entirely my fault if I have not.
The port city of Byblos was of vital importance for the ancient
Egyptians. It was from there that they imported timber for construction
and resin for mummification. The new discovery shows that they also
imported magical spells to protect royal mummies against poisonous
snakes that were thought to understand Canaanite. Although the
Egyptians viewed their culture as far superior to that of their
neighbors, their morbid fear of snakes made them open to the borrowing
of Semitic magic.
"...snakes that were thought to understand Canaanite" This my main
reason for posting this. I thought it was rather amusing that the
ancients might have thought that snakes might understand one human
language and not another.
I have yet to see the originals, and the translator's notes, so am
very wary to take it on face value.
The source of funding at least makes me suspicious in the extreme.
More specious invention of motives.
Where's the proof?
###
"This finding should be of great interest to cultural historians," said
Prof. Steiner. "Linguists, too, will be interested in these texts. They
Yes, I am.
show that Proto-Canaanite, the common ancestor of Phoenician, Moabite,
Ammonite and Hebrew, existed already in the third millennium B.C.E as a
language distinct from Aramaic, Ugaritic, and the other Semitic
languages. And they provide the first direct evidence for the
pronunciation of Egyptian in this early period." The texts will also be
important to biblical scholars, since they shed light on several rare
words in the Bible, he said. "This is a sensational discovery," said
How very convenient!
The source would not be biased in any way now, would it?
Moshe Bar-Asher, Bialik Professor of Hebrew Language at the Hebrew
University and president of the Academy of the Hebrew Language. "It is
the earliest attestation of a Semitic language, in general, and
Proto-Canaanite, in particular."
###
---
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-01/thuo-pmi012907.php
Thanks for this.
It sets my ***** detector twitching at defcon 3.
Show me the full scripts!
(With his interpretation/guesses)
I agree that the evidence in the press release is rather sketchy.
A sketch with only one line on it, and even that one line in
disappearing ink is less than "sketchy"!
Yeshiva University has essentially the same amount of information at
it's website:
http://spider.mc.yu.edu/news/articles/article.cfm?id=101302
but does have a link to the address given in Israel. Unfortunately, the
site is in Hebrew, which I don't read.
I read Hebrew (haltingly) and did not find anything ont he site that
had anything to add.
I'm not criticizing, you seem to be very knowledgeable about these
languages, but why do you think this is bogus?
A feeling.
A feeling built up with hundreds of little signs and big signs, all of
which add up to "Bogus!!".
I'm not often wrong in my intuitions, which is another term for
non-conscious information processing, that taps into a life-time of
pattern-matching.
Read my individual comments, both here and in other responses, and you
will begin to build up my pattern of skepticism on this topic.
I have had the feeling all along that this "stinks to high heaven", if
I may be excused the theological metaphor.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Earliest instance of Semitic language presented... |
04 Feb 2007 12:04:36 AM |
|
|
In article <gsl8s2tdd103ualdfqf5crgdd7umcf3i5e@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 22:17:06 -0800, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <jhachmann-F48B3E.22170602022007@news.giganews.com>
In article <um77s21rckiojkbfpgnsvvqdtie8areh06@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 23:43:28 -0800, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <jhachmann-C9A07E.23432801022007@news.giganews.com>
A spell to keep away snakes, of course.
---
The first public presentation on the earliest connected Semitic text
ever deciphered has taken place at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
The presentation was made by Prof. Richard Steiner, professor of Semitic
languages and literature at k, in a lecture
entitled "Proto-Canaanite Spells in the Pyramid Texts: a First Look at
the History of Hebrew in the Third Millennium B.C.E." The lecture was
sponsored by the Academy of the Hebrew Language in cooperation with the
Hebrew University and the World Union of Jewish Studies.
Prof. Steiner, a past fellow of the Institute for Advanced Studies at
the Hebrew University and a member of the Academy of the Hebrew
Language, has deciphered a number of Semitic texts in various Egyptian
scripts over the past 25 years. In his lecture he interpreted Semitic
passages in Egyptian texts that were discovered more than a century ago,
inscribed on the subterranean walls of the pyramid of King Unas at
Saqqara in Egypt. The pyramid dates from the 24th century B.C.E., but
Egyptologists agree that the texts are older.
WTF????
So, the pyramid was built around some writing in that was already
hanging in the air??
It may have been that the builders of the pyramid may have copied the
text from a preexisting document.
This is most highly improbable, as I have mildly outlined in a
response to a similar suggestion in another post above.
David Hume might have something to say about the explanation being far
more improbable than the null hypothesis: they are mistaken, or making
it up.
Either way it is what we scientists summarize as: "probably *****".
I saw the other posts. The explanation sounds reasonable.
The dates proposed for
them range from the 25th to the 30th centuries B.C.E. No continuous
Semitic texts from this period have ever been deciphered before.
The passages, serpent spells written in hieroglyphic characters, had
puzzled scholars who tried to read them as if they were ordinary
Egyptian texts. In August, 2002, Prof. Steiner received an email message
from Robert Ritner, professor of Egyptology at the University of
Chicago, asking whether any of them could be Semitic. "I immediately
recognized the Semitic words for `mother snake,'" said Steiner. "Later
This sounds suspicious, too.
If it were that obvious, a *real* linguist would have to have had to
actively suppress the thought on the very first reading.
it became clear that the surrounding spells, composed in Egyptian rather
than Semitic, also speak of the mother snake, and that the Egyptian and
Semitic texts elucidate each other."
Sounds like he read what he wanted to.
Change languages part way through?
Very suspicious, especially given the funding sources.
I would dearly like to see both the raw scripts, and his purported
analysis to check the hanky-panky myself.
Unfortunately they only show a fragment at the Eurekalert website.
And that is all I have found 'on-line'.
I have yet to attempt anything more than a cursory translation of it
myself, but intend to set aside time to do so next week.
(I learned Egyptian Hieroglyphics in the early 80's, and have now
managed to forget most of it.)
I see that you know more about this stuff than I do.
The reference shows a "spell" with only 17 glyphs, with a VERY dodgy
explanation.
(I would hesistate to call it a translation.)
It does mention "drivel", which is a bit of a give-away.
(Checks calendar to see how close it is to April 1)
I think he's using 'drivel' to refer the snakes venom.
Oh, how sharper than a serpent's tooth is a thankless poster!
Yes, I knew that, thanks.
I was employing it as a seemingly "toothless" academic 'barb'.
It fell flat, I see.
OK. It just went "whoosh".
Although written in Egyptian characters, the texts turned out to be
composed in the Semitic language spoken by the Canaanites in the third
millennium B.C.E., a very archaic form of the languages later known as
Phoenician and Hebrew. The Canaanite priests of the ancient city of
Byblos, in present-day Lebanon, provided these texts to the kings of
Egypt.
And they know that these specific texts were "presented" to the Kings
of Egypt persoanlly by Canaanite Priests how, exactly????
This stinks to high heaven of "making it up as you go along".
If these were 'magic' spells, wouldn't magic be the provenance of
priests? The priests could have sent scrolls to the kings rather than
bring them personally.
Everything was the provenance of the priests.
The Pharaoh can be compared to Dubya: powerful but utterly deluded,
naive and clueless.
The Priests are the Cheney's, the Wolfowitlesses, the Rupert Murdochs
etc.; they are/were really in executive authority over the province.
It's no wonder that we STILL USE the parallel term for these powerful
controlling elite: "Hierarchy", a.k.a. the Priesthood.
If the priests chose to bring the papyri to Dubya, (sorry: the spoilt
Pharaoh), they'd have had a plan for more power for THEM up their
sleeve.
No power whatsoever could be derived from the insertion of an
inscription whose genesis was the result of the theft of their sacred
god-given holy script, and the copying thereof in a Royal and blessed
Tomb, of a bunch of filthy low-life goat herders ravings in a
primitive foreign non-egyptian language!
I could probably have put this in a more elegant and Dawkinesque kind
of way, if I were to write a book on the subject, (which I may do in
the future), but I cannot spare the time at the moment, other than to
provide this cursory rant.
I just hope that in my own inadequate and inarticulate manner, I have
put the point across effectively.
It is entirely my fault if I have not.
I get it. However, I wonder what the motives of the author of the report
were then?
The port city of Byblos was of vital importance for the ancient
Egyptians. It was from there that they imported timber for construction
and resin for mummification. The new discovery shows that they also
imported magical spells to protect royal mummies against poisonous
snakes that were thought to understand Canaanite. Although the
Egyptians viewed their culture as far superior to that of their
neighbors, their morbid fear of snakes made them open to the borrowing
of Semitic magic.
"...snakes that were thought to understand Canaanite" This my main
reason for posting this. I thought it was rather amusing that the
ancients might have thought that snakes might understand one human
language and not another.
I have yet to see the originals, and the translator's notes, so am
very wary to take it on face value.
The source of funding at least makes me suspicious in the extreme.
How so?
More specious invention of motives.
Where's the proof?
###
"This finding should be of great interest to cultural historians," said
Prof. Steiner. "Linguists, too, will be interested in these texts. They
Yes, I am.
show that Proto-Canaanite, the common ancestor of Phoenician, Moabite,
Ammonite and Hebrew, existed already in the third millennium B.C.E as a
language distinct from Aramaic, Ugaritic, and the other Semitic
languages. And they provide the first direct evidence for the
pronunciation of Egyptian in this early period." The texts will also be
important to biblical scholars, since they shed light on several rare
words in the Bible, he said. "This is a sensational discovery," said
How very convenient!
The source would not be biased in any way now, would it?
Moshe Bar-Asher, Bialik Professor of Hebrew Language at the Hebrew
University and president of the Academy of the Hebrew Language. "It is
the earliest attestation of a Semitic language, in general, and
Proto-Canaanite, in particular."
###
---
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-01/thuo-pmi012907.php
Thanks for this.
It sets my ***** detector twitching at defcon 3.
Show me the full scripts!
(With his interpretation/guesses)
I agree that the evidence in the press release is rather sketchy.
A sketch with only one line on it, and even that one line in
disappearing ink is less than "sketchy"!
Yeshiva University has essentially the same amount of information at
it's website:
http://spider.mc.yu.edu/news/articles/article.cfm?id=101302
but does have a link to the address given in Israel. Unfortunately, the
site is in Hebrew, which I don't read.
I read Hebrew (haltingly) and did not find anything ont he site that
had anything to add.
I'm not criticizing, you seem to be very knowledgeable about these
languages, but why do you think this is bogus?
A feeling.
A feeling built up with hundreds of little signs and big signs, all of
which add up to "Bogus!!".
I'm not often wrong in my intuitions, which is another term for
non-conscious information processing, that taps into a life-time of
pattern-matching.
Read my individual comments, both here and in other responses, and you
will begin to build up my pattern of skepticism on this topic.
I have had the feeling all along that this "stinks to high heaven", if
I may be excused the theological metaphor.
I'll defer to your knowledge in this field and label this report as
'suspect'. I would be interested to see what others in this field have
to say about this topic.
--
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Earliest instance of Semitic language presented... |
04 Feb 2007 02:28:19 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 22:04:36 -0800, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <jhachmann-6F32FA.22043603022007@news.giganews.com>
In article <gsl8s2tdd103ualdfqf5crgdd7umcf3i5e@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 22:17:06 -0800, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <jhachmann-F48B3E.22170602022007@news.giganews.com>
In article <um77s21rckiojkbfpgnsvvqdtie8areh06@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 23:43:28 -0800, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <jhachmann-C9A07E.23432801022007@news.giganews.com>
A spell to keep away snakes, of course.
---
The first public presentation on the earliest connected Semitic text
ever deciphered has taken place at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
The presentation was made by Prof. Richard Steiner, professor of Semitic
languages and literature at k, in a lecture
entitled "Proto-Canaanite Spells in the Pyramid Texts: a First Look at
the History of Hebrew in the Third Millennium B.C.E." The lecture was
sponsored by the Academy of the Hebrew Language in cooperation with the
Hebrew University and the World Union of Jewish Studies.
Prof. Steiner, a past fellow of the Institute for Advanced Studies at
the Hebrew University and a member of the Academy of the Hebrew
Language, has deciphered a number of Semitic texts in various Egyptian
scripts over the past 25 years. In his lecture he interpreted Semitic
passages in Egyptian texts that were discovered more than a century ago,
inscribed on the subterranean walls of the pyramid of King Unas at
Saqqara in Egypt. The pyramid dates from the 24th century B.C.E., but
Egyptologists agree that the texts are older.
WTF????
So, the pyramid was built around some writing in that was already
hanging in the air??
It may have been that the builders of the pyramid may have copied the
text from a preexisting document.
This is most highly improbable, as I have mildly outlined in a
response to a similar suggestion in another post above.
David Hume might have something to say about the explanation being far
more improbable than the null hypothesis: they are mistaken, or making
it up.
Either way it is what we scientists summarize as: "probably *****".
I saw the other posts. The explanation sounds reasonable.
Mine, or theirs?
The dates proposed for
them range from the 25th to the 30th centuries B.C.E. No continuous
Semitic texts from this period have ever been deciphered before.
The passages, serpent spells written in hieroglyphic characters, had
puzzled scholars who tried to read them as if they were ordinary
Egyptian texts. In August, 2002, Prof. Steiner received an email message
from Robert Ritner, professor of Egyptology at the University of
Chicago, asking whether any of them could be Semitic. "I immediately
recognized the Semitic words for `mother snake,'" said Steiner. "Later
This sounds suspicious, too.
If it were that obvious, a *real* linguist would have to have had to
actively suppress the thought on the very first reading.
it became clear that the surrounding spells, composed in Egyptian rather
than Semitic, also speak of the mother snake, and that the Egyptian and
Semitic texts elucidate each other."
Sounds like he read what he wanted to.
Change languages part way through?
Very suspicious, especially given the funding sources.
I would dearly like to see both the raw scripts, and his purported
analysis to check the hanky-panky myself.
Unfortunately they only show a fragment at the Eurekalert website.
And that is all I have found 'on-line'.
I have yet to attempt anything more than a cursory translation of it
myself, but intend to set aside time to do so next week.
(I learned Egyptian Hieroglyphics in the early 80's, and have now
managed to forget most of it.)
I see that you know more about this stuff than I do.
After mulling the images over in my mind last night, (instead of
getting my required shut-eye, you know how it is), and I get the
strong suspicion that the "translation" was apparently garnered from a
left to right reading!!!!!
I will check this later, but if true, it completely blows any semitic
rendering clear out of the water!
I'm only commenting from fleeting remembered impressions, mind.
But it adds another nail into the "suspicious" tomb lid, as it were.
The reference shows a "spell" with only 17 glyphs, with a VERY dodgy
explanation.
(I would hesistate to call it a translation.)
It does mention "drivel", which is a bit of a give-away.
(Checks calendar to see how close it is to April 1)
I think he's using 'drivel' to refer the snakes venom.
Oh, how sharper than a serpent's tooth is a thankless poster!
Yes, I knew that, thanks.
I was employing it as a seemingly "toothless" academic 'barb'.
It fell flat, I see.
OK. It just went "whoosh".
Although written in Egyptian characters, the texts turned out to be
composed in the Semitic language spoken by the Canaanites in the third
millennium B.C.E., a very archaic form of the languages later known as
Phoenician and Hebrew. The Canaanite priests of the ancient city of
Byblos, in present-day Lebanon, provided these texts to the kings of
Egypt.
And they know that these specific texts were "presented" to the Kings
of Egypt persoanlly by Canaanite Priests how, exactly????
This stinks to high heaven of "making it up as you go along".
If these were 'magic' spells, wouldn't magic be the provenance of
priests? The priests could have sent scrolls to the kings rather than
bring them personally.
Everything was the provenance of the priests.
The Pharaoh can be compared to Dubya: powerful but utterly deluded,
naive and clueless.
The Priests are the Cheney's, the Wolfowitlesses, the Rupert Murdochs
etc.; they are/were really in executive authority over the province.
It's no wonder that we STILL USE the parallel term for these powerful
controlling elite: "Hierarchy", a.k.a. the Priesthood.
If the priests chose to bring the papyri to Dubya, (sorry: the spoilt
Pharaoh), they'd have had a plan for more power for THEM up their
sleeve.
No power whatsoever could be derived from the insertion of an
inscription whose genesis was the result of the theft of their sacred
god-given holy script, and the copying thereof in a Royal and blessed
Tomb, of a bunch of filthy low-life goat herders ravings in a
primitive foreign non-egyptian language!
I could probably have put this in a more elegant and Dawkinesque kind
of way, if I were to write a book on the subject, (which I may do in
the future), but I cannot spare the time at the moment, other than to
provide this cursory rant.
I just hope that in my own inadequate and inarticulate manner, I have
put the point across effectively.
It is entirely my fault if I have not.
I get it. However, I wonder what the motives of the author of the report
were then?
One can only guess.
But it is reasonable to assume the usual motives:
Prestige, confirmation of preformed notions, fame, respect, income,
and the consequent personal and corporate power that both the
individuals and the funding institution derive.
This "discovery" will provide a massive boost to Jews and Christians
worldwide.
The Pope will sit up and take notice too, mark my words.
If correct, the find would be world changing.
The motives for fraud are legion, and far too tempting to warrant
discounting of outright fraud.
(It wouldn't be the first time, either)
The port city of Byblos was of vital importance for the ancient
Egyptians. It was from there that they imported timber for construction
and resin for mummification. The new discovery shows that they also
imported magical spells to protect royal mummies against poisonous
snakes that were thought to understand Canaanite. Although the
Egyptians viewed their culture as far superior to that of their
neighbors, their morbid fear of snakes made them open to the borrowing
of Semitic magic.
"...snakes that were thought to understand Canaanite" This my main
reason for posting this. I thought it was rather amusing that the
ancients might have thought that snakes might understand one human
language and not another.
I have yet to see the originals, and the translator's notes, so am
very wary to take it on face value.
The source of funding at least makes me suspicious in the extreme.
How so?
A Hebrew University making an important "discovery" about the very
genesis of the Hebrew peoples, and the veracity of some of their OT
bible tales?
Are you kidding me, Hymie, already?
More specious invention of motives.
Where's the proof?
###
"This finding should be of great interest to cultural historians," said
Prof. Steiner. "Linguists, too, will be interested in these texts. They
Yes, I am.
show that Proto-Canaanite, the common ancestor of Phoenician, Moabite,
Ammonite and Hebrew, existed already in the third millennium B.C.E as a
language distinct from Aramaic, Ugaritic, and the other Semitic
languages. And they provide the first direct evidence for the
pronunciation of Egyptian in this early period." The texts will also be
important to biblical scholars, since they shed light on several rare
words in the Bible, he said. "This is a sensational discovery," said
How very convenient!
The source would not be biased in any way now, would it?
Moshe Bar-Asher, Bialik Professor of Hebrew Language at the Hebrew
University and president of the Academy of the Hebrew Language. "It is
the earliest attestation of a Semitic language, in general, and
Proto-Canaanite, in particular."
###
---
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-01/thuo-pmi012907.php
Thanks for this.
It sets my ***** detector twitching at defcon 3.
Show me the full scripts!
(With his interpretation/guesses)
I agree that the evidence in the press release is rather sketchy.
A sketch with only one line on it, and even that one line in
disappearing ink is less than "sketchy"!
Yeshiva University has essentially the same amount of information at
it's website:
http://spider.mc.yu.edu/news/articles/article.cfm?id=101302
but does have a link to the address given in Israel. Unfortunately, the
site is in Hebrew, which I don't read.
I read Hebrew (haltingly) and did not find anything ont he site that
had anything to add.
I'm not criticizing, you seem to be very knowledgeable about these
languages, but why do you think this is bogus?
A feeling.
A feeling built up with hundreds of little signs and big signs, all of
which add up to "Bogus!!".
I'm not often wrong in my intuitions, which is another term for
non-conscious information processing, that taps into a life-time of
pattern-matching.
Read my individual comments, both here and in other responses, and you
will begin to build up my pattern of skepticism on this topic.
I have had the feeling all along that this "stinks to high heaven", if
I may be excused the theological metaphor.
I'll defer to your knowledge in this field and label this report as
'suspect'. I would be interested to see what others in this field have
to say about this topic.
As am I.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Earliest instance of Semitic language presented... |
05 Feb 2007 12:25:13 AM |
|
|
In article <f16bs21jn9v0egolqvhpsgbemiuq8mm5u4@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 22:04:36 -0800, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <jhachmann-6F32FA.22043603022007@news.giganews.com>
In article <gsl8s2tdd103ualdfqf5crgdd7umcf3i5e@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 22:17:06 -0800, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <jhachmann-F48B3E.22170602022007@news.giganews.com>
In article <um77s21rckiojkbfpgnsvvqdtie8areh06@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 23:43:28 -0800, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <jhachmann-C9A07E.23432801022007@news.giganews.com>
A spell to keep away snakes, of course.
---
The first public presentation on the earliest connected Semitic text
ever deciphered has taken place at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
The presentation was made by Prof. Richard Steiner, professor of
Semitic
languages and literature at k, in a lecture
entitled "Proto-Canaanite Spells in the Pyramid Texts: a First Look at
the History of Hebrew in the Third Millennium B.C.E." The lecture was
sponsored by the Academy of the Hebrew Language in cooperation with
the
Hebrew University and the World Union of Jewish Studies.
Prof. Steiner, a past fellow of the Institute for Advanced Studies at
the Hebrew University and a member of the Academy of the Hebrew
Language, has deciphered a number of Semitic texts in various Egyptian
scripts over the past 25 years. In his lecture he interpreted Semitic
passages in Egyptian texts that were discovered more than a century
ago,
inscribed on the subterranean walls of the pyramid of King Unas at
Saqqara in Egypt. The pyramid dates from the 24th century B.C.E., but
Egyptologists agree that the texts are older.
WTF????
So, the pyramid was built around some writing in that was already
hanging in the air??
It may have been that the builders of the pyramid may have copied the
text from a preexisting document.
This is most highly improbable, as I have mildly outlined in a
response to a similar suggestion in another post above.
David Hume might have something to say about the explanation being far
more improbable than the null hypothesis: they are mistaken, or making
it up.
Either way it is what we scientists summarize as: "probably *****".
I saw the other posts. The explanation sounds reasonable.
Mine, or theirs?
Yours.
The dates proposed for
them range from the 25th to the 30th centuries B.C.E. No continuous
Semitic texts from this period have ever been deciphered before.
The passages, serpent spells written in hieroglyphic characters, had
puzzled scholars who tried to read them as if they were ordinary
Egyptian texts. In August, 2002, Prof. Steiner received an email
message
from Robert Ritner, professor of Egyptology at the University of
Chicago, asking whether any of them could be Semitic. "I immediately
recognized the Semitic words for `mother snake,'" said Steiner. "Later
This sounds suspicious, too.
If it were that obvious, a *real* linguist would have to have had to
actively suppress the thought on the very first reading.
it became clear that the surrounding spells, composed in Egyptian
rather
than Semitic, also speak of the mother snake, and that the Egyptian
and
Semitic texts elucidate each other."
Sounds like he read what he wanted to.
Change languages part way through?
Very suspicious, especially given the funding sources.
I would dearly like to see both the raw scripts, and his purported
analysis to check the hanky-panky myself.
Unfortunately they only show a fragment at the Eurekalert website.
And that is all I have found 'on-line'.
I have yet to attempt anything more than a cursory translation of it
myself, but intend to set aside time to do so next week.
(I learned Egyptian Hieroglyphics in the early 80's, and have now
managed to forget most of it.)
I see that you know more about this stuff than I do.
After mulling the images over in my mind last night, (instead of
getting my required shut-eye, you know how it is), and I get the
strong suspicion that the "translation" was apparently garnered from a
left to right reading!!!!!
I will check this later, but if true, it completely blows any semitic
rendering clear out of the water!
I'm only commenting from fleeting remembered impressions, mind.
But it adds another nail into the "suspicious" tomb lid, as it were.
If the guy who gave the talk has any claim to be an expert in Semitic
languages, I think he should know that.
The reference shows a "spell" with only 17 glyphs, with a VERY dodgy
explanation.
(I would hesistate to call it a translation.)
It does mention "drivel", which is a bit of a give-away.
(Checks calendar to see how close it is to April 1)
I think he's using 'drivel' to refer the snakes venom.
Oh, how sharper than a serpent's tooth is a thankless poster!
Yes, I knew that, thanks.
I was employing it as a seemingly "toothless" academic 'barb'.
It fell flat, I see.
OK. It just went "whoosh".
Although written in Egyptian characters, the texts turned out to be
composed in the Semitic language spoken by the Canaanites in the third
millennium B.C.E., a very archaic form of the languages later known as
Phoenician and Hebrew. The Canaanite priests of the ancient city of
Byblos, in present-day Lebanon, provided these texts to the kings of
Egypt.
And they know that these specific texts were "presented" to the Kings
of Egypt persoanlly by Canaanite Priests how, exactly????
This stinks to high heaven of "making it up as you go along".
If these were 'magic' spells, wouldn't magic be the provenance of
priests? The priests could have sent scrolls to the kings rather than
bring them personally.
Everything was the provenance of the priests.
The Pharaoh can be compared to Dubya: powerful but utterly deluded,
naive and clueless.
The Priests are the Cheney's, the Wolfowitlesses, the Rupert Murdochs
etc.; they are/were really in executive authority over the province.
It's no wonder that we STILL USE the parallel term for these powerful
controlling elite: "Hierarchy", a.k.a. the Priesthood.
If the priests chose to bring the papyri to Dubya, (sorry: the spoilt
Pharaoh), they'd have had a plan for more power for THEM up their
sleeve.
No power whatsoever could be derived from the insertion of an
inscription whose genesis was the result of the theft of their sacred
god-given holy script, and the copying thereof in a Royal and blessed
Tomb, of a bunch of filthy low-life goat herders ravings in a
primitive foreign non-egyptian language!
I could probably have put this in a more elegant and Dawkinesque kind
of way, if I were to write a book on the subject, (which I may do in
the future), but I cannot spare the time at the moment, other than to
provide this cursory rant.
I just hope that in my own inadequate and inarticulate manner, I have
put the point across effectively.
It is entirely my fault if I have not.
I get it. However, I wonder what the motives of the author of the report
were then?
One can only guess.
But it is reasonable to assume the usual motives:
Prestige, confirmation of preformed notions, fame, respect, income,
and the consequent personal and corporate power that both the
individuals and the funding institution derive.
This "discovery" will provide a massive boost to Jews and Christians
worldwide.
It could be that he just wants to make a name for himself.
The Pope will sit up and take notice too, mark my words.
If correct, the find would be world changing.
I don't understand why this would be so earth shattering. Wasn't it
known that Semitic language speaking peoples were living in that part of
the world at that time anyway?
The motives for fraud are legion, and far too tempting to warrant
discounting of outright fraud.
(It wouldn't be the first time, either)
Sadly fraud in science, though not common, has always been with us.
The port city of Byblos was of vital importance for the ancient
Egyptians. It was from there that they imported timber for
construction
and resin for mummification. The new discovery shows that they also
imported magical spells to protect royal mummies against poisonous
snakes that were thought to understand Canaanite. Although the
Egyptians viewed their culture as far superior to that of their
neighbors, their morbid fear of snakes made them open to the borrowing
of Semitic magic.
"...snakes that were thought to understand Canaanite" This my main
reason for posting this. I thought it was rather amusing that the
ancients might have thought that snakes might understand one human
language and not another.
I have yet to see the originals, and the translator's notes, so am
very wary to take it on face value.
The source of funding at least makes me suspicious in the extreme.
How so?
A Hebrew University making an important "discovery" about the very
genesis of the Hebrew peoples, and the veracity of some of their OT
bible tales?
Are you kidding me, Hymie, already?
Again as far as I know, Semitic languages were spoken by many peoples in
the region. Phoenicians, Canaanites, and Hebrews too. According to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_languages#Origins
there were a number of other Semitic speakers too. I don't know what
language was spoken at Byblos, where it's implies that they got the
spells.
More specious invention of motives.
Where's the proof?
###
"This finding should be of great interest to cultural historians,"
said
Prof. Steiner. "Linguists, too, will be interested in these texts.
They
Yes, I am.
show that Proto-Canaanite, the common ancestor of Phoenician, Moabite,
Ammonite and Hebrew, existed already in the third millennium B.C.E as
a
language distinct from Aramaic, Ugaritic, and the other Semitic
languages. And they provide the first direct evidence for the
pronunciation of Egyptian in this early period." The texts will also
be
important to biblical scholars, since they shed light on several rare
words in the Bible, he said. "This is a sensational discovery," said
How very convenient!
The source would not be biased in any way now, would it?
Moshe Bar-Asher, Bialik Professor of Hebrew Language at the Hebrew
University and president of the Academy of the Hebrew Language. "It is
the earliest attestation of a Semitic language, in general, and
Proto-Canaanite, in particular."
###
---
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-01/thuo-pmi012907.php
Thanks for this.
It sets my ***** detector twitching at defcon 3.
Show me the full scripts!
(With his interpretation/guesses)
I agree that the evidence in the press release is rather sketchy.
A sketch with only one line on it, and even that one line in
disappearing ink is less than "sketchy"!
Yeshiva University has essentially the same amount of information at
it's website:
http://spider.mc.yu.edu/news/articles/article.cfm?id=101302
but does have a link to the address given in Israel. Unfortunately, the
site is in Hebrew, which I don't read.
I read Hebrew (haltingly) and did not find anything ont he site that
had anything to add.
I'm not criticizing, you seem to be very knowledgeable about these
languages, but why do you think this is bogus?
A feeling.
A feeling built up with hundreds of little signs and big signs, all of
which add up to "Bogus!!".
I'm not often wrong in my intuitions, which is another term for
non-conscious information processing, that taps into a life-time of
pattern-matching.
Read my individual comments, both here and in other responses, and you
will begin to build up my pattern of skepticism on this topic.
I have had the feeling all along that this "stinks to high heaven", if
I may be excused the theological metaphor.
I'll defer to your knowledge in this field and label this report as
'suspect'. I would be interested to see what others in this field have
to say about this topic.
As am I.I\
I'll wait before I make any further comment.
--
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Earliest instance of Semitic language presented... |
05 Feb 2007 05:41:15 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 22:25:13 -0800, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <jhachmann-C495DA.22251304022007@news.giganews.com>
In article <f16bs21jn9v0egolqvhpsgbemiuq8mm5u4@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 22:04:36 -0800, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <jhachmann-6F32FA.22043603022007@news.giganews.com>
In article <gsl8s2tdd103ualdfqf5crgdd7umcf3i5e@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 22:17:06 -0800, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <jhachmann-F48B3E.22170602022007@news.giganews.com>
In article <um77s21rckiojkbfpgnsvvqdtie8areh06@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 23:43:28 -0800, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <jhachmann-C9A07E.23432801022007@news.giganews.com>
A spell to keep away snakes, of course.
---
The first public presentation on the earliest connected Semitic text
ever deciphered has taken place at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
The presentation was made by Prof. Richard Steiner, professor of
Semitic
languages and literature at k, in a lecture
entitled "Proto-Canaanite Spells in the Pyramid Texts: a First Look at
the History of Hebrew in the Third Millennium B.C.E." The lecture was
sponsored by the Academy of the Hebrew Language in cooperation with
the
Hebrew University and the World Union of Jewish Studies.
Prof. Steiner, a past fellow of the Institute for Advanced Studies at
the Hebrew University and a member of the Academy of the Hebrew
Language, has deciphered a number of Semitic texts in various Egyptian
scripts over the past 25 years. In his lecture he interpreted Semitic
passages in Egyptian texts that were discovered more than a century
ago,
inscribed on the subterranean walls of the pyramid of King Unas at
Saqqara in Egypt. The pyramid dates from the 24th century B.C.E., but
Egyptologists agree that the texts are older.
WTF????
So, the pyramid was built around some writing in that was already
hanging in the air??
It may have been that the builders of the pyramid may have copied the
text from a preexisting document.
This is most highly improbable, as I have mildly outlined in a
response to a similar suggestion in another post above.
David Hume might have something to say about the explanation being far
more improbable than the null hypothesis: they are mistaken, or making
it up.
Either way it is what we scientists summarize as: "probably *****".
I saw the other posts. The explanation sounds reasonable.
Mine, or theirs?
Yours.
Phew!!
The dates proposed for
them range from the 25th to the 30th centuries B.C.E. No continuous
Semitic texts from this period have ever been deciphered before.
The passages, serpent spells written in hieroglyphic characters, had
puzzled scholars who tried to read them as if they were ordinary
Egyptian texts. In August, 2002, Prof. Steiner received an email
message
from Robert Ritner, professor of Egyptology at the University of
Chicago, asking whether any of them could be Semitic. "I immediately
recognized the Semitic words for `mother snake,'" said Steiner. "Later
This sounds suspicious, too.
If it were that obvious, a *real* linguist would have to have had to
actively suppress the thought on the very first reading.
it became clear that the surrounding spells, composed in Egyptian
rather
than Semitic, also speak of the mother snake, and that the Egyptian
and
Semitic texts elucidate each other."
Sounds like he read what he wanted to.
Change languages part way through?
Very suspicious, especially given the funding sources.
I would dearly like to see both the raw scripts, and his purported
analysis to check the hanky-panky myself.
Unfortunately they only show a fragment at the Eurekalert website.
And that is all I have found 'on-line'.
I have yet to attempt anything more than a cursory translation of it
myself, but intend to set aside time to do so next week.
(I learned Egyptian Hieroglyphics in the early 80's, and have now
managed to forget most of it.)
I see that you know more about this stuff than I do.
After mulling the images over in my mind last night, (instead of
getting my required shut-eye, you know how it is), and I get the
strong suspicion that the "translation" was apparently garnered from a
left to right reading!!!!!
I will check this later, but if true, it completely blows any semitic
rendering clear out of the water!
I'm only commenting from fleeting remembered impressions, mind.
But it adds another nail into the "suspicious" tomb lid, as it were.
If the guy who gave the talk has any claim to be an expert in Semitic
languages, I think he should know that.
One would dearly hope so.
The reference shows a "spell" with only 17 glyphs, with a VERY dodgy
explanation.
(I would hesistate to call it a translation.)
It does mention "drivel", which is a bit of a give-away.
(Checks calendar to see how close it is to April 1)
I think he's using 'drivel' to refer the snakes venom.
Oh, how sharper than a serpent's tooth is a thankless poster!
Yes, I knew that, thanks.
I was employing it as a seemingly "toothless" academic 'barb'.
It fell flat, I see.
OK. It just went "whoosh".
Although written in Egyptian characters, the texts turned out to be
composed in the Semitic language spoken by the Canaanites in the third
millennium B.C.E., a very archaic form of the languages later known as
Phoenician and Hebrew. The Canaanite priests of the ancient city of
Byblos, in present-day Lebanon, provided these texts to the kings of
Egypt.
And they know that these specific texts were "presented" to the Kings
of Egypt persoanlly by Canaanite Priests how, exactly????
This stinks to high heaven of "making it up as you go along".
If these were 'magic' spells, wouldn't magic be the provenance of
priests? The priests could have sent scrolls to the kings rather than
bring them personally.
Everything was the provenance of the priests.
The Pharaoh can be compared to Dubya: powerful but utterly deluded,
naive and clueless.
The Priests are the Cheney's, the Wolfowitlesses, the Rupert Murdochs
etc.; they are/were really in executive authority over the province.
It's no wonder that we STILL USE the parallel term for these powerful
controlling elite: "Hierarchy", a.k.a. the Priesthood.
If the priests chose to bring the papyri to Dubya, (sorry: the spoilt
Pharaoh), they'd have had a plan for more power for THEM up their
sleeve.
No power whatsoever could be derived from the insertion of an
inscription whose genesis was the result of the theft of their sacred
god-given holy script, and the copying thereof in a Royal and blessed
Tomb, of a bunch of filthy low-life goat herders ravings in a
primitive foreign non-egyptian language!
I could probably have put this in a more elegant and Dawkinesque kind
of way, if I were to write a book on the subject, (which I may do in
the future), but I cannot spare the time at the moment, other than to
provide this cursory rant.
I just hope that in my own inadequate and inarticulate manner, I have
put the point across effectively.
It is entirely my fault if I have not.
I get it. However, I wonder what the motives of the author of the report
were then?
One can only guess.
But it is reasonable to assume the usual motives:
Prestige, confirmation of preformed notions, fame, respect, income,
and the consequent personal and corporate power that both the
individuals and the funding institution derive.
This "discovery" will provide a massive boost to Jews and Christians
worldwide.
It could be that he just wants to make a name for himself.
Or being paid to make a name for a research institue, or an entire
country.
The Pope will sit up and take notice too, mark my words.
If correct, the find would be world changing.
I don't understand why this would be so earth shattering. Wasn't it
known that Semitic language speaking peoples were living in that part of
the world at that time anyway?
Nope.
Guessed, but not "known".
No "hard" evidence whatsoever of anything remotely resembling the
story told in Exodus.
Egyuptians labelled people as "True Egyptians" and "Foreigners".
No distinction was attempted at the foreign origin, at least not in
the date range in question.
Mention of foreigners only came by when some of them were "defeated"
in battle.
(The Egyptians rather oddly NEVER lost a battle in their history.
If they did, it was omitted, or changed)
The motives for fraud are legion, and far too tempting to warrant
discounting of outright fraud.
(It wouldn't be the first time, either)
Sadly fraud in science, though not common, has always been with us.
Methinks this is more politics than science, to be honest.
The port city of Byblos was of vital importance for the ancient
Egyptians. It was from there that they imported timber for
construction
and resin for mummification. The new discovery shows that they also
imported magical spells to protect royal mummies against poisonous
snakes that were thought to understand Canaanite. Although the
Egyptians viewed their culture as far superior to that of their
neighbors, their morbid fear of snakes made them open to the borrowing
of Semitic magic.
"...snakes that were thought to understand Canaanite" This my main
reason for posting this. I thought it was rather amusing that the
ancients might have thought that snakes might understand one human
language and not another.
I have yet to see the originals, and the translator's notes, so am
very wary to take it on face value.
The source of funding at least makes me suspicious in the extreme.
How so?
A Hebrew University making an important "discovery" about the very
genesis of the Hebrew peoples, and the veracity of some of their OT
bible tales?
Are you kidding me, Hymie, already?
Again as far as I know, Semitic languages were spoken by many peoples in
the region. Phoenicians, Canaanites, and Hebrews too. According to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_languages#Origins
there were a number of other Semitic speakers too. I don't know what
language was spoken at Byblos, where it's implies that they got the
spells.
In Egypt?
By the priests?
I think not!
I'm not disputing the actual story, of course if what they say is
true, it would have been true, by definition.
But this story does not fit in with what I consider Egyptian reality
at that time.
I mean, they *could* have obtained chinese and translitered it into
glyphs and put it on a sacred tomb wall, but they WOULDN'T HAVE!!
Not in a blue fit!
Nor would they have transliterated what the elite Egyptians considered
a heathen spell in a heathen language.
No way, jose!
That was NOT the Egyptian way.
More specious invention of motives.
Where's the proof?
###
"This finding should be of great interest to cultural historians,"
said
Prof. Steiner. "Linguists, too, will be interested in these texts.
They
Yes, I am.
show that Proto-Canaanite, the common ancestor of Phoenician, Moabite,
Ammonite and Hebrew, existed already in the third millennium B.C.E as
a
language distinct from Aramaic, Ugaritic, and the other Semitic
languages. And they provide the first direct evidence for the
pronunciation of Egyptian in this early period." The texts will also
be
important to biblical scholars, since they shed light on several rare
words in the Bible, he said. "This is a sensational discovery," said
How very convenient!
The source would not be biased in any way now, would it?
Moshe Bar-Asher, Bialik Professor of Hebrew Language at the Hebrew
University and president of the Academy of the Hebrew Language. "It is
the earliest attestation of a Semitic language, in general, and
Proto-Canaanite, in particular."
###
---
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-01/thuo-pmi012907.php
Thanks for this.
It sets my ***** detector twitching at defcon 3.
Show me the full scripts!
(With his interpretation/guesses)
I agree that the evidence in the press release is rather sketchy.
A sketch with only one line on it, and even that one line in
disappearing ink is less than "sketchy"!
Yeshiva University has essentially the same amount of information at
it's website:
http://spider.mc.yu.edu/news/articles/article.cfm?id=101302
but does have a link to the address given in Israel. Unfortunately, the
site is in Hebrew, which I don't read.
I read Hebrew (haltingly) and did not find anything ont he site that
had anything to add.
I'm not criticizing, you seem to be very knowledgeable about these
languages, but why do you think this is bogus?
A feeling.
A feeling built up with hundreds of little signs and big signs, all of
which add up to "Bogus!!".
I'm not often wrong in my intuitions, which is another term for
non-conscious information processing, that taps into a life-time of
pattern-matching.
Read my individual comments, both here and in other responses, and you
will begin to build up my pattern of skepticism on this topic.
I have had the feeling all along that this "stinks to high heaven", if
I may be excused the theological metaphor.
I'll defer to your knowledge in this field and label this report as
'suspect'. I would be interested to see what others in this field have
to say about this topic.
As am I.I\
I'll wait before I make any further comment.
I may not.
"wait", that is.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Earliest instance of Semitic language presented... |
05 Feb 2007 11:51:39 PM |
|
|
In article <3g5es21racomntu5udg04ll11vq2sg6lut@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 22:25:13 -0800, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <jhachmann-C495DA.22251304022007@news.giganews.com>
In article <f16bs21jn9v0egolqvhpsgbemiuq8mm5u4@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 22:04:36 -0800, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <jhachmann-6F32FA.22043603022007@news.giganews.com>
In article <gsl8s2tdd103ualdfqf5crgdd7umcf3i5e@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 22:17:06 -0800, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <jhachmann-F48B3E.22170602022007@news.giganews.com>
In article <um77s21rckiojkbfpgnsvvqdtie8areh06@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 23:43:28 -0800, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <jhachmann-C9A07E.23432801022007@news.giganews.com>
A spell to keep away snakes, of course.
---
The first public presentation on the earliest connected Semitic
text
ever deciphered has taken place at the Hebrew University of
Jerusalem.
The presentation was made by Prof. Richard Steiner, professor of
Semitic
languages and literature at k, in a lecture
entitled "Proto-Canaanite Spells in the Pyramid Texts: a First Look
at
the History of Hebrew in the Third Millennium B.C.E." The lecture
was
sponsored by the Academy of the Hebrew Language in cooperation with
the
Hebrew University and the World Union of Jewish Studies.
Prof. Steiner, a past fellow of the Institute for Advanced Studies
at
the Hebrew University and a member of the Academy of the Hebrew
Language, has deciphered a number of Semitic texts in various
Egyptian
scripts over the past 25 years. In his lecture he interpreted
Semitic
passages in Egyptian texts that were discovered more than a century
ago,
inscribed on the subterranean walls of the pyramid of King Unas at
Saqqara in Egypt. The pyramid dates from the 24th century B.C.E.,
but
Egyptologists agree that the texts are older.
WTF????
So, the pyramid was built around some writing in that was already
hanging in the air??
It may have been that the builders of the pyramid may have copied the
text from a preexisting document.
This is most highly improbable, as I have mildly outlined in a
response to a similar suggestion in another post above.
David Hume might have something to say about the explanation being far
more improbable than the null hypothesis: they are mistaken, or making
it up.
Either way it is what we scientists summarize as: "probably *****".
I saw the other posts. The explanation sounds reasonable.
Mine, or theirs?
Yours.
Phew!!
The dates proposed for
them range from the 25th to the 30th centuries B.C.E. No continuous
Semitic texts from this period have ever been deciphered before.
The passages, serpent spells written in hieroglyphic characters,
had
puzzled scholars who tried to read them as if they were ordinary
Egyptian texts. In August, 2002, Prof. Steiner received an email
message
from Robert Ritner, professor of Egyptology at the University of
Chicago, asking whether any of them could be Semitic. "I
immediately
recognized the Semitic words for `mother snake,'" said Steiner.
"Later
This sounds suspicious, too.
If it were that obvious, a *real* linguist would have to have had to
actively suppress the thought on the very first reading.
it became clear that the surrounding spells, composed in Egyptian
rather
than Semitic, also speak of the mother snake, and that the Egyptian
and
Semitic texts elucidate each other."
Sounds like he read what he wanted to.
Change languages part way through?
Very suspicious, especially given the funding sources.
I would dearly like to see both the raw scripts, and his purported
analysis to check the hanky-panky myself.
Unfortunately they only show a fragment at the Eurekalert website.
And that is all I have found 'on-line'.
I have yet to attempt anything more than a cursory translation of it
myself, but intend to set aside time to do so next week.
(I learned Egyptian Hieroglyphics in the early 80's, and have now
managed to forget most of it.)
I see that you know more about this stuff than I do.
After mulling the images over in my mind last night, (instead of
getting my required shut-eye, you know how it is), and I get the
strong suspicion that the "translation" was apparently garnered from a
left to right reading!!!!!
I will check this later, but if true, it completely blows any semitic
rendering clear out of the water!
I'm only commenting from fleeting remembered impressions, mind.
But it adds another nail into the "suspicious" tomb lid, as it were.
If the guy who gave the talk has any claim to be an expert in Semitic
languages, I think he should know that.
One would dearly hope so.
The reference shows a "spell" with only 17 glyphs, with a VERY dodgy
explanation.
(I would hesistate to call it a translation.)
It does mention "drivel", which is a bit of a give-away.
(Checks calendar to see how close it is to April 1)
I think he's using 'drivel' to refer the snakes venom.
Oh, how sharper than a serpent's tooth is a thankless poster!
Yes, I knew that, thanks.
I was employing it as a seemingly "toothless" academic 'barb'.
It fell flat, I see.
OK. It just went "whoosh".
Although written in Egyptian characters, the texts turned out to be
composed in the Semitic language spoken by the Canaanites in the
third
millennium B.C.E., a very archaic form of the languages later known
as
Phoenician and Hebrew. The Canaanite priests of the ancient city of
Byblos, in present-day Lebanon, provided these texts to the kings
of
Egypt.
And they know that these specific texts were "presented" to the
Kings
of Egypt persoanlly by Canaanite Priests how, exactly????
This stinks to high heaven of "making it up as you go along".
If these were 'magic' spells, wouldn't magic be the provenance of
priests? The priests could have sent scrolls to the kings rather than
bring them personally.
Everything was the provenance of the priests.
The Pharaoh can be compared to Dubya: powerful but utterly deluded,
naive and clueless.
The Priests are the Cheney's, the Wolfowitlesses, the Rupert Murdochs
etc.; they are/were really in executive authority over the province.
It's no wonder that we STILL USE the parallel term for these powerful
controlling elite: "Hierarchy", a.k.a. the Priesthood.
If the priests chose to bring the papyri to Dubya, (sorry: the spoilt
Pharaoh), they'd have had a plan for more power for THEM up their
sleeve.
No power whatsoever could be derived from the insertion of an
inscription whose genesis was the result of the theft of their sacred
god-given holy script, and the copying thereof in a Royal and blessed
Tomb, of a bunch of filthy low-life goat herders ravings in a
primitive foreign non-egyptian language!
I could probably have put this in a more elegant and Dawkinesque kind
of way, if I were to write a book on the subject, (which I may do in
the future), but I cannot spare the time at the moment, other than to
provide this cursory rant.
I just hope that in my own inadequate and inarticulate manner, I have
put the point across effectively.
It is entirely my fault if I have not.
I get it. However, I wonder what the motives of the author of the report
were then?
One can only guess.
But it is reasonable to assume the usual motives:
Prestige, confirmation of preformed notions, fame, respect, income,
and the consequent personal and corporate power that both the
individuals and the funding institution derive.
This "discovery" will provide a massive boost to Jews and Christians
worldwide.
It could be that he just wants to make a name for himself.
Or being paid to make a name for a research institue, or an entire
country.
The Pope will sit up and take notice too, mark my words.
If correct, the find would be world changing.
I don't understand why this would be so earth shattering. Wasn't it
known that Semitic language speaking peoples were living in that part of
the world at that time anyway?
Nope.
Guessed, but not "known".
No "hard" evidence whatsoever of anything remotely resembling the
story told in Exodus.
Egyuptians labelled people as "True Egyptians" and "Foreigners".
No distinction was attempted at the foreign origin, at least not in
the date range in question.
Mention of foreigners only came by when some of them were "defeated"
in battle.
(The Egyptians rather oddly NEVER lost a battle in their history.
If they did, it was omitted, or changed)
I don't believe the 'out of Egypt' story for a microsecond either. I
don't think that the author was claiming that the Hebrews had anything
to do with the inscription.
The motives for fraud are legion, and far too tempting to warrant
discounting of outright fraud.
(It wouldn't be the first time, either)
Sadly fraud in science, though not common, has always been with us.
Methinks this is more politics than science, to be honest.
Could be.
The port city of Byblos was of vital importance for the ancient
Egyptians. It was from there that they imported timber for
construction
and resin for mummification. The new discovery shows that they also
imported magical spells to protect royal mummies against poisonous
snakes that were thought to understand Canaanite. Although the
Egyptians viewed their culture as far superior to that of their
neighbors, their morbid fear of snakes made them open to the
borrowing
of Semitic magic.
"...snakes that were thought to understand Canaanite" This my main
reason for posting this. I thought it was rather amusing that the
ancients might have thought that snakes might understand one human
language and not another.
I have yet to see the originals, and the translator's notes, so am
very wary to take it on face value.
The source of funding at least makes me suspicious in the extreme.
How so?
A Hebrew University making an important "discovery" about the very
genesis of the Hebrew peoples, and the veracity of some of their OT
bible tales?
Are you kidding me, Hymie, already?
Again as far as I know, Semitic languages were spoken by many peoples in
the region. Phoenicians, Canaanites, and Hebrews too. According to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_languages#Origins
there were a number of other Semitic speakers too. I don't know what
language was spoken at Byblos, where it's implies that they got the
spells.
In Egypt?
By the priests?
I think not!
I'm not disputing the actual story, of course if what they say is
true, it would have been true, by definition.
But this story does not fit in with what I consider Egyptian reality
at that time.
I mean, they *could* have obtained chinese and translitered it into
glyphs and put it on a sacred tomb wall, but they WOULDN'T HAVE!!
Not in a blue fit!
Nor would they have transliterated what the elite Egyptians considered
a heathen spell in a heathen language.
No way, jose!
That was NOT the Egyptian way.
I'll take your word for that, but I would like to read more of the
author's explanation for the claim.
More specious invention of motives.
Where's the proof?
###
"This finding should be of great interest to cultural historians,"
said
Prof. Steiner. "Linguists, too, will be interested in these texts.
They
Yes, I am.
show that Proto-Canaanite, the common ancestor of Phoenician,
Moabite,
Ammonite and Hebrew, existed already in the third millennium B.C.E
as
a
language distinct from Aramaic, Ugaritic, and the other Semitic
languages. And they provide the first direct evidence for the
pronunciation of Egyptian in this early period." The texts will
also
be
important to biblical scholars, since they shed light on several
rare
words in the Bible, he said. "This is a sensational discovery,"
said
How very convenient!
The source would not be biased in any way now, would it?
Moshe Bar-Asher, Bialik Professor of Hebrew Language at the Hebrew
University and president of the Academy of the Hebrew Language. "It
is
the earliest attestation of a Semitic language, in general, and
Proto-Canaanite, in particular."
###
---
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-01/thuo-pmi012907.php
Thanks for this.
It sets my ***** detector twitching at defcon 3.
Show me the full scripts!
(With his interpretation/guesses)
I agree that the evidence in the press release is rather sketchy.
A sketch with only one line on it, and even that one line in
disappearing ink is less than "sketchy"!
Yeshiva University has essentially the same amount of information at
it's website:
http://spider.mc.yu.edu/news/articles/article.cfm?id=101302
but does have a link to the address given in Israel. Unfortunately,
the
site is in Hebrew, which I don't read.
I read Hebrew (haltingly) and did not find anything ont he site that
had anything to add.
I'm not criticizing, you seem to be ver | | | | | | | | |
