Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Queen Jezebel "the Orginal Lady Macbeth"




Taken from: http://www.jewishhistory.org/life-and-times-of-elijah/




....

Ahab and Jezebel

The Omri-Ahab dynasty represented the epitome of evil in their time. Omri completely drove out all vestiges of Judaism and monotheism in his land. He made the Phoenician and Canaanites deities his state religion, especially worship of the idol Baal. He not only brought in pagan deities but built temples and imported priests of the idol Baal.



To further consolidate his power, Omri arranged a marriage between son, Ahab, and the daughter of the king of Phoenicia, Jezebel. She is the original Lady Macbeth: a controlling, scheming person without scruples who brought with her every vile element of pagan culture, including the practice and ideology of idolatry, along with all of its concomitant cruelty and immorality. Unfortunately, Ahab, who was otherwise a very strong person, was unable to stand up to her, as often happens even in the strongest of men. Her ideas and ideals governed after Ahab became king.



“There was no one like Ahab, who sold himself to do evil in the eyes of God, which his wife Jezebel persuaded him” (I Kings 21:25).



Ahab and Jezebel embarked on a campaign of eradication of all Jewish ideas and implementation of the Phoenician way of life and value system. It reached the stage that the prophet Elijah stated that there were only 7,000 in Israel who did not bow to the idol Baal (I Kings 19:18). Put another way, more than ninety-nine percent of the Jewish people of the Northern Kingdom worshipped the Baal. As part of their campaign, they killed all the prophets and closed all their academies. Elijah was the only prophet in Israel who survived.



However, the world was not enough for Ahab and Jezebel. They became obsessed trying to find and eradicate Elijah. The only thing that mattered to them was getting that old man in the shepherd’s clothes.




Elijah

Elijah is one of the most fascinating personalities in all human history. He had many facets to his character. Perhaps foremost among them, he was not willing to compromise with evil under any circumstance. He had absolutely no fear of anyone or anything.



At the height of Ahab and Jezebel’s success, Elijah announced that there would be three years of hunger (I Kings 17:1). And it came true. Not a drop of rain fell. Crops withered on the vine. People were starving to death. The entire kingdom was buckling under and its enemies were preparing plans for invasion. Even the king himself was affected by the famine (I Kings 18:5).



Elijah knew it was the time to bring the situation to a head and called for a contest – a final showdown — between him and the prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel. He told Ahab to tell the people to come and see for themselves.



In truth, Elijah knew that performing miracles were not the way to settle the matter, because people are momentarily impressed with miracles but quickly return to their ways unless they have a deep, abiding faith. It is similar to the diet syndrome: despite sincere intention at the beginning it wears off. It is very difficult to overcome force of habit, which is life itself.



Hundreds of thousands of Jews came to Mount Carmel, including Ahab. The first thing Elijah did was tell the people, “How long will you remain on the fence? If you are for Baal then worship him. If God then worship him” (I Kings 18:21). You cannot have both.



This was a question not just for his generation. Today, too, we like to have a little Baal and a little God. However, Elijah reminds us that we cannot have it both ways.



The priests of Baal danced and shouted all morning. According to an opinion in the Tradition, they had prepared a hidden fire beneath their altar, but God did not let it burn. Into the afternoon nothing happened. Elijah mocked them.



“Maybe your god is sleeping,” he taunted. “Talk louder. Maybe he went for a walk. Maybe he is busy. Don’t give up. Louder. Try it again.”



In their desperation they cut themselves and danced with even greater wild abandon. But still nothing happened.



Finally, it was Elijah’s turn. First, he soaked his sacrifice and altar with water to make the miracle greater. Then he said, “Answer me, God, answer me….” Suddenly, there shot forth a tremendous fire from heaven that consumed his sacrifice and altar despite the water. The people fell to their knees and shouted: “God is God. God is God” (I Kings 18:39).



Everyone repented, even Ahab.



Unfortunately, people had vested interests in keeping alive the social fabric built around the cult of foreign gods. Jezebel chastised Ahab when he returned and immediately declared that she would kill Elijah, who once more had to flee for his life and go into hiding.



In a very short time, the mass repentance fell apart.



Instant anything is difficult to maintain – especially instant repentance. It can only be extended if there is follow up, education and an intensive change of lifestyle. Otherwise, instant revolutions more often than not lead to instability, which can cause the individual or community to regress to a point even worse than before. That is what happened to Ahab and the Jewish people. They were able to hold their physical empire together a little longer, but the inner core was rotting away.



Ahab repented of his ways, but only enough to keep his disintegrating empire on Earth together before his death (I Kings 21:29). His son Jehoram took over, but, as the prophet predicted, he and the entire house of Ahab were killed, including his wife Jezebel.



Among the prophecies pronounced by Elijah, and repeated by his disciple Elisha,[1] was that dogs would tear Jezebel apart limb from limb and lick her blood from the street (I Kings 21:23; II Kings 9:10). That is, indeed, what happened (II Kings 9:33-37). The only parts of her that remained were the palms of her hands and her feet (ibid. 9:35).



....

Saturday, December 10, 2011

Salverda Thinks Phoenicians May have Built Greek Cities

 
Perseus, Dan, and the Golden Calf of Dionysus
by John R. Salverda
Contents:
The Walls of Mycenae
The Returns of the Perseids
Conclusion.

The Walls of Mycenae

    Greek Myths have attributed the building of the walls of Midea, Tiryns and Mycenae to Perseus and his sons fresh from the city of Joppa, on the Palestinian coast of the Mediterranean Sea, where the Ethiopians had ruled. Thus, perhaps the Grecian city called Midea owes it's name to the land of Midian in Southeastern Palestine, the resident Midianites are scripturally referred to as Cushites, who were in turn known to the Greeks as, "Ethiopians."

    Let's talk history for a bit. The walls of Tiryns, Midea, and especially Mycenae have been discovered by archaeologists and are still there to be seen. They are considered to be contemporary with each other and have been dated to about 1425 BC by coordinating them with Egyptian chronology. There was, at the time that closely followed the building of those walls, a lively trade between Mycenae and Egypt. Pottery, of the same type and painting style as that which was produced in Mycenae, have been found all over Eighteenth Dynasty Egypt especially, we are told, in the short-lived Egyptian city of El-Amarna. Furthermore, within the walls of the Greek city of Mycenae, Egyptian items of the Eighteenth Dynasty were found, including a few things that even had the names of Amenhotep II (the son of Thutmose III) and of Amenhotep III inscribed upon them.

    Now, I don't believe in the so called "dark ages of Greece" (a very dubious 500 year period of Greek history during which there is no evidence of any Greek history!'!) and so, I scoot the Mycenaean age and accordingly, the building of the walls of Mycenae forward about 500 years. Therefore I also move the contemporary Egyptian Pharaohs forward. I have Pharaoh Thutmose III living at about the same time that the Hebrew scriptures say that Pharaoh Shishak sacked the temple of Solomon, and make Queen Hatshepsut visit Punt in the days that the Hebrew scriptures say that the Queen of Sheba visited Phoenicia. This is in accordance with a reconstruction of ancient history as is outlined by the heretical historian Immanuel Velikovsky.

    Thutmose III had after a siege, famously conquered the city of Joppa. (He also took Megiddo and the Philistine stronghold of Beth Shean.) But, without the dark ages of Greece, this must have been about 930 BC (if Eighteenth Dynasty Egypt was contemporary with the Mycenaean age as archaeological finds seem to prove). Many people, from the seaport of Joppa especially, would have had the opportunity to flee overseas during these turbulent times, (taking with them a new found urgency to build walls around their cities). The main enemy of Thutmose were called the "Mitanni," thus, if his siege of Joppa had anything to do with the Perseid emigration then perhaps the term, "Mitanni" was identical to the Scriptural, "Midianite," (also called "Ethiopian"). Thus strengthening my previously mentioned theory about the origin of the name of the Greek city, "Midea." I assume that these people took with them many of their stories, and that we can read them in Greek mythology.

    In accordance with Velikovsky's reconstruction of ancient history, the Hebrew scriptures have Solomon walling all the cities of Phoenicia at about the same time that walls were also being built around the Mycenaean cities. They even include the detail that Jerusalem's building materials were brought in through the port of Joppa, at about the same time that the Greek myths tell us that people from Joppa went to Greece and walled their cities. And they make Joppa the capitol of tribal Dan at the same time that the Greek myths tell us that the Danaan descendants of Perseus were kings there (those who are called "Priests" in the Scriptures, Jethro, Jonathan and Phinehas, are referred to as "Kings" and "princes" in the Myths, Cepheus, Perses and Phineus).

    According to the Hebrew scriptures, there was a group of masons and sailors, Hiram's Tyrians, who helped Solomon to build the stone works of Jerusalem, they also largely made up the navy of Solomon, and manned the ships that sailed out of Joppa to places like Tarshish. Similarly, in accordance with the Greek myth, the fortifications of the Argolian cities, so often attributed to the sons or Perseus, are even more often said to have been built by the Cyclopes. As Perseus had sailed out of Joppa to return to Argolis, it is logical to speculate that he went on a ship (or a fleet of ships) along with a group of masons who helped to build the walls of Midea, Tiryns and Mycenae. The ancient masons were called, in the myths, the Cyclopes. The following is a sample of ancient authors who attribute the building of the Danaan cities of Perseus to the Cyclopes; "Zeus, son of Kronos, was willing to honor the race of Danaus ... by relieving them from their hateful distress (the strife between Acrisius and Proetus). The Cyclopes came in their might and toiled to build a most beautiful wall for the famous city." (Bacchylides, Fragment 11) "Now it seems that Tiryns was used as a base of operations by Proetus, and was walled by him through the aid of the Cyclopes, ' And perhaps the caverns near Nauplia (in Argolis) and the works therein are named after them." (Strabo, Geography 8. 6. 11) "There still remain, however, parts of the city wall (of Mycenae), including the gate, upon which stand lions. These, too, are said to be the work of the Cyclopes, who made for Proetus the wall at Tiryns." (Pausanias, Description of Greece 2. 16. 5) "Beside the sanctuary of Kephisos [at Argos] is a head of Medusa made of stone, which is said to be another of the works of the Cyclopes." (again Pausanias, Ibid 2. 20. 7) "Mycenae girt about with a garland of walls by the Cyclopean masons." (Nonnus, Dionysiaca 41. 263 ff)

    Although one may be hard pressed to find an archaeologist who is willing to say that the Tyrian masons were identical to those Cyclopes of the Greek myths, there have been more than a few of those same archaeologists who have supposed that the Phoenicians must have been the builders of the various, wide spread, ruins of those same, so commonly called, "cyclopean" fortifications.

The Returns of the Perseids

    Of course, the reader will realize that Moses, whether as Perseus or otherwise, never went to Argolis, he never even made it to the promised land let alone Joppa. However it is apparent that his story, along with intricate theological details, did make it to Greece and can be read even today in the myths and legends of the Greeks.

    The return of Perseus to Argos is not the end of his story, there is still one more episode to be examined. (Danaus begat Lynceus begat Abas begat Acrisius begat Danae begat Perseus begat the sons of Perseus).

    If we are to correlate Perseus with Moses then we can expect to find his opposition to the "calf god" included in the Greek myths about Perseus. Sure enough the last episode in the story of Perseus is indeed known as his war against the calf god (formerly called Zagreus, but by the time that this episode was added to the Perseus myth, approximately 860 BC. Zagreus was being called by his new name, "Dionysus").

    The rites of the calf god were staunchly objected to by the Moses faction of the Hebrews at first, because they were polluted with Amazonian feminism and perverted with orgiastic abandon, however, they were eventually mitigated by the teachings of Balaam to the point where a watered down version of them did become accepted by 10/12ths of Israel. (The role of "Balaam" in this "mitigation" will become more evident when we study the Greek myths concerning the seer "Melampus.") The reason why many did not simply forsake the rites of the calf god all together, was apparently because it guaranteed fruitful fields. Back then a religion was a whole way of life. If nomadic herdsmen wanted to become city dwelling agriculturalists, then they had to give up a lot of their previously conceived religious notions, (tent rigging, navigation by astronomy, the way of the wells, herding, the supremacy of the Moon, judges, etc.) and they had to adopt religious practices that were previously considered distasteful (Masonry, planting and harvesting by astronomy, irrigation techniques, crop fertilization, the supremacy of the Sun, Kings, etc.).

    The story of the introduction of the calf god was brought to Greece by several different groups of Hebrew expatriates, Cadmus brought the story to Thebes where its' King Pentheus opposed the calf god, the Aeolians of Orchomenus, who told the stories of Athamus and Sisyphus, also recalled how its' King Minyas resisted the calf god, and for the purposes of this article, the Danaans of Argos also reported the same tale. To quote Ovid, "Acrisius the son of Abas, of the Cadmean race, remained to banish Bacchus (Dionysus) from the walls of Argos, and to lift up hostile arms against that deity, who he denied was born to Jove." (Metamorphoses 4. 607 ff) Here Ovid calls Acrisius, the Danaan grandfather of Perseus, "of the Cadmean race" (a Phoenician), not only that but he was the kind of Phoenician who, at first rejected the calf god. Just as it was against the Danites and the other Israelites at the scourge of Baal Peor, (incidentally, we learn from Ginzberg's "Legends" that Peor was the name of the calf god) women intoxicated with wine were the throng and method of the calf god. "Perseus of the sickle was champion of the Argives; he fitted his feet into the flying shoes, and he lifted up the head of Medusa which no eyes may see. But Iobaccos (Dionysus) marshaled his women with flowing locks, and Satyri with horns. Wild for battle he was when he saw the winged champion (Perseus) coursing through the air." (Nonnus Dionysiaca 47.478) And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab. And the women called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods: and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods. And Israel joined himself unto Baal of Peor (Numbers 25:1-3) "of the women who joined Dionysos in his expedition against Argos, and that Perseus, being victorious in the battle, put most of the women to the sword."(Pausanias, Description of Greece 2. 20. 4) "The temple of Hera (in Argos) . . . before it is a grave of women. They were killed in a battle against the Argives under Perseus (Pausanias again, Ibid 2. 22. 1)

    Of course, even though they at first resisted worshiping the calf god, the Danites did, a bit later in their history become reconciled to the calf god, and King Jeroboam had an Idol of it established at their capital city of Dan in northern Israel. Other Israelites, not necessarily Danites but of the northern ten tribes had another calf god idol set up at Bethel. "The Argives have other things worth seeing for instance . . . the temple of Dionysos. For they say that the god, having made war on Perseus, afterwards laid aside his enmity, and received great honors at the hands of the Argives, including this precinct set specially apart for himself." (Pausanias, Ibid 2. 23. 7) Here we can see as Pausanias reports that even though the great hero of the Danaan people, Perseus was at first violently opposed to the worship of the calf god, the Danaans did acquiesce and became reconciled to it and put up a temple to the calf god in their capitol city of Argos. These then were the same Danite people who went to Greece, populated Argolis, and brought with them these stories which we can now read in what has become known to us today as Greek mythology.

Conclusion

You've heard it said, that there's no extra-Biblical evidence to be found in the histories of the surrounding nations for the Exodus or the Solomonic Kingdom, and therefore, the Bible was simply contrived, artificially manufactured sometime in the third century. And yet I say unto you, perhaps you should not be looking in the "histories" of the nations for the activities of God. These things always get classified as "mythology," not history. This is a trick of classification. Archaeologists could unearth tomorrow the whole story of how God sent a hero, with miracles, to free his earthly wife from her bondage, how they wandered to the promised land and started a dynasty. And they could still say that there is no "historic" evidence, because they would call the evidence a "myth." It's a preconceived prejudice to denigrate mythological evidence. There are volumes of extra-Biblical evidence referring to, and thereby proving, that the Scriptural stories were in existence centuries before the final editing of the Scriptures took place. You just need to know where to look. 
 
Taken from: http://www.britam.org/salverda/perseusmycenae.html

Saturday, September 3, 2011

‘Western Logic’ and the ‘Logos’



Of relevance is Ch. 3 of Tracey Rowland’s book, Ratzinger’s Faith, this chapter being entitled “Revelation, Scripture and Tradition”.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“I will arouse your sons, O Zion, against your sons, O Greece ...”.

Zechariah 9:13

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction

Josef Ratzinger is an original thinker and, though very much in the mould of a western thinker - which is the theme we want to develop further here, west (Logos) against east (Dabar) - and the German west at that, from which has come a lot of problematical biblical exegesis relating to JEDP, he can frequently surprise the reader with his wholly new insights. His books are replete with references to German scholars, understandably, given that he himself is German. Rudolf Bultmann gets a lot of ‘airplay’. And one wonders at times if more orthodox exegetes could have been sourced instead. However, Ratzinger is a good enough writer not to get dragged in by his sources. He can consider another writer’s point of view at some length and then dismiss it in favour of a view that he prefers (as Father Harrison had noted back on p. 8).

As the following section shows (taken from pp. 62-64 of Rowland’s Chapter 3), Ratzinger is very much in the western mould of thinking.

…. ­Ratzinger frequently reminds academic audiences that the Church fathers found the 'seeds of the Word, not in the religions of the ­world, but rather in philosophy, that is, in the process of critical reason ­directed against the [pagan] religions'. …. He notes that the habit of ­thinking about Christianity as a 'religion' among many religions, all of roughly the same intellectual merit, is a modern development. A­t its very origins Christianity sides with reason and considers this ally to be ­its principal forerunner. …. Moreover:

Ultimately it [a decision to believe in God] is a decision in favor of reason and a decision about whether good and evil, truth and untruth, are merely subjective categories or reality. In this sense, in the beginning there is faith, ­but a faith that first acknowledges the dignity and scope of reason. The decision for God is simultaneously an intellectual and an existential decision - each determines the other reciprocally. ….

Ratzinger therefore does not follow the trend of thinking of Athens ­and Jerusalem as short-hand terms for two fundamentally different ­ways of approaching religious matters: one fideistic and one philo­sophical. The great University of Chicago philosophy professor Leo Strauss (1889 -1973) popularized this dichotomy to such a degree that now two generations later there are almost as many subcategories of Straussians as there are Thomists, according to which side of this ­apparently unbridgeable divide they find themselves most at home.

However, Ratzinger's approach is to argue that there are quite amazing parallels in chronology and content between the philosopher’s criticism of the myths in Greece and the prophets' criticism of the gods in Israel. While he concedes that the two movements start from com­pletely different assumptions and have completely different aims, he none the less concludes: the movement of the logos against the myth, as it evolved in the Greek mind in the philosophical enlightenment, so that in the end it necessarily led to the fall of the gods, has an inner parallelism with the enlightenment that the prophetic Wisdom literature cultivated in its demythologization of the divine powers in favour of the one and only God. ….

Comment: Our view is that much Greek mythology is an appropriation and distortion of Hebrew and Near Eastern writings, hence the “amazing parallels”. The pope favours the modern tendency according to which the Book of Wisdom, customarily attributed to King Solomon, was a late compilation influenced by Greek thought. (We might say, according to what we discussed on p. 18, Solon over Solomon, a view that we reject). In Jesus of Nazareth¸ Part Two, p. 210, he writes:

… the author of the Book of Wisdom could have been familiar with Plato’s speculations from his work on statecraft, in which he asks what would become of a perfectly just person in this world, and he comes to the conclusion that such a person would be crucified (The Republic II, 361e-362a). The Book of Wisdom may have taken up this idea from the philosopher and introduced it into the Old Testament, so that it now points directly to Jesus.

Quite on the contrary we would propose that, as according to tradition, King Solomon substantially wrote the Book of Wisdom. This later influenced Plato, who we think himself was, too, in his original form, a prophet of Israel. This thought (already diminished through pagan ‘Ionia’), came to Greece only later, where it received further transformations and transmutations. The stunningly Jesus like references (“be crucified”) could not, we submit, have preceded the Gospels – just as the biographies of Mohammed, originally an Old Testament prophet of Israel, later acquired Christian era references.

There is plenty of Solomonic-like literature already in the ancient Near East, long before Greece, with Hammurabi for instance, our Solomon ruling Babylon.

In our context, we would be largely sympathetic with what Del Nevo has further written in his review of Professor Kreeft’s book (op. cit., our emphasis):

… Traditionally Christian thought, that is, Christian interpretation, has depended on Greek philosophy, more precisely on combinations of Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy. Jesus' philosophy — whatever it was — was Jewish, rabbinic, in the sense we read about in the Talmud, which reflects the oral tradition of Jesus' Jewish world. Jesus' philosophy was not Platonic or Aristotelian.

The problem for Kreeft, which his book bears out, is that philosophy for him is by definition non-Jewish.

There is a long quotation from C. S. Lewis in the Preface to show that Jesus' style followed broadly along Aristotelian lines as found in the Poetics and the Analytics. But Jesus' style was halakhic and aggadic. ….

[End of quote]

By no means could we accept the view of Josef Ratzinger about Islam, in his Regensburg address, that, in Rowland’s words (op. cit., p. 121), “… as a tradition, Islam needs to engage with the intellectual heritage of Greece”. Rather, we think, Islam needs to rediscover its roots in Old Testament Israel. More reasonable, we believe, is Ratzinger’s other view given here that: “… the attempt to graft on to Islamic societies what are termed western standards cut loose from their Christian foundations misunderstands the internal logic of Islam as well as the historical logic to which these western standards belong”.

In light of all of this we find it encouraging that the Church is involving Jews in biblical discussions, for example, Chief Rabbi Cohen addressing the Synod. Blessed Edith Stein, a Jew and a skilled philosopher, becomes an important factor in considerations of Jesus as a Jewish philosopher. Beatified in Cologne on 1 May 1987, the Church has honoured her as "a daughter of Israel" (Pope John Paul II), who, as a Catholic during Nazi persecution, remained faithful to the crucified Lord Jesus Christ and, as a Jew, to her people in loving faithfulness."

http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/saints/ns_lit_doc_19981011_edith_stein_en.html

Monday, August 1, 2011

Jesus Christ Appropriated by Greece and Mis-Dated

Apollonius of Tyana also did miracles and rose. What about him?

by Matt Slick

Apollonius of Tyana (a city south of Turkey) is sometimes offered as a challenge to the uniqueness of Jesus Christ. It is said that Apollonius, who lived in the first century, also performed miracles, had disciples, died, and appeared after his death the same as Jesus. Therefore, critics conclude, what Jesus did isn't unique. Some even say that this is evidence that the Christian account of Christ's healings, miracles, and post death appearances were merely copied from the accounts of Apollonius. Are these accusations supportable? No, they aren't.

First of all, the accounts of Apollonius were written well after he is supposed to have lived by a man named Philostratus (170 - 245 A.D.). This is long after the New Testament was written. Therefore the written accounts of Apollonius were not written by eyewitnesses as were the gospels. If critics want to maintain that the New Testament is full of myth and must be discredited, then so must the accounts of Apollonius since the writings are written several generations after the fact. By contrast the New Testament was written by the eyewitnesses of Jesus' life. Logically, it is the New Testament accounts that are far more reliable than those of Apollonius. Also, this would mean that if any borrowing was done, it was done by Philostratus, not by the gospel writers.

Second, the eyewitness accounts of the New Testament writers were written before the close of the first century. For example, we know that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Acts do not contain the account of the fall of Jerusalem which occurred in 70 A.D. This fall included the destruction of the Jerusalem temple which was prophesied by Jesus in Matt. 24:1, Mark 13:1, and Luke 21:5. Such an incredibly major event in Jewish history would surely have been included in Acts and the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) if they were written after 70 A.D. since they would verify Jesus' predictive abilities. But, it is not included. Therefore, it is safe to say that they were written by the eyewitnesses of Jesus' life, unlike the accounts of Apollonius.

Third, Philostratus is the only source for the accounts of Apollonius where the Bible is multi-sourced. In other words, we have different writers writing about Jesus. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, etc., are different writers who's epistles were gathered by the Church and assembled into the Bible. That means that there is no verification for Apollonius other than the single writing of Philostratus.

Fourth, Philostratus was commissioned by an empress to write a biography of Apollonius in order to dedicate a temple to him. This means that there was a motive for Philostratus to embellish the accounts in order satisfy the requirement of the empress.1

It is not likely in the slightest that the gospels borrowed from Apollonius. It is most probably the other way around, especially since Philostratus had a motive to satisfy the empress who had commissioned him to write a biography of the man for whom a temple had been constructed.

  1. 1. Strobel, Lee, The Case for Christ, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998, p. 120.

....
Taken from: http://carm.org/apologetics/evidence-and-answers/apollonius-tyana-also-did-miracles-and-rose-what-about-him

For much more, see:

Tuesday, July 26, 2011

Did the Greeks Appropriate Judith the Jewess, as Helen the Hellene, of Troy?




As for Judith, the Greeks appear to have substituted this beautiful Jewish heroine with their own legendary Helen, whose 'face launched a thousand ships'. Compare for instance these striking similarities (Judith and The Iliad): 

 
The beautiful woman praised by the elders at the city gates:

 
"When [the elders of Bethulia] saw [Judith] transformed in appearance and dressed differently, they were very greatly astounded at her beauty" (Judith 10:7).

"Now the elders of the people were sitting by the Skaian gates…. When they saw Helen coming … they spoke softly to each other with winged words: 'No shame that the Trojans and the well-greaved Achaians should suffer agonies for long years over a woman like this - she is fearfully like the immortal goddesses to look at'" [The Iliad., pp. 44-45].

 
This theme of incredible beauty - plus the related view that "no shame" should be attached to the enemy on account of it - is picked up again a few verses later in the Book of Judith (v.19) when the Assyrian soldiers who accompany Judith and her maid to Holofernes "marveled at [Judith's] beauty and admired the Israelites, judging them by her … 'Who can despise these people, who have women like this among them?'"

 
Nevertheless:

 
'It is not wise to leave one of their men alive, for if we let them go they will be able to beguile the whole world!' (Judith 10:19).

 
'But even so, for all her beauty, let her go back in the ships, and not be left here a curse to us and our children'.

 
And did the prophet Isaiah have Judith in mind, when he wrote:

 
"How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of the messenger who brings good news, the good news of peace and salvation, the news that the God of Israel reigns!"?

 
Concerning this text, John Paul II wrote of the Virgin Mary:

VISITATION IS PRELUDE TO JESUS’ MISSION Pope John Paul II



Like Elizabeth, the Church rejoices that Mary is the Mother of the Lord who brought her Son into the world and constantly co-operates in his saving missionAt the General Audience of Wednesday, 2 October, the Holy Father returned to his series of reflections on the Blessed Virgin Mary. Speaking of the Visitation, the Pope said: "Mary's visit to Elizabeth, in fact, is a prelude to Jesus' mission and, in co-operating from the beginning of her motherhood in the Son's redeeming work, she becomes the model for those in the Church who set out to bring Christ's light and joy to the people of every time and place". Here is a translation of his catechesis, which was the 34th in the series on the Blessed Virgin and was given in Italian.1. In the Visitation episode, St Luke shows how the grace of the Incarnation, after filling Mary, brings salvation and joy to Elizabeth's house. The Saviour of men, carried in his Mother's womb, pours out the Holy Spirit, revealing himself from the very start of his coming into the world. In describing Mary's departure for Judea, the Evangelist uses the verb "anístemi", which means "to arise", "to start moving". Considering that this verb is used in the Gospels to indicate Jesus' Resurrection (Mk 8:31; 9:9,31; Lk 24:7, 46) or physical actions that imply a spiritual effort (Lk 5:27-28; 15:18,20), we can suppose that Luke wishes to stress with this expression the vigorous zeal which led Mary, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to give the world its Saviour.Meeting with Elizabeth is a joyous saving event2. The Gospel text also reports that Mary made the journey "with haste" (Lk 1:39). Even the note "into the hill country" (Lk 1:39), in the Lucan context, appears to be much more than a simple topographical indication, since it calls to mind the messenger of good news described in the Book of Isaiah: "How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good tidings, who publishes peace, who brings good tidings of good, who publishes salvation, who says to Zion: 'Your God reigns'" (Is 52:7).
Like St Paul, who recognizes the fulfilment of this prophetic text in the preaching of the Gospel (Rom 10:15), St Luke also seems to invite us to see Mary as the first "evangelist", who spreads the "good news", initiating the missionary journeys of her divine Son.
Lastly, the direction of the Blessed Virgin's journey is particularly significant: it will be from Galilee to Judea, like Jesus' missionary journey (cf. 9:51).
Mary's visit to Elizabeth, in fact, is a prelude to Jesus' mission and, in cooperating from the beginning of her motherhood in the Son's redeeming work, she becomes the model for those in the Church who set out to bring Christ's light and joy to the people of every time and place.
3. The meeting with Elizabeth has the character of a joyous saving event that goes beyond the spontaneous feelings of family sentiment. Where the embarrassment of disbelief seems to be expressed in Zechariah's muteness, Mary bursts out with the joy of her quick and ready faith: "She entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth" (Lk 1:40).
St Luke relates that "when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb" (Lk 1:41). Mary's greeting caused Elizabeth's son to leap for joy: Jesus' entrance into Elizabeth's house, at Mary's doing, brought the unborn prophet that gladness which the Old Testament foretells as a sign of the Messiah's presence.
At Mary's greeting, messianic joy comes over Elizabeth too and "filled with the Holy Spirit ... she exclaimed with a loud cry, 'Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!'" (Lk 1:41-42).
By a higher light, she understands Mary's greatness: more than Jael and Judith, who prefigured her in the Old Testament, she is blessed among women because of the fruit of her womb, Jesus, the Messiah.
4. Elizabeth's exclamation, made "with a loud cry", shows a true religious enthusiasm, which continues to be echoed on the lips of believers in the prayer "Hail Mary", as the Church's song of praise for the great works accomplished by the Most High in the Mother of his Son.
In proclaiming her "blessed among women", Elizabeth points to Mary's faith as the reason for her blessedness: "And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfilment of what was spoken to her from the Lord" (Lk 1:45). Mary's greatness and joy arise from the fact the she is the one who believes.
In view of Mary's excellence, Elizabeth also understands what an honour her visit is for her: "And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Lk 1:43). With the expression "my Lord", Elizabeth recognizes the royal, indeed messianic, dignity of Mary's Son. In the Old Testament this expression was in fact used to address the king (cf. I Kgs 1:13,20,21 etc.) and to speak of the Messiah King (Ps I 10: 1). The angel had said of Jesus: "The Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David" (Lk 1:32). "Filled with the Holy Spirit", Elizabeth has the same insight. Later, the paschal glorification of Christ will reveal the sense in which this title is to be understood, that is, a transcendent sense (cf. Jn 20:28; Acts 2:34-36).
Mary is present in whole work of divine salvation
With her admiring exclamation, Elizabeth invites us to appreciate all that the Virgin's presence brings as a gift to the life of every believer.
In the Visitation, the Virgin brings Christ to the Baptist's mother, the Christ who pours out the Holy Spirit. This role of mediatrix is brought out by Elizabeth's very words: "For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my cars, the babe in my womb leaped for joy" (Lk 1:44). By the gift of the Holy Spirit, Mary's presence serves as a prelude to Pentecost, confirming a co-operation which, having begun with the Incarnation, is destined to be expressed in the whole work of divine salvation.

Taken from:L'Osservatore Romano Weekly Edition in English 9 October 1996, page 11L'Osservatore Romano is the newspaper of the Holy See.
The Weekly Edition in English is published for the US by:
The Cathedral Foundation L'Osservatore Romano English Edition320 Cathedral St.Baltimore, MD 21201Subscriptions: (410) 547-5315Fax: (410) 332-1069


Provided Courtesy of:Eternal Word Television Network5817 Old Leeds RoadIrondale, AL 35210
www.ewtn.com

Wednesday, June 1, 2011

Jonah in Greco-Roman Mythology

Typically, the famous story of the prophet Jonah appears to have been picked up later by the Greco-Romans, and re-cast, as we are now going to find.

Jonah, as we read, “went down to Joppa and found a ship going to Tarshish” (1:3). Legend has it that Joppa, or Jaffa, was founded by Noah’s son, Japheth. Now, Japheth became a primary god, Iapetos/Iapetus, for the Greeks. This important port of Joppa, Sennacherib of Assyria had high-handedly captured in the C8th BC. As König had noted, in relation to a Greek myth: “… it was in the neighbourhood of Joppa that Andromeda, too, was reduced to straits by a sea-monster …”. And Graves writes similarly:“An Etruscan vase shows the moribund king, whose name is given as Jason … in the jaws of a sea-monster: an icon from which the moral anecdote of Jonah and the Whale has apparently been deduced [sic]”. Wikipedia, too, tells of Jonah/Jason correspondences:

In 1995 the classicist Gildas Hamel revived a long-forgotten theory connecting the story of Jonah with that of the Greek hero Jason ("Taking the Argo to Nineveh: Jonah and Jason in a Mediterranean context," Judaism Summer, 1995; online).

Drawing on the Book of Jonah and Greco-Roman sources—including Greek vases and the accounts of Apollonius of Rhodes, Valerius Flaccus and Orphic Argonautica—Hamel identifies a number of shared motifs, including the names of the heroes, the presence of a dove, the idea of "fleeing" like the wind and causing a storm, the attitude of the sailors, the presence of a sea-monster or dragon threatening the hero or swallowing him, and the form and the word used for the "gourd" (kikayon, a hapax legomenon within the Hebrew Bible). ….

Indeed I seem to find in ‘Jason of the land of Iolchos’ quite a linguistic similarity to Isaiah [as Nahum] of Elkosh’. [To understand this connection, see main article on Jonah, previous post].

Sayce, writing with reference to the Book of Jonah, told of the extraordinary claim by Stephanus Byzantius, that “Gaza was also called Iônê, while the sea between Gaza and the frontier of Egypt was called “Ionian”.”

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Chinese and Sumerian by Charles J. Ball



Taken from:
http://www.niamwebs.com/read/?http://www.archive.org/stream/chinesesumerian00balluoft/chinesesumerian00balluoft_djvu.txt


....
INITIAL AND FINAL SOUNDS— THEIR CORRESPONDENCE AND PARALLEL CHANGES That Chinese is related to the old Sumerian language of Babylonia is a con- clusion which appears inevitable, when we notice the great similarity of the two vocabularies. This may perhaps be best exhibited in tabular form. The following list does not, of course, pretend to be exhaustive. Its purpose is merely to weaken any presumption of antecedent improbability ; and so to bespeak an unprejudiced consideration for the arguments and comparisons to follow. CHINESE an, ang, yen, a clear sky. ang, high. pa, pat, pal, to draw water, pan, ban, comrade ; p'eng, pen, bang, friend ; pair, pi, p^t, pit, but, writing-brush ; pen. pit, pieh, p'et, biet, to separate ; to part, p'ien, p"in, bin, carriage (for women), ping, bing, disease ; sick, ping, pen, bing, pin, ice ; cold ; frost. p'ang, p'ong, bang, a heavy fall, of snow or rain. See also m^ng. han, ein, kan, gan, cold ; han-tung, id. yin-tung, to freeze, hei, he, h^k, hik, koku, black ; dark, hien, keing, gan, salt ; bitter, hien, ham, kan, gan, all. ho, ha, ka, ga, to bear ; to carry, hing, kiang, ying, gio, walk ; kien, kfn, id. hiien, ngien, gen, black, huk, hu, uk, koku, dawn ; sunrise, kai, ka, kie, street, k'ai, hoi, k'ae, kai, to open, kan, kon, kiie, stem ; rod ; cane ; pole, &c. kwan, kun, kon, kiie, kou, reed ; bamboo tube, k'an, kan, look at ; see ; examine, k'i, the earth {personified). SUMERIAN AN, AM, EN, the sky; heaven. AN, high. BAL, to draw water. MAN, comrade ; friend ; two. MU ATI, PATI,PA(?), stylus or writing- reed. BAD, to remove ; distant. D UB- BIN, covered car ; litter. PIG (also SIG), weak; weakness. 6aL-BI(N) ; 6aL-BA(N), id. MAM (A-MAM), cold weather. MAM, MAMMI, storm of snow or cold rain. EN-TEN, cold weather. GE, GIG, KUKKU, night; black. GIN, bitter (C. T. xii. 30). GAN A, all. GA, to lift, bear, carry. GIN, to walk; G\y[Jd. GIN, black (C. T. xii. 30) ; KAN, id. UG, day (C. T. xii. 6) : from GUG. KAS-KAL, road. GAL, to open. GIN, GI, reed; stem, &c. IGI-GAN, to see ; behold ; inspect. KI, the earth. PRELIMINARY LIST OF SIMILAR WORDS CHINESE k'i, this. (2) Precaiive Particle. kin, an axe. (2) a pound weight. kin, metal ; gold. kien, kfn, ken, kon, to establish. kien, kfn, k'en, a donkey. k'ien, hfn, k'en, ken, to send. k'ien, k'fm, k'em, kin, ken, black. kien, kfn, ken, to see. kiin, kuen, kwan, ken, to love ; ngen, en, ang, eng, in, on, un, en, kindness ; affection ; ngdn-ngai, affection (of the sexes), kou, mouth, k'ou, milk, k'un, kwen, kon, kun, elder brother ; hiung, hing, kei, id. kung, tribute, kung, work. kwan, kun, kon, ruler ; mandarin, kwo, kwok, kuk, country ; nation, k'wo, kwat, kwal, broad ; wide, k'iit, ket, kiiet, cut off; decide, lai, rai, to come, lik, li, strength. Ifm, lien, kiam, ken, the face. 1ft, Heh, yol, gust ; squall. lut, lii, a law ; rule ; fa-lu, fat-lut, fap-lut, laws and statutes, len, lin, ning, dei, peace, ma, weights, — of commerce. ma, twins (Chalmers 91). man, full ; kan, fullness ; overflow. m^k, mai, muk, mik, black. min, people. min, men, ming, merciful; compassionate ; wen, un, kind, ming, brightness, ming, meng, mei, a name, meng, moung, maong, dream, meng, mung, bong, drizzling rain ; ming, men, id. mi, not ; mei, id. ; wu, mou, mu, id. mft, met, mieh, blood, mu, male, mu, muk, wood ; a tree. {Phon. also KU-T: P. 278.) SUMEKIAN GE, this. (2) Precative Particle. GIN, an axe. (2) a shekel (GE). GUSH-KIN, gold. GIN, to establish. SHA-KAN; (G)AN-SHU. KIN, to send. GIN; KAN, black. KIN, to look to ; see to. KIN-GAD, to love. {Also read YA-hVi, KI-EM, KI-AG = ki-ang.) KA, mouth. GA, milk. U-RUN, U-RIN {character also read GIN : C. T. xii. 30), brother. GUN, tribute. KIN, charge; commission; work, GUN, U-GUN. lord. UG {from GUG) : C. T. xii. 27. DA-GAL, broad ; wide. KUD, cut off; decide. RA, LA 6, to walk, go, &c. LIG, strong. A-LAM,A-LAN, image; likeness; GIM, DIM, zfl'. LIL, storm-wind. BIL-LUD (BAL-LUD; BAB-LUD?), divine commands ; laws. SI-LIM {also read DI), peace. MA, MA-NA, the mina or standard weight. MASH, MASH-MASH, twin(s). MAL {from MAN), to be full ; GAN, abundant. MI;SU-MUG. (F/fl'.hei, black.) MULU (MUL = MUN), man. MUNU, goodness; kindness. MUNU, MUL ( = MUN), flame. MUN, MU, a name. MAMU, dream. MAMMI, shower of rain or snow. ME, NAM-ME ; MU. not. MUD, blood. MU, male. MU, wood ; a tree. {Also read GU : C. T. xii. 30.) PRELIMINARY LIST OF SIMILAR WORDS CHINESE mu [from mu-k), mother. mu, muk, tend cattle ; shepherd. mu, mou, wu, sorcerer. nga, ngwa, wa, tiles ; glazed bricks. ngan,^ I ; ngo, wo, nga, ga ; wu, ngu, ngou, ngo, I, me ; my. ngi, i, er (ur), the ear. ni, li, yi, t'i, grease ; fat. niang, niong, nong, woman ; lady. nfm, nien, nydm, niom, to repeat or recite, e.g. charms, liturgies, &c. nfn, nien, nieng, nen, a year. ngu, niu, giu, ox. san, swan, a box ; a basket. shak, shek, shi, sik, zi, zah, t'ak, stone. sheng, a sage ; a Prophet, san, swan, slin, son, to reckon, seng, a priest, shik, shit, shih, to eat ; food. shi [from shik), si, swine. shou, su, the hands. shu, writing ; book. sik, si, to split ; divide. sik, si, J. seki, formerly; of old. sin, sien, sen, before ; ancient. sfn, sien, si, hsien, to wash. sin, sien, sen, tien, sleet. sing, seng, hsing, smell ; odorous ; rank. sing, a name. sing, form ; figure. sing, a star. sung, pines, firs, &c. sung, to give. suk, su, J. soku, shoku, grain. siit, set, siok, hswik, sheh, snow ; ice. T'ai-poh, the planet Venus ; T'e-bah. tan, only ; single. te, tek, tik, toku, to get. ting, adult male. t'ien, t'fn, t'ieng, ten, heaven. t'ien, t'fn, diefi, tieng, ten, a field. tien, tin, tieng, ten, mad ; raving. SUMERIAN MUG, parent of either sex; U-MU,- mother. MU, shepherd (S-^ 308) [?]. MU, charm ; spell ; incantation. GA-R, MA-R ( = WA-R), flat bricks. GAL (=GAN); GIN; GAE, MAE ; GA, MA ; MU, I, me; my. GE ; BUR ( = MUR, WUR) ; the ear. NI, LI, I, lA, oil; fat; anoint. {Also read DIG.) NIN, lady. I-NIM, E-NEM, utterance, prayer, spell or incantation. LIM, a year, — of office [?]; As. limmu, limu. GU, GUD, ox. PI-SAN, a box ; a coffer, &c. DAG, DIG, SI, ZA, values of the char, for stone. GA-SHAM, wise, — in oracles, &c. SAM, SAN, reckoning ; price. SANGU, a priest. SHUKU.food; SUG-SUG,SUD-SUD, to eat (Br. 6058). SHAG, SIg, swine. SHU, thehand(s). SHU, writing; the scribe's art. SIG, SI, to split; divide. SIG, SI, old. SUN, old. SH UN-SHUN, pure. TEN in EN-TEN A, cold. IR-SIM, fragrance ; sweet odour. SIM, to call ; to name. SIG ( = SING), form; figure. SIG, bright; light. SHIM (cDet. GISH, tree), scented trees. SUM, SUN, SIG, SI, to give. SHUG, SHE, grain. SHED, SID, SHEG, SHE, frost; snow; ice (C.T. xii. 11); IM-SHESH, id.; A-SHUGI, frost. DIL-BAD ; JeAf^ar {Hesych). TAN, Del. after Numerals. TUG, TUKU, to get. TIN, MU-TIN, a male; a man. I-DIM; (I-D IN), heaven. E-DIN, the field, steppe, &c. I-DIM, mad ; raging. B 2 PRELIMINARY LIST OF SIMILAR WORDS CHINESE tip, tiap, tie, tablets ; documents. ts'e, tsah, chak, chaik, shoku, the side. ts'i, zi, dzi, ch'i, even ; correct ; regular. ts'iin, ch'iian, sen, zen, all. tung, winter ; tung, to freeze. t'ung, tong, dung, copper ; brass. tung, to move ; motion. t'ung, dung, a boy. tzu, chu, ti, a child. lit, yiie, moon ; month. wu, u, uk, house ; chamber. wei, vi, to do ; to make. wen, m€n, written characters. yet, ngyit, nyit, the sun. yu. "gii. gio, fish. yii, ngu, to talk ; speech. yiian, yen {from gon), a garden. SUMERIAN DUB, a clay tablet ; inscribed document. ZAG, the side ; TIG, id. ZI, ZIG, ZID, right. Z UN, all; Sign of Plur. TEN, in EN-TEN, cold. SHUN, SHEN, copper (skinnu). TUM, to walk ; to go. DUMU, DAMU, achild. DU, child. ITU, ITI, id. {AISS,, Hesych) MU (C. T. xii. 8); U, house. ME (C. T. xii. lo), to do ; to make. DIM-MEN, foundation-inscription ; (2) foundation (Turkish temel). UD, UTU, id. {from GUD). ku, a fish (C. T. xii. 27). GU, to say; speak ; speech. GAN, garden; field. INITIAL AND FINAL SOUNDS— THEIR CORRESPONDENCE AND PARALLEL CHANGES It is evident that the preceding list presents at a glance sufficient similarity between the material of the two languages to suggest at once the hypothesis of relationship. But if we look below the surface, as Philology justifies us in doing, we shall discover in Chinese a large number of vocables which, although they have become dissimilar in the natural course of phonetic change, were originally either identical with the corresponding sounds of the primitive Sumerian speech, or at all events manifestly akin to them. In fact, much as Philology justifies us in connecting the Latin aqua with the French eau, so it may justify us in connecting the Chinese ho, river, with the Sumerian ID, I, river, and CjAL, to flow ; although the three terms possess not a letter in common. When it is pointed out that the character ^ ho is still read ka or ga in the traditional Japanese pronunciation, which is more faithful to the ancient sounds of the Chinese, and that the kindred Mongol word for river is gol, Manchau hoi ; we see at once that the Chinese initial h represents, as indeed is usual, an older k (from a yet earlier g), and that the lost final of the root is 1 or a related sound. It thus appears likely that the Chinese ho, river, is akin to the Sumerian GAL, to flow. But, further, the Sumerian ID, I, river, which occurs in the name I.DIGNA, Assyrian Idiglat, the Tigris, is really a worn form of GID, as is shown by the Hebrew transcription Vpin Khiddeqel ; and this earlier GID suggests a primary GAD, cognate with GAL, to flow, and identical with the old Chinese kat, gat, river (cf P. 145). INITIAL AND FINAL SOUNDS, ETC. ^ Take another instance, ^ ho, fire, was formerly ka, as we learn again from the Japanese pronunciation ; and the Mongol gal, fire, again suggests the loss of a final dental (Mongol 1 = Chinese t). Thus kat, or gat, emerges as the oldest form of the Chinese word for fire. But instead of a guttural initial, the dialects present a labial sound ; Cantonese and Hakka fo, Wenchow fu, implying an earlier pa, ba : others exhibit transitional sounds, Mandarin hwo, Fuchau hwi ; c/. Korean and Annamite hwa (ga = gwa = wa). The Chinese sounds, therefore, appear to suggest gat (gal) and bat (bal) as their biform original. Now the Sumerian character for fire was read IZ (from GIZ, GAZ ; GUZ, c/. USSl), IZI, fire; and BI, to kindle, to flare up; and PIL (from BIL, BAL), to burn. We find also the compounds GI.BIL, burning, light; and GISH.BAR, dialectic MU.BAR, fire. The Fire-god was called BIL.GI (from BAL.GI), later GI.BIL; and GISH.BAR. BAR and BAL in this sense are evidently related to each other, and to BAR, dialectic MASH, to shine ; while GAZ is akin to GAR, light. And it is equally clear that the old Chinese sounds gat, bat, closely correspond to the Sumerian (G)IZ (GAZ), GAR, and BIL (BAL), BAR. With BI, to kindle, cf. the Japanese hi, fire, from bi, pi, and with BAR, Jap. abure, to roast. As regards the interchange of sounds, the transition from a guttural to a labial initial is a common feature of both languages. A good example may be seen in the Sumerian USH (from GUSH), blood, and what we may call its M-form, MUD, blood ; a pair of words which are perfectly represented by, or preserved in, the Chinese hiieh and mieh, blood. That the older sound of hiieh was kut, is inferred from the Jap. ket-si, compared with Cantonese hiit and Hakka het {see G. 4847) ; and kut = GUD, GUSH. As for mieh (G. 7880), it is surely enough to adduce the Cantonese myt, Hakka met, Jap. bet-si or me-chi, Annamite miet, to confirm the suggestion of its close kindred with the Sumerian MUD, blood. There can be little doubt, one would think, that the Sumerian (G)USH and MUD, on the one hand, and their Chinese equivalents hiieh-hut and mieh-myt, on the other, although given in the dictionaries as mutually independent words, are really related to each other in much the same way as GISH and MESH, GU and MU, tree, wood, are related in Sumerian, or as ho and fo, fire, or ngo and wo, I, in Chinese. One is simply a labialized form of the other. The Chinese Phonetics have preserved many vestiges of such philological counterparts. Thus in Sumerian, ^^, the character denoting black and night, had the sounds GA, GE, GIG, and MI (from MIG, MUG). Accordingly, we find that the Chinese M (P. 862) has the Phonetic values kek and mek. By itself, the character is read hei or h^ or ho, C. hak, H. het, W. he, hah, hek, K. hik, J. koku, black {see G. 3899) ; and with the Radical or Determinative j^ earth, it is ^ mo, mek, met, meik, mai, me, muk, me, K. mik, J. boku and moku, A. mak, ink ; black ; obscure (G. 8022). It will be noticed that the vowel-variation resembles that of the values of the Sumerian prototype, GA, GE, GIG, MI, KUKKU. Of course, the sound 6 INITIAL AND FINAL SOUNDS, ETC. belongs to the Phonetic ^. The Radical, added later for distinction's sake, has nothing to do with sound, but only with sense.

....

Linguistic Correspondence: Nahuatl and Ancient Egyptian


 
by
 
Charles William Johnson
 
Science in Ancient Artwork
Extract Nº. 43


Linguistic Correspondence:
Nahuatl and Ancient Egyptian



by
Charles William Johnson


In our more detailed analyses of the possible correspondence among words of the ancient Egyptian language and nahuatland maya, we have seen that some word-concepts are almost exactly the same in phonetic values. Furthermore, the maya glyphs and ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs share extremely common designs in similar/same word-concepts.
Today, the idea of linguistic correspondence among the Indo-European languages is a widespread fact. From the still unknown Indo-European mother language it is thought came Sanskrit (and the contemporary languages of Pakistan and India); Persian; and Greek, Latin (and many contemporary European languages). The correspondence of similar/same words among the Latin languages is quite visible, with Spanish words, for example, resembling those of French, Italian and Portuguese. English resembles the Teutonic ones, such as, German, Dutch and the Scandinavian languages.
On the other hand, no apparent linguistic correspondence has been observed between ancient Egyptian and languages such as nahuatl or maya, at least to any significant scholarly degree. In the aforementioned essay, we have examined numerous correspondences between word-concepts (and some glyphs) between the ancient Egyptian language and the maya system. The word for day name in maya is ahau, which means place or time in ancient Egyptian. Hom is ballcourt in maya; hem means little ball in ancient Egyptian. Ik means air in maya ; to suspend in the air is ikh in ancient Egyptian. Nichim signifies flower in maya; nehem means bud, flower in ancient Egyptian. And so on, for hundreds of word-concepts that we have examined in the comparison of these two languages.
When similar kinds of linguistic correspondences were perceived by William Jones, in the latter part of the eighteenth century, between Sanskrit and other languages, such examples were sufficient to convince scholars that all of those languages probably came from a mother tongue, the Indo-European language. Today, when linguistic correspondence is observed between the ancient Mesoamerican languages and ancient Egyptian, scholars are unwilling or hesitant to accept the idea that the same laws of linguistics may apply. The reason for this is quite simple: there is no historical basis for considering the possibility that the peoples of these different languages had any physical contact among themselves. Physical contact among the peoples who descended from the Indo-European family is established by historical data. There is no obvious historical data to think that the peoples of ancient Mesoamerica and the peoples of ancient Egypt ever met or came into physical contact with one another.
Nevertheless, historical data aside for the moment, let us examine some of the obvious examples of linguistic correspondence between nahuatl and the ancient Egyptian language.
One very obvious characteristic of the nahuatl language is the extensive use of the letter "l" in most of the words, either as ending to the words or juxtaposed to consonants and vowels within the words. One of the very apparent characteristics of the ancient Egyptian language is the almost total absence of the use of the letter "l" within most of its word-concepts. The letter "l" appears as an ending of words only a handful of times in E.A. Wallis Budge's work, An Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary. It would appear that this very dissimilar characteristic between these two languages would discourage anyone from considering a comparative analysis of possible linguistic correspondence between these two very apparently distinct idioms.
However, as we eliminate the letter "l" from the nahuatl words, the remaining phonemes (listed in brackets) resemble the phonemes and morphemes of ancient Egyptian in many cases. Let us offer only a few of such examples to consider a possible linguistic correspondence between these two fascinating systems of human speech.




Nahuatl



Egyptian



canoe ACAL [aca-]



AQAI boat (page 139b from Budge's work cited above)
reed ACATL[acat-]



AQ


AKHAH-T reed (139b)


reed (8a)
a well AMELLI [ame-i]



AMAM place with water in them, wells (121b)
house CALLI [ca-i]



KA house (783a)
serpent
...
COATL [coat-]
....
...




KHUT
...
...
snake (30b)
....
...
Linguistic correspondence between nahuatl and ancient Egyptian appears to represent a smoking gun; that is, a trace of evidence that these two peoples did enjoy some kind of contact between themselves ages ago. The fact that we have no real evidence of said contact, or that we have been unable to find any such evidence, should not serve as the basis for denying the possibility of that contact. To attribute all of these similarities in sound, symbol and meaning to mere happenstance seems to be a very unscientific way of resolving an annoying issue. To admit the possibility of physical contact between these cultures has implications for our own interpretation of history and the aspect of technological development of our societies. Such fears are unfounded, given the already obvious fact that our technical know-how could probably not reproduce and build something as majestic as the Great Pyramid.
      
Read more: johnson@earthmatrix.com
       
*************************
©1999-2011 Copyrighted by Charles William Johnson. All rights reserved.


Reproduction prohibited without written consent of the author.

Earth/matriX


Science in Ancient Artwork


Extract Nº43


Linguistic Correspondence: Nahuatl and Ancient Egyptian


6 March 1999


©1999-2011 Copyrighted by Charles William Johnson. All Rights Reserved

Sounds, Symbols and Meaning:


ANCIENT EGYPTIAN, MAYA AND NAHUATL
by Charles William Johnson
In the Earth/matriX series, we have observed similarities in the geometry and mathematics of ancient artwork. One would also expect similarities to exist within the languages.
Sounds, Symbols and Meaning explores coincidences in the word-concepts and glyphs of these ancient languages. Two distinct cultures, the ancient Egyptians and the cultures of Mesoamerica appear to have had very similar speaking traits. They both saw a deer, and coincidentally each one thought the sound "ma"; they saw water and both used the sound "at"; they looked at the sky and both again mumbled an initial "k" sound; they saw the dew on flowers and said to themselves a sound beginning with "it"; they looked at their feet and voiced the sound "b"; they got drunk and sounded a "tek" word; they looked at the mountain and said a word beginning with the letter "t"; they saw a lion and said an "m" word; then, they saw the moon and mumbled another "m" word; and so on. Hundreds of similarly related word-concepts and symbols are explored in this brief study in comparative philology, which reveals the possibility that these ancient cultures may have had contact with one another. To attribute so many similarities of sound, symbol and meaning to mere coincidence contradicts the laws of probability.
Sounds, Symbols and Meaning:
Ancient Egyptian, Maya and Nahuatl
Charles William Johnson

Monday, May 9, 2011

“The Scandal of Enkomi” by Immanuel Velikovsky



The lengthening of Egyptian history by phantom centuries must have as a consequence the lengthening of Mycenaen-Greek history by the same length of time. On Cyprus, Aegean culture came into contact with the cultures of the Orient, particularly with that of Egypt, and unavoidably embarrassing situations were in store for archaeology.
In 1896 the British Museum conducted excavations at the village of Enkomi, the site of an ancient capital of Cyprus, not far from Famagusta, with A. S. Murray in charge.1
A necropolis was cleared, and many sepulchral chambers investigated. “In general there was not apparent in the tombs we opened any wide differences of epoch. For all we could say, the whole burying-ground may have been the work of a century.”
“From first to last there was no question that this whole burying-ground belonged to what is called the Mycenaean Age, the characteristics of which are already abundantly known from the tombs of Mycenae . . . and many other places in the Greek islands and in Egypt.”
However the pottery, porcelain, gems, glass, ivory, bronze, and gold found in the tombs all presented one and the same difficulty. From the Egyptological point of view many objects belong to the time of Amenhotep III and Akhnaton, supposedly of the fifteenth to the fourteenth centuries. From the Assyrian, Phoenician, and Greek viewpoint the same objects belong to the period of the ninth to the eighth or seventh centuries. Since the objects are representative of Mycenaean culture, the excavator questioned the true time of the Mycenaean Age. But as the Mycenaean Age is linked to the Egyptian chronology he found himself at an impasse.
We shall follow him in his efforts to come out of the labyrinth. He submitted a vase, typical of the tombs of Enkomi, to a thorough examination. The dark outlines of the figures on the vase are accompanied by white dotted lines, making the contours of men and animals appear to be perforated. This feature is very characteristic. “The same peculiarity of white dotted lines is found also on a vase from Caere [in Etruria], signed by the potter Aristonothos which, it is argued, cannot be older than the seventh century B.C. The same method of dotted lines is to be seen again on a pinax [plate] from Cameiros [on Rhodes] in the [British] Museum, representing the combat of Menelaos and Hector over the body of Euphorbos, with their names inscribed. That vase also is assigned to the seventh century B.C. Is it possible that the Mycenae and Enkomi vases are seven or eight centuries older?”
Analyzing the workmanship and design of sphinxes or grifins with human forelegs on the vase, the archaeologist stressed “its relationship, on the one hand, to the fragmentary vase of Tell el-Amarna (see Petrie, Tell el-Amarna, Plate 27) and a fragment of fresco from Tiryns (Perrot and Chipiez, VI, 545), and on the other hand to the pattern which occurs on a terracotta sarcophagus from Clazomenae, [in Ionia] now in Berlin, a work of the early sixth century B.C.”
The connection between the Mycenaean and Aristonothos vases caused “a remarkable divergence of opinion, even among those who defend systematically the high antiquity of Mycenaean art.”
The problem of pottery which belongs to two different ages is repeated in ivory. The ivories of the Enkomi tombs are very similar to those found by Layard in the palace of Nimroud, the ancient capital of Assyria. There is, for example, a carving of a man slaying a griffin,
“the man being remarkable for the helmet with chin strap which he wears. It is a subject which appears frequently on the metal bowls of the Phoenicians, and is found in two instances among the ivories discovered by Layard in the palace at Nimroud. The date of the palace is given as 850-700 B.C.”
An oblong box for the game of draughts, found in Enkomi, “must date from a period when the art of Assyria was approaching its decline,” five or six centuries after the reputed end of the Mycenaean age.
“Among the Nimroud ivories (850-700 B.C.) is a fragmentary relief of a chariot in pursuit of a lion to the left, with a dog running alongside the horses as at Enkomi, the harness of the horses being also similar.” The style of the sculpture (of Nimroud) “is more archaic than on the Enkomi casket.” But how could this be if the objects found in Enkomi date no later than the 12th Century? Comparing the two objects, I. J. Winter wrote:
A hunting scene depicted on a rectangular panel from an ivory gaming board of ‘Cypro-Mycenaean’ style found at Enkomi, with its blanketed horses and chariot with six-spoked wheel, so closely resembles a similar hunting scene on one of the pyxides from Nimroud that only details such as the hairdo of one of the chariot followers or the flying gallop of the animals mark the Enkomi piece as a work of the second millennium B.C., separated by some four centuries from the Nimroud pyxis.2
A bronze of Enkomi repeats a theme of the Nimroud ivories, representing a woman at a window. “The conception is so singular, and the similarity of our bronze to the ivory so striking, that there can hardly be much difference of date between the two—somewhere about 850-700 B.C.”
“Another surprise among our bronzes is a pair of greaves. . . It is contended by Reichel3 that metal greaves are unknown in Homer. He is satisfied that they were the invention of a later age (about 700 B.C.).”
Bronze fibulae, too, were found in the Enkomi tombs, as well as a large tripod “with spiral patterns resembling one in Athens, which is assigned to the Dipylon period,” and a pair of scales of a balance like the one figured on the Arkesilaos vase. But such finds are separated by a wide span of time from the twelfth century.
The silver vases of the Enkomi tombs “are obviously Mycenaean in shape.” “On the other hand,” there were found two similar silver rings, one with hieroglyphics and the other engraved on the bezel “with a design of a distinctly Assyrian character—a man dressed in a lion’s skin standing before a seated king, to whom he offers an oblation. Two figures in this costume may be seen on an Assyrian sculpture from Nimroud of the time of Assurnazirpal (884-860), and there is no doubt that this fantastic idea spread rapidly westward.”
Next are the objects of gold. Gold pins were found in a tomb of Enkomi. “One of them, ornamented with six discs, is identical in shape with the pin which fastens the chiton [tunic] on the shoulders of the Fates on the Francois vase in Florence (sixth century B.C.).” A pendant “covered with diagonal patterns consisting of minute globules of gold soldered down on the surface of the pendant” was made by “precisely the same process of soldering down minute globules of gold and arranging them in the same patterns” that “abounds in a series of gold ornaments in the British Museum which were found at Cameiros in Rhodes” and which were dated to the seventh or eighth century.
Among the pottery of “the ordinary Mycenaean and pre-Mycenaean type” gems were found. A scarab “bears the cartouche of Thi [Tiy], the queen of Amenophis [Amenhotep] III, and must therefore be placed in the same rank as those other cartouches of her husband, found at Ialysos [on Rhodes] and Mycenae, which hitherto have played so conspicuous a part in determining the Mycenaean antiquities as being in some instances of that date (fifteenth century).”4
As for the porcelain, it “may fairly be ranked” with the series of Phoenician silver and bronze bowls from Nimroud of about the eighth century. A porcelain head of a woman from Enkomi “seems to be Greek, not only in her features, but also in the way in which her hair is gathered up at the back in a net, just as on the sixth century vases of this shape.” Greek vases of this shape “differ, of course, in being of a more advanced artistic style, and in having a handle. But it may fairly be questioned whether these differences can represent any very long period of time.”
Murray surveyed the glass:
In several tombs, but particularly in one, we found vases of variegated glass, differing but slightly in shape and fabric from the fine series of glass vases obtained from the tombs of Cameiros, and dating from the seventh and sixth centuries, or even later in some cases. It happens, however, that these slight differences of shape and fabric bring our Enkomi glass vases into direct comparison with certain specimens found by Professor Flinders Petrie at Gurob in Egypt, and now in the British Museum. If Professor Petrie is right in assigning his vases to about 1400 B.C.,5 our Enkomi specimens must follow suit. It appears that he had found certain fragmentary specimens of this particular glass ware beside a porcelain necklace, to which belonged an amulet stamped with the name of Tutankhamen, that is to say, about 1400 B.C.
Murray comes to the conclusion that “Phoenicians manufactured the glass ware of Gurob and Enkomi at one and the same time.” Consequently
the question is, what was that time? For the present we must either accept Professor Petrie’s date (about 1400 B.C.) based on scanty observations collected from the poor remains of a foreign settlement in Egypt, or fall back on the ordinary method of comparing the glass vessels of Gurob with those from Greek tombs of the seventh century B.C. or later, and then allowing a reasonable interval of time for the slight changes of shape or fabric which may have intervened. In matters of chronology it is no new thing for the Egyptians to instruct the Greeks, as we know from the pages of Herodotus.
With this last remark the excavator at Enkomi came close to the real problem, but he shrank from it. He did not dare to revise Egyptian chronology; all he asked was that the age of the Mycenaean period be reduced. How to do this he did not know. He quoted an author (Helbig) who thought that all Mycenaean culture was really Phoenician culture, the development of which remained at a standstill for seven centuries.
In 1896 there was found in a tomb at Thebes in Egypt a bronze patera [a shallow vessel] which in shape and decoration has so much in common with the bronze Phoenician bowls from Nimroud that we feel some surprise on being told that the coffins with which it was found belong unmistakably to the time of Amenophis [Amenhotep] III or the first years of Amenophis IV [Akhnaton]. It is admitted that this new patera had been a foreign import into Egypt. Equally the relationship between it and the bronze Phoenician bowls is undeniable, so that again we are confronted with Helbig’s theory of a lapse of seven centuries during which little artistic progress or decline had been effected.6
It was necessary to assume a state of hibernation of almost seven hundred years.
The endeavor of the excavator of Enkomi was directed toward bringing the Mycenaean Age closer in time by five or six hundred years, so that there would be no chasm between the Mycenaean Age and the Greek Age. As curator of Greek and Roman antiquities of the British Museum, he constantly had before him the numerous connections and relations between Mycenaean and Greek art, which could not be explained if an interval of many centuries lay between them. He tried to disconnect the link between Mycenaean and Egyptian archaeologies and chronologies, but he felt that this was an unsolvable problem.
The proposal to reduce the time of the Mycenaean Age was rejected by the scholarly world.
Arthur J. Evans, at the time having just embarked on a long series of excavations at Knossos on Crete, came out against Murray’s work, “so full of suggested chronological deductions and—if its authors [i.e., A. S. Murray and his collaborators] will pardon the expression—archaeological insinuations, all pointing in the same direction,” namely, “a chronology which brings the pure Mycenaean style down to the Age of the Tyrants” of the eighth century, and makes it “the immediate predecessor of the Ionian Greek art of the seventh century B.C.”7
Evans had to admit that “nothing is clearer than that Ionian art in many respects represents the continuity of Mycenaean tradition,” but he built his argument on the manifold connections of Mycenaean art with Egypt of the Eighteenth Dynasty. Are not the flasks of the Enkomi tomb almost as numerous in Egyptian tombs of the Eighteenth Dynasty? A fine gold collar or pectoral inlaid with glass paste, found in enkomi, has gold pendants in nine different patters, eight of which are well known designs of the time of Akhnaton (Amenhotep IV), “but are not found a century later.” The metal ring of Enkomi, with cartouches of the heretic Akhnaton, is especially important because “he was not a pharaoh whose cartouches were imitated at later periods,” and so on.
One of the silver vases of Enkomi, Evans wrote, “is of great interest as representing the type of the famous gold cup of the Vapheio tomb.8 These cups, as their marvellous repousse designs sufficiently declare, belong to the most perfect period of Mycenaean art.” This should establish that the theory of the latency of Mycenaean art for six or seven centuries after its flowering in the second millennium cannot help to solve the problem of Enkomi; the Enkomi finds date from the apogee of the Mycenaean Age.
Evans insisted that the material supplied by the Cypriote graves “takes us back at every point to a period contemporary with that of the mature art of the class as seen in the Aegean area,” and this despite his own admission that a number of objects from Enkomi point to a later age, like the porcelain figures “which present the most remarkable resemblance, as Dr. Murray justly pointed out, to some Greek painted vases of the sixth century B.C.” Nevertheless, he concluded with regret that “views so subversive” should come from so high an authority in classical studies.
Two scholars clashed because one of them saw the close connection between Mycenaean art and the Greek art of the seventh century, and the other saw the very same Mycenaean objects disinterred in the Egypt of Akhnaton, dated to the fourteenth century.
The Mycenaean Age has no timetable of its own independent of that of Egypt. I have referred to this question in the chapter dealing with Ras Shamra in Ages in Chaos.
If Evans had had some evidence, independent of Egypt, on which to calculate the ages of the Minoan and Mycenaean cultures, we would have needed to take into account all Minoan and Mycenaean chronological material, as we did with the Egyptian. But there is none.9
“The chronological scheme depends ultimately upon Egyptian datings of Aegean pottery,” wrote H. R. Hall,10 who served as curator of Egyptian and Assyrian antiquities at the British Museum.
“Using this Egyptian evidence as his guide, and checking the results of excavation with its aid, Sir Arthur Evans finds that the Bronze Age pottery and with it the general culture of Crete divides itself into three main chronological periods: Early, Middle, and Late, each of which again is divided into three sub-periods.”11
The Mycenaean Age started at the same time as the Late Minoan Age.
Dr. Murray’s case was lost. He had built its defense on two points, one strong, the other weak. His strong point was this: he analyzed and made clear the close interrelation between Mycenaean culture and the early Greek culture of the seventh century. His weak point was his anxiety to disregard the connection between Mycenaean culture and the Egyptian world of the end of the Eighteenth Dynasty. But in el-Amarna of Akhnaton scattered heaps of Mycenaean ware were found.
It was asked, Which fact should be given greater weight by an unbiased judge: the close relation between Mycenaean and Greek cultures or the fact that Mycenaean ware was found in the city of el-Amarna (Akhet-Aton), which was built and destroyed in the fourteenth century?
The verdict in the matter of the age of Mycenae was unanimous: its period of greatest influence is dated between the fifteenth and the twelfth centuries.
This [Mycenaean] ware did not appear in large quantities in Egypt until about 1375 B.C., and little of it was received in the coastal countries after the middle of the thirteenth century. Therefore, whenever a piece of it is found in place in an ancient city, it dates the context between about 1375 [the first year of Akhnaton according to the presently accepted chronology12 and 1225 B.C.13
The verdict with regard to Enkomi was, in the words of Hall, as follows:
Excavations of the British Museum at Enkomi and Hala Sultan Tekke (near Larnaka on Cyprus) have brought to light tombs filled with objects of Minoan or Mycenean art, now mostly in the British Museum, most of which cannot be later in date than the fourteenth and thirteenth centuries B.C. The Egyptian objects found in them are demonstrably of this date, and not later, being all of the late Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasties. Rings of Akhenaten [Akhnaton] and a scarab of Teie [Tiy, mother of Akhnaton] have been found here as at Mycenae, and fine Egyptian necklaces of gold also, which, from their style, one would adjudge to the Eighteenth or Nineteenth Dynasty. Probably, too, the greater part of the treasure of gold-work found in the tombs and now in the British Museum is of this early date. The golden tiaras and bands certainly seem to connect with those of the Myceanean shaft-graves. But at the same time there are many objects of later date, such as a bronze tripod . . . which are demonstrably of the Dipylon period, and cannot be earlier than the tenth or ninth century.14
Thus, in effect the excavator of Enkomi is accused of having been unable to distinguish burials of different ages in a grave.15
He denied that the graves of Enkomi had been re-used.
Somewhere I came upon the expression, “the scandal of Enkomi.” I ask: Was the excavator to be blamed for something that was not his fault? The allegation that possibly objects dating from two different epochs were mixed up in Murray’s archaeological heaps does not meet his main arguments. His elaborated statements dealt with simultaneous relationships of single objects with Egypt of the fourteenth century and Assyria and Greece of the ninth and eighth centuries.
We learn from this case the fact which both sides admitted: the Greek culture of the seventh century has many interrelations with Mycenaean culture. The resulting chronological gap, as we have seen in Chapter I, had to be taken as a Dark Age.
“Cyprus no less than Greece itself passed through a long and tedious Dark Age.” “Cyprus withdrew into herself, and life during this transitional age was dull and poverty-stricken, unenterprising and dim,”and after the Mycenaean Age came to its close elsewhere, “in Cyprus it was perpetuated.”16
A generation after the excavations at Enkomi. in 1896, other excavators opened more graves there and passed the following judgment:
The burials in the graves belong to the second or Bronze Age, its Late or third period, the second part (out of three) of this third period, more precisely to the subdivisions A (9 graves), B (10 graves) and C (8 graves) also a few belong to Late Bronze IA and IB. Thus the graves on the acropolis are “all intermingled with each other in a seemingly arbitrary way.”17
What does this mean? It means that simple and great questions are eclipsed by nomenclatures.
In recent years French and French-British campaigns at Enkomi18 have failed to solve the problems left by the British Museum excavations of 1896. The finds are still evaluated by Egyptian chronology.
References

  1. Murray, “Excavations at Enkomi,” in A. S. Murray, A. H. Smith, H. B. Walters, Excavations in Cyprus (London: British Museum, 1900).
  2. (Iraq 38 [19 ] pp. 9-10)
  3. W. Reichel, Homerische Waffen 2nd ed. (Vienna, 1901), p. 59.
  4. Since the beginning of the present century, the conventional date of the reign of Amenhotep III has been reduced to the end of the fifteenth and the first quarter of the fourteenth century.
  5. Sir W. M. Flinders Petrie, Illahun, Kahun and Gurob (London, 1891) Plate 17. Compare also Plate 18 with two identical glass vases which are assigned to Rameses II. Murray, “Excavations at Enkomi,” in Murray, Smith and Walters, Excavations in Cyprus, p. 23, note. Since the above evaluation of the time of Tutankhamen by Petrie, the conventional date of this king, son-in-law of Akhnaton, has been reduced to ca. -1350.
  6. Murray, “Excavations at Enkomi,” loc. cit.
  7. Evans, “Mycenaean Cyprus as Illustrated in the British Museum Excavations,” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute XXX (1900) pp. 199ff.
  8. Two gold cups with designs representing men hunting bulls were found in a beehive tomb at Vapheio in the neighborhood of Sparta.
  9. The ancient Greek calculations of such past events as the time of Minos, of Heracles, of the Return of the Heracleidae, of the date of the Trojan War and other past events also depend on Egypt.
  10. H. R. Hall, Aegean Archaeology (London, 1915), p. 2.
  11. Ibid., p. 3.
  12. As was noted above, since the time of the Murray-Evans controversy the age of Akhnaton and of Tutankhamen has been reduced by a few decades. This point needs to be kept constantly in mind when one is examining the older scholarly literature on these subjects.
  13. G. E. Wright, “Epic of Conquest,” Biblical Archaeologist III No. 3 (1940).
  14. Hall, Aegean Archaeology, pp. 23-24. [The tripod mentioned by Hall is dated to the twelfth century by H. W. Catling Cypriote Bronzework in the Mycenaean World [Oxford, 1964] pp. 154-55). It was compared to a tripod found in a grave on the Pnyx in Athens, variously dated, but now assigned by the associated pottery to the eighth century B.C. By analogy to the Enkomi stand and other contemporary examples, Catling judged the Pnyx tripod to be a twelfth-century heirloom. Adding to the controversy, C. Rolley Les trepieds a cuve cluee [Fouilles des Delphes 5.3, Paris, 1977] pp. 126-29), who accepts the Egyptian-based date, now challenges Catling’s assessment of the Pnyx tripod, assigning both it and a very similar example recently discovered in a contemporary grave on the island of Thera to the eighth century.—E. M. S. ].
  15. See also H. R. Hall, the Oldest Civilization in Greece (London, 1901), p. 16, and Evans in The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, XXX (1900), p. 201, note 2.
  16. S. Casson, Ancient Cyprus (London, 1937), pp. 64, 70.
  17. E. Gjerstad and others, The Swedish Cyprus Expedition, 1927-1931(Stockholm, 1934), I. 575.
  18. Claude F. A. Schaeffer, “Nouvelles découvertes à Enkomi (Chypre),” inComptes rendus, Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, Paris, 1949; Revue archéologique, XXVII (1947), 129ff; American Journal of Archaeology,LII (1948), 165ff.