Re: Phoenicians


"BernardZ" <bernardZ@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:MPG.1e5914805aa972c9989888@xxxxxxx
In article <CIadndCb9-JkfHDeRVnysw@xxxxxxxxx>,
agamemnon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx says...

"BernardZ" <bernardZ@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e58681676b28244989887@xxxxxxx
> In article <SfSdnVcPqKdwWXbenZ2dnUVZ8qadnZ2d@xxxxxxxxx>,
> agamemnon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx says...
>>
>> "BernardZ" <bernardZ@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1e5666c774b8e7c4989886@xxxxxxx
>> > In article <jc-dnYwMJ6ug-XbenZ2dnUVZ8qednZ2d@xxxxxxxxx>,
>> > agamemnon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx says...
>> >>
>> >> "BernardZ" <bernardZ@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> >> news:MPG.1e55d7f73e955b1d989881@xxxxxxx
>> >> > In article <dsdjg3$52n$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, joe@xxxxxxxxxxx >> >> > says...
>> >> >> I don't know of connections during the dark ages, say 1200-800.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > There had to be contact as the Greek alphabet was derived from >> >> > the
>> >> > Phoenician one and that appears at the end of that period.
>> >>
>> >> No it wasn't. The Greek alphabet was derived directly from
>> >> Proto-Sinaitic
>> >> in
>> >> 1450 BC as was the Phoenician.
>> >
>> > Its very unlikely that Greek alphabet was derived directly from >> > Proto-
>> > Sinaitic just just look at the table below. You can see that Greek >> > is
>> > much more similar to Early Phoenician then it is Proto-Sinaitic.
>> >
>> > http://www.ancientscripts.com/protosinaitic.html
>> >
>>
>> Nonsense. The above Proto-Sinaitic symbols date to 2200-1900 BC >> whereas
>> the
>> Cadmian script was brought to Greece 500 years later and was the same
>> script
>> that Phoenix (Chna in Phoenicians histories) brought to the >> Phoenicians
>> so
>> they are bound to look similar.
>
>
> You can see that Greek is much more similar to Early Phoenician then it
> is Proto-Sinaitic.

I already told you that Cadman script came to Greece at the same time
Phoenician script came to Phoenicia, 500 years after Proto-Sinaitic.

Then explain why the Greek is much more similar to Early Phoenician then
it is Proto-Sinaitic.

Do I have to spell it out for you in 10 foot high letters ?

Proto-Sinaitic 1900 BC

Split of Early Phoenician from Cadmian Greek 1400 BC

Split of Cadmian Greek into Euboean, Ionic, Attic etc 1200-1050 BC

Reformation of the Athenian Alphabet 405 BC.

Hellenistic Reformation and introduction of lower case 260 BC

With a gap of 500 years between Cadmain and Proto-Sinaitic of course they are going to look different. With Cadmain and Early Phoenician diverging from the same source at the same time of course they are going to look similar. With 90% of the changes in Proto-Sinaitic (such as its transformation from a pictorial script into a cursive script) having already taken place in the first 500 years while in the next 1200 years Early Phoenician differs little from Hellenistic Samaritan script it would be idiotic to expect Greek to have diverged considerably from Early Phoenician = Cadmian either in the 1000 years up to the Athenian Reformation while in the next 2000 years hardly any chance in the Greek capitals has taken place at all because the rate of change of a script is inversely proportional to time.




>
>>
>>
>> > Proto-Sinaitic, is actually more popularly known as Proto-Canaanite
>> > which is almost identical to old Hebrew.
>>
>> There is no such thing a old Hebrew. Hebrew script is a Hellenistic
>> derivative of Aramaic script.
>
> So much for all of this nonsense.
>
> http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1228872/posts
>

It falls into the same category as fake Jesus caskets.

The Jesus caskets are yet to be proven that they are fake. The
government case does not look good at present when their own witness
comes in the room and said that it is real.


These however were not found by an amateur so are not in the same
category. They are genuine. There are other examples of old Hebrew found
too if you want to do a net search. As I stated I have actually seen it
too.

And it is well known that there was a well established industry in making fake caskets and fake biblical inscriptions and fake bones of saints since the time of Christ. Nothing discovered in Palestine associated with the bible can be trusted.

>> >
>> > What is actually extremely stunning is the names of the letters in
>> > Proto-Sinaitic are in Hebrew even thought the symbols are different!
>>
>> Those are not the names of the letters but Hebrew substitutions.
>
> They are the letters. What they are called does not matter? Actually I
> was at an archeological site in the Sinai. One of the people was > showing
> me the old Hebrew. He got very excited as he explained to me how they
> are Hebrew. At the time I did not follow but now I can see that they
> were Hebrew just with a different script.
>

Nonsense. There is no such thing as Old Hebrew. The script you were shown
was Eastern Phoenician script which has been falsely named as Hebrew.

Old Hebrew looks different to Eastern Phoenician script.

Old Hebrew is not Hebrew at all. Its the same script as Samaritan script. Hebrew script is descended from Aramaic script.

>>
>>
>> > Anyway you will find this interesting as it explains quite simply >> > the
>> > relationships between the various languages.
>> >
>> > http://www.ancientscripts.com/alphabet.html
>>
>> Which places the node of Phoenician, Proto-Arabic and Ugratic at 1400 >> BCE
>
> A lie.

A FACT


http://www.ancientscripts.com/alphabet.html

Look at the page, you lied.

I did not. Look where all three lines intersect. 1400 BC.


>
> It places Phoenician at 1200 BCE

Poppy***.

Phoenician, Proto-Arabic. Ugratic and Greek all began to diverge from each
other and from Proto-Sinaitic in 1400 BC. That is a recorded historical
fact.


What evidence do you have for that?

Herodotus.


>
>> which is the time when all these scripts looked exactly the same and >> when
>> this script was brought to Greece.
>
>
> It shows the Greek coming from Phoenician at 1000 BCE.
>

NO IT DOES NOT.

5 different Greek scripts existed in 900 BC therefore the common root must
have originated centuries before 1000 BC.

Please explain further.

The fact that certain letters exist in some of these scripts but not in others makes it impossible for one of these extant scripts to be the source of the others therefore a common ancestor must date back centuries before the earliest discover inscriptions.

Since Ionian script does no possess the digamma the foolish idea that the Greek script was passed on to the Greeks by the Ionians from Asia-Minor can be ruled out completely.

The Ionians were separated from the Athenians in 1070 BC at the time of the Ionian migration therefore Ionian script must have been adopted by the Ionians prior to 1070 BC.

Along with Athenian and Ionian scripts the Corinthian, Argive, Euboean and Cypriot variants of the Cadmian script are also known to exist therefore starting with Cypriot script whose earliest discovered inscriptions date to 900, the adoption of the Cadman script by non-Theban Greeks must have taken place before the capture of Troy since this is when the Mycenaean's colonised Cyprus.

We already have evidence from Herodotus that the Cadmian scipt was being used by the Argives in at least 1280 BC since Herodotus mentions seeing an inscription on an offering made by Amphitryon in the Temple of Apollo therefore the date of the arrival of Cadmus in Boeotia in 1439 BC as given by Jerome corresponds with the evidence of him bringing Proto-Sinaitic script with him. After all how else could the script have gotten to Greece and why would the ruling classes have adopted it.


>
>
>>
>> Archaic Greek was 5 different scripts in 900 BC not one and the only >> way
>> they could have evolved into these forms is if they came from a common
>> root
>> script dating to 1400 BC that came from Greece, ie Cadmian.
>>
>
> You should read Herodotus who states "The Phoenicians who came with
> Cadmus . . . introduced into Greece, after their settlement in the
> country, a number of accomplishments, of which the most important was
> writing, an art till then, I think, unknown to the Greeks. At first > they
> used the same characters as all the other Phoenicians, but as time went
> on, and they changed their language, they also changed the shape of
> their letters. At that period most of the Greeks in the neighborhood
> were Ionians; they were taught these letters by the Phoenicians and
> adopted them, with a few alterations, for their own use, continuing to
> refer to them as the Phoenician characters=3Fas was only right, as the
> Phoenicians had introduced them"
>


And these Phoenicians who came with Cadmus (a Greek Egyptian) came in 1450
BC therefore the Cadmian script derives directly from Proto-Siaitic at that
time.



Read it carefully.

The Phoenicians introduced writing to the Greeks. The Greeks used the
same characters as all the other Phoenicians.

Read it carefully yourself. The Phoenicians who came with Cadmus. Cadmus came to Thebes in 1439 BC thefre the scipt that came with Cadmus was proto-Saaitic.

.