Re: Phoenicians

In article <8M-dnbvUTOFUXG3enZ2dnUVZ8qCdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxx>,
agamemnon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx says...

"BernardZ" <bernardZ@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e5b46853eb2718598988f@xxxxxxx
In article <GfudnXQLONpNHG3eRVnyrg@xxxxxxxxx>,
agamemnon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx says...

"BernardZ" <bernardZ@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e5b0b19eff23c8298988d@xxxxxxx
In article <G7mdnaZFBKpdC3LeRVnyhQ@xxxxxxxxx>,
agamemnon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx says...



So now Greek writing came from early Phoenician. Which is what I
said
in
the first place.

NO !

Greek Cadmain script and early Phoenician were the same script in 1400
BC.
One did not come from the other. They both came independently from
Proto-Sinaitic


Can you show us some sample of the Greek Cadmain script in 1400 BCE?


It looked something like Paleo-Cypriot script.


Maybe some of the vowels came from the syllabic script of Cyprus not
the constants though.

I was not talking about Eteo-Cypriot.

By Paleo-Cypriot I mean Cypriot Cadmian script which dates to 900 BC or
earlier.


But they look nothing like ancient Greek. So why did the Greeks adopt
symbols that are clearly early Phoenician in origin?






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

No one is saying that this casket are not genuine. What they are
saying
is that part of text was added!

99.9999999% of all artefacts relating to bible stories are forgeries.

Well in that case we have plenty of the .00000001% genuine artefacts.


None of which are Hebrew texts from the bible.

Oh yes they are.

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1228872/posts


Those are Hellenistic fakes. "Some critics contended that the artifacts were
from the third or second century B.C., and thus of less importance in
establishing the antiquity of religious concepts and language that became
part of the Hebrew Bible".


These amulets are not Hellenistic. They are much older.


The bible was not written until after
Nebuchadnezzar razed Jerusalem so those inscriptions can't possibly date to
anywhere near 600 BC.

The Bible was probably put together about then. But the sections that
make the whole book are clearly written much earlier then 600 BCE as
these amulets show as they contain sections from several sections of the
bible.








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.

These sort of forgers could not fool modern archeologist
particularly
if
they come from proper archeological digs.

They are forgeries from the time of Christ so finding them in a proper
archaeological dig makes no difference. They are still forgeries.

But we are talking of artifacts long before the time Christ coming out
of proper digs that have been examined and properly tested. They are
not
fakes.

They are fakes made to look old by ancient forgers. The ancient forgery
industry is very well documented.

Why would they bury these forgeries so deep that only now we can get to
them? Why would they put them in spots that no one till today would look
for them? Also how would they would know enough to fool us today.

They were always doing that. They had lots of practise. Look at the fake
crosses discovered by Helena.

Fakes have always been a problem.

However these came out of a proper dig, have been well tested so its
extremely unlikely that these are fakes.





So now Old Hebrew did existed! See (b) above.

No it did not. Samaritan script existed. Old Hebrew is a
misrepresentation
of another script.

What script is Old Hebrew a misrepresentation of?


Eastern Phoenician.

No way as it looks different to Eastern Phoenician.


It the same script as Samaritan script which is Eastern Phoenician.


No.

Eastern Phoenician, Old Hebrew and Samaritan scripts are similar but all
distinctly different.






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.

Why continue this nonsense? You should sometimes admit that you are
wrong. The reader can quickly see for himself that Phoenician
appears
at 1200 BCE.

Look at the chart. The node of all 3 is at 1400 BC. Phoenician didn't
just
appear out of nowhere.

It clearly evolved from Proto-Canaanite but does not appear till 1200
BCE.


It evolved at the same time as Proto-Canaanite in parallel to it and
their
common source is Proto-Sinaitic c.1400 BC.

For your information Proto-Sinaitic is another name for Proto-Canaanite.

No its not.

Proto-Canaanite dates after 1400 BC. Proto-Sinaitic to before 1400 BC.

You are right that most today consider it a different script. However
your dates are incorrect. Proto-Canaanite starts to appear on the scene
about 1600BCE. Proto-Sinaitic about 1900 BCE.



Early Phoenician came later out of Proto-Canaanite.




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.

Check the index of Herodotus's book. He does not even mention
Ugratic.


(h)
He calls them Syrians.

Please give the reference where he calls Ugratic, Syrians?


GET AN EDUCATION

Ugarit is in Syria and Herodotus mentions Syrians hundreds of times.

But not all Syrians are from Ugarit. In fact only a very small number.
So you cannot say that Herodotus said anything about Ugratic.

He associates them with the Phoenicians

So you have changed your mind see (h) above

and we all know that the Ras Sharma
tables from Ugarit are in Phoenician cuneiform.

However if Herodotus did get Phoenicians and Ugarit mixed up as you
suggest then he would not have said that Phoenician, Proto-Arabic,
Ugratic and Greek diverged in 1400 BCE as he would not have known that
Ugratic's script is different to Phoenician.

By the way I suspect that as soon as he looked at a Ugratic's script, he
would know that it was not Early Phoenician.




[2.104.1] There can be no doubt that the Colchians are an Egyptian race.
Before I heard any mention of the fact from others, I had remarked it
myself. After the thought had struck me, I made inquiries on the subject
both in Colchis and in Egypt, and I found that the Colchians had a more
distinct recollection of the Egyptians, than the Egyptians had of them.
Still the Egyptians said that they believed the Colchians to be descended
from the army of Sesostris. My own conjectures were founded, first, on
the
fact that they are black-skinned and have woolly hair, which certainly
amounts to but little, since several other nations are so too; but
further
and more especially, on the circumstance that the Colchians, the
Egyptians,
and the Ethiopians, are the only nations who have practised circumcision
from the earliest times. The Phoenicians and the Syrians of Palestine
themselves confess that they learnt the custom of the Egyptians; and the
Syrians who dwell about the rivers Thermodon and Parthenius, as well as
their neighbours the Macronians, say that they have recently adopted it
from
the Colchians. Now these are the only nations who use circumcision, and
it
is plain that they all imitate herein the Egyptians. With respect to the
Ethiopians, indeed, I cannot decide whether they learnt the practice of
the
Egyptians, or the Egyptians of them- it is undoubtedly of very ancient
date
in Ethiopia- but that the others derived their knowledge of it from Egypt
is
clear to me from the fact that the Phoenicians, when they come to have
commerce with the Greeks, cease to follow the Egyptians in this custom,
and
allow their children to remain uncircumcised.

Egypt, Colchians, Phoenicians and the Syrians of Palestine etc what is
the relevance of any of this to Ugarit?

See above.

It has no relevance.








What he does say is that Greek writing came from Early Phoenician
characters!

No he does not.

Yes he does.

No he doesn't. He says Cadmian and Phoenician script came from a common
source and that source was Sinai in Egypt.


What? Where does he say that Cadmian and Phoenician script came from a
common source and that source was Sinai in Egypt.

He says that's where Agenor came from. Put 2 and 2 together.

I have there is nothing about Sinai in the equation. Where did Herodotus
say that anything about the script language came from Sinai?




Sinai by the way was almost unpopulated at the time.

No it wasn't otherwise Proto-Sianitic would not have been found there.

Scattered people. Some mines etc.


That is where I first saw Old Hebrew that I talked about earlier.






(c)

Herodotus's goes on to say

[5.58] Now the Phoenicians who came with Cadmus, and to whom the
Gephyraei belonged, introduced into Greece upon their arrival a great
variety of arts, among the rest that of writing, whereof the Greeks
till
then had, as I think, been ignorant. And originally they shaped their
letters exactly like all the other Phoenicians, but afterwards, in
course of time, they changed by degrees their language, and together
with it the form likewise of their characters. Now the Greeks who dwelt
about those parts at that time were chiefly the Ionians. The Phoenician
letters were accordingly adopted by them, but with some variation in
the
shape of a few, and so they arrived at the present use, still calling
the letters Phoenician, as justice required, after the name of those
who
were the first to introduce them into Greece.


He says that Cadmus brought the script with him to Greece
from Egypt at the same time that Phoenix brought it to Phoenicia.

see (c) above

So ?

The historical texts say Cadmus and Phoenix ancestors came from Egypt and
before that Greece.

[Apollodorus 3.1.1] Having now run over the family of Inachus and
described
them from Belus down to the Heraclids, we have next to speak of the house
of
Agenor. For as I have said, Libya had by Poseidon two sons, Belus and
Agenor. Now Belus reigned over the Egyptians and begat the aforesaid
sons;
but Agenor went to Phoenicia, married Telephassa, and begat a daughter
Europa and three sons, Cadmus, Phoenix, and Cilix. But some say that
Europa
was a daughter not of Agenor but of Phoenix. Zeus loved her, and turning
himself into a tame bull, he mounted her on his back and conveyed her
through the sea to Crete. There Zeus bedded with her, and she bore Minos,
Sarpedon, and Rhadamanthys; but according to Homer, Sarpedon was a son of
Zeus by Laodamia, daughter of Bellerophon. On the disappearance of Europa
her father Agenor sent out his sons in search of her, telling them not to
return until they had found Europa. With them her mother, Telephassa, and
Thasus, son of Poseidon, or according to Pherecydes, of Cilix, went forth
in
search of her. But when, after diligent search, they could not find
Europa,
they gave up the thought of returning home, and took up their abode in
diverse places; Phoenix settled in Phoenicia; Cilix settled near
Phoenicia,
and all the country subject to himself near the river Pyramus he called
Cilicia; and Cadmus and Telephassa took up their abode in Thrace and in
like
manner Thasus founded a city Thasus in an island off Thrace and dwelt
there.


Herodotus in discussing these legends is not saying that Cadmus and
Phoenix came from Egypt. That is Belus who is in Egypt. What it said is
that Cadmus was son of Agenor, king of Tyre, and brother of Europa. I
don't see anything about being of Greek orgins in this either.

What is said is the Belus and Agenor are brothers and sons Io and Epaphus.
Epaphus existence has been verified archaeologically and is also in the
extant Egyptian historical record. Tatian dates him to about 1600 BC and
archaeologists date him to 1650.

Now what is it you missed in Herodotus opening lines about Io being Greek ?

Cadmus was a son of Agenor, king of Tyre, so where does it say that
Agenor are Greek and where does it say that Cadmus or Agenor came from
Egypt?








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.


(f)

(f) (u)


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.

If the symbol is not in one why should the source have that symbol?

Because at least half of the other scripts do.

What letters and scripts are you referring too?

http://www.ancientscripts.com/images/greek.gif

But you are not claiming these Greek scripts as the source. See (f)
above

...... ?

Your claim was that "The Greek alphabet was derived directly from Proto-
Sinaitic in 1450 BCE as was the Phoenician."







Hence a common source.

Are not symbols added over time? So if a symbol is not in one script,
then the odds are that source does not have that symbol too?


Poppy***.

The Archaic Greek language requires the presence of a digamma.


see (g) below





In fact this is what we see that Proto-Sinaitic does not have these
extra Greek symbols at all.

Nonsense. Digamma is in Proto-Sinaitic but not in Ionian script.

Where is the Digamma in Proto-Sinaitic?

The letter Waw

(g)

But the same letter Waw is in Early Phoenician too.

So ?

The point is that its not in Ionic script so the script didn't come to
Athens, Corinth etc. from Ionia and that rules out the Phoenicians who are
no point in time made any contact with the Greeks since 1400 BC when Cadmus
came to Greece.

The point is that the Digamma in as much in Proto-Sinaitic as in Early
Phoenician as such your argument that the Digamma shows that Greek came
from Proto-Sinaitic rather then Early Phoenician is not valid.











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.


I don't see the relevance of any of this.

Then you are a fool. By simple deductive logic the source of the
Cadmian
script was Thebes not Asia-Minor.

When did I ever say that it came from Asia-Minor?





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.

Where did Herodotus say that?

[Hdts. 5.59.1] I myself saw Cadmeian characters engraved upon some
tripods
in the temple of Apollo Ismenias in Boeotian Thebes, most of them
shaped
like the Ionian. One of the tripods has the inscription following:-



Me did Amphitryon place, from the far Teleboans coming.



This would be about the age of Laius, the son of Labdacus, the son of
Polydorus, the son of Cadmus.


See (c) above


See above yourself.







What Herodotus states

Chapter 44

4] Then I went to Thasos, too, where I found a temple of Heracles
built
by the Phoenicians, who made a settlement there when they voyaged in
search of Europe; now they did so as much as five generations before
the
birth of Heracles the son of Amphitryon in Hellas.


In other words it was a *Phoenician* Temple

It was a temple built by Thasos the son of Celix the brother of
Phoenix
and
Cadmus so they was no technically Phoenicians.

Where does he say that they built it?

Well who else built it ? See Above.

Many could have built it. It is hardly like these two people are the
only ones around. Herodotus states quite clearly that it was built by
the Phoenicians.

He says it was built by the Phoenicians that came with Cadmus, i.e. the
people ruled over by Thasus the son of Celix.

It said nothing about Cadmus at all. Check it out yourself chapter 44

Chapter 44
[1] Moreover, wishing to get clear information about this matter where
it was possible so to do, I took ship for Tyre in Phoenicia, where I had
learned by inquiry that there was a holy temple of Heracles.
[2] There I saw it, richly equipped with many other offerings, besides
two pillars, one of refined gold, one of emerald: a great pillar that
shone at night; and in conversation with the priests, I asked how long
it was since their temple was built.
[3] I found that their account did not tally with the belief of the
Greeks, either; for they said that the temple of the god was founded
when Tyre first became a city, and that was two thousand three hundred
years ago. At Tyre I saw yet another temple of the so-called Thasian
Heracles.
[4] Then I went to Thasos, too, where I found a temple of Heracles built
by the Phoenicians, who made a settlement there when they voyaged in
search of Europe; now they did so as much as five generations before the
birth of Heracles the son of Amphitryon in Hellas.
[5] Therefore, what I have discovered by inquiry plainly shows that
Heracles is an ancient god. And furthermore, those Greeks, I think, are
most in the right, who have established and practise two worships of
Heracles, sacrificing to one Heracles as to an immortal, and calling him
the Olympian, but to the other bringing offerings as to a dead hero.





I can see that you would be useless at following the pilot of a Sherlock
Holmes of Miss Marple story.

What ever.



Chapter 44
[1] Moreover, wishing to get clear information about this matter where
it was possible so to do, I took ship for Tyre in Phoenicia, where I
had
learned by inquiry that there was a holy temple of Heracles.
[2] There I saw it, richly equipped with many other offerings, besides
two pillars, one of refined gold, one of emerald: a great pillar that
shone at night; and in conversation with the priests, I asked how long
it was since their temple was built.
[3] I found that their account did not tally with the belief of the
Greeks, either; for they said that the temple of the god was founded
when Tyre first became a city, and that was two thousand three hundred
years ago. At Tyre I saw yet another temple of the so-called Thasian
Heracles.
[4] Then I went to Thasos, too, where I found a temple of Heracles
built
by the Phoenicians, who made a settlement there when they voyaged in
search of Europe; now they did so as much as five generations before
the
birth of Heracles the son of Amphitryon in Hellas.




They were Greek Egyptians.

Where does it state that they were Greek Egyptians?

Have you actual read Herodotus, like starting at the beginning about Io

How does Io help your case?

Read it and you will see.

(I)

I don't see it. Anyway it your claim not mine. The rules of the Usenet
are clear you have to backup your statements.










[Apollodorus. 3.1.1] Having now run over the family of Inachus and
described
them from Belus down to the Heraclids, we have next to speak of the
house
of
Agenor. For as I have said, Libya had by Poseidon two sons, Belus and
Agenor. Now Belus reigned over the Egyptians and begat the aforesaid
sons;
but Agenor went to Phoenicia, married Telephassa, and begat a daughter
Europa and three sons, Cadmus, Phoenix, and Cilix. But some say that
Europa
was a daughter not of Agenor but of Phoenix. Zeus loved her, and
turning
himself into a tame bull, he mounted her on his back and conveyed her
through the sea to Crete. There Zeus bedded with her, and she bore
Minos,
Sarpedon, and Rhadamanthys; but according to Homer, Sarpedon was a son
of
Zeus by Laodamia, daughter of Bellerophon. On the disappearance of
Europa
her father Agenor sent out his sons in search of her, telling them not
to
return until they had found Europa. With them her mother, Telephassa,
and
Thasus, son of Poseidon, or according to Pherecydes, of Cilix, went
forth
in
search of her. But when, after diligent search, they could not find
Europa,
they gave up the thought of returning home, and took up their abode in
diverse places; Phoenix settled in Phoenicia; Cilix settled near
Phoenicia,
and all the country subject to himself near the river Pyramus he
called
Cilicia; and Cadmus and Telephassa took up their abode in Thrace and
in
like
manner Thasus founded a city in an island off Thrace and dwelt
there.

So what!


So there.

Yes it is irrelevant.


Sill haven't read Herodotus have you.

see (I) above




Okay. Herodotus does not state the date. Let see what he does say

Jerome gives the date quoted above. Read Jerome's Chronicon.

Isidore of Seville wrote the Chronicon and I would hardly call that

ABSOLUTE RUBBISH.

Eusebius wrote the Chronicon in Greek and Jerome translated it into Latin

You are right. Eurebius did write the Chronicon. Anyway which part am I
suppose to see?

Page 69, 71, 73 of the Fotheringham and Helm of Roger Pearse translation.

Oh and I need to make a correction. The date Jerome gives is actually 1429
BC from Thebes and he places Cadmus and Phoenix in Tyre in 1452 BC.

I can confirm that thanks to Roger Pearse help.

Now the question is how relevant and accurate is Eusebius who lived in
the late third and early fourth centuries in Caesarea Palestine to
Herodotus when talking about events that were in 1452 BCE. I suspect
little. Plus I am sure that much in the tables of Eusebius you disagree
with.






proof but anyway what Isidore of Seville states in the Chronicon is
"19.
Othniel led for forty years. Cadmus, the first to invent Greek letters,
ruled in Thebes. At the same time Linus and Amphion were the first
among
the Greeks to excell in the art of music. The Idaean Dactylites, at the
same time, discovered the use of iron in Greece."

Okay so how do you get the date of 1429 BCE.


Address your question to Roger Pearse who prepared the translation of
text.

So we agree that Isidore of Seville's Chronicon does not support your
case.

BULL***.

Where did you get 1429 BC from before I made my correction. You obviously
read Roger Pearse translation an acquired the correct date from it since I
misquoted it.


I was asking you how did you get the date of 1429 BCE.







Chapter 49
[3] Nor again will I say that the Egyptians took either this or any
other custom from the Greeks. But I believe that Melampus learned
the
worship of Dionysus chiefly from Cadmus of Tyre and those who came
with
Cadmus from Phoenicia to the land now called Boeotia.


In other words there is no reason to be



--
A quick useful to determining the intended victim in a horror movie
is
to try to determine the person who has no family in the story.

Observations of Bernard - No 95





--
A quick useful to determining the intended victim in a horror movie is
to try to determine the person who has no family in the story.

Observations of Bernard - No 95





--
When the wife wants a baby, her man's sexual performance is continuously
being measured and monitored.

Observations of Bernard - No 96





--
When the wife wants a baby, her man's sexual performance is continuously
being measured and monitored.

Observations of Bernard - No 96


.