Christian and Jewish influences in Tolkien's work?

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Not sure why you quoted me if nothing of what you say has anything to do with my post.

Ok...

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Bah, seeking correlations in shape only between two unrelated scripts is something the majority of philologues are very, very careful about, if they cannot avoid it all together.

This proves that they are not unrelated:

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

You want academic proof, watch this entire video and the part after.

And this:

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

Do you know what the Book of Ballymote is or the Yellow Book of Lecan for that matter? These are European books of history and genealogy. In the link above were it states the contents of the Book of Ballymote, it mentions the history of the "Jews"/Israelites. Why is that? Because The christian kings were the jews. Also in the Book of Ballymote, there is a copy of the Lebor Gabála Érenn, which states that the original monarchs and peoples of the Gaels were in fact descendants of the Scythians.

The original video above shows you clips of an academic documentary that shows that the Israelites in Europe were descendants of the Scyths and the other evidents (the books I provided here) show that they were intern the founders of the European monarchies and countries.

The quote above also answers your quote below:

Originally Posted by Eärniel

While the exact origins of Futhark are still speculative, there is to my knowledge no viable theory that it was in origin Hebrew. A common origin is however possible.

It shows not just that a common origin was possible but that it was a fact.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

You want academic proof, watch this entire video and the part after.

Sorry, but I am not going to waste time on 10 minute-long youtube videos, that are shakingly filmed, hardly understandable, and posted without even a properly spelled name. I'm afraid I have higher standards of what I deem academic proof.

Do you know what the Book of Ballymote is or the Yellow Book of Lecan for that matter? These are European books of history and genealogy. In the link above were it states the contents of the Book of Ballymote, it mentions the history of the "Jews"/Israelites. Why is that? Because The christian kings were the jews. Also in the Book of Ballymote, there is a copy of the Lebor Gabála Érenn, which states that the original monarchs and peoples of the Gaels were in fact descendants of the Scythians.

I did not know about about both books, at first glance they sound interesting, but rather poor sources to base your theories on. For one, they're a lot more recent. A book from the Middle-ages is not without any doubt a correct or reliable record of events happening several centuries before.

Besides, Christianity has been firmly established in Ireland by then, so retelling Jewish history in a book is hardly out of the ordinary. Not to mention that Christianity has always had had a thing to use and/or warp existing historical and mythological stories and elements for their own purpose. So just because the writer adapted Irish history to his liking to have as much parallels to the Jewish history as he wanted, does not make this in any way accurate, especially not if other sources or material contradicts.

Have you read that Wikipedia article or read further? Especially the article on Lebor Gabála Érenn contains some critical views of its accuracy that I think you should not ignore. For example:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

While scholars are still highly critical of the work, there is a general consensus that LGE does contain an account of the early history of Ireland, albeit a distorted one. The most contested claim in the work is the assertion that the Gaelic conquest took place in the remote past—around 1500 BCE—and that all the inhabitants of Christian Ireland were descendants of these early Gaelic invaders. In fact the Gaelic conquest, depicted in LGE as the Milesian settlement, was the latest of the Celtic occupations of Ireland, taking place probably after 150 BCE, and many of Ireland's pre-Gaelic peoples continued to flourish for centuries after it.[5]

It shows not just that a common origin was possible but that it was a fact.

Fact? Not at all. At best, you have shown a link between Israel to the Celtic Isles, if a very contentious and most likely fabricated one. It hardly accounts for the whole of Europe as you claim! You are not mixing up Gaels and Gauls by any chance?

I find it somewhat amusing you'd use the Scythians as a vehicle to transport the jewish people to European kingship all around (I can think of at least two instances of bad research that would lead to such a conclusion) and it kind of effectively kills any chance you had to link Futhark (of which existing evidence rather suggests it is Germanic in origin, not Gaelic) to Hebrew. You see, the Scythians had no known writing system of their own...

So according to your theory, you would have Isrealites using Hebrew morph into Scythians with no own writing, morph into Gaels who then adopted the Germanic Furthark that happens to have a few similarities to Hebrew, but that's just because they were secretely Israelites all along? Hm...

No, if I were you, I'd just forget about this whole idea, it's just too shoddily researched and supported.

I suppose my main gripe with considering the Judaic history as main source for Tolkien's world-building is that Tolkien was a great scholar, one who knew a lot of several different European mythologies. I'm sure there are parallels, intended or not. But I think Tolkien drew on far more sources than that and to ignore this is to sell him short. What about parallels between the Dunedain kingdoms and the two Roman empires? You could do a lot with that comparion. And what about Tolkien's clearly Edda-inspired Dwarves?

[Amanda]

It's amazing I never thought about this until now. Israel is quite a close parallel with the Dunedain scenario. Being Jewish myself, it almost makes me feel like I am a descendant of the Dunedain! But however I'm not! Here I'm just member # 8209.

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Sorry, but I am not going to waste time on 10 minute-long youtube videos, that are shakingly filmed, hardly understandable, and posted without even a properly spelled name. I'm afraid I have higher standards of what I deem academic proof.

Not having a "properly spelled name" is not a legit reason to not look at the evidence. The documentary clips in the video are from the history channel and the speaker was a anthropologist, that fact makes it scientific and academic Eärniel;most likely peer reviewed. I have done more research, the fact that the Gaelic people came from the Scythians is common knowledge in academic circles. Link provided was a PDF, read chapter 2, it gives very compelling proof.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

I did not know about about both books, at first glance they sound interesting, but rather poor sources to base your theories on. For one, they're a lot more recent. A book from the Middle-ages is not without any doubt a correct or reliable record of events happening several centuries before.

The books go in conjunction with the video clips, they are not the sole source of evidence for my argument. Presented are two independent sources of information arriving at the same conclusion. To be frank, I don't understand your statement.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

For one, they're a lot more recent. A book from the Middle-ages is not without any doubt a correct or reliable record of events happening several centuries before.

You have to explain that to me, makes no sense.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Besides, Christianity has been firmly established in Ireland by then, so retelling Jewish history in a book is hardly out of the ordinary. Not to mention that Christianity has always had had a thing to use and/or warp existing historical and mythological stories and elements for their own purpose. So just because the writer adapted Irish history to his liking to have as much parallels to the Jewish history as he wanted, does not make this in any way accurate, especially not if other sources or material contradicts.

Academics, science backs it up, anthropology backs it up. You can find people to disagree about anything, the point is that in academic cirlces it is widely accepted that the Gaels are in fact the scythians.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Have you read that Wikipedia article or read further? Especially the article on Lebor Gabála Érenn contains some critical views of its accuracy that I think you should not ignore. For example:

I do remember reading that (why you did not give a link to the article itself), and there are things that the books get into that I completely disagree with. Like it's claim that after the egyptian captivity they then migrated to Iberian peninsula after 440 years of wondering the world; meaning they skipped living in Israel like the rest of the jews. Sounds like them creating their own historical identity to me.

However, that is why this information is presented with the video clips. I am only interested in the lineage from the Scythians since that is the only part that I can verify academically elsewere, ie the clips. I notice you keep bringing up the books and not the vids, makes no sense you attempt to debate me on something when you have not looked all the evidence provided.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

I find it somewhat amusing you'd use the Scythians as a vehicle to transport the jewish people to European kingship all around (I can think of at least two instances of bad research that would lead to such a conclusion) and it kind of effectively kills any chance you had to link Futhark (of which existing evidence rather suggests it is Germanic in origin, not Gaelic) to Hebrew. You see, the Scythians had no known writing system of their own...

I used the Scythians because that is what the evidence allows.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

So according to your theory, you would have Isrealites using Hebrew morph into Scythians with no own writing, morph into Gaels who then adopted the Germanic Furthark that happens to have a few similarities to Hebrew, but that's just because they were secretely Israelites all along? Hm...

Obviously if they were jews they did. It is not a fact that they did not have writing, it is stated to be a speculation (most likely a lie).

Originally Posted by Eärniel

No, if I were you, I'd just forget about this whole idea, it's just too shoddily researched and supported.

Whatever, it is one of the oldest and most often researched things in anthropology.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

I suppose my main gripe with considering the Judaic history as main source for Tolkien's world-building is that Tolkien was a great scholar, one who knew a lot of several different European mythologies. I'm sure there are parallels, intended or not. But I think Tolkien drew on far more sources than that and to ignore this is to sell him short. What about parallels between the Dunedain kingdoms and the two Roman empires? You could do a lot with that comparion. And what about Tolkien's clearly Edda-inspired Dwarves?

I never said there weren't other influences, I have said that JRRT's work is heavily influenced by Israelite history and the bible in general. How the present debate came about was by me pointing out that those runes, used by german as well as the gaelic peoples seem to have there origins in hebrew. I then provided evidence to show how that could be.

While I do believe that there were other influences on the dunedain kingdoms creation, I do not think the roman empire is one of them, I could not do alot with that comparison because it is not true. Besides the thread is "Christian and Jewish influences in Tolkien's work." There are far more similarities with the Kingdoms of Israel than the romans, period. I had never even mentioned dwarves but I have mentioned specifically, the Dunedain.

[Count Comfect]

Tel -

I commend you to Andrew Hadfield's article in Irish Historical Studies, "Briton and Scythian: Tudor Representations of Irish Origins". Vol. 28, No. 112 (1993), pp. 390-408

He traces the idea of Scythian origins for the Irish (Gaelic to the core) to 1571 and the Chronicle of Ireland, as a story mixed up in Arthurian legend and a desire by the "civilized" British to cast the Irish as Scythian and thus barbaric. He then follows it back to the Romans, Diodorus Sicilius who relates that the Irish are like the barbaric Scythians in being cannibals and Strabo who explicitly stated that cannibalism was practiced by the Irish and "the Scythians also;" both authors distinguished Scythians and Irish however.

Edmund Spenser (and Hanmer, the author of the above-mentioned Chronicle) tried to hammer this into a Scythian origin for the Irish, again to barbarize them. Fundamentally, it is based on (quoting Spenser) the idea that "as Scythians are to Greeks, and wild men are to the civil, so are the Irish to the English." It also appears in some 12th century chroniclers' work more obliquely, but for the same reason. And as Hadfield concludes "the material used to make this case [for the barbarism of the Irish via the Scythians] seems to demonstrate that when writing about Ireland, English historians and politicians will often believe almost anything."

[Count Comfect]

Further: from the American Journal of Archaeology, vol 49, no 4 (1945) p 586

Treating the issue of the Scythian origin of the Gaels, the reviewer remarks "the story is unknown to the really ancient Irish texts" [NB: this is what Earniel meant by counseling you against reliance on medieval texts for ancient history. They are often inconsistent with earlier texts AND later texts, and given the absolute lack of archaeological or historiographical discipline in the medieval period there is no reason to take them at face value against texts either more thoroughly vetted by modern standards or written closer to the event].

Furthermore, he states that "it is believed to form not so much a piece of genuine folklore as a late attempt to connect Ireland with the ancient Mediterranean world."

The most recent peer-reviewed article my searches in the JSTOR archive can retrieve that treats this hypothesis with anything but extreme doubt (if not outright disbelief) is from 1918 in The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol. 48, pp. 155-178, and even that source hedges its bets. Anthrosource provides nothing on the topic.

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Tel -

I commend you to Andrew Hadfield's article in Irish Historical Studies, "Briton and Scythian: Tudor Representations of Irish Origins". Vol. 28, No. 112 (1993), pp. 390-408

He traces the idea of Scythian origins for the Irish (Gaelic to the core) to 1571 and the Chronicle of Ireland, as a story mixed up in Arthurian legend and a desire by the "civilized" British to cast the Irish as Scythian and thus barbaric. He then follows it back to the Romans, Diodorus Sicilius who relates that the Irish are like the barbaric Scythians in being cannibals and Strabo who explicitly stated that cannibalism was practiced by the Irish and "the Scythians also;" both authors distinguished Scythians and Irish however.

Edmund Spenser (and Hanmer, the author of the above-mentioned Chronicle) tried to hammer this into a Scythian origin for the Irish, again to barbarize them. Fundamentally, it is based on (quoting Spenser) the idea that "as Scythians are to Greeks, and wild men are to the civil, so are the Irish to the English." It also appears in some 12th century chroniclers' work more obliquely, but for the same reason. And as Hadfield concludes "the material used to make this case [for the barbarism of the Irish via the Scythians] seems to demonstrate that when writing about Ireland, English historians and politicians will often believe almost anything."

Listen, the reason why I am focusing on the Scythians is because both pieces of evidence I provided mentioned them but the Scythians are not the only people mentioned in the clips of the video or the other videos I presented in other threads. The cimmerians as well as the massagetae were among the groups. Also it is not just the Irish that descend from the Scythians and the others but the english and the scottish as well...and the germans.

[Count Comfect]

You see, the reason I focused on the Irish-Scythian connection is because that's the only one discussed in any peer-reviewed literature I could find.

The Celtic record is pretty good, archaeologically speaking, and even more importantly, so is the evidence that there was no major migration from the East Med basin to Western Europe during the right time. Add to that that the language the Scythians spoke was from a distinctly different branch of Indo-European from all the languages of Europe (it's much closer to Avestan or Farsi than to Gaelic, German, Frisian, Danish, English, etc all of which are relatively close relatives in comparison).

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

The Israelites did not create Hebrew period. It was the original language from the beginning. But only the righteous seed (Israel) inherited it.

Here follows the origins of all the original European languages and culture. The Israelite connection, the complete history revealed:

You want academic proof, watch this entire video and the part after.


As I have said before, the Africans were not capturing and selling into slavery other Africans, they were selling the refugees of Israel after it was sacked in 70AD. Over a period of about 1500 years we kept migrating from the east coast of Africa to the west coast. The greater part settled in west Africa and there our enemies eventually rounded us up and put us into bondage.

Inaccurate. The trade in black, native Africans was established early; the people being enslaved and traded were definitely of a different ethnolinguistic group from the Jews (and skin color and body shape do not change that quickly); and the Spanish, who had Jewish slaves from North Africa for comparison, were very definite about the differences between those slaves and the African slaves they bought from West Africa. See Black African Slaves at Valencia, 1482-1516: An Onomastic Inquiry, P. E. H. Hair, History in Africa, Vol. 7, (1980), pp. 119-139 for a start of a discussion about the identities of slave groups.

Many of us were living in Europe at the time and 1000s of Israelite slaves were taken from Europe into slavery. In fact, we are the original kings and queens of those lands. We founded those countries. That was what the renaissance was about. After our downfall it was meant to revise all things, history and the images which is merely a by product of the original rulers (us, Israelites) being brought down and their enemies now coming into full power.

Here follows academic proof.

First of all, when were the Israelites ever in Europe in the first place? There is good Biblical, historical, archaeological, and linguistic evidence for a Mesopotamia/Levant origin for the Hebrew tribe, culture, and language. There is none for an invasion of that territory by a tribe from Europe before the Greeks, nor of a mass migration (even if there had been no conflict). Nor is there evidence of major slave-taking expeditions to Europe (Sudan was a popular target, however, as were one's neighbors).

Do you know what the Book of Ballymote is or the Yellow Book of Lecan for that matter? These are European books of history and genealogy. In the link above were it states the contents of the Book of Ballymote, it mentions the history of the "Jews"/Israelites. Why is that? Because The christian kings were the jews. Also in the Book of Ballymote, there is a copy of the Lebor Gabála Érenn, which states that the original monarchs and peoples of the Gaels were in fact descendants of the Scythians.

I've dealt with that above, see the details on the Irish and Scythian connection.

The original video above shows you clips of an academic documentary that shows that the Israelites in Europe were descendants of the Scyths and the other evidents (the books I provided here) show that they were intern the founders of the European monarchies and countries. They were all one people, the scattered Israelites after Israel was sacked in 70 AD, who were all black people and the eventual slaves in the Americas.

After 70 AD we have VERY good historical-archaeological data, and none of it supports a mass migration of anyone out of the Middle East during Roman times or during the Dark Ages. Out of the steppes, yes, but not out of the Levant.

Psalms 83:2-6
2 For, lo, thine enemies make a tumult: and they that hate thee have lifted up the head. 3 They have taken crafty counsel against thy people, and consulted against thy hidden ones. 4 They have said, Come, and let us cut them off from [being] a nation; that the name of Israel may be no more in remembrance. 5 For they have consulted together with one consent: they are confederate against thee: 6 The tabernacles of EDOM, and the Ishmaelites; of Moab, and the Hagarenes; 12 Who said, Let us take to ourselves the houses of God in possession.

A) Metaphor, B) exagerration, C) "They have said" does not mean 'they have done,' D) Israel WAS conquered, subjected, and no longer a nation. They just kept their identity IN THEIR ORIGINAL LOCATION. As a subject people. Also, this quote is out of chronological order if you're citing things after 70AD, since Psalms dates to the time of David, c. 1000 BC.

We lost our identity, it says "no more in remembrance;" the narrator in the embedded video said the exact same thing. We do not know because we lost it during the long migration over the years. We then lost our most recent history as rulers and founders of Europe as it was taken away/beaten out of us during slavery.

So with that it is easy to see that, not just all the European letters but language, culture and myths owe a great deal to the Israelites. Now it even makes more sense why the queen of england sits on the stone of Jacob (which she has no right to do since she is not an Israelite - pretentious lier).

European letters Earniel has dealt with; there is also no "stone of Jacob" in Jewish lore. The Stone of Scone claims to have been his pillow when he saw the angels, but that's a late attribution to legitimize already Scottish kings, not a historical detail traceable back to fact.

There's just too much evidence about the populations and cultural changes in the locations you're citing, none of which backs up this overbroad idea of Israelite influence on everything.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Inaccurate. The trade in black, native Africans was established early; the people being enslaved and traded were definitely of a different ethnolinguistic group from the Jews (and skin color and body shape do not change that quickly); and the Spanish, who had Jewish slaves from North Africa for comparison, were very definite about the differences between those slaves and the African slaves they bought from West Africa. See Black African Slaves at Valencia, 1482-1516: An Onomastic Inquiry, P. E. H. Hair, History in Africa, Vol. 7, (1980), pp. 119-139 for a start of a discussion about the identities of slave groups.

First of all, when were the Israelites ever in Europe in the first place? There is good Biblical, historical, archaeological, and linguistic evidence for a Mesopotamia/Levant origin for the Hebrew tribe, culture, and language. There is none for an invasion of that territory by a tribe from Europe before the Greeks, nor of a mass migration (even if there had been no conflict). Nor is there evidence of major slave-taking expeditions to Europe (Sudan was a popular target, however, as were one's neighbors).
I've dealt with that above, see the details on the Irish and Scythian connection.
After 70 AD we have VERY good historical-archaeological data, and none of it supports a mass migration of anyone out of the Middle East during Roman times or during the Dark Ages. Out of the steppes, yes, but not out of the Levant.

A) Metaphor, B) exagerration, C) "They have said" does not mean 'they have done,' D) Israel WAS conquered, subjected, and no longer a nation. They just kept their identity IN THEIR ORIGINAL LOCATION. As a subject people. Also, this quote is out of chronological order if you're citing things after 70AD, since Psalms dates to the time of David, c. 1000 BC.


European letters Earniel has dealt with; there is also no "stone of Jacob" in Jewish lore. The Stone of Scone claims to have been his pillow when he saw the angels, but that's a late attribution to legitimize already Scottish kings, not a historical detail traceable back to fact.

There's just too much evidence about the populations and cultural changes in the locations you're citing, none of which backs up this overbroad idea of Israelite influence on everything.

I think that's an excellent rebuttal.

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Inaccurate. The trade in black, native Africans was established early; the people being enslaved and traded were definitely of a different ethnolinguistic group from the Jews (and skin color and body shape do not change that quickly); and the Spanish, who had Jewish slaves from North Africa for comparison, were very definite about the differences between those slaves and the African slaves they bought from West Africa. See Black African Slaves at Valencia, 1482-1516: An Onomastic Inquiry, P. E. H. Hair, History in Africa, Vol. 7, (1980), pp. 119-139 for a start of a discussion about the identities of slave groups.

"Skin color and body shape." The Jews were originally black and if you can't get that, you won't get any of this. I have provided tons of evidence on this issue alone.

Gamal Abdul Nasser, who was the president of the United Arab Republic said in 1956:
‘I could not respect the present Jews because they left Israel black and came back white.’

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

First of all, when were the Israelites ever in Europe in the first place? There is good Biblical, historical, archaeological, and linguistic evidence for a Mesopotamia/Levant origin for the Hebrew tribe, culture, and language. There is none for an invasion of that territory by a tribe from Europe before the Greeks, nor of a mass migration (even if there had been no conflict). Nor is there evidence of major slave-taking expeditions to Europe (Sudan was a popular target, however, as were one's neighbors).

Oh really. So it was not the "wandering Jews of Africa" they were capturing?

I answered this already, here, and here.

A quote from the latter link above:

"Expulsion of the Jews from Sicily:

I came to this revelation after reading the article, Expulsion of the Jews from Sicily given above. The article said that the jews were expelled from italy in 1492. I wondered at this year because I remember some significants. 1492 was there in blue within the article so I clicked on it. 1492 is the year Columbus (the demon) came to the Americas...wow!!! (the events of that year are listed-must read). At the bottom of the article it talks about how the jews were waving to their former neighbors as they were taken away on "ships!!!!" (Duet. 28:68)"

History is a lie ok, get over it. Would anyone go to such lengths to lie, oooh yeah.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

After 70 AD we have VERY good historical-archaeological data, and none of it supports a mass migration of anyone out of the Middle East during Roman times or during the Dark Ages. Out of the steppes, yes, but not out of the Levant.

*Sigh*

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

A) Metaphor, B) exagerration, C) "They have said" does not mean 'they have done,' D) Israel WAS conquered, subjected, and no longer a nation. They just kept their identity IN THEIR ORIGINAL LOCATION. As a subject people. Also, this quote is out of chronological order if you're citing things after 70AD, since Psalms dates to the time of David, c. 1000 BC.

*Sigh* the scriptures are not citing any specific time. The Moabites are the Chinese, when did they come against us in recent history as a nation, only before and during the time of King David. An Though we always fought with Edom they never ruled us until the advent of the romans, who even the false Jews today call the Edomites.

Psalm 83:16-17
16 Fill their faces with shame; that they may seek thy name, O LORD.17 Let them be confounded and troubled for ever; yea, let them be put to shame, and perish:

Have any of those nations been put to shame yet and made to seek the name of god, no because it did not happen yet, it is prophecy, foretold in Isaiah to happen on the day of judgment. So Psalms 83:2-6 is talking about the overall relationship Israel had/has with these nations in a prophetic as well as historical way.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

European letters Earniel has dealt with; there is also no "stone of Jacob" in Jewish lore. The Stone of Scone claims to have been his pillow when he saw the angels, but that's a late attribution to legitimize already Scottish kings, not a historical detail traceable back to fact.

This is a lie, the stone of Jacob, is in Genesis 28:10-18. lol...you know, this is very funny to me, the point is why could the stone of Jacob (sure it may not be the original) legitimize Scottish (which means burned man) kings if they were not in origin Jews. Why not something pagan like an object of the pantheon gods, isn't your argument that the Eurpeans are Greeks:

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

There is none for an invasion of that territory by a tribe from Europe before the Greeks,

Yeah right. This is a load of flaming, steaming, horse filth.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

There's just too much evidence about the populations and cultural changes in the locations you're citing, none of which backs up this overbroad idea of Israelite influence on everything.

Scottish means burned man (why).

Anglo-saxon means sons of Isaac.

Why?

[Count Comfect]

Why would the (supposed) pillow of Jacob legitimize Scottish kings? Because they're Christian. Obviously.

I know the story of Jacob's ladder; he set the stone for a pillar and called it Beth-El (the house of God). What there are NOT is Jewish myths about that stone having been acquired or taken by anyone else, least of all to Scotland, or about any legitimizing power it had over anything or anyone.

As for the meaning of Scot, OED:

[OE. *Scot, pl. Scottas, ad. late L. Scottus; first in writers of c 400. Late Latin had a variant Sctus (cf. med.Gr. ), which became the usual form in med.L. A third form, Sctus, may perh. be inferred from the ON. Skotar pl., though the examples of it in med. Latin verse are prob. mere mistakes.
The source of the late Latin word is obscure. There is no evidence that it represents the native name of any Gaelic-speaking people (the Irish Scot, an Irishman, pl. Scuit, appears to be a learned word from Latin), nor does it exist in Welsh, though Welshmen in writing Latin have from the earliest times used Scoti as the rendering of Gwyddel (Gaels). It may possibly be an adoption of a name bestowed at an early period by Britons or Gauls on a Gaelic people (cf. the Gaulish personal names Scottos, Scottios); Sir J. Rhs has suggested that it may have meant ‘tattooed’, cogn. w. Welsh ysgwthr a cutting, carving, or sculpturing; other conjectures have also been offered.

Anglo-Saxon does not mean son of Isaac. It is a joining of two tribal names - Angles and Saxons. The Saxons are well known as inhabitants of what is now Saxony in Germany, their name derives from their weaponry (c.f. Old English saex, knife). The Angles (c.f. East Anglia) have a name of Greek derivation, so named for the Engles, a related tribe, from what is now Schleswig in Northern Germany.

The Moabites are not the Chinese. They are the people of Moab. It's a region around the Dead Sea. Edom is due south of it overlapping the Negev. Both kingdoms HAVE been destroyed (not that I think the Bible is always accurate or prophetic, but this is one point on which it is correct).

Of course 1492 is the year the Jews were expelled (from Sicily and from other Aragonese and Castilian provinces). The very reason Columbus was able to go on his voyage (which post-dates the expulsion) was because of the victory in Grenada and the Christianization of Spain (involving the expulsion or conversion by force of both Jews and Muslims). And how else would you leave Sicily but by ship? Boat I guess. The history of the Sephardim is well known (they could write, you know).

I never denied there were black slaves in Spain by 1492. Many. In fact, the article I cited speaks of the slave trade in a period beginning in 1482, ten years earlier, that was already well-established bringing in black slaves. The issue is that these were not Jews, they were a distinct population speaking their own, non-Semitic, languages with their own culture and their own history. Not Jews, ex-Jews, or forgotten Jews. Also, the Zulu are from far Southern Africa, Shaka dates from the 17-1800s, and they have nothing to do with the Atlantic slave trade.

Everyone was once black-skinned, because we came out of Africa. But the Jews are, and were, Semites. Just like the Egyptians (Nasser was talking about Europeanization with his white/black comments) (since the 'United Arab Republic' was Syria+Egypt). They aren't black. Hell, I might point to the Song of Songs: "My beloved is white and ruddy, the chiefest among ten thousand." Song of Songs 5-10.

And that's probably all from me. You don't like peer-reviewed evidence, do you?

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Why would the (supposed) pillow of Jacob legitimize Scottish kings? Because they're Christian. Obviously.

I know the story of Jacob's ladder; he set the stone for a pillar and called it Beth-El (the house of God). What there are NOT is Jewish myths about that stone having been acquired or taken by anyone else, least of all to Scotland, or about any legitimizing power it had over anything or anyone.

As for the meaning of Scot, OED:

Anglo-Saxon does not mean son of Isaac. It is a joining of two tribal names - Angles and Saxons. The Saxons are well known as inhabitants of what is now Saxony in Germany, their name derives from their weaponry (c.f. Old English saex, knife). The Angles (c.f. East Anglia) have a name of Greek derivation, so named for the Engles, a related tribe, from what is now Schleswig in Northern Germany.

The Moabites are not the Chinese. They are the people of Moab. It's a region around the Dead Sea. Edom is due south of it overlapping the Negev. Both kingdoms HAVE been destroyed (not that I think the Bible is always accurate or prophetic, but this is one point on which it is correct).

Of course 1492 is the year the Jews were expelled (from Sicily and from other Aragonese and Castilian provinces). The very reason Columbus was able to go on his voyage (which post-dates the expulsion) was because of the victory in Grenada and the Christianization of Spain (involving the expulsion or conversion by force of both Jews and Muslims). And how else would you leave Sicily but by ship? Boat I guess. The history of the Sephardim is well known (they could write, you know).

I never denied there were black slaves in Spain by 1492. Many. In fact, the article I cited speaks of the slave trade in a period beginning in 1482, ten years earlier, that was already well-established bringing in black slaves. The issue is that these were not Jews, they were a distinct population speaking their own, non-Semitic, languages with their own culture and their own history. Not Jews, ex-Jews, or forgotten Jews. Also, the Zulu are from far Southern Africa, Shaka dates from the 17-1800s, and they have nothing to do with the Atlantic slave trade.

Everyone was once black-skinned, because we came out of Africa. But the Jews are, and were, Semites. Just like the Egyptians (Nasser was talking about Europeanization with his white/black comments) (since the 'United Arab Republic' was Syria+Egypt). They aren't black. Hell, I might point to the Song of Songs: "My beloved is white and ruddy, the chiefest among ten thousand." Song of Songs 5-10.

And that's probably all from me. You don't like peer-reviewed evidence, do you?

You have addressed almost none of the issues I brought up specifically and you don't provide links to things you bring up. You just bring up more questions without resolving the issues before. This is not going anywhere.

You have not even addressed any of the scriptures that I brought out. Shaka Zulu is from 1700 so he nothing to do with the slave trade? They were still catching slaves 1860, *sigh*.

And:

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Just like the Egyptians (Nasser was talking about Europeanization with his white/black comments) (since the 'United Arab Republic' was Syria+Egypt). They aren't black.

What man?!!! Whatever...you playin games, but know this:

Matthew 12:36
But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

You are not getting away with "covering up the faces of the jugdes" ok, believe it, "the wages of sin is blood."

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

Shaka Zulu is from 1700 so he nothing to do with the slave trade? They were still catching slaves 1860,

What does Shaka Zulu have to do with any of your arguments?

For one he was the ruler of the Zulu Kingdom, in the southern-most part of Africa, in a province now named KwaZulu-Natal in modern-day South Africa. The Zulus have no documented relationship of any kind with either the slave trade between the Atlantic coastlines of Africa and America/Europe, nor the slave trade of North Africa, nor the Indian Ocean slave-trade from modern-day Mozambique up to modern-day Somalia. In fact the area of present-day KwaZulu-Natal, still mostly populated by Zulus (an ethnic group in South Africa), was one of the last places that Europeans came into contact with. The Portuguese came across the coastline of the area on Christmas Day, thus Natal (Christmas in Portuguese). The slave-trade never had any substantial impact on this area of Africa, apart from later, but solely local Boer and British conquests in the latter half of the 19th century and onto the apartheid era of the 20th century.

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

You see, the reason I focused on the Irish-Scythian connection is because that's the only one discussed in any peer-reviewed literature I could find.

But yet you post no links to them.

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Also, the Zulu are from far Southern Africa, Shaka dates from the 17-1800s, and they have nothing to do with the Atlantic slave trade.

This is what you said, suggesting that the time of Shaka is from a different era. I answered and said that they (this is ridiculous), as in the slave traders, were still trading slaves up until 1860, so it's not a different era. For your information, there are people to this day who live in south Africa that claim to be lost Jews, that live seperate and apart from their surrounding tribes as they are bigoted against.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

For one he was the ruler of the Zulu Kingdom, in the southern-most part of Africa, in a province now named KwaZulu-Natal in modern-day South Africa. The Zulus have no documented relationship of any kind with either the slave trade between the Atlantic coastlines of Africa and America/Europe, nor the slave trade of North Africa, nor the Indian Ocean slave-trade from modern-day Mozambique up to modern-day Somalia. In fact the area of present-day KwaZulu-Natal, still mostly populated by Zulus (an ethnic group in South Africa), was one of the last places that Europeans came into contact with. The Portuguese came across the coastline of the area on Christmas Day, thus Natal (Christmas in Portuguese). The slave-trade never had any substantial impact on this area of Africa, apart from later, but solely local Boer and British conquests in the latter half of the 19th century and onto the apartheid era of the 20th century.

Any reference to the zulus I made had to do with the vid I provided as reference. What is this above about?

And where is your references/links to your information. I am trying not to ignore you but I am not telling you again. I know you are young and may not have experience in research but I am not going to argue none points and poorly backed POVs; beneath me really.

You want to know what is relevant to this thread. I am interested in hearing what you think about the black Icons that were repainted white in Russia, that's what has to do with this thread. I want to hear about the videos I posted about the knights of middle ages being black men. I want to hear about the arguments I presented stating the great lie that the moors were muslim africans and not black hebrew Israelites. That is what is relevant to this thread and showing that the European culture thus the works of JRRT is just the Israelite culture with another twist. That is relevant to this thread not running around in circles with no works cited, no links for me to varify, about issues that remotely have relevants hear, that was mentioned in passing, along the way to proving more significant points!!!!

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Inaccurate. The trade in black, native Africans was established early; the people being enslaved and traded were definitely of a different ethnolinguistic group from the Jews (and skin color and body shape do not change that quickly)

So at one point you say, that they could not have been black 500 years ago because they could not turn from black to white in such a short time. Then:

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Everyone was once black-skinned, because we came out of Africa. But the Jews are, and were, Semites. Just like the Egyptians (Nasser was talking about Europeanization with his white/black comments) (since the 'United Arab Republic' was Syria+Egypt). They aren't black. Hell, I might point to the Song of Songs: "My beloved is white and ruddy, the chiefest among ten thousand." Song of Songs 5-10.

This above was in response to scriptures I gave that related the color of Jesus and the Israelites from 2000 years ago. So the jews were black then but not 500 years ago because it was too short a time span but 2000 years was enough for you to change from black to white. Sure...

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

"My beloved is white and ruddy, the chiefest among ten thousand." Song of Songs 5-10.

What the hell do you mean by this? So you believe we were all black? But a single verse will convince you otherwise, I see...

All I am going to say to you is that you have some nerve (Kahunas) to so eagerly go along with continuing to cover up the identity of the real Israelites who were taken into slavery. You are a braver man than I am because I could not do it, I am terrified of god. Good luck with that (not): read my signiture.

Matthew 10:26
Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known.

...and I will whisper...no (hell no!!!)

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

What?



This is what you said, suggesting that the time of Shaka is from a different era. I answered and said that they (this is ridiculous), as in the slave traders, were still trading slaves up until 1860, so it's not a different era. For your information, there are people to this day who live in south Africa that claim to be lost Jews, that live seperate and apart from their surrounding tribes as they are bigoted against.



Any reference to the zulus I made had to do with the vid I provided as reference. What is this above about?

And where is your references/links to your information. I am trying not to ignore you but I am not telling you again. I know you are young and may not have experience in research but I am not going to argue none points and poorly backed POVs; beneath me really.

You want to know what is relevant to this thread. I am interested in hearing what you think about the black Icons that were repainted white in Russia, that's what has to do with this thread. I want to hear about the videos I posted about the knights of middle ages being black men. I want to hear about the arguments I presented stating the great lie that the moors were muslim africans and not black hebrew Israelites. That is what is relevant to this thread and showing that the European culture thus the works of JRRT is just the Israelite culture with another twist. That is relevant to this thread not running around in circles with no works cited, no links for me to varify, about issues that remotely have relevants hear, that was mentioned in passing, along the way to proving more significant points!!!!



So at one point you say, that they could not have been black 500 years ago because they could not turn from black to white in such a short time. Then:



This above was in response to scriptures I gave that related the color of Jesus and the Israelites from 2000 years ago. So the jews were black then but not 500 years ago because it was too short a time span but 2000 years was enough for you to change from black to white. Sure...



What the hell do you mean by this? So you believe we were all black? But a single verse will convince you otherwise, I see...

All I am going to say to you is that you have some nerve (Kahunas) to so eagerly go along with continuing to cover up the identity of the real Israelites who were taken into slavery. You are a braver man than I am because I could not do it, I am terrified of god. Good luck with that (not): read my signiture.

Matthew 10:26
Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known.

...and I will whisper...no (hell no!!!)

Telcontarian.. I think you are mixing up me (Coffeehouse) with Count Comfect. Lot's of C's I guess.. You'll have to take his views and arguments up with him, not me
My only input in this debate has been about Shaka Zulu And I see that you've attributed my post to him in the form of a quote.. Re-read it!

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Telcontarian.. I think you are mixing up me (Coffeehouse) with Count Comfect. Lot's of C's I guess.. You'll have to take his views and arguments up with him, not me
My only input in this debate has been about Shaka Zulu And I see that you've attributed my post to him in the form of a quote.. Re-read it!

Tired today, can you tell, sorry, will edit

did I answer your inquiry though?

[Coffeehouse]

No problem! But I want to ask, where in the Shaka youtube clip you presented is the phrase "wandering Jews of Africa"? If you could give me the time it pops up I'll look at it.

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

No problem! But I want to ask, where in the Shaka youtube clip you presented is the phrase "wandering Jews of Africa"? If you could give me the time it pops up I'll look at it.

It's at 0:55, check it out.