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.

[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?

[BeardofPants]

Not sure what ANY of this has to do with Tolkien, but whatevs.

Nubians were clearly darker skinned than their northern, egyptian, counterparts. This is displayed quite clearly surviving frescos from the middle kingdom. In any case, I think it is fair to say that there was likely a variety of skin colours.

Nubia: Nubians in Egypt

The evidence for Nubians in Egypt may be divided into written sources and archaeological record: the human remains from the latter would provide the most direct or primary sources, but they have not been analysed in numbers or methods suitable for demographic studies.

The classic Middle Egyptian phase of the Egyptian language provides evidence for Egyptian attitudes to the inhabitants of lands immediately south of Egypt: there seem to have been two main words used, Nehesy (nHsy) for inhabitants of the river valley, and Medjay (mDAy) for a group or groups from the deserts east of the Nubian Nile Valley. This indicates the view from Egypt, as mediated through language: it is possible that it represents a simplifying generalisation for a more complex linguistic and ethnic map of Nubia.

The evidence for Nubians living in Middle Kingdom Egypt is open to several interpretations. The name Nehesy - 'Nubian' appears several times: does it refer to a Nubian, either born in Egypt or someone who changed their foreign name? Was it just a 'fashion' to call somebody 'Nubian' or was the child darker-skinned than usual so that the parents decided to give him that name? What does darker skin mean? This question leads to the modern debate over race in ancient Egypt.

Dark skinned people are sometimes depicted in Middle Kingdom art. It is again very difficult to draw any conclusion from this. It seems almost impossible to decide, whether these were Nubians or whether the dark skin is chosen for other reasons ('rebirth'). Further research is needed, with a comprehensive catalogue illustrated in colour for all examples of each period. For the Second Intermediate Period there is good evidence from material culture that inhabitants from the Nubian eastern desert settled in Egypt (pan-graves).

http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/nubia/nubians.html

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Not sure what ANY of this has to do with Tolkien, but whatevs.

Nubians were clearly darker skinned than their northern, egyptian, counterparts. This is displayed quite clearly surviving frescos from the middle kingdom. In any case, I think it is fair to say that there was likely a variety of skin colours.



http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/nubia/nubians.html

I think the reason we're into this discussion is the hypothesis by Telcontarion that much of Tolkien's Middle Earth drew inspiration from Christian and Jewish history, though it's branched off into a discussion about who the real Jews are(if they're black or not?) it seems. We may be off topic

Like the above sources suggest, there is indications that Nubians were darker skinned (which you would expect). I think there's a really good possibility that Egypt was a mosaic of skin colors due to its geographical location, its far-reaching trade and power, and its wars for the extent of time that it (Egyptian Empire) reigned the Near East and North Africa.

[BeardofPants]

double post

[GrayMouser]

I believe that there's pretty strong DNA and bone structural evidence evidence that the modern Egyptians are direct descendants of the ancient Egyptians.

A lot of conquests are turning out to have less racial/ethnic effect than previously thought- like Turkey: while the religion, language, elites, and some customs have changed, the bulk of the population remains descendants of Hittites rather than Turks.

Even vaguely recall reading that there's rather more Briton and less Anglo-Saxon in the modern English than was believed.

[Coffeehouse]

The Turkish nation is a very good example of a people who have not replaced but mixed with the peoples they conquered. Originating from the Central Asian steppes, they moved westwards, but did not replace the peoples they conquered but intermarried and fused in their own Turkish legacy with the local customs and culture. You can see that legacy in Turkey today, as being Turkish is less about what skin color you are or where along the line you became 'Turkish', but adhering to the idea of Turkey or a Turkish societal code (of which Kurdish Turks seem to be notoriously unwilling to subdue to), which in many ways is similar to the idea of America.

Just because a new conqueror appears in a territory already inhabited by another people (Mongols in China, Turks in Asia Minor, Arabs in Egypt or Muslims in India) it must accordingly displace the general racial mix is a wrong assumption. Alexander the Great and the Greeks, for all their conquests, only spiced, but did not replace their new subjects.

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

The Turkish nation is a very good example of a people who have not replaced but mixed with the peoples they conquered. Originating from the Central Asian steppes, they moved westwards, but did not replace the peoples they conquered but intermarried and fused in their own Turkish legacy with the local customs and culture. You can see that legacy in Turkey today, as being Turkish is less about what skin color you are or where along the line you became 'Turkish', but adhering to the idea of Turkey or a Turkish societal code (of which Kurdish Turks seem to be notoriously unwilling to subdue to), which in many ways is similar to the idea of America.

Just because a new conqueror appears in a territory already inhabited by another people (Mongols in China, Turks in Asia Minor, Arabs in Egypt or Muslims in India) it must accordingly displace the general racial mix is a wrong assumption. Alexander the Great and the Greeks, for all their conquests, only spiced, but did not replace their new subjects.

The original nile valley inhabitants were as black as any other african group. Biblically Mizraim, the forefather of the Egyptians, the second eldest son of Ham (Ham, meaning burned) was as dark as his eldest brother Cush. They were darker than the south african bushman, who no one would say is white or Arabic; the average bushman was a light brown complexion but they are still black. So even if the Egyptians were lighter, they still definately had the negroid curly hair, lips, nose and other features.

This argument amuses me to no end and telling you why I say so brings us back to the issue that is relivant to this thread, iconoclasm. Which I keep asking for comments on but everyone keeps dodging with great skill. I have already mentioned the issue with St. Maurice, being a black Egyptian yet they have a caucasian image of the man. Nimrod, maker of the tower of babel was the eldest son of Cush. Yet I have never seen him depicted as black, in movies or in images, him and his people in movies were always depicted as white; that is iconoclasm. Let any say here that Nimrod, first of the Ethiopians was white and I know I need not continue with this debate. Still no one has commented on the black Palestinians (the original Canaanites, Canaan the last son of Ham).

This is why today all the images of Jesus, Mary and the Apostles (all jews) that were originally black images in Europe, today are white. Iconoclasm is at the root of it all; smashing of the noses off statues in egypt, defacing paintings in europe and in the middle east. So, the cultural effects of the Israelites history on the world and specifically to this thread, on JRRT's work, is not recognized and is lost among a myriad of names, languages and cultures in Europe that all have one origin, the Israelites.

If a coptic child grew up looking at a blond hair blue eyed image of St. Maurice all his life, would he not believe that is how he looked; yet it is shown here in this thread that he was in fact, black. If he believed, that is how he looked then he would also be likely to believe that, if not that all the original Egyptians were white, that the caucasian type had more influence and were more significant than reality allows; certainly he would think the Saint was a white man, with blond hair no less. Is this scenario not likely concerning jesus and his people given the evidents presented. Not just of the jews (which is immence) but similar peoples, whether Egyptian (Maurice), Ethiopian (Nimrod) or Canaanites (In Palestine and Israel).

Just a side note, in the video with the black Palestinians the one being interviewed said quite cleary that his people were taken from Palestine, then into Africa and then eventually into slavery; the jews also took this route, it would seem most by fleeing but undoubtedly others were over taken and brought by force.

So again...lol, please address the issue of Iconoclasm, instead of going on and on about how the Egyptians were light skin africans, lol...yeah right, light skin like their brother Nimrod and the rest of the Ethiopians.

The Israelites were black, that is plane, in the bible.

Amos 9:7
Are ye not as children of the Ethiopians unto me, O children of Israel?

It planely says we are like the ethiopians (not the imaginary white Ethipians, you know, Nimrods people...lol - this is stupid, this is so stupid).

Now this is the killer for me.

Lamentations 5:10
Our skin was black like an oven because of the terrible famine.

Now when black people are suffering due to a famine/starving their skin gets darker and darker. A white person becomes paler and paler. so this is another cut tothose people who are claiming to be Israelites. They are not but do lie as the scriptures say.

Lamentations 4:8
8 Their visage is blacker than a coal;

"I know it said coal, but just like white chocolate, there is white coal too,"... lol. Anymore stupid statements and I am going to just start being completely frank about all this and why the hell I think it is happening and let you all have it with both barrels. I was content to prove that the Israelite culture, influenced JRRT's work in language, writing and on some as of yet unmeasurable, spiritual level, but now I can really get into it. As to the latter:

"And because all Elves had been found in groups of twelve, twelve became the number they counted with ever after, and 144 was for long their highest number, and in none of their later tongues was there therefore any common name for a greater number."

12 tribes of Israel and the chosen 144,000. The number 144 - which is also mentioned in relation to the dimensions of the 12-gated New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:17) - is of course 12 times 12, or 12 squared.

Like I said, it is all about Israel.

The whole world and all the events since the rise of Israel (even before, since we were chosen before the world was made) was all about us. So suck it!!!!

The runes in tolkien is from us, the Israelites. The migrations, sunderings, divisions and the subsequent different evolved languages of the elves is modeled after the experiences of the Israelites. The strong European culture throughout Tolkien, The kingdoms of the Dunedain, Eldarion, all of it, is inspired by Israel!!!

[BeardofPants]

http://www.public.asu.edu/~usman/ima...ian-kemsit.jpg



*shrug*

[inked]

Well, Phillip Pullman thinks there are Christian influences in Tolkien's work! See here: http://entmoot.com/showthread.php?t=15002

Of course, PP thinks that's a reason to discredit Tollers! But I'd bet PP would protest anyone discounting his work because it was written by an atheist who thought his world view explained everything as PP discounts Tolkien's Roman Catholicism.

And Tolkien's account of the Creation is certainly Hebraically influenced and blended with Norse and other mythologies in addition to its Christian content - to start at the beginning, as it were.

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by inked

Well, Phillip Pullman thinks there are Christian influences in Tolkien's work! See here: http://entmoot.com/showthread.php?t=15002

Of course, PP thinks that's a reason to discredit Tollers! But I'd bet PP would protest anyone discounting his work because it was written by an atheist who thought his world view explained everything as PP discounts Tolkien's Roman Catholicism.

And Tolkien's account of the Creation is certainly Hebraically influenced and blended with Norse and other mythologies in addition to its Christian content - to start at the beginning, as it were.

I will reply in the "Lwis vs Tolkien vs Pullman: Death Match in the Cage!" thread.

[The Telcontarion]

Read 1st and 2nd kings in the bible. there you will see that the relationship between Gondor and Arnor was firmly based on the events of those books.

While Gondor only came to the defense of Arnor once - during the which kings invasion - in the bible the, the South Kingdom/the kingdom of Judah, came to the aid of the North Kingdom/the kingdom of Israel reeatedly, with the Judite king always stating that "My horses, my people, my swords and the thy people are as one."

Tolkien clearly did not make his version of the story with such a close relationship of them always going to war together (as tolkienites, that was always a dream that they could have a closer more unified relationship), after all it would have been to obvious a rippoff; he had to change it but it's clear. The single most important inspiration of Tolkien's work is the bible and subsequently, the story of the jews.

PS. I noticed no one addressed my previous post about the numbers 12 and the 144. Come on, it's not hard, don't run....hahahaaa!!!

[inked]

El Tel, JRRT did not simply re-write the Bible.

12 tribes/gates
12 apostles/foundation stones of New Jerusalem
144 (12x12) includes the Jews and the Gentiles
1000 incomprehensibly huge number

144,000 in the Apocalypse (aka Revelation) = the symbolic number of the incomprehensibly huge number of those whom God is saving (perhaps equal to everyone in all times and places?)

Not to mention gematria - which ought to give you a field day!

[brownjenkins]

The base twelve system is Summeric in origin. Arabic, as we understand it today, not Israelite. They just embraced the traditions of previous cultures.

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

The base twelve system is Summeric in origin. Arabic, as we understand it today, not Israelite. They just embraced the traditions of previous cultures.

Yes - simply having a base 12 system need not be a Biblical reference. It would be like saying having a base 8 system is necessarily an homage to spiders.

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Yes - simply having a base 12 system need not be a Biblical reference. It would be like saying having a base 8 system is necessarily an homage to spiders.

[Flaming removed. Consider this your final warning. Eärniel] It's like the interviews about the fake moon landing in that documentary "What really happened on the way to the Moon."