GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives
Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2009-11 > 1257784053
From: taf <>
Subject: Re: Genealogy, extrapolation and dogma (was: Mummies...)
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 08:27:33 -0800 (PST)
References: <53db5594-adb0-451c-bee1-4882a5a3ebf3@v37g2000prg.googlegroups.com><nltaylor-035F17.08463402112009@earthlink.us.supernews.com> <f6dcd2ba-8484-4b69-9a8a-827d4c6edef3@g22g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <nltaylor-E98CFF.14110902112009@earthlink.us.supernews.com> <09c5fec2-d504-4f03-b519-bde20c82635e@q40g2000prh.googlegroups.com> <nltaylor-2B88E4.21562202112009@earthlink.us.supernews.com> <2f86c775-90ec-4c7d-92d4-ae00b8b536e5@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com> <nltaylor-E95299.01064203112009@earthlink.us.supernews.com> <2d017d25-132e-49b2-bb67-ac170f8eb079@v15g2000prn.googlegroups.com> <1d2d524f-47c0-4ea3-bd28-8b335a1263da@x6g2000prc.googlegroups.com> <b4cdb308-bfd8-4757-b6ff-7e64f71d9b45@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com> <0c868a99-d2ee-4ab6-999a-7572530797b2@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> <2dfaf20e-0e17-439a-bc38-ee35d36d9cb6@f1g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
On Nov 8, 8:45 pm, JacobSmith <> wrote:
> =========================
> REPLY TO taf:
> Egyptian links in Strabo on the Land of the Jews
None of which have anything to do with anything relevant to this
discussion.
> (2) The Semitic Influence in Ancient Egypthttp://www.imninalu.net/hyksos.htm
Can't let this one pass without comment.
> [Yebamoth: (יבמות, "Levirate marriage");
> (or Yebamot or Yevamot), referring to
> the mandated marriage of a widow to
> her brother-in-law, deals with the Jewish
> law of levirate marriage (Deut. 25:5-10)
> and other topics, such as the status of
> minors. It consists of 16 chapters.]http://tinyurl.com/yzgwwe3
That two bordering tribal societies share a common marital practice in
no way can be used to imply a directionality. This could just as well
be an Egyptian influence on ancient Hebrews. Or both may have picked
it up from the Caananites. Or it may represent a common heritage of
their shared Levantine tribal heritage. Or it could be coincidence.
And then, being such a Biblical scholar, you will know that it also
prohibits the marriage of a widow to her brother-in-law. Were you to
selectively cite that prohibition instead of selectively citing the
mandate, you would have to conclude that there was no influence. Yet
another example of cherry-picking. Heralding similarities, sweeping
conflicts under the carpet.
By the way, you need to be more careful in the use of 'Semitic' when
drawing anthropological conclusions. It means something completely
different to an anthropologist than the manner in which you are using
it.
taf
This thread: