Jesus born in africa and black era

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
12,538
#41
That story doesn't sound overly complicated to you?

I don't know what's in the Q'ran, but I've been reading Islamic historians from the 8th century. For the Bible parts, they mainly copy the same text that everyone else was using ... except parts which lessen the divinity of Christ. There's the same story about Mary's mother conceiving her, but absolutely no story about Mary being significant in any way ... like a queen or whatever.

Islamic Arabs made a point of making Christ less than divine. Don't you think they would've mentioned something so juicy?

I vote: "no"
Islamic scholars coming some 7 centuries after the events had exactly zero to contribute on Jesus/his family. The islamic stance on Jesus is a pragmatic one, to facilitate conversion of christians to islam..... therefore they went with the prevailing story at the time, simply removing the divine conception
 
Mar 2017
801
Colorado
#42
That all said and done, considering that people at the time knew that Judea-Israel was in what is now Israel-Palestine long before the Romans were involved in the area i.e. Egypt and Iran, it's a given that Jesus was neither African or Syrian or Circassian; he was a Hebrew, and probably wouldn't look out of place in most Mizrahi communities today.
I'm with you. Whatever the Jews were in the 1st century, Jesus was one of them. Since they assembled the Pentateuch in the Babylonian captivity, it's an ethnicity that struggled to keep it's own identity in the face of all the cultures around it. It was a semi-closed society: keeping its odd rules and taboos as way of differentiating itself from outsiders.

Saying Jesus was something else is just plain silly. I'm not a Bible thumper, but don't the scriptures say the savior would come "out of Israel?" If he was something else, he could never have attracted a following.

If someone is trying to make the argument that all the Jews in Judea belonged to one of the African races south of the Sahel, they're just knocking their heads against the wall of existing DNA fact.
 
Mar 2017
801
Colorado
#43
Islamic scholars coming some 7 centuries after the events had exactly zero to contribute on Jesus/his family. The islamic stance on Jesus is a pragmatic one, to facilitate conversion of christians to islam..... therefore they went with the prevailing story at the time, simply removing the divine conception
I'm not ready to throw up my hands over this. I'm not arguing with the Christian versions. I'm saying Al Yaq'udi had no reason to stick to it if thought he had something better. He included the Deluka Islamic myth (for example... it occurs right after the Pharaoh drowns in Exodus).

Al Yaq'udi is known for being an accurate historian. Yes, he's obviously copying the biblical narratives (summarizing & combining some), but he's known for inserting factual information. There are cases where he's intentionally changed wording & situations, but the motive isn't obvious to me ... so he's not above doing that. He's got many listings of African empires, some cultural descriptions, reasonable timelines.

He was not writing a religious/Islamic text: he's not proselytizing. I was reading his "history". If there was alternate Mary story, I think he would've mentioned it. I realize it's difficult to prove a negative. That's my opinion.


As for Arabs writing 700 yrs after the fact? A Mary story cobbled up 2000 yrs too late doesn't bother you?
"The story could be that Musa/Maria married her son Phraates V (Phraataces) and one year later Jesus was born, it was certainly unacceptable to the Parthians, so Phraates V was killed and Musa and her son fled to the Roman territory with the help of three Magis."

As a side issue, I traced back that Thea Muse reference to a book titled "Cleopatra to Christ: Jesus was descended from the Ptolemaic royal line of Egypt" in which it matter of factly states that Thea Muse was the daughter of Cleopatra VII. Oh, really? It is *WELL* documented that Cleopatra had exactly four children: Ptolemy Caesar (with Caesar) and Cleopatra Selene, Alexander Helios, and Ptolemy Philadelphos with her husband Marc Antony. One daughter. Her history is also well known: she was fostered (with her Antony brothers) by Augustus' sister, Augustus married her off to King Juba II of Numidia, they lived in Mauretania, and had at least two kids ... she died somewhere between 4-17 ACE. There's no "daughter of Cleopatra" to spare. ... Oh! Maybe they got the number wrong? Maybe it was Cleopatra VI? She had exactly one child, Berenike IV who was later executed, childless, by her father. There just aren't any rogue Ptolemaic children running around.

On the website that started this, another poster had a lineage back to Thea Muse (allegedly) including Cleopatras linked to foreign kings (III & V) which just isn't true. Only Cleopatra IV was married to a foreign king. From those entries in the middle, I suspect the whole list is fantasy. Not a historically 'solid' website ...
 
Last edited:

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
12,538
#44
I'm not ready to throw up my hands over this. I'm not arguing with the Christian versions. I'm saying Al Yaq'udi had no reason to stick to it if thought he had something better. He included the Deluka Islamic myth (for example... it occurs right after the Pharaoh drowns in Exodus).

Al Yaq'udi is known for being an accurate historian. Yes, he's obviously copying the biblical narratives (summarizing & combining some), but he's known for inserting factual information. There are cases where he's intentionally changed wording & situations, but the motive isn't obvious to me ... so he's not above doing that. He's got many listings of African empires, some cultural descriptions, reasonable timelines.

He was not writing a religious/Islamic text: he's not proselytizing. I was reading his "history". If there was alternate Mary story, I think he would've mentioned it. I realize it's difficult to prove a negative. That's my opinion.


As for Arabs writing 700 yrs after the fact? A Mary story cobbled up 2000 yrs too late doesn't bother you?
"The story could be that Musa/Maria married her son Phraates V (Phraataces) and one year later Jesus was born, it was certainly unacceptable to the Parthians, so Phraates V was killed and Musa and her son fled to the Roman territory with the help of three Magis."

As a side issue, I traced back that Thea Muse reference to a book titled "Cleopatra to Christ: Jesus was descended from the Ptolemaic royal line of Egypt" in which it matter of factly states that Thea Muse was the daughter of Cleopatra VII. Oh, really? It is *WELL* documented that Cleopatra had exactly four children: Ptolemy Caesar (with Caesar) and Cleopatra Selene, Alexander Helios, and Ptolemy Philadelphos with her husband Marc Antony. One daughter. Her history is also well known: she was fostered (with her Antony brothers) by Augustus' sister, Augustus married her off to King Juba II of Numidia, they lived in Mauretania, and had at least two kids ... she died somewhere between 4-17 ACE. There's no "daughter of Cleopatra" to spare. ... Oh! Maybe they got the number wrong? Maybe it was Cleopatra VI? She had exactly one child, Berenike (VI? maybe?) who was later executed, childless, by her father. There just aren't any rogue Ptolemaic children running around.

On the website that started this, another poster had a lineage back to Thea Muse (allegedly) including Cleopatras linked to foreign kings (III & V) which just isn't true. Only Cleopatra IV was married to a foreign king. From those entries in the middle, I suspect the whole list is fantasy. Not a historically 'solid' website ...
Well 700 or 2000 years does not make much of a difference ..... they are both so far removed as to be irrelevant... Its amusing to see that many people think that being a bit closer in time could make the writers/artists more knowledgeable (I always found it funny when modern books about Alexander the great campaigns are "illustrated" by some middle age or renaissance paintings... what could these guys know about Alexander , really ?). It actually can be argued that in this case 2000 years is better because we have all kinds of modern tools and additional information (archeological finds etc..)

This said, as we do not have any hard evidence at all about said Jesus/his family, its all speculation, really...



The Phalanx Attacking the Centre in the Battle of the Hydaspes by André Castaigne (1898–1899)




I am sure Andre Castaigne had first hand knowledge of this battle

just like this persian artists amazingly accurate, photograph like rendition



Alexander the Great depicted in a 15th-century Persian miniature painting
 
Last edited:
Mar 2017
801
Colorado
#45
I always found it funny when modern books about Alexander the great campaigns are "illustrated" by some middle age or renaissance paintings... what could these guys know about Alexander , really ?
I absolutely agree. There are a *LOT* of "historical" illustrations about things the artists couldn't possibly have known about.

I don't feel obligated to give any examples. Put a blindfold on & throw a dart in the history section of your library. Look in that book.
---

However, length-of-time to some events doesn't necessarily ruin the description:
Suetonius was alive & writing when Augustus took Egypt. No argument .. no time lapse.

Plutarch talked to his grandfather (Lamprias) who talked to a guy (Philotas) who was a medical student & participated in banquets with Cleopatra & Marc Antony: that's only one jump in the telephone game. If you have a sense of this period, you should go "is that even possible?" I've done the math on a couple of threads. Maybe you've already seen it. Suetonius was there, Plutarch was "almost" there. Plutarch was also the last known person to have read a biography of Cleopatra written while she was alive (by Olympus), that then was lost.

Cassius Dio writes how beautiful Cleopatra was. He wrote about ~120 yrs after her death. Yeah, but there was a statue of her in Rome that lasted another 300 yrs ... and he SAYS that he saw it. All the Marc Antony statues were smashed and the story is a guy paid Augustus to spare it ... I think they just liked it. It was carved around 44 BCE and survived until the last reference around 400 ACE. What monster would destroy a statue of Cleopatra? It's in some Italian attic (I'd like to think). The Vatican has a damaged bust of Cleopatra, that it keeps against a wall, in a storage room not open to tourists (sounds like conspiracy? The British Museum has a picture of it and describes where it is).

Anyway, sometimes time-distant descriptions can be decent if they use the right reference materials. I've read another Arab, Al Mas'udi, and I routinely go "he's repeating some legend" ... until I find out the exact opposite. I've got a great example with his description of the Pharos (that occurs in no other text), but, as usual, I've typed too much already.
 
Last edited:

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
12,538
#46
I absolutely agree. There are a *LOT* of "historical" illustrations about things the artists couldn't possibly have known about.

I don't feel obligated to give any examples. Put a blindfold on & throw a dart in the history section of your library. Look in that book.
---

However, length-of-time to some events doesn't necessarily ruin the description:
Suetonius was alive & writing when Augustus took Egypt. No argument .. no time lapse.

Plutarch talked to his grandfather (Lamprias) who talked to a guy (Philotas) who was a medical student & participated in banquets with Cleopatra & Marc Antony: that's only one jump in the telephone game. If you have a sense of this period, you should go "is that even possible?" I've done the math on a couple of threads. Maybe you've already seen it. Suetonius was there, Plutarch was "almost" there. Plutarch was also the last known person to have read a biography of Cleopatra written while she was alive (by Olympus), that then was lost.

Cassius Dio writes how beautiful Cleopatra was. He wrote about ~120 yrs after her death. Yeah, but there was a statue of her in Rome that lasted another 300 yrs ... and he SAYS that he saw it. All the Marc Antony statues were smashed and the story is a guy paid Augustus to spare it ... I think they just liked it. It was carved around 44 BCE and survived until the last reference around 400 ACE. What monster would destroy a statue of Cleopatra? It's in some Italian attic (I'd like to think). The Vatican has a damaged bust of Cleopatra, that it keeps against a wall, in a storage room not open to tourists (sounds like conspiracy? The British Museum has a picture of it and describes where it is).

Anyway, sometimes time-distant descriptions can be decent if they use the right reference materials. I've read another Arab, Al Mas'udi, and I routinely go "he's repeating some legend" ... until I find out the exact opposite. I've got a great example with his description of the Pharos (that occurs in no other text), but, as usual, I've typed too much already.
Oh I agree, if the author is himself a witness or has access to witnesses or at least to people who knew witnesses, then that's much better..Which gives a time span of perhaps, 100+ years after the event (say the grandson of someone who was a witness and remembers vividly the stories told by grandpa).... Of course with each iteration, accuracy decreases, until the story is distorted to such an extent as to become useless...
 
Jan 2015
847
England
#47
The thing is, there is also the issue of there being thousands of manuscripts which we do not possess due to the damage of time. But earlier writers (say, from the 8th century) would have had access to them.
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
12,538
#48
The thing is, there is also the issue of there being thousands of manuscripts which we do not possess due to the damage of time. But earlier writers (say, from the 8th century) would have had access to them.
Maybe.. or Maybe not..... 700 years is a lot
 
Mar 2017
801
Colorado
#49
Maybe.. or Maybe not..... 700 years is a lot
You can follow the final days of Cleopatra/MarcAntony/Augustus in Roman histories. Suetonius, alive at the time, has just the facts. Cassius Dio, a 100 or so yrs later, is pretty good too ... and then the poets get hold of it and the story changes with every retelling. Eventually, later historians build upon the poet's "artistic license" and embellish even more.

As you say, with each retelling, it gets further & further from the truth. Cleopatra starts as a "nothing", Suetonius barely mentions her ... she did not influence international politics in any way, other than financing Antony. By the end, she's a seductive, whore queen bent on world domination declaring war on Rome ... along with her Egyptian gods.

Given that, it's amazing the Bible survived so well. There *ARE* different versions of the Old Testament, don't get me wrong ... but given the multiple rewritings, the bones of it really survived well.


Calebxy is correct, too. Like I said, Plutarch used a biography of Cleopatra by Olympus while she was alive, that was lost (how could that have happened?!!!).

When I joined Historum, one of the old guard made me aware that you really have to check the provenance of the sources. Where did they get their information? Who were they related to? Nicolaus of Damascus wrote a glowing biography of Augustus. He was living in the Roman royal palace at the time educating Octavia's (Augustus' sister) kids along with Cleopatra's three surviving kids. Knowing how touchy Augustus was about his image, Nicolaus used every synonym in the Latin dictionary for "glowing", "amazing", "incredible", "almost divine", etc. That's why I talk about Plutarch: I looked into him.
----
EVERYONE knows Cleopatra died "by asp", right? Plutarch, with two sources (Philotas was in Alexandria, and Olympus was right outside the DOOR ... it's not clear if he examined her or not), says "no one knows" how she died (he does mention two pin pricks on her arm, inconsistent with an asp bite ... a *LOT* of forensic analysis has wasted way too much time on this). The "imagined" asp bite moved from her forearm to her breast (eventually) ... a much better visual to spice up the text. Her two handmaidens died right next to her ... of poison. "No one knows" --> "asp bite on breast"
 
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions