Semetic Texts in Hieroglyphics?

That's the claim of a researcher from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Under investigation is a set of hieroglyphics (that the article claims are difficult to read or impossible to read) which are said to be Semetic words written in Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs.

www.jpost.com...

And, of course you knew I'd have questions about this.

For one thing, the Semeitc languages may not be that old (I've put out a qauestion to scholars about this). Additionally, I'm not aware that any "semetic" texts have been found that are in AE hieroglyphics, but I did put out a question about that, too. I'm not sure how well the sounds translate, either.

The annuouncement has just hit the major AE discussion forums, and it will be interesting to see what their opinions are. I can understand some of the letters and know it refers to offerings, but can't make out the text.

In any case, it's an interesting find, even if I find myself a bit suspicious. Will follow the case and see what the conclusions are.

Byrd,

If true, this could be quite big.

Please let us know what you find out.

Harte

So basically they've found (at least elements of) Bible stories written down in ancient Egyptian ruins? I don't know why anyone would find that surprising, the Jews were held as slaves by the Egyptians -- it says so right in the Bible.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
So basically they've found (at least elements of) Bible stories written down in ancient Egyptian ruins? I don't know why anyone would find that surprising, the Jews were held as slaves by the Egyptians -- it says so right in the Bible.

I always thought the story of Aknaton starting up Monotheism in Egypt and converting all the mases over to it was the begininnings of the Jewish story and that the Jews were in fact of Egyptian origin. The expulsion of all these converts from Egypt by the followers of the old deity when Aknaton died was the root of the Exodus story.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
So basically they've found (at least elements of) Bible stories written down in ancient Egyptian ruins? I don't know why anyone would find that surprising, the Jews were held as slaves by the Egyptians -- it says so right in the Bible.

No, not at all.

They're a few inscriptions on the inside of the pyramid of King Unas at Saqqara. They aren't stories, but rather protection "charms" or "spells." They'd read something like this:
‘Oh snake, take yourself off, for Geb protects me; get up, for you have eaten a mouse, which Re detests, and you have chewed the bones of a putrid cat

It's an anomaly... haven't seen much followup yet.

When I saw something about snakes I assumed they were referring to Exodus and Moses's snake and Pharoah's magicians' snakes. I guess I misunderstood, it would be more accurate to say these are just supposed magical spells from Israel written in hieroglyphs? That does sound strange...

I was curious if there have been any new developements on this? I had heard of other documents in which Semitic was inscribed using Egyptian characters, such as the Book of Mormon, but I didn't know if that was AE hieroglyphs, or the "reformed" egyptian that came later. Scribes at the time would have been versed in both Semitic and Egyptian anyway, right? I've seen this before, though not the same circumstance, really. Many Jewish texts were written in Arabic using Hebrew script.

I do like that the similarities between these spells and the biblical texts have been able to settle some long standing arguments over previously "undecipherable" words in the bible:

Isaiah 3:17 reads, in regard to the daughters of Zion, "the Lord will uncover their pot."

By the Middle Ages there was already a dispute among biblical scholars over whether the word referred to the females' genitalia or to a part of their heads, Steiner said in his lecture.

But the use of this rare word in one of the Canaanite spells appears to settle the question.

"From this text it is now clear the Hebrew term used by Isaiah refers to the female genitalia," Bar-Asher, of the Hebrew University, said.

Pretty nifty.





[edit on 6-9-2007 by EdenKaia]

I think it's for real. The Jewish Semitic scholars are very impressive in their mastery of this language family. In response to Byrd, the Semitic languages are among the oldest in the world, believed to have originated in about 3000 B.C.E. While the ancient Egyptian language is *not* a Semitic language, it is related to that family. Finally, Semitic speakers lived in Ancient Egypt at many different points in its history.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 6-9-2007 by uberarcanist]

Originally posted by EdenKaia
I was curious if there have been any new developements on this? I had heard of other documents in which Semitic was inscribed using Egyptian characters, such as the Book of Mormon, but I didn't know if that was AE hieroglyphs, or the "reformed" egyptian that came later.

Remember that no one has actually seen those original tablets, so we can't say for sure.

Scribes at the time would have been versed in both Semitic and Egyptian anyway, right?

I looked it up and apparently there was no written form of Hebrew back then. Any Semetic scripts were probably written in cuneiform:
www.jewishencyclopedia.com...

The Poenecian alphabet hadn't been invented back then, either:
en.wikipedia.org...

These would have been Canaanite priests (as the article said).

I've seen this before, though not the same circumstance, really. Many Jewish texts were written in Arabic using Hebrew script.

You're right -- there's lots of examples like that!

I do like that the similarities between these spells and the biblical texts have been able to settle some long standing arguments over previously "undecipherable" words in the bible:

Isaiah 3:17 reads, in regard to the daughters of Zion, "the Lord will uncover their pot."

By the Middle Ages there was already a dispute among biblical scholars over whether the word referred to the females' genitalia or to a part of their heads, Steiner said in his lecture.

But the use of this rare word in one of the Canaanite spells appears to settle the question.

"From this text it is now clear the Hebrew term used by Isaiah refers to the female genitalia," Bar-Asher, of the Hebrew University, said.

Pretty nifty.

VERY nifty!!!!

I found a little more on this story:
news.nationalgeographic.com...

They were apparently common in Northwest Egypt:
links.jstor.org...

There's also Aramaic texts in Semetic scripts (he writes about those.)
links.jstor.org...(198404)43%3A2%3C89%3AYCOYSA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-H

[edit on 6-9-2007 by Byrd]

Originally posted by djohnsto77
When I saw something about snakes I assumed they were referring to Exodus and Moses's snake and Pharoah's magicians' snakes. I guess I misunderstood, it would be more accurate to say these are just supposed magical spells from Israel written in hieroglyphs?

That does sound strange...

(oops... missed this one but I'll answer it)

No, they don't have anything to do with anything biblical... they're for keeping snakes away from the mummies of the dead. They're written in Canaanite (not Hebrew). They were, if you reemember, the offspring of the son that Noah cursed and were driven out of the land by the Israelites (according to the Bible. )
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by uberarcanist
While the ancient Egyptian language is *not* a Semitic language, it is related to that family. Finally, Semitic speakers lived in Ancient Egypt at many different points in its history.

Only in so far as the way they are constructed, meaning the derivation of words from three base vowels and the combining of several nouns to form cohesive messaging. Other than that, they are entirely different languages. The languages were used interchangably during this time for various reasons, but in this particular example it was because the Egyptians believed that some of the native snakes spoke only Canaanite. The Egyptians put much faith in the concept of destroying an enemy by employing close closest to him. This would have been a prime example. After all, you would be more inclined to listen to a warning in a language you understood, as opposed to one you did not, correct?

On another note, the history of the various Semitic languages is sketchy anyway. Were you referring to a particular one when saying they are the among the oldest in the world? I only ask because there are many that fit into that category, but very few that could be considered part of our scenario here. The composition relates enough to Egyptian hieroglyphs that it could be understood when written out in that form. There are several "Semitic" languages that have no relevancy here at all, though all share a common basic structure.

reply to post by EdenKaia


I don't know about you, but to me, a language family with its origins ~ 3000 bce
would be among the oldest.

This is a point of great interest to me. Is there a rough date on the heiroglyphics or did I miss it in the thread?

Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin
This is a point of great interest to me. Is there a rough date on the heiroglyphics or did I miss it in the thread?

In the articles it says about 2400 BC as a rough date for the "oldest ones." I didn't peek at the dates for the other ones, but they'd have to be younger than that. In any case, hieroglyphics had been around for quite awhile by the time the Canaanite priests were chasing off snakes with it.

Originally posted by uberarcanist
I don't know about you, but to me, a language family with its origins ~ 3000 bce
would be among the oldest.

Which, I suppose, is what I'm asking about. Semitic is a misnomer, based on peoples that came and lived long after these language families were being used. There are several that fit that category. Which Semitic language are you saying is the oldest? There are entirely too many to just generalize. Or are you inferring that just the concept of these languages is the oldest in the world? Even then, did you mean written, or just generally in use?

Akkadian is the first written form of these on record, dating back to around the 3rd Millenium, though that is also when Egyptian first starts popping up. There was more than likely quite a bit of spoken language long before the cuniform and hieroglyphics, and I think this may have been what Byrd meant when she said that Semitic isn't really that old.

Most linguists will say that man has had the capability for spoken language since around 100,000 B.C, which is when man would have developed the vocal ability necessary to form the sounds found in early written languages. When you look at it on this spectrum, Semitic (regardless which form you choose) is extremely young. How many languages were spoken before the first cuniform tablet? Before the first Egyptian inscription?

Originally posted by EdenKaia

Originally posted by uberarcanist
I don't know about you, but to me, a language family with its origins ~ 3000 bce
would be among the oldest.

Which, I suppose, is what I'm asking about. Semitic is a misnomer, based on peoples that came and lived long after these language families were being used.

However, it's the scholar's term for this particular group of languages. In the texts, it's being used in the scholarly sense. There's no original "Semite" language that we know about but there's a group of languages derived from a dead older language that share the same linguistic features. For whatever reason (dominance of Christian culture) they were named "Semetic."

When you look at it on this spectrum, Semitic (regardless which form you choose) is extremely young. How many languages were spoken before the first cuniform tablet? Before the first Egyptian inscription?

Very much so! sometimes we can guess, based on genetics and language isolates (the Chumash language is around 9,000 years old) but it's a guess.

Originally posted by Byrd
For whatever reason (dominance of Christian culture) they were named "Semetic."

I get the biggest kick out of this. Abraham apparently was the father of Hebrew, too. Funny how that works, when he was from Ur.

I suppose the idea stems from the Bible, as usual. Of course the original language couldn't have comprised of various grunts and clicks, because Genesis paints Adam speaking in full, coherant sentences. Eloquently, might I add. I see the logic here, for the die hard Christian linguists. I mean, if we are all made in God's image, then the caveman concept doesn't make for a very pretty picture of God, now does it?

Linguistics are funny anyway; operating on the assumption that spoken language has to show signs of developement from an early stage and progress forward. When you look at the languages most scholars consider the "oldest", you find that this really isn't the case at all. In fact, many of the older languages, whether spoken or written, would have been far more simple than what we spew today. English, for example, is one of the most complex and difficult languages to master. Most of these, while sharing a few characteristics, didn't really "develope", or become more "refined" from the last. It just doesn't seem to work that way.

Personally, I tend to lean more toward the Babel Complex, whereas there was a single universal language, (which makes sense if we were once all knuckle-dragging club thumpers) and we made our changes as we separated from the masses. Makes for simpler logic, I feel!

"I'll take the pictures, thank you!"