Thoughts On The Lemnos Stele

[Ernest P. Moyer]

Ed:

Thanks for your comments.

Replies interspersed below.

Eduard Selleslagh wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ernest P. Moyer" <epmoyer at netrax.net>
> Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 7:56 PM

> [snip]

>> I don't want to be a big splash in this small pond, but the word Naphoth is
>> Biblical.

>> See Josh 11:2, Josh 12:23, Josh 17:11, and 1 Kings 4:11.

>> It is associated with Dor. Both RSV and NIV always translate the Hebrew word
>> as a formal noun, as Naphoth-Dor.  Other translations use "heights,"
>> "borders," and so on of Dor rather than a formal name.

> [snip]

>> Clearly this is a Semitic word, and not Indo-European.  It follows the
>> inflectional attributes of Semitic forms. Many names, nouns, and verbs
>> ending in -oth could be cited.

> [Ed]

> Not surprisingly: in Biblical Hebrew -oth is the plural of female words
> ending in -ah.

> Whether Naphoth is Hebrew, that's another matter: it could be coincidence.

I did not claim it to be Hebrew.  I merely stated that it was in the Bible and
had Semitic attributes. It may be Hebrew.

If we claim coincidence we should be in a position to cite evidence.  I don't
know any other source to the word Naphoth.

Do you?

Since this is highly specific I think it would be foolish to ignore the
"strange" coincidence. It seems to me the more disciplined course would be to
trace how the word got from the Phoenician shore of the Mediterranean to
Lemnos.  We have evidence, but I did not discuss the possible route.

> In modern Hebrew 'border' is 'gvul' and 'heigh' is 'gavoa' , also based on a
> common root.

If these words are usual for "border" and "height" why did some translators see
Naphoth as the same?

>> The lesson I learned was this: When two different cultures and languages mix
>> intimately they may acquire one another's words, morphology and syntax.
>> Rigid linguistic rules break down.  Especially if the mixture is between IE
>> and Semitic.

> [snip]

>> The native name for the Hebrew tribes was Ibri.  It is my understanding that
>> the Romans called them the Iberi.  Iberi are positively identified in
>> regions near the Caspian Sea. The Roman general Pompey conquered them.
>> Strabo said that "... The migration of western Iberians (was) to the region
>> beyond the Pontus and Colchis."

> [Ed]

> I thought they called them Hebraei. I'm afraid you confound them with the
> people from Iberia, in present-day Georgia (S. Caucasus), who were not
> Semitic at all, as far as we know. Those are the ones Strabo speaks about
> most of the time. (In Book 3 he also mentions the Iberians of Spain).

The original Hebrew word for Hebrew is Ibri.  See Gen 14:13, and so on. In the
verb inflection one finds forms such as Ibru and Iber. Iber is the origin of
the name of the Hebrew forefather, Eber.  Ibru could be the origin of the
English Hebrew.

The confusion comes about because of the heritage of place names as people
migrate with time.  The Iberians of the Caucasus known to Pompey and Strabo may
not be Semitic, but merely inherited the name. The Iberian name is definitely
Semitic, even Hebrew, with an IE ending.  This is an illustration how words and
inflections become mixed as people of different languages mix with one another.

For traditions that the Iberi were descended from Hebrew tribes refer to my
note to Stanley Friesen.

> There are, however, a number of peculiarities about the ancient Jews that
> distinguish them from other Semitic people: e.g. the legend of Noah's ark
> stranded on Mount Ararat (a very high volcano in Turkish Armenia, 1300 km
> from Jerusalem, the only mountain in the region with snow during the summer),
> which seems to suggest some cultural relationship with E. Anatolia (the
> actual, archaeologically attested great flood happened in the plains around
> the Black Sea and is reflected in other peoples' legends in other versions).
> They are also the only ones to use the word Yahwe for God, besides the
> "normal" Semitic 'el(i)' or 'elohim' (a plural!!!). Other beliefs like the
> Red Cow, that augurs the coming of the Messiah, has 'cognates' in other
> non-semitic very ancient Mediterranean cultures like the Basques (Beigorri)

It was not my purpose to get into the many strange folk traditions on this
list.

By the way, we should not confuse "Jews" with "Hebrews."  The northern Hebrew
tribes had a detestation for the southern Jews.

>> The name still carries today on the Iberian peninsula.  Folk traditions say
>> they migrated as far as Ireland.  In fact, the name Ireland derives from
>> Iberi.

> [Ed]

> Not entirely impossible (in relationship with the Iberians that invaded Spain
> from the Mediterranean), and in the interpretation of some, supported by
> archaeology. But we know nothing about the languages involved, and there are
> very few who think it was that simple.

If you examine my remarks you may note that I stated that strange mixture of
linguistic elements takes place, especially between IE and Semitic.  Certainly
not simple.

Is not one purpose of this list to examine Lemnos, Etruscan, and so on, with
possible identity or relationships to other languages?  Does not Spanish
Iberian fall in that category?  If there was a massive mixing of elements from
both the IE and the Semitic, would we not have trouble following the linguistic
elements?

> [snip]

>> Any attempt to decipher the Lemnos Stele, (and possible connections with the
>> Etruscans), must consider this probable Semitic influence.

> [Ed]

> You may have a point as to one or two (loan? place-name?) words, but the
> language is definitely not Semitic.

Oh, I agree. I am using these illustrations to show that linguistic studies
should not be simple minded to the point that everything is strictly IE or
strictly Semitic, and that evidence exists to show a mixing of people taking
place in the Mediterranean regions at the time under examination.

Ernest