posted
To answer you question,Pax Dahomensis, this probably occured during the time Christianity swept across Egypt. The Christians had a tedency to destoy temples and murder priests. You can read this in the writings of St. Shenute relied to us by his disciple Besa.
David Frankfurther in his Religion in Roman Egypt dicusses this time period in great detail using various sources from Greco-Roman writings to Coptic hagiography[stories of saints] to document survivals.
Despite the Christians rampage, they also abosrbed alot of magical traditions which were later documented by Arabic writers in Egypt.
I believe one of the Roman or Byzantine emperors Theodosius offical closed most of the temples in Egypt. The temple dedicated to Isis[Auset] in Philae remained open untill it was finally closed down by Justinian around 500 A.D. The attendents of this temple were mainly Blemmyae[desendants of the modern Beja] that would take the Auset statue and pratice their spirtuality as they pleased.
In the book Late Antique Egypt by Roger Bagnall he argues that the temples fell once the writing ceased and gave way to Coptic.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In a nutshell, the failure of maintaining a strong offensive and densive military complex by the end of the 25th dynasty, as exemplified quite sharply under Rameses II, is what prepared the path to destruction and/or major transformation of indigenous social constructs.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:In a nutshell, the failure of maintaining a strong offensive and densive military complex by the end of the 25th dynasty, as exemplified quite sharply under Rameses II, is what prepared the path to destruction and/or major transformation of indigenous social constructs
This is only true for foreign invaders coming into Egypt. Despite the incursions of foreigners the cultre of the ancient Egyptians continued relatively undisrupted. The demise of the pharaonic insitution that eventually continued to exist but under the rulership of foreigners.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me add something Ausar and i do agree with what u and Supercar have said but i have always thought that the Coptic religion which is christianity but there always was Christianity before Christ in real sense as Wallis Budge puts it the Old Culture of Ancient Egypt was no different than the Coptic religion thats why alot of the egyptians adopted Christianity because they really seen it no different so what they did was Take Auset/Horus into Mary/Jesus actually almost the whole Bible is just a copy almost word for word of the old ways of Egypt.
-------------------- Hikuptah Al-Masri Posts: 526 | From: Aswan Egypt | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
To reinforce my earlier point, today we wouldn't be coming across claims like this...
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
quote:
Some scholars have theorized that some remote villagers in the Delta region of Egypt or in the south of the country may still speak forms of the Coptic language. Because many Egyptians live in small villages away from government control and active study by anthropologists, it is theorized that Coptic will persist despite official numbers.
“It would be nice to have more people speaking Coptic,” Zaki admitted. “It would mean that our culture and way of life will continue in the years to come.”
That is unlikely considering the evidence. As it is already considered a dead language akin to Latin, it seems implausible that undiscovered speakers of Coptic will be discovered.
From the article, the answer lies herein:
Because many Egyptians live in small villages away from government control and active study by anthropologists, it is theorized that Coptic will persist despite official numbers.
...i.e. anthropologists becoming "active" in the study of these holdouts.
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: In a nutshell, the failure of maintaining a strong offensive and densive military complex by the end of the 25th dynasty, as exemplified quite sharply under Rameses II, is what prepared the path to destruction and/or major transformation of indigenous social constructs.
Ah Rameses II wasn't that great of a pharaoh, personally I think Thutmose III takes home the cake when it comes to handling the, well, "Semites". You see supercar the ramessides (particularly Seti I and Rameses II) merely retook territory that was originally conquered during the glorious 18th, and lost mostly because of the reign of I'm So Egomaniacal About My New Religion Akhenaten . And Rameses was a grafitti artist, he put his name on stuff that belonged to other pharaohs anyway.
Posts: 447 | From: Somewhere son... | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: In a nutshell, the failure of maintaining a strong offensive and densive military complex by the end of the 25th dynasty, as exemplified quite sharply under Rameses II, is what prepared the path to destruction and/or major transformation of indigenous social constructs.
Ah Rameses II wasn't that great of a pharaoh, personally I think Thutmose III takes home the cake when it comes to handling the, well, "Semites". You see supercar the ramessides (particularly Seti I and Rameses II) merely retook territory that was originally conquered during the glorious 18th, and lost mostly because of the reign of I'm So Egomaniacal About My New Religion Akhenaten . And Rameses was a grafitti artist, he put his name on stuff that belonged to other pharaohs anyway.
I made no mention of who was supposedly considered a "great pharoah". I did however mention the waning of the military strength [that Kemet once enjoyed to the extent of maintaining native rule], which allowed foreign elements to take advantage of the situation. Of course militarily speaking, there were times when Egyptian rulers were relatively more ambitious [e.g., in the early 18 dynastic period and certain periods prior to that, and again under Rameses II in the 19th dynasty] than others: for instance, in a single dynasty, certain rulers were more actively involved in overseas military affairs than others, but this seems to have broken down to a level at the end of the last 'major' native Nile Valley dynasty, i.e. 25th Dynasty, not seen prior to that period; hence, much more frequent successive foreign occupation in the ensuing periods.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The 25th dyansty was not the last major native dyansty. Just after the 25th dyansty was the Saite dyansty which brought in a time of great prosperity and reinassance. Of course the Saite dyansty existed primarily because of the 25th dyansty.
The point of this thread was in responce to Pax Dahomensis comment on what prevented ancient Egyptian culture from continuting. Regardless of who sat on the throne, ancient Egyptian culture continued untill Romans set up harsh restrictions to weaken it.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
The 25th dyansty was not the last major native dyansty. Just after the 25th dyansty was the Saite dyansty which brought in a time of great prosperity and reinassance. Of course the Saite dyansty existed primarily because of the 25th dyansty.
Thanks for reinforcing my point.
quote:ausar:
The point of this thread was in responce to Pax Dahomensis comment on what prevented ancient Egyptian culture from continuting. Regardless of who sat on the throne, ancient Egyptian culture continued untill Romans set up harsh restrictions to weaken it.
Exactly my point. All else to me, is simply a non-sequitur.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ausar: The 25th dyansty was not the last major native dyansty. Just after the 25th dyansty was the Saite dyansty which brought in a time of great prosperity and reinassance. Of course the Saite dyansty existed primarily because of the 25th dyansty.
The 25th dynasty was not native of Egypt. It was Nubian. In fact hello from Merowe, where they originated.
Amr
Posts: 1090 | From: Merowe-Nubia | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
The 25th dyansty was not the last major native dyansty. Just after the 25th dyansty was the Saite dyansty which brought in a time of great prosperity and reinassance. Of course the Saite dyansty existed primarily because of the 25th dyansty.
The 25th dynasty was not native of Egypt. It was Nubian. In fact hello from Merowe, where they originated.
Amr
It is a wonder that "internet" wanderers of all people, find it difficult to 'read'. This is what was taken out of context:
I made no mention of who was supposedly considered a "great pharoah". I did however mention the waning of the military strength [that Kemet once enjoyed to the extent of maintaining native rule], which allowed foreign elements to take advantage of the situation. Of course militarily speaking, there were times when Egyptian rulers were relatively more ambitious [e.g., in the early 18 dynastic period and certain periods prior to that, and again under Rameses II in the 19th dynasty] than others: for instance, in a single dynasty, certain rulers were more actively involved in overseas military affairs than others, but this seems to have broken down to a level at the end of the last 'major' **native Nile Valley** dynasty, i.e. 25th Dynasty, not seen prior to that period; hence, much more frequent successive foreign occupation in the ensuing periods.
See; no mention of "native dynasty of Egypt" here, now is there?
But in context: it does speak of "native Nile Valley dynasty", to be viewed with regards to relative frequency of "foreign imperialistic incursions" and "occupations" after the said dynasty. It is my understanding that, the 26th dynasty forebearer is seen as having ties to the 24th dynasty, which in turn has ties to earlier Libyan immigrants. Moreover, the 26th dynasty were cooperative with foreign imperialists [Assyrians] for some time, prior to their efforts of going it on their own, in ruling the entire nation. This was ultimately done with request of legitimization via the remaining Kushitic stance in Upper Egypt, the Kushitic Queen in particular.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: The point of this thread was in responce to Pax Dahomensis comment on what prevented ancient Egyptian culture from continuting. Regardless of who sat on the throne, ancient Egyptian culture continued untill Romans set up harsh restrictions to weaken it.
The culture continued of course. But there is this pressing question regarding the ultimately conquest of the Nile Valley by the Asiatics.
In my opinion the Nile Valley has *never* recovered from the fall of the 25th dynasty.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: [QUOTE] The point of this thread was in responce to Pax Dahomensis comment on what prevented ancient Egyptian culture from continuting. Regardless of who sat on the throne, ancient Egyptian culture continued untill Romans set up harsh restrictions to weaken it. The culture continued of course. But there is this pressing question regarding the ultimately conquest of the Nile Valley by the Asiatics.
In my opinion the Nile Valley has *never* recovered from the fall of the 25th dynasty.
Yep, damn Asiatics. The Egyptians always had a problem with them, like they did with all foreigners, but especially them. They didn't hate Nubians so much though, after all they did use them in their police force, and didn't a nubian compete with Amenemhat for the throne in the 11th dynasty?
Posts: 447 | From: Somewhere son... | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
What Eurocentrics and others who are mentally mixed-up and confused, *cough*AMR*cough* fail to understand is that the Kushite 25th dynasty was not hated by the Egyptians at all, but was welcomed and embraced by the Egyptians because their Nile Valley culture was closely akin to the Egyptians, especially since their culture was somewhat Egyptianized after they were conquered by the people of Nowet (Thebes) at the beginning of the New Kingdom. The 25th dynasty was viewed as being a kind of 'Renaissance' by the Egyptians because they restored many Egyptian institutions including the cult of Amun!
So it seems poor AMR knows little about either his 'Nubian' nor his Egyptian side, but I dare say he excluded from both and is 'bastard' of Arabization.
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Has everyone forgot the Kings of North & South and the South was the seat of Power they wore different crowns and the Nubians are Egyptians. Usually the Revolution to bring the whole of Egypt together was always started from the south lets get this all clear all the customs and traditions of the Egyptians come from Deeper south than u all think its not Nubia its much further south pass Ethiopia and in the heart of AFrica were the Twa/Ptah live the Pygmies they started the first civilization.
Even till this day the people of Southern Egypt hold the customs of ancient egypt more than there northern brothers. Im sure that during egypts last days the south was the place were the culture had its last push.
-------------------- Hikuptah Al-Masri Posts: 526 | From: Aswan Egypt | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^"Nubian" was a term coined by the Romans, and it is likely taken from the Egyptian word 'Nub' whom the Egyptians used for gold.
'Nubians' were heterogeneous and consisted of many different groups of people whom the Egyptians distinguish.
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking of cultural and ethnic continuity in Egypt, here's a little piece from Henri Frankfort's book Kingship and the Gods,
"We know that the physique of the inhabitants of this valley from the Delta deep down into Nubia remained much the same from predynastic to late historic times...It seems that Pharaonic civilization arose upon this northeast African Hamitic substratum."
Keita's studies pretty much say the same thing, no?
Posts: 447 | From: Somewhere son... | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Speaking of cultural and ethnic continuity in Egypt, here's a little piece from Henri Frankfort's book Kingship and the Gods,
"We know that the physique of the inhabitants of this valley from the Delta deep down into Nubia remained much the same from predynastic to late historic times...It seems that Pharaonic civilization arose upon this northeast African Hamitic substratum."
Keita's studies pretty much say the same thing, no?
posted
Rasol, I would like to continue our conversation on cultural continuity in the following thread. I shall adress your question about Christianity introduced into Egypt.
The traditional claim is that Christianity was introduced into Egypt by the apostle St. Mark but this remains in doubt by many historians. Other contend Christianity arose from Greek speaking Jews living in Alexandria but later spread to the rural areas where most of the Egyptian population lived. Many historians claim that Egyptians embraced Christianity because of the similarity between Ausar and Yeshua granting enternal life to his followers. Nothing is conclusive about the introduction of Christianity into Egypt or any indication it was completely indigenous.
We first read about a wealthy landowner around Middle Egypt named Antony that openly embraces Christianity. This is somewhere in 356 A.D.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Speaking of cultural and ethnic continuity in Egypt, here's a little piece from Henri Frankfort's book Kingship and the Gods,
"We know that the physique of the inhabitants of this valley from the Delta deep down into Nubia remained much the same from predynastic to late historic times...It seems that Pharaonic civilization arose upon this northeast African Hamitic substratum."
Keita's studies pretty much say the same thing, no?
Nope!
I hope you're being sarcastic? If not, how?
Posts: 447 | From: Somewhere son... | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Speaking of cultural and ethnic continuity in Egypt, here's a little piece from Henri Frankfort's book Kingship and the Gods,
"We know that the physique of the inhabitants of this valley from the Delta deep down into Nubia remained much the same from predynastic to late historic times...It seems that Pharaonic civilization arose upon this northeast African Hamitic substratum."
Keita's studies pretty much say the same thing, no?
Nope!
I hope you're being sarcastic? If not, how?
Only way to find out if I am, is for you to do this:
Produce the relevant citation(s) of Keita's which has led you to believe that, what is being said in your Frankfort citation, resembles any thing Keita has said!
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That the inhabitants remained ethnically and cultrually (especially culturally) African throughout the whole dynastic era? Is that not what Frankfort is saying?
Posts: 447 | From: Somewhere son... | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
That the inhabitants remained ethnically and cultrually (especially culturally) African throughout the whole dynastic era? Is that not what Frankfort is saying?
Much depends on what you mean by "ethnically". Now of course, your Frankfort citation mentions no such thing. It says, point blank:
physique of the inhabitants of this valley from the Delta deep down into Nubia remained much the same from predynastic to late historic times.
Does Keita advocate such?
It goes onto to say: It seems that Pharaonic civilization arose upon this northeast African Hamitic substratum."
Does Keita subscribe to the "Hamitic" ideology?
Moreover, where does Frankfort, in what you cited him on, say anything about "culture" remaining the same?
The answers to these questions, should hopefully help you determine whether what you said about Keita holds water, or whether you are interpreting Frankfort's piece correctly.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
That the inhabitants remained ethnically and cultrually (especially culturally) African throughout the whole dynastic era? Is that not what Frankfort is saying?
Much depends on what you mean by "ethnically". Now of course, your Frankfort citation mentions no such thing. It says, point blank:
physique of the inhabitants of this valley from the Delta deep down into Nubia remained much the same from predynastic to late historic times.
Does Keita advocate such?
It goes onto to say: It seems that Pharaonic civilization arose upon this northeast African Hamitic substratum."
Does Keita subscribe to the "Hamitic" ideology?
Moreover, where does Frankfort, in what you cited him on, say anything about "culture" remaining the same?
The answers to these questions, should hopefully help you determine whether what you said about Keita holds water, or whether you are interpreting Frankfort's piece correctly.
Um, I am interpreting it correctly, cha-chi. You've never read Frankfort like I, and apparently Keita has, so cut the crap. We're finally on good terms and I don't want to ruin it. Anywho, By "physique" he meant physical appearance, and yes, Henri, like almost all scholars of his time, used the outdated racial term "Hamitic", but he NEVER thought that Ancient Egyptians were "invaded" or mixed substantially (hince the words "remained much the same") with a "dynastic race", or that their culture owes it's core elements to mesopotamia, you see super Frankfort was a man ahead of his time . If you read Keita's study, "Comments on Studies of Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships" Frankfort stated that the Egyptian belief system DERIVED from an African substratum. (he said East Africa specifically, but now it's more likely to be the Sahara, either way still African) And why do you bold the words "remained"? He simply meant predynastic egyptians were descended from blacks who migrated from farther up the nile to present day egypt, founded pharaonic civilization, and at the same time didn't mix too substantially with the people next door, i.e. Semites. He also says Egyptian languages were related to the "Hamitic languages of East Africa", we now call the language Afro-Asiatic, but he was right on the mark . Point is Supe, Frankfort and EA Wallis Budge both unshamefully acknowledged the true roots of Egypt.
Posts: 447 | From: Somewhere son... | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Um, I am interpreting it correctly, cha-chi. You've never read Frankfort like I, and apparently Keita has, so cut the crap. We're finally on good terms and I don't want to ruin it. Anywho, By "physique" he meant physical appearance, and yes, Henri, like almost all scholars of his time, used the outdated racial term "Hamitic", but he NEVER thought that Ancient Egyptians were "invaded" or mixed substantially (hince the words "remained much the same") with a "dynastic race", or that their culture owes it's core elements to mesopotamia, you see super Frankfort was a man ahead of his time . If you read Keita's study, "Comments on Studies of Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships" Frankfort stated that the Egyptian belief system DERIVED from an African substratum. (he said East Africa specifically, but now it's more likely to be the Sahara, either way still African) And why do you bold the words "remained"? He simply meant predynastic egyptians were descended from blacks who migrated from farther up the nile to present day egypt, founded pharaonic civilization, and at the same time didn't mix too substantially with the people next door, i.e. Semites. He also says Egyptian languages were related to the "Hamitic languages of East Africa", we now call the language Afro-Asiatic, but he was right on the mark . Point is Supe, Frankfort and EA Wallis Budge both unshamefully acknowledged the true roots of Egypt.
I guess since you've failed to answer the questions awaiting you specifically via this rant, you are talking out of your rear end; so to put it in your own terms, "cut the crap", and address the questions as laid out. If answering questions in a coherent sense means ruining your figment, with regards to being on "good terms" [of which I care not the least], then by all means ruin it.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Take this to another thread because the thread is about continuity in culture not about if Henri Frankfort's ideals match Shomarka Keita.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think, Ausar, that it is a bit unfair to blame the "denigration" of Egyptian religion solely on Christianity. There had to have been other factors. I am not saying that the burning of the Alexandrian library didn't help to desolve A. Egyptian religion, I am just saying that there is more to this argument......As a matter of fact, I recommend that anywhere in here read Martin Bernal's book, "Black Athena". I think in that book he describes what was the current social/spiritual thought of the time, and not just Christianity's influence concerning the downfall of Egyptian religion. The fact is in Hermetic literature, "Hermes" is fearing and saying that eventually Egyptian religion would fall..........WHY is the question. And to blame Christianity simply as the reason is to ignore other facts present during that time period that may have contributed to A.E. religion's downfall. Salaam
Posts: 826 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not sure Ausar is 'solely' blaming Christianity.
The reason I asked the question is because I mentioned the foreign conquest of Km.t as being the major culpret.
Ausar mentioned the introduction of Christianity.
So I asked: And how did Christianity - and later Islam come to dominate in the Nile Valley?
I'm hoping that two and two will be put together and that the relationships between foreign conquest and cultural sublimation will be grasped without needing to be spelt out.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Not sure Ausar is 'solely' blaming Christianity.
The reason I asked the question is because I mentioned the foreign conquest of Km.t as being the major culpret.
Ausar mentioned the introduction of Christianity.
So I asked: And how did Christianity - and later Islam come to dominate in the Nile Valley?
I'm hoping that two and two will be put together and that the relationships between foreign conquest and cultural sublimation will be grasped without needing to be spelt out.
The same as all religious extremism and zeal. Anything relating to paganism, including the ancient material ruins were destroyed or disfigured. It's very fortunate that the Egyptians had produced so much material that the zealots were not able to destroy them all.
Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Israel, I am curious if you have studied Late Antique Egypt when Christianity began to arise in Egypt? Of course, prior to Christianity in Egypt the Roman emperor Augustas imposed harsh restrictions on the priesthood of the temples in Egypt. Augustas made it to where the top priest had to be appointed by the Romans that would controll much of the acitvity within the temples. However, much of the ancient Egyptian temples continued untill a eddict of Theodosis said that all ''pagan'' temples had to be closed down within the Roman empire,but Christian zealots under the leadership of Shenute also did lots of damage upon what temples remained. Despite Shenute's zealous destruction the converted Christians also absorbed alot of the older traditions within their culture. You can read it both within Shenute's literature and various haigraphy texts of saints.
Rasol, I will agree that various foreign invasions did weaken the govermental structure of ancient Egypt but wheather they destroyed the overall culture I doubt. You might be using modern models of Western colonization which donot necessarily correspond to colonization in antiquity. Most of the invaders within Egypt tended to adopt ancient Egyptian culture and sychrinize their own elements. We see this amongst most foreign rulers with the exception of the Romans. Romans had little appreciation for either the indigenous subjects or their culture.
Also when studying ancient Egypt we have to differentiate between popular culture of the people;priestly culture of the priests in the temple and also insitutions of pharaonic kingship. During the Greco-Roman period we see a dramtic breakdown of the hierarchical culture that becomes more localized within the commoner.
A book that provides a good overview of the largely neglected Roman era is Religion in Roman Egypt by David Frankfurther.
The Greco-Roman period is largely ignored by most Egyptologist despite this era probably being the most documented with little speculation.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
but yet in still.....I need to reread Martin Bernal book concerning the period of transition between the "pagan" to "Christian" conversion of Egypt. Imma try to write on this some more tomorrow. Salaam
Posts: 826 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
WE all know it was foriegn elements that destroyed ancient egypt from Hyksos to Greeks to Arabs but this is the same thing in almost all of africa.
-------------------- Hikuptah Al-Masri Posts: 526 | From: Aswan Egypt | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I tried to review Bernal's book, but it is too much to explain. You have to read the chapter on "Egyptian wisdom and Greek transmission". He speaks of the fact that, "There islittle doubt that these social and national factors played a major part in the destruction of organized Egyptian religion. But they seem to have been slowly-growing, long-term tensions or flaws rather than acute problems...........(Bernal, Black Athena, pg. 124)".
Bernal mentions two major issues of those particular days(2nd century). He mentioned that Christianity, being a monotheistic religion in a way that Judaism never could, started to expand. But also, there is the issue concerning the "change of times". For instance, Christians of those times often represented Christ as a "fish". Well, it turns that the fish have to do with astrology. As Bernal states, "Christian representations of the fish appear at the beginning of the 2nd century in Alexandria.....the use of a fish-or, more specifically, two fishes, as in the sign of the zodiac - shows that the early Christians saw themselves, and were seen by others, as followers of the new religion of the new Piscean age(pg. 128).
........I thought I wasn't going to write all this, but I'll go a little further........Bernal said, "in the 2nd century AD, in addition to the long-term social, economic and national pressures on Egyptian religion, the extraordinary coincidence of the change from Aries to Pisces and the completion of the cycle of the Sothic and civil years created a powerful self-destructive force at its astronomical heart........Egyptian religion contain(ed) a deep cyclical sense but it was centred on the concepts of BIRTH, DEATH, and REBIRTH. It even included the possibility that although the gods were long-lived, they were not necessarily immortal.......(pg. 128-129).
Bernal then quotes Hermetic writings which "prophesied" the downfall of Egyptian religion, but that eventually there would be a rebirth of traditional worship. As Bernal said, "This concept of periodicity, of birth and death followed by rebirth, left an opening for the would-be restorers of Egyptian religion in the Renaissance and the Enlightenment(pg 130). He even goes on to say that much of Christian thought may have been founded in Ancient Egypt, and hence many of the ancient teaching from the Egyptian religion survived during Christian times.............
I agree with Bernal. Hence, it is far too complicated to attribute entirely to Christianity the downfall of Egyptian religion. Many, many factors played a part..............Salaam
Posts: 826 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
No comments Ausar? I have been waiting for your response all day.....lol. Salaam
Posts: 826 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have much to say about the excerpt from Bernal because he glosses over direct text by Christians in Egypt itself that brag about destoying temples and killing non-Christians. No where in your exceprt does it explain the rise of Christianity in Egypt and demise of traditional religion in Egypt. Left out are wheather the original Christians in Egypt were simply foreigners or indigenous.
Most of the intellgensia of Alexandria would have been either Greeks or koine Greek speaking Jews and not indigenous Egyptians. Most Egyptians during this time were rural and tended not to be invovled with Alexandrian Christianity. The only exception is Origen born to Egyptian parents but his contemporaries were either Jews or Greeks.
Ancient Egyptian spirtuality started to dwindle when Romans set up restrictions but Christians finally dealt a death blow to what remained. Yes, the Christians probably preserved alot of the traditions and customs as well as some ancient Egyptian spirtuality.
I recommend you also read David Frankfurther's book Religion in Roman Egypt which provides much more detail than Bernal's brief excerpt.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
I have previously mentioned the book, "The Story of Christianity" by Justo Gonzalez. Therefore, I am quite aware of the impact of Christianity upon the land of Egypt. No question about it. However, I believe that I knew that there had to have been more to the collaspe of Egyptian religion than simply Christianity. You cannot deny in the least bit concerning the Hermetic "prophecy" where Hermes is prophesying the downfall of Egyptian religion............Maybe the Egyptians had an initution that something was going to happen. I have a book on the Egyptian Hermes. If you want, I can quote the prophecy............
See, that is an element I think you are overlooking. The missing element is: what were the Egyptians themselves thinking: what was their perpective of this whole situation? The prophecy of Hermes is an example of that.............The point is that there are a number of factors concerning why the religion of Ancient Egypt fell into oblivion. Christianity was a major aspect, but most certainly not the only factor. Christianity being the main "destructer" of the ancient spiritual culture of Egypt is certainly the easy way to explain it. Easy way to explain, but not necessarily the accurate way to explain it.............Salaam.
Posts: 826 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, I believe that I knew that there had to have been more to the collaspe of Egyptian religion than simply Christianity.
So, if there had been no Christianity the native relgious beliefs would have 'collapsed'?
If the native belief system were so fragile why was it necessary for the Copts to actively set about destroying it - desecrating temples, even killing believers?
Isn't this the equivelant argument of the murderer saying - If I wouldn't have killed him, he would have died anyway?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
ok. Good point Rasol. But, perhaps you could say that maybe the murderer recognized that the potential victim was already sick, hence ready to die.....lol. Bottom line, it is my belief that Christianity was more likely to be the culmination of events that caused the downfall of Egyptian religion, and not the sole major cause of A.E. downfall. Salaam
Posts: 826 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Israel: ok. Good point Rasol. But, perhaps you could say that maybe the murderer recognized that the potential victim was already sick, hence ready to die.....lol. Bottom line, it is my belief that Christianity was more likely to be the culmination of events that caused the downfall of Egyptian religion, and not the sole major cause of A.E. downfall. Salaam
The point, which seemed to have dissipated somewhere in the discussion, was that increasing frequency in foreign imperialistic occupation, spelled the decline of Phaoranic Egyptian culture. The Pharaonic culture is multifaceted, and therefore, over the years had undergone major tranformations due to both modernization and foreign influence; tightly held on traditions which have seen very little change since the formation of Kemet, are at large overshadowed by the just mentioned changes in the contemporary nation of Egypt.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
. And Rameses was a grafitti artist, he put his name on stuff that belonged to other pharaohs anyway.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
. If you read Keita's study, "Comments on Studies of Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships" Frankfort stated that the Egyptian belief system DERIVED from an African substratum. (he said East Africa specifically, but now it's more likely to be the Sahara, either way still African) And why do you bold the words "remained"? He simply meant predynastic egyptians were descended from blacks who migrated from farther up the nile to present day egypt, founded pharaonic civilization, and at the same time didn't mix too substantially with the people next door, i.e. Semites. He also says Egyptian languages were related to the "Hamitic languages of East Africa", we now call the language Afro-Asiatic, but he was right on the mark 
Printer-friendly view of this topic