SOME PRACTICAL REALITIES
In our attempt to understand the social and cultural processes which
unfolded with the people of Israel, their descendants, and those of us
living today who may have Abraham as our ancient grandfather, we must face
certain realities. The notion of a special people dedicated to God, who
went astray, and were scattered among the nations, has been buried in myth
equal in unreality to the pagan gods of yesteryear. From the foolish notions
of Anglo-Israelism, to the idea that the ancient Welsh language was a near
replica of Hebrew, to the purity of blood running in the veins of the nobility
of Europe, we find gross distortions.
When Joseph went to Egypt he did so because the people were having difficulty
finding food. There was famine in the land. The great grandchildren of
Abraham had now grown to a sizeable social group; if they were to preserve
themselves as an integral unit, they could not merely marry into surrounding
tribes. To maintain their blood cohesiveness they had to stick together
or marry among equal genetic stock. The evidence of Terah's family suggests
that mate selection was practiced by all the Iberi. The ease with which
the Pharaohs greeted Abraham, and the special role of Joseph as an Egyptian
administrator, shows that the Egyptians recognized, and related to, those
people on a level that was more than economic. The Abrahamites were not
merely slave rabble. Abraham had earlier been welcomed into Egypt for reasons
which also were more than satisfaction of mere want. If his family practiced
close inbreeding, and the Egyptian Pharaohs did the same, we cannot reject
the possibility that they may have been related by superior blood stock.
The reason the Abrahamites had such proclivity for Egypt in time of need
was centered in some connection other than physical convenience.
Joseph negotiated for physical help; in return he promised physical
assistance to the Pharaohs. The Hebrew people indentured themselves, and
thereby created a social situation from which they could not easily withdraw.
The Pharaoh was not a fool.
Many persons date Joseph in Egypt about the mid-nineteenth century BC,
perhaps 1850. Issachar was a brother. Two of his sons, Tola and Pua, were
nephews to Joseph. When Moses and Eleazar took a census of the people of
Israel on the banks of the Jordan, the various groups were already identified
by tribal names. In our Bible translations we read the Punites for
the family of Pua, but in Hebrew they were ha Puni, Num 26:23.
The Romans later knew the western Canaanites as Puni. The Greeks,
with their habitual use of "s" or "x" endings, transformed this name into
Poenix, and thus the modern word Phoenician. Our witless scholars
take this anglicized word and subject it to contorted logic to find the
origins of the Phoenician name, when the simplicity of it stares them in
Van der Broek, in his book The Myth of the PhoenixMOP,
recognized that the Puni were a Hebrew tribe descended from Pua, a son
of Issachar. He also emphasized the curious fact that Tola had a name which
indicated "red dye stuff," or "crimson," while Pua's name meant "madder."
Unfortunately Van der Broek, in pursuit of the reason the "Phoenicians"
had a name which meant "purple" or "red," could not take this crucial information
and build his reasoning around it. Some strange inhibition in his mind
refused to let him proceed further.
Maria Aubet, in The Phoenicians and the WestTPAW,
also strains over the origin of the name.
These examples illustrate how godless minds refuse to acknowledge the
religious and spiritual forces which shape our world. All social phenomena
are interpreted on purely mechanistic or economic grounds, with occasional
concession to "gods," "temples," and "cults."
In following discussions I shall engage in certain practices to simplify
my presentation. The western "Phoenicians" I shall identify by the name
assigned to them by the Romans, the Puni. The eastern Phoenicians,
before contact with the Hebrew tribes, I shall identify as Canaanites,
their original name before it came under the influence of the Puni.
The Cimmerians I shall call the Kimmerians, to avoid the later English
shift from "K" to the soft "C." Since the tribal name Kimmeri derives from
the more basic Semitic root, I shall use Kimri, not Cymry. Similarly with
Kelts for Celts.
If the Puni had decided to seek economic advantage along the Mediterranean
coast, in the region assigned to Asher, traditionally recognized as Phoenician,
they may have quickly adapted to the local religious customs, reverting
to the pagan gods, and to Baal. If they were blending with surrounding
people, not maintaining strict blood allegiance, they may not have felt
a cohesive loyalty to their brothers and cousins in the hinterlands.
The proclivity of the tribes to chase after pagan gods, Baal and the
Ashteroth, is condemned time and again. See Judg 2:11-16. They "served"
the gods of all the surrounding people, including the Philistines, the
Ammonites, Moab, Syria, and Sidon ("Phoenicia"), Judg 10:6. Their proclivity
to marry among other people is also condemned in Josh 23:12. Even Moses
married a Cushite woman, Num 12:1. The biblical evidence speaks strongly
for foreign marriage, worship of pagan gods, and acquisition by Hebrew
people of lands along the coast around Tyre. They were extremely adaptable
people, easily blending with surrounding cultures who had close genetic
The infiltration of the Puni along the coast was with a people who never
developed a national identity. The Canaanites, up and down the eastern
Mediterranean, were a people with a common culture, but without an organized
state, or political unity. They simply did not aspire to political power.
The various cities and trading posts were mutually independent, without
subservience to a common king or country. Only the later Carthaginian Puni
along the coast of North Africa developed a recognizable territorial identity
and political force.
Throughout their history, from the earliest identifiable culture circa
3,000 BC, to their later infiltration by the Puni, they were recognized
as kinnahu. The Akkadian name identified red-skinned brothers who
were described by physical attribute rather than tribal identity. All red-skinned
people of that genetic strain would have been kinnahu. These early
Habiru-Iberi tribes then became identified in historical times with this
appellative -- which we know as Canaan. But in blood strain they
were nearly equal to the Hebrew Iberi. The Hebrew tribes felt at ease blending
with them because of this blood affinity. They were blood brothers. The
difference was in their religious devotions; Abraham was selected because
of his desire for a true God, rather than debased pagan gods. But some
of his children could not avoid relapse to that easier religious allegiance.
These conditions permitted Puni people to infiltrate and absorb the
Canaanite culture, modify their goals, and place their name upon them.
The earliest documentary evidence of Canaanite existence is found in a damaged relief at Memphis which shows the Pharaoh Sahure, circa 2500 BC, receiving a Princess to be his bride, in a fleet of sea-going ships, manned by an Asiatic crew. This type of ship was known to the Egyptians as "Byblos ships." The relief provides evidence of the blood ties between the Egyptian ruling class and Semitic stocks coming from Mediterranean lands occupied by Iberi. Around 2150 BC invading Amorite Semite people destroyed and rebuilt Byblos but continued close ties with Egypt. Other disruptions followed, but the Canaanites began trading with other people farther north along the coast, building temples at Ugarit which date between 2,000 to 1800 BC. Archeological evidence shows non-Canaanite ruling classes intermixing with the Canaanites, a common cross-breeding practice of Iberi-Semitic people throughout the Levant.
In the latter part of the 13th century, when the Hebrews were settling down to a stable existence in the hill country south of the Canaanites, a flood of land and sea raiders came pouring down upon settlements and cities all along the eastern Mediterranean. They brought the knowledge of iron-working with them -- to completely alter the course of history. Ugarit, Byblos, and Sidon were destroyed. Thereafter Tyre came under the cultural and biological influence of the Hebrew tribes, as attested by the tribal allotments in Josh 19:17-31. It became the effective cultural center of the Puni. This is the time of the actual beginning of the Puni influence.
Because of the genetic affinities between the kinnahu, the Habiru-Iberi,
the Hebrew-Ibri, and the Puni branch, their mixing created great confusion
in our understanding of the origin of the "Phoenician" people. We cannot
rightly speak of "Phoenician" without regard for these genetic and cultural
The Roman author Velleius Paterculus stated that Carthage (modern Tunis)
was founded by the Puni after they founded Utica (modern Medjerda) and
Gadir (Cadiz) in southern Spain, about 1100 BC. The Sicilian historian
Timaeus gave the founding of Carthage at 814 BC. Virgil's Aeneid
tells of the founding of the city by the princess Dido, who fled from her
brother Pygmalion, an historical Tyrian king. However, archeological excavations
date the first Mediterranean settlements between 750 and 700 BC, about
the time that the Assyrians were deporting the northern ten tribes, and
taking control of the Puni coast. These dates mark the beginning of the
Puni push across the western Mediterranean.
The Puni became aggressive in establishing trading centers along the
coasts of Tunisia, Morocco, and in Sicily, Sardinia, Malta, and Spain.
These centers all date from 700 BC or later. Great scholarly debate rages
over the motivating forces which led to the founding of those centers.
Were they colonizing, as the Greeks obviously did? Did they establish ports
of trade for strictly economic reasons? Or were they reacting to the Assyrian
conquest of their home land? We do not know; there may have been a complex
of motivations which are now not easily discernible to us. Regardless of
the causes, this movement of people had one significant benefit to the
Mediterranean regions: the spread of Iberi and Abrahamic blood.
The cities founded by the Puni became independent enterprises, not feeling
allegiance to the mother country, but maintaining the same pagan culture
and religious beliefs. The language also was preserved through the following
centuries, little changed from its close Hebrew affinities. Although the
script showed some evolution in the form of the letters, later western
Mediterranean inscriptions can easily be read from classical Hebrew. Remnants
of the Mediterranean Puni colonies, and even those along the west coast
of Africa, continued to exist for centuries into the modern era, with the
same Semitic tongue.
Again, modern godless scholars would magnify the differences among language
"dialects" and cultural variations in order to classify the different groups.
In doing so they suppress the common religious and social elements which
motivated those people.
To demonstrate the antiquity of the Semitic tongue, and to show how
scholarship exaggerates the differences among groups consider the remarks
by Maria AubetTPAW.
Although modern studies are careful to distinguish between the mother
Canaanites, and the later Puni people scattered across the Mediterranean,
the cultural and language differences were minor. The most remarkable aspect
of that Semitic language group was the conservative structure. Canaanite/Hebrew
was maintained as nearly the same language for three thousand years. Texts
at Ugarit had morphology and vocabulary as easily identified as those from
texts in the western Mediterranean two thousand years later.
In our attempts to grasp the cross fertilization from one blood stock
to another, or one culture to another, we lead ourselves into serious errors
by assuming that the various cultures can be rigidly distinguished and
classified. Great cultural ferment and commercial exchange were underway
in the Mediterranean in the years following the 8th century BC.
In reading statements by various researchers one finds phrases like
influence." This means that artifacts found in ancient sites show a
cross-cultural exchange. This "orientalizing" influence is noted for Greek,
Etruscan, Iberian, and other centers. The different people were not shunning
each other in this commercial and cultural exchange. By definition, they
must have had intimate association with one another. By magnifying differences,
or assigning the associations as exclusively economic, modern scholarship
has lost sight of reality.
In this great heterogeneous mix we cannot easily distinguish between
blood influence and culture. Should we expect that a Puni commercial trader
was not attracted to a beautiful Greek woman, and did not desire to take
her in marriage? Or should we reject the idea that some young Puni sailor,
unloading ships in some Iberian port, did not feel a desire for some pretty
While the Greeks may have shown a proclivity toward certain artistic
values, and thus are clearly identified in archeology, can we say they
did not mix in marriage with the Puni, or the Etruscans who displayed different
tastes? If the Greeks avoided foreign marriage because of their social
codes, can we say the eastern Semites had the same social constraints?
Does the evidence not speak to great cross-culture blending by the red-skinned
In earlier chapters I showed how the Greeks took certain titles and
names directly out of Northwest Semitic, whether we call it Canaanite,
"Phoenician," or Hebrew. The god Adonis was one example. He was a major
Greek god. Why did he receive the Semitic title of Adon unless the Greeks
held him in high esteem from his Semitic origins? (With the habitual "s"
ending.) The name of the Roman goddess Diane is directly out of a Semitic
verb root which we recognize so easily in Hebrew. Can we find the path
by which this Hebrew word became the name for a Roman goddess?
Consider our modern alphabet. It came into Europe via the Greeks and
Romans. But where did they get it? Scholarship recognizes that the origins
are in that peculiar Canaanite land, with the first recognizable alphabetic
script, circa 1500 BC. The impact of this script on the western world was
profound, and conditions our lives yet today. Are we to deny the power
of this Semitic/Puni/Hebrew cultural influence upon the world, and its
impact upon the Greek, Iberian, Etruscan and Roman people?
I grew up in a Pennsylvania Dutch environment. I did not know until
I was eighteen years of age and had left home that one does not say, in
good English, "outen the light." Although these habits are rapidly disappearing,
the Pennsylvania Dutch were long an amusement to others for their peculiar
way of twisting the order of their sentences. "Lizzy went the hill over"
was not uncommon among those people who were contemporary with my generation.
Yiddish is another example of how languages violate rigid classifications.
Yiddish is a High German dialect, with mixed Hebrew and Slavic words. It
is the product of an Indo-European mix with Semitic.
This linguistic phenomenon is not mentioned by modern scholars, yet
is highly important to understanding the cross-influence which affected
the Mediterranean, and European hinterlands, of those days.
When two people of different languages and cultures mix in intimate association, through marriages and daily economic transactions, they easily mix their vocabularies, inflections, and morphology. When scholars attempt to translate the strange Etruscan inscriptions they do not give credit to the possibility that they may be facing a peculiar mixture of Semitic and Indo-European words and inflections. In their rigid classifications they unconsciously reject this fluid state of affairs, and they lose valuable insights into our planetary past.