Here we have Allan worried and concerned that saying that the Hittites and not the true Semites i.e. whites, have those big hooked jew nosed. Actually, it's more of a Khazarian thing.
From: owner-ane@ (ANE Digest) bulkANE Digest
Sunday, March 15 1998
Volume 1998 : Number 073
Re: ane Hittite Nose (in the air in the 1930s)
Commentarium, Atrium, Beirut and Sidon
Re: ane Commentarium, Atrium, Beirut and Sidon
Re: ane Hittite Nose----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 02:55:21 -0600
From: Allen Adler firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: ane Hittite NoseI'm reading The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue, byJames Parkes. I've seen the book recommended in a couple ofplaces and I have seen James Parkes described as a fine historian. Even so, one can easily imagine that a bookwritten in 1934 could become in part dated. I'm still near the beginning of the book, so I can't judge itas a whole. However, I am already troubled by a few things.(1) In trying to sort out the early relations of Judaism and Christianity, he evidently believes that the New Testament can be reliably used as an historical source if one reads it critically. The fact that in this historical exercise he refers to Jesus as "Him" (with a capital H) and as "our Lord" while discussing the history of that time troubles me less, since apart from that he is evidently taking great pains to maintain a distance between his personal religious beliefs and the sources he is trying to analyze.(2) At the beginning of the book, he relies on a book by Godbey which no one has recommended to me, namely: "The Lost Tribes A Myth".
One of the statements he justifies based on Godbey's book is the following: "...the famous Jewish nose seems to be of Hittite rather than Semitic origin". He says this on p.7 and supports it by citing Godbey, Chapters 9-15.
The reason I am posting this to ANE is that I think that questions pertaining to the Hittites are appropriate for this newsgroup.I would like to know whether the learned readers of this group agree with my naive impression that (2) is complete and obviousnonsense. And if so, why exactly do people keep telling me thatParkes is such a fine historian?