Talk:Shamash
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale. | ||
 |
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses. |
 |
This article is supported by the Mythology WikiProject.
This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. |
|
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
the semitic root sh-m-sh means sun (eg. Maltese 'xemx'). Which came first, the god or the word?
I'd say neither. Shamash is the Sun : God and thing are one. While deification of concepts, wearing the name of the thing is much more strikingly present in Greco Roman mythology, this looks like an instance of it. --Svartalf 23:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Shamash
As noted in the article, Shamash means attendant, or caretaker in Hebrew. But what should also be noted, as that in the Hanukiya (the 9-stemed menorah of Hanuka), the central Shamash is the first candle to be lit. It is then used to light the other ones (and could be considered a caretaker for the others). The Shamash is not counted with the other candles. For example, on the third evening of Hanuka, one should light 3 candles. There are actually 4 lit candles, one of them being the Shamash. --okedem 20:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
It means that? last time I heard, the Hebrew meaning of "shemesh" was sun ... the closeness between that word, and the Akkadian led me to believe that the Semitic root sh-m-sh was tied to the sun... then again, I never studied Semitic languages much. --Svartalf 13:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
…×==Merge== Yes, the Shammash page ought to be merged into this one, the doubloon is obvious --Svartalf 23:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree--67.66.219.252 19:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Erick Otchere
I agree that the content of the Shammash page should be merged. With the exception that shammash should be respelled as Shamash as it is spelled in the Epic of Gilgamesh which it references. (Please forgive my spelling also). --Zbonks
[edit] Shamash is Sun
I agree to merge Sammash in to Shamash, since Shamash is more likely to be correct. Tracking the root of the word, clearly it is of Assyrian origin, in addition, it is a common vocabulary morph to substitute “Sh” to “S” and thus, nowadays, it is spelled as Shams in Modern Arabic. --Zbonks
Look it. The name Shamash can only mean "sun" if you have read anything beyond the Bible in your life. The reconstructed word for "sun" in Proto-Semitic, which is the ancestor of all Semitic languages, including that language the Old Testament was supposed to be written in, is šamš-. So it is without a shred of a doubt "sun".
The idea that it means "servitor" is clearly from the Bible-belt crowd who think that Samson came first and Shamash later. Sorry, people. Got news for ya. The Bible is full of stories that derive from polytheistic, and hence "pagan", sources. Being a Christian is cool but being an ignorant Christian is so not cool. --Glengordon01 08:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Just so everyone knows I do not know how my name was listed as the editor of the second to last remark about Shamash being of Assyrian origin. I had added something else than my commetn above it but thought it was to argumentative for this conversation.
My comment was the Shamash was the Babylonian name for the Sumerian sun god Utu and that if you read the transliterated texts of the Sumerian cuniform your will see that when the word sun in the translation is used the Sumerians used the word Utu because the Sun was Utu and Utu was the sun but when they were talking about the god himself they added a determitive sign. I can only assume since I have not read or learned how to read Babylonian tranliterations that the same would apply in the Babylonian language. Now my knowledge of the Assyrians is not very good if not at all but the order of ruleing society in the Ancient Near East was Sumeria, Babylon and then Assyria. Now Babylon was conquered by Assyria nad since the pattern of the languages in the area shows each civilization absorbed language material from the previous one. In fact the Babylonian and Assyrian cuniform are all derivitives of Sumerian cuniform. This would explain why Shammash would mean sun in the Assyrian language and it is interesting to note that the word for sun in a form of Arabic is Sham. Thus basically this is a very convincing argument with (facts to back it up) for the proof that Shamash means "SUN" and that it is of Babylonian and Assyrian orgin.
Now this also presents an interesting question or topic of its self. Since the word Shamash has derivitives in the Hebrew language and Abraham was thw father of the Hebrew people and Abraham was from Ur and the tim eof his birth was the transition period from Sumerian to Akkadian but before Babylonia was in control. So the question is how do the Hebrews have a word that was of Babylonian Orgin when the father of the race was born and lived before the time period the word Shamash was first recorded being used. Perhaps I am missin gsomething or perhaps I am not if you have any comments or ideas let me know. --Zbonks 06:00ish, 5 October 2006
Good, we both see that Babylonian šamšu means "sun". But then you ask:
- How do the Hebrews have a word that was of Babylonian origin when the father of the race was born and lived before the time period the word Shamash was first recorded being used.
Answer:
-
- First and foremost, your assumptions prevent understanding. Shed your assumptions.
- Hebrew shemesh is not from Babylonian.
- Hebrew shemesh is inherited from ancestors who spoke Proto-Semitic.
- Babylonian speakers also inherited their word šamšu from Proto-Semitic *šamš-.
- The Proto-Semitic language is dated to approximately 5000 BCE.
- Genetic origins, cultural origins and linguistic origins often do not correlate with each other in the real world.
- "Genetic fathers" of "races" one may perceive to exist are therefore irrelevant to your question.
--Glengordon01 09:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment on my question that I presented. I can see that there were indead a few things that I had missed as I had stated in the closing to the question, which I see you did not include in your cut and paste. "Perhaps I am missin gsomething or perhaps I am not if you have any comments or ideas let me know."
I have a few questions concerning your comment's that I hope you can enlighten me on, since this is a discussion to gain insight into other peoples point of views and walk away with more knowledge than arrived with.
Why do you say I am making assumption that prevent my understanding when I had closed my question with the above initial comment? I agree in hindsight that I maybe should have worded it differently, but I was hoping that someone with understanding would have relized what I getting at.
There has been some growing comment and speculation into the idea that the Sumerians were indead Semitic people's based on a great many things. Including the fact that just about all of the stuff in the Old Testiment was first found in an almost identical context in the Sumerian culture and readings. Now if they were to actually find a non-theoretical Proto-Semitic language in writing that pre-dates the Sumerians or the "black-headed people" since that is what they called them selves since to them genetic heritig was not what made one a sumerian. If you spoke the language you were a sumerian. Then that would make for some good reading to see if it was them or the Sumerians who first displayed these idea's that we now find in the Old Testement and the rest of the world. Now if this is so why did the proto-semitic language not have any influence on the Sumerian language. I finish this question with one last thing. How can you create a theroetical dead spoken language when using other non-theoretical dead spoken language's that we do not even know the entirely correct way to pronounce them and if we were to somehow find a person from that time frame they most likely would not be able to understand us unless were wrote in their language because we would not be able to pronounce it right. How can one use this theoretic dead spoken language to prove the basis of other languages? I am not saying it does not exist but how can you use it to prove anything without including that the basis of your proof is a hypothetical conept.
If proto-semetic is from 5000 B.C. amd the Sumerians spoken language of the region is estemated at around 5000 B.C. on and the written at around 4000 B.C. on and in the Sumerian writings them selves they write about hordes from the north and peoples from all over the area appart from themselves. Would it not be logical that as the other people conquered parts of Sumeria and other area's outside of it and with the trade influence from Eqypt (the "Magan" whome many specialist agree was the Egyptian people ; for a reference to the Magan see Gilgamesh and the Land of the Living)and other areas would have influence the language's of the area. An would it not be resonable to say that the proto-semitic language you speak of would be Sumerian since Sumerian Cuniform was absorbed by each culture that gained conltrol of the Near East and as the cultural progression gets more wide as time goes on each spoken language that is recorded in cuniform (wich is based on Sumerian cuniform) has reminents of the Sumerian spoken language. Such as The Babylonian word for the god An is the same as the Sumerians and the pantheon is the same including the Anunnaki but with a few different names and a couple different concepts such as the whole Marduk motif from the Enuma Elish.
The point about Abraham I was trying to make and hoping that people would find out for themselves was that he was born a Sumerian and thus would have attended a Sumerian Edubba which would explain why most of the Old Testament has Sumerian and Babylonian concepts in it since the Hebrew race orginated from Sumerian and Babylonian people and that there God motifs have been passed down into the Jewish faith and Christianity as a whole (at least that is a on going theory I am tossing around). Now if you have read the Bible or more specificaly the Old Testament like anyone with an impartial mind would to get a overtall view of how cultures rellate to each other. Abraham was chosen by the Jewish god to "lead" the Semitic people of the time and become the father of teh Tribes of Israel (the Jewish people). There is no way the Abraham could have just created a new race of people from nothing so he lead and had a family from the existeng people of his time the "Sumerians and Babylonians." This obvious information would make your last two comments irrelevent.
-
- Genetic origins, cultural origins and linguistic origins often do not correlate with each other in the real world.
"Genetic fathers" of "races" one may perceive to exist are therefore irrelevant to your question.
I would like to hear any comments on what I have just said concerning your coments. I am a very open minded person and willing to hear any side of the story. If I tell you that you are wrong and you reply with a comment backed by facts I may find that it was indeed I who was wrong.
--Zbonks my clock is broken, 7 October 2006
