The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum #5

=> The Trouble with Assyriologists....

The Trouble with Assyriologists....
Posted by pancho (Moderator) - Tuesday, May 1 2012, 3:04:39 (UTC)
from *** - *** - Windows NT - Mozilla
Website:
Website title:

...being used as sources for the existence of modern day Assyrians is their lack of knowledge about modern "assyrian" history. I respect Rollinger, as an Assyriologist. I respect Parpola too, for his area of expertise. But neither of them now the history of these names in the modern era.

Not knowing, or studying, the history of the appearance of these names in the modern era, they don't know that, even if Suryaye always meant Aturaye, Aturaye was not used by the Nestorians...not even when the Catholics came and won back some Nestorians to Rome in the 16th century (and in some places even earlier than that)...these re-converted Nestorians adopted the name Chaldean...even Aprim will tell you that...but what he will also try to sell you is that the name Assyrian was already in use long before that.

It wasn't. As Joseph has shown...

Rassam’s position was that ‘Syrian’ was wrong; the correct form was ‘Assyrian,’ but preferred ‘Chaldean’. Layard always referred to the Nestorians as ‘Chaldeans’ or as ‘Nestorian Chaldeans’ in order to distinguish them from those united with Rome.” pp 17-18

..not even Layard knew or heard the term Assyrian for those Christians...only Chaldean, which is what the title to his book uses, Chaldean and not Assyrian...why?

“When the Assyrian excavations revealed the remains of Nineveh to the wondering eyes of the world, the Nestorians and their ‘Chaldean’ brethren in the environs of the ancient Assyrian capital and beyond attracted special attention. The hero of these excavations, Austen Henry Layard, hastened to proclaim these historic, linguistic, and religious minorities to be ‘as much the remains of Nineveh and Assyria as the rude heaps and ruined palaces’. In the midst of this excitement, J.P. Fletcher wrote that ‘the Chaldeans and the Nestorians’ are ‘the only surviving human memorial of Assyria and Babylonia’.” p.

...no one used the word Assyrian to describe these people, only Chaldean.

“The usage and origin of the name Chaldean has also been the subject of much acrimonious debate. While this term is generally accepted today as referring to the Roman Catholic off-shoot of the Nestorian Church, it has in the past been used as a national name in reference to both branches. Nineteenth-century European writers, in order to distinguish between the two churches, have referred to them as Nestorian Chaldeans and Catholic Chaldeans.” p. 3

...they were known as two branches of Chaldeans; Catholic and Nestorian, with no mention of being Assyrian...up to the 19th century. If they were calling themselves Assyrians, why did they run after the Chaldeans and adopt THEIR name for themselves? Why didn't they shout out that they were ASSYRIANS?

“In 1840, Ainsworth, one of the first few non-Catholics to visit the Nestorians, reported that these people considered themselves Chaldeans and ‘descendants of the ancient Chaldeans of Assyria, Mesopotamia and Babylon.’ p 4

...no one said anything about being the Assyrian "descendants of the ancient Chladeans of Assyria etc."...why not? I think because they never even knew they were Chaldeans, till the Euros came and UNTIL the Euros called them Assyrians, they never thought of it.

“Horatio Southgate, who was touring the region in the early 1830s, wrote that the Nestorians ‘call themselves, as they seem always to have done,’ Chaldeans; indeed “Chaldean” was their national name, he stressed.” p 5

...why no mention of them calling themselves "always" Assyrians? Why only Chaldeans?

“In the late 17th century, French Biblical critic Richard Simon spoke of the many Christian sects of the East ‘who bear the name Chaldean or Syrian’ and mentioned that most of the Chaldeans ‘are those whom we call Nestorians.” pp. 5-6

..and the rest were the Nestorians, not Assyrians. Why didn't he say "Chaldean or ASSYRIAN"? Why "Chaldean or Syrian"? To the Euros, at that time who hadn't seen the Turkey tablet, Syrian would have meant just that, Syrian....why didn't they correct them and say, "we are Assyrians, not Syrians"?

“Pope Paul V (1605-1621) wrote to Patriarch Elias that ‘A great part of the East was infected by this heresy [Nestorianism], especially the Chaldeans, who for this reason have been called Nestorians’. As far back as 1445 the Nestorians of the See of Cyprus were called Chaldeans upon their reconciliation with the Church of Rome.” p 6.

...the Assyrians were also "infected" by this heresy of Nestorianism...why no mention from the pope of Assyrians existing at that time?


The Turkey tablet, understandably exciting to Assyriologists, does nothing to verify modern Assyrian claims...nothing. Because we have other, documented, evidence that they never called themselves Assyrians, or Chaldeans, till the Euros came. No matter WHERE the word Syria derived from...it was all Greek to the Nestorians...the same with being Chaldean...no one has yet unearthed a tablet that shows there were Chaldeans in continuous existence since the fall of Chaldea...but, there they are, claiming that THEY "always knew"...and yet we know Euros invented them...same as they invented Assyrians...all the tablets in the world notwithstanding, the Nestorians did not call themselves Assyrians, as modern Middle Eastern history, and not Assyriology, would be expected to show, this is Joseph's field of expertise...ancient tablets are for Assyriologists..

I'll admit, a lot of this is my interpretation...but based on facts and not on wishful thinking or X-Libris.



---------------------


The full topic:



***



Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9