Talk:Lion of Judah

Mark the Evangelist

Is there a connection between the lion as symbol of Mark and the Lion of Judah in Christian iconography? I got the impression, half-remembered from Catholic high school in the dim mists of prehistory, that there is one, but I can't find textual proof of it. --grant (talk) 17:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Ethiopian history

ethiopian arn't even really ethiopians they are abbysinian's, forgive me for mispelling the name but the arabic version is HABESHA which basic means mix-breeds, mix-races the history is so long that the west hemsp. have not thought the history of east africa or now KNOW as middle-east, the middle east of the world is in facT ethiopia. to understand the culure of ethiopia, YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND AND SPEAK THE MAIN LAUNGUAGE. AMRAICHA(AMARIC) which breaks it down t you for example, JOSEPH (YASEPH) Which means (LET HIM THINK, A THINKER) Jocob(YACOB) SAME MEANING, the language breaks everything down, that is just a little info, but it is bigger than that, and the other thing is people brag about things, itS human nature to brag about things u have or surrouunded with, but its a fact the east african race never bragged about anything, basically meanning GOD OR GOD MESSANGERs, FOLLOWERS, SLAVES,,,etc DO NOT NEED TO BRAG CAUSE THEY BELIEVE AND KNOW THE TRUTH.(islam (truth))- one god, one being) creator oF ALL

I've seen revisionists attacking Ethiopian history with full fury in the last little while, but this is too much. There is no way anyone can reasonably deny that the State religion of Ethiopia was Mosa Judaism between about 980 BC and 328 AD. There are just too many inscriptions, etc. proving otherwise, so don't even attempt to do so. --ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to get into another argument with you, suffice it to say that there are no contemporary inscriptions attesting to it, and that no general history textbook I've read asserts it. Lots of Christian countries have traditions connecting their country with biblical characters- for example, medieval British traditions that Christianity was brought to Britain directly by Joseph of Aramithea, or the Mormon tradition that the Native Americans were descendants of the lost tribes of Israel. These traditions are usually ignored in historical reconstructions.--Rob117 19:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

And the reason they are "ignored" is??? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Because there is no contemporary evidence of them. It is not the duty of history-writers to agree with every national tradition that exists.--Rob117 19:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

By flatly "ignoring" all the massive amounts of evidence that Ethiopians are Semitic and have been strongly influenced by Hebraic religion, culture, and language for millennia, you are in effect declaring that every Ethiopian scholar is a liar. But I note that this has always been a favorite pastime of armchair critics, who are never likely to set foot anywhere near Ethiopia in their lives, simply because it doesn'y fit in with their own agenda, therefore all evidence must be brushed aside or pretended not to exist. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Nobody ever said the Ethiopians weren't Semitic. The Ethiopic languages are South Semitic, akin to the ancient language of Sheba and, more distantly, to several Modern South Arabian languages spoken in Yemen and Oman. Nobody denies that.

But speaking a Semitic language does not equal having Mosaic Judaism as a state religion. The ancient Akkadians, Eblaites, Babylonians, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Aramaeans, Arabs, Canaanites, Philistines, Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Midianites, and Amalekites all spoke Semitic languages, yet none of them followed Mosaic Judaism. "Semitic" and "Hebraic" are not synonymous. Hebrew is a Northwest Semitic language; the Ethiopic languages are South Semitic, and were probably brought to Ethiopia in the mid-eighth century BC when the Kingdom of Sheba settled the Horn of Africa.

Likewise, nobody denies that Ethiopic culture has been heavily influenced by Hebraic culture- via a version of Christianity that has in many ways remained closer to its Jewish roots than other versions. But this influence would have begun in 328 AD with the conversion of Aksum to Christianity.

You claim there is evidence that pre-Christian Ethiopia practiced Mosaic Judaism. Yet you haven't cited any sources.

And for God's sake, stop jumping to conclusions about what other people think. The world isn't out to get you.--Rob117 22:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually you don't have any bit of evidence that supports your notion that the Hebraic tradition began in 328 AD. The evidence that it began 1200 years before that is tradition, that you are sweeping aside, hence calling Ethiopians liars, because you in your armchair "know better" about their history than Ethiopian historians do. Yawn, heard it all many times before, but doesn't change the truth. Yup, all the races of Hebraic elements in Ethiopia were invented in 328 AD, because Ethiopians are not to be trusted. Didn't Mussolini say something along those lines? As for assuming what other people think, your last sentence is a perfect example of you assuming what I think. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Calm down. Tradition is never used as evidence in its own right. And there is archaeological evidence against this particular tradition- the Kingdom of Sheba seems not to have existed or colonized Ethiopia until the mid-eighth century BC, (see the article on Sheba), while Solomon probably lived in the 10th century BC. Likewise, the biblical story about the Queen of Sheba probably dates to the late eighth century, when Sheba was a powerful kingdom- it reflects the world of its author, as everything ever written does.

And I am not calling Ethiopians "liars," any more than denying the story about Helen of Troy is calling Homer a "liar," or acknowledging the notorious inaccuracy of Geoffrey of Monmouth's book on the history of Britain is calling medieval Britons "liars." Tradition develops over time. Human memory is not very good at remembering history. This is true for all cultures. And I doubt that all Ethiopian scholars take this tradition at face value. Ethiopian Orthodox theologians maybe; but that's dealing with the realm of religion, not objective historical research.

As for the Mussolini comment: Are you calling me a racist? If you are, then knock it off. Don't try to circumvent a historical discussion with libelous personal attacks.--Rob117 22:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The Jewish identity is the very centerpiece of Ethiopian identity, and yes, I very definitely must question your motives and the motives of anyone else who seeks to attack this. It is quite obvious what you are doing. You are claiming yourself to be the expert, and stating that "all tradition is worthless". Your western secular tradition may be wothless, but Ethiopian tradition is not worthless. There is the tradition of circumcising the son on the 8th day. I suppose this came only in 328? There is the tradition of observing the Sabbath on Saturday. Oh, yeah, it's just a tradition, so its worthless. There is the tradition of dividing the Churches into 3 sections following the pattern of the Jewish Temple. Oh, yeah, you just said all Ethiopian traditions are worthless to the enlightened historian, we have your authority to go on for that. There is the tradition of baptizing sons on 40 days after birth, and girls 80 days, per Leviticus. Oh, yeah, they had to have learned that from the Greeks, who were the only intelligent influence on the Africans. (yawn). Even the Leviticus tradition of separating foods into 'clean' and 'unclean' is still practised. Then there is the tradition of deep veneration for the Ark of the Covenant. But we already know what you, the skeptic, think about that: It's just another tradition, meaningless for the historian with his own agenda. Guess what, the Ethiopian people firmly believe that they got all these traditions because they converted from Judaism to Christianity in the year 328. But that doesn't fit in with what you're pushing, does it, so it's gotta go, huh... Of course there is a significant body of people who never converted, who have all these same Hebraic traditions I just listed and then some, but then, since they're just traditions, and you yourself stated that traditions are worthless as evidence, this requires that we assume they became Jews in the year 328 as some sort of coverup plot to go along with all the rest of it, because it's all a mass lie on the part of the entire Ethiopian populace that there were ever any connections with Israel. You sit in your armchair and like to think you know a lot about the world, but clearly there is a lot you still do not understand. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I've listened to your paranoid shit since my first day on Wikipedia, and frankly I'm sick of it. Not once have I ever attacked your beliefs, whatever they may be. But I will not be politically correct and let people put in tradition as fact. Every single one of those Ethiopian traditions could have quite easily been picked up from the Old Testament during the conversion to Christianity; even the remnant pagan populations were under the influence of the Christian royal house. So I've never been to Ethiopia. But I read. I read books on archaeology in the Middle East and Egypt, and Ethiopian history has been heavily connected to these regions, I've picked a thing or two. I plan to major in Mediterranean archaeology. I'll admit that right now I'm in the "armchair," "amateur," or "ignorant fuck" category- choose your own terminology. Everything I know I learned from something I read. But the things I read are peer-reviewed publications by respected archaeologists who go in there and dig the stuff up themselves and cite their sources. Have you dug up the area of Sheba in Yemen? Did the authors of the Kebra Nagast dig up the evidence of their country's past? Tell me- did they? Did you?

You use the term "skeptic" in a derogatory manner. All it means is that I request hard evidence before I believe something.

I like you. Your edits on topics to which you have no emotional connection are very professional-looking and seem well-informed. How bout you try distancing your personal feelings from your edits.--Rob117 03:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Heraldry

Is "LION PASSANT" same as "LION OF JUDAH" ?85.94.116.153 (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Lion of Judah Society

An article on the Lion of Judah Society could be created [1]. Or a sentence or two here. --Dorpater (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lion of Judah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031114203756/http://www.jhom.com/topics/lions/art.htm to http://www.jhom.com/topics/lions/art.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Lion of Babylon

• Why is the Lion of Babylon mentioned here? Is it at all relevant? According to what source? Unless one of the referenced sections argues for a connection, the section should be deleted. There's a separate article on the Lion of Babylon so deleting the section here would not erase the topic from Wikipedia entirely. If there is a source which argues for a connection, the connection should be explained in order to clarify the relevance of this material to this article. – Scyrme (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)