The Vulgate Bible which was the standard of Catholics going back to the 4th-5th century up until the 20th century says Moses had horns. The famous British historian of Roman extraction, Gildas, says that Moses had horns. Orthodoxy iconography shows Moses having horns.

The rebuttal to this is that Moses is said to have qrn (qeren) extending from his head. Modern rabbinics have instead changed this word to mean "ray of light", because horns would be too terrifying for a thing for Moses to have come back with on his head after returning from a meeting with his deity on the mountaintop in Exodus. Indeed, Exodus is clear in saying that people were in fact terrified of him and so he covered his horns up.

Now this rabbinic version is obviously non-sense, the word is not even Hebrew nor Aramaic but rather Phoenician, 𐤒𐤓𐤍.

https://glosbe.com/en/phn/horn

But this word is not Semitic at all, but rather Indo-European. The word shares cognates with the general word for horn and places like Kernow in Britain, which gets its name from its horned shape.

http://pielexicon.hum.helsinki.fi/?alpha=6.1

https://lrc.la.utexas.edu/lex/master

So the question is: what happened? Did the Phoenicians borrow the word from Celts? Were the Phoenicians Celts? And why did the author of Exodus slip up and use such a foreign sounding word?

>>17896681 (OP)
What does the Septuagint say? I know that in the story it says that Moses had to wear a veil because his face glowed, so I presume it was some kind of radiation being emitted from him.
>καὶ εἶδον οἱ υἱοὶ Ισραηλ τὸ πρόσωπον Μωυσῆ ὅτι δεδόξασται καὶ περιέθηκεν Μωυσῆς κάλυμμα ἐπὶ τὸ πρόσωπον ἑαυτοῦ ἕως ἂν εἰσέλθῃ συλλαλεῖν αὐτῷ

>>17896696
>Moses had to wear a veil because his face glowed
There is art of this

>>17896696
The Vulgate is a version of the Septuagint, so yes. Presumably Origen's two versions of the Septuagint say the same thing because he was said to be in basic agreement with Jerome (or vice versa, rather). The word in Latin is cornutus meaning horn and the word in Aramaic/Hebrew is qrn, meaning horn in Phoenician but changed in modern translations to mean "ray of light" (which doesn't even make etymological sense at all).
>>17896700
His face is covered so in this so it could still be horns, but assuming it's not, is that older than the icons of Moses with explicit horns?

>>17896696
Let me check Brenton's Septuagint from Origen to make sure.

>>17896713
>is that older than the icons of Moses with explicit horns?
No.

>worship a golden calf
>Moses come back down the second time with horns on his head

Jahveh is a cheeky little bugger.

>>17896733
Looks like a Simpsons character lol
>>17896739
kek

>>17896739
lmao
>>17896696
Yes you're right, Origen's version of the Septuagint does say "rays of light" in English+Greek. However, I'm curious if it was always this way. His first version is called the Hexapla meaning "six books" because he used six sources to write his Septuagint. Two of those were a Hebrew version and a Hebrew version in Greek letters. That version did not survive. The version we have is the Tetrapla or "four books". He took the Hebrew versions out and that version was translated into Syriac, which is how it came to us today.

I'm wondering if maybe that's why rabbinics today keep the word but just alter its meaning as a way of getting around the horns issue without doing any omissions like Origen did.

The DRV states that Moses was 'horned' after coming down from the mountain. Apparently it's supposed to mean that he was glorified or something like that. Kind of a weird way to put it, but OK.

>>17897248
It might be influenced by this kind of thing. Old Mesopotamian gods with the horned crowns. The cows back then were fucking huge and had massive horns. Powerful symbol of power.

>>17896681 (OP)
>>17896696
>>17896739
>>17897248
>>17897707
Levi & Dan are the male given names denoting descendance and belonging to Luwians and the Danites of Adana in particular. The parts of the Yamnaya tribes that had set up office in Egypt and which sought revenge on the Hittite Hyksos for being tyrants and larpers. Judah simply learned from the Hittites and Hyksos by appropriating the terms Levi and Messiah from other tribes that held prominence over heritage or territory that they wanted for themselves.
The bible is a diary of how semites of the eastern med appropriated every arriving influence in order to cloak themselves in onion layers of larp. Extremist inclusivity.

>>17898449
>Luwians and the Danites of Adana
Nah

>>17898451
Still doesn't mean they were genetically luwian or from adana any more than an aboriginal named John is descended from John the baptist. The simping is fact. the genetics is speculative.

>>17896681 (OP)
>Orthodoxy iconography shows Moses having horns
no it doesnt

>>17898496
Yes it does. If you go in Orthodox churches that's what you'll see.

>>17898558
find me one icon where he has horns

>>17898567
The OP is literally a church icon. Are you looking for sellers?

https://www.bing.com/shop/productpage?q=moses+horns+orthodox+icon&filters=scenario%3a%2217%22+gType%3a%2212%22+gId%3a%22341292931638%22+gIdHash%3a%220%22+gGlobalOfferIds%3a%22341292931638%22+AucContextGuid%3a%220%22+GroupEntityId%3a%22341292931638%22+NonSponsoredOffer%3a%22True%22&productpage=true&FORM=SHPPDP&browse=true

If you're looking for churches, you can look them up online. It's not like its rare.

>>17898584
stupid filth

>>17898587
Why would you ask questions you don't want answers to?

>>17896681 (OP)
>The famous British historian of Roman extraction, Gildas
Nigga Gildas is a Briton. He says this. He is not a Roman.
>says that Moses had horns
Looking through his sermon I can't see him mention that at all. Nowhere does he mention horns.

>>17896681 (OP)
The sculpture made by Michelangelo has horns too

>>17898622
>Nigga Gildas is a Briton. He says this
I've read Gildas cover to cover. He says "we Britons" often, but he also says that Britons are Romans and they have to accept that because they're a Roman colony and they use Roman coinage. He points to the image of Romans on the currency explicitly as proof of Roman domination of Briton. You can especially tell he actually hates the British because he says things like "the wretch countrymen" when talking about things like when the Britons are pulled down from their ramparts with bill hooks and butchered, which Gildas says is good because then no one has to look at the bodies. Then when he talks about Rome he says things like "the senate swiftly acted..." and "the enemies fell like leaves before the legions...". He's clearly a Roman nationalist. His conception of Briton is as if it were the armpit of Rome.

>Looking through his sermon I can't see him mention that at all. Nowhere does he mention horns

So here:
>"Looking through his sermon I can't see him mention that at all. Nowhere does he mention horns"

You're really desperate if you're just going to pretend you aren't seeing this everywhere.

https://www.yorku.ca/inpar/gildas_giles.pdf

>>17898634
Good catch! Can't believe I missed the most iconic version

>>17898642
thats where it started

>>17898639
Whoops, pasted the wrong thing. Picrel

>>17898648
Mikey is from the 1500s. Jerome's Vulgate was written in the 300s AD. He claims to have used Hebrew versions to influence his Septuagint, and the versions that don't use Hebrew remove the word entirely in favor of other things. Funnily enough, Masoretic texts use the word for horns and then just mistranslate the word.

>>17898639
>He's clearly a Roman nationalist. His conception of Briton is as if it were the armpit of Rome.
We aren't reading the same author then. Because he straight up says Romans were foreigners who exploited Britain and the Britons
>The Romans, therefore, having slain many of the rebels, and reserved others for slaves, that the land might not be entirely reduced to desolation, left the island, destitute as it was of wine and oil, and returned to Italy, leaving behind them taskmasters, to scourge the shoulders of the natives, to reduce their necks to the yoke, and their soil to the vassalage of a Roman province
He also refers to the Romans exclusively as foreigners, he does not equate the Britons to being Roman, he does not equate himself to one, he does not equate the Britons who interacted with the Romans as them.
>You can especially tell he actually hates the British because he says things like "the wretch countrymen"
Gildas' issue is with the 'Tyrants' of Britain, not with the Britons themselves. Much of how he treats Roman rule is almost copied from Tacitus, who was highly critical of Roman rule of the Britons.
>You're really desperate if you're just going to pretend you aren't seeing this everywhere.
I decided to take a look at the Latin text since we had a disagreement in sources as mine didn't say that
> Quis in monte cum Domino locutus et nequaquam concrepantibus tubis exinde perterritus duas tabulas cornutamque faciem aspectu incredulis inhabilem et horrendam 10 tropico sensu, ut Moyses, advexit
Which does say two tablets and a horned face.

>>17898667
>We aren't reading the same author then. Because he straight up says Romans were foreigners who exploited Britain and the Britons
What lines are you seeing? I really feel like this should be a different topic, but here's a few proving you wrong. Gildas was not some kind of patriotic Briton.
>" And now again they send suppliant ambassadors, with their garments rent and their heads covered with ashes, imploring assistance from the Romans, and like timorous chickens, crowding under the protecting wings of their parents, that their wretched country might not altogether be destroyed, and that the Roman name, which now was but an empty sound to fill the ear, might not become a reproach even to distant nations. Upon this, the Romans, moved with compassion..."
So the Britons are cowardly chickens and the Romans were moved by compassion to save them. This happens like five times in the first fifth of his account.

>"Meanwhile the hooked weapons of their
enemies were not idle, and our wretched countrymen were dragged from the wall and dashed against the ground. Such premature death, however, painful as it was, saved them from seeing the miserable sufferings of their brothers and children. But why should I say more?"
He doesn't even like bringing up Britons unless there's a quick quip on how big of failures they are. His hatred isn't reserved for southerners either:
>"...the Picts and Scots, like worms which in the heat of mid-day come forth from their holes..."
He compares them to worms. The most you could say is that he admits that there were troubles in the times of Roman emperors. Here is more on his view of the Britons:
>" When the report of these
things reached the senate, and they with a speedy army made haste to take vengeance on the crafty foxes, as they called them, there was no bold navy on the sea to fight bravely for the country; by land there was no marshalled army, no right wing of battle, nor other preparation for resistance; but their backs were their shields against their vanquishers, and they presented their necks to their swords, whilst chill terror ran through every limb, and they stretched out their hands to be bound, like women; so that it has become a proverb far and wide, that the Britons are neither brave in war nor faithful in time of peace"
Here is what he says of Rome:
>"the Roman standards, with so large and brave an army"
>"...their soil to the vassalage of a Roman province; to chastise the crafty race, not with warlike weapons, but with rods, and if necessary to gird upon their sides the naked sword, so that it was no longer thought to be Britain, but a Roman island; and all their money, whether of copper, gold, or silver, was stamped with Caesar's image..."

And you have to understand that when he's saying that Rome took slaves and beat the Britons, he's not lamenting those facts. He's touting Roman superiority. He's not some post-modern liberal pacifist. He's bragging about Roman domination.
>Which does say two tablets and a horned face.
Well yeah, the translations aren't coming from nowhere. That's what rabbinics do when they mistranslate words on purpose. I'm not sure why you have such an instinctive distrust of European things but when a rabbi says it somehow becomes ironclad for you.

>>17896681 (OP)
Proto-Semitic karn, Proto-Omotic kar, and Egyptian krtj come from Proto-Afroasiatic kar, which along with PIE kerh comes from the pre-Babel word for horn

>>17898696
>Gildas was not some kind of patriotic Briton.
I'm not saying he was. I'm saying he did not think of himself as a Roman or of Britons as Roman.
>So the Britons are cowardly chickens and the Romans were moved by compassion to save them
Even in these accounts he very clearly views Romans as a foreign group, they Britons petition them to come to their island to help them. Not as a native authority re-asserting itself. His negative opinions of the rulers of Britain and the earlier state of affairs do not somehow make him a Roman patriot, he never once characterises the Romans as anything but a foreign group. In the final two interactions with Romans they (supposedly) taught the Britons how to fight for themselves, otherwise militarising Britain after centuries of de-militarisation and the final interaction was with an envoy with the 'groans of the Britons' to Aetius to assist them

>>17898707
>I'm saying he did not think of himself as a Roman or of Britons as Roman
Okay. I shall repost the same quote over and over until it clicks. We might be rubbing those sticks all day long but that fire will eventually light.
>"...their soil to the vassalage of a Roman province; to chastise the crafty race, not with warlike weapons, but with rods, and if necessary to gird upon their sides the naked sword, so that it was no longer thought to be Britain, but a Roman island; and all their money, whether of copper, gold, or silver, was stamped with Caesar's image..."
>"so that it was no longer thought to be Britain, but a Roman island"
>"so that it was no longer thought to be Britain, but a Roman island"
>"so that it was no longer thought to be Britain, but a Roman island"
Read these passages as many times as you need.

>>17898699
>He's not some post-modern liberal pacifist. He's bragging about Roman domination.
He is most definitely not bragging about Roman rule. His attitude that Romans were foreigners doesn't make any sense with it, nor does any of the later interactions he records of Romans and Britons make sense in this.
>I'm not sure why you have such an instinctive distrust of European things but when a rabbi says it somehow becomes ironclad for you.
What the hell are you talking about

>>17898715
>>"so that it was no longer thought to be Britain, but a Roman island"
He doesn't say there that he thinks of himself, or the Britons as Roman here. This is a pretty clear reading that Britain was made a part of the Roman state, not that he was a diehard Roman, and it's very clearly not an opinion which stays because when it gets closer to his day he only refers to the island as Britain and its inhabitants as Britons in opposition to Romans. How did you turn this into Gildas thinking of himself as a Roman when that is very clearly not what is being said?

>>17898707
>they Britons petition them to come to their island to help them
This isn't uncommon. Provinces have to request support if they're undermanned. If you remember the passages on the patrol commander, he's posted there after piracy becomes rampant until he becomes a pirate himself and revolts, and then the Romans have to deploy more forces which requires another senatorial request.
>he never once characterises the Romans as anything but a foreign group
Holy wow. I think this has already been sufficiently answered above but I would just recommend at this point starting completely over and rereading it.
>In the final two interactions with Romans they (supposedly) taught the Britons how to fight for themselves
This does not strike you as odd? He begins the book by talking about how many fortresses and defensive fortifications are across Britain but we're supposed to think a fortified island with towers every stone's throw away knew nothing about warfare? He's giving Roman propaganda and he's not even hiding the fact.

>>17898707
>Aetius
You're trying to piss me off with this one aren't you.

>>17898716
I feel like you're reacting and not really thinking about the conversation.
>He is most definitely not bragging about Roman rule
Okay.
>"the Roman standards, with so large and brave an army"
>"When the report of these things reached the senate, and they with a speedy army made haste"
>" The Roman legion had no sooner returned home in joy and triumph, than their former foes, like hungry and ravening wolves, rushing with greedy jaws upon the fold which is left without a shepherd, and wafted both by the strength of oarsmen and the blowing wind, break through the boundaries, and spread slaughter on every side, and like mowers cutting down the ripe corn, they cut up, tread under foot, and overrun the whole country"

He's not lamenting that the Romans are winning overwhelming victories and cutting down their enemies with hate and adeptness. He's celebrating it. In modern language he would be called an ultranationalist. He thinks it's great that the brave smart Romans are defeating the "wrethed Britons". It's true he doesn't think Britons are ever on the caliber of Romans, but that's because he's a Roman nationalist.

>>17898721
>This does not strike you as odd? He begins the book by talking about how many fortresses and defensive fortifications are across Britain but we're supposed to think a fortified island with towers every stone's throw away knew nothing about warfare?
No it doesn't. The Romans had a deliberate policy of demilitarisation. Nobody outside of the military was to have any weapon, or train, or organise. These people quite literally have not had a martial tradition for centuries, it was the military manning these fortifications, and they were not longer in Britain. The only region of the Roman Empire that remained under some Roman control that ever militarised was Northern Gaul, and this was because they were left to fend for themselves for decades at a time and we only see organised military action from the region after Valentinian III made it legal for them to actually do these things. It is not much of a suprise it took decades to remilitarise, the only other example we have is Northern Gaul and it took just as long.

>>17898716
>What the hell are you talking about
If it's not true then you can deny it. Asking what this means just makes you sound more suspect in your biases.
>>17898720
>the Britons as Roman here
He hates the native Britons so of course he's distancing them from Rome. He also calls himself a Briton and a few pages later calls the Britons "wretched", so this is all a great lesson about how synthesis worked in Rome where tolerance was a lip service and not a heartfelt sentiment. Kind of like how Californians and New Yorkers talk about hillbillies in flyover states meanwhile boomers in Appalachia attending their mason meetings think everything is just fine.

Gildas is what happens when you put the Washington DC elitist into the middle of Kentucky.

>>17898730
>No it doesn't. The Romans had a deliberate policy of demilitarisation
Kind of missing the point here. Let's review: he starts the book by saying that Romans had fortifications all over, then ten pages in he says that Romans had to teach Briton's how to build ramparts of stone because the stupid Britons built it out of dirt instead of stone. When you read Orosius you find out that it was the emperors direct orders to build that way when he was on campaign in Britain. To be fair, I'm dipping outside of Gildas to make an argument here. I think what you're saying is that since the time of Tiberias, the Britons would not have built fortresses or towers since two centuries had passed. I think our main instinct for disagreement is that for you two centuries is a really long time, and for me that's the blink of an eye, traditions don't start dying in under two centuries until after the industrial revolution as a direct result of its consequences, whereas in pre-modern society degradation usually has to occur as a series of negative impact events that lead to dark ages.