I thought Eko's comment a bit odd-- when referring to the ancient book in the story he told Locke he said "You men call it the Old Testament". "You men"? What does that make Eko, then? My husband suggested he might be Jewish or Islamic, and so be referring to it as what Christians call the OT, but what would make him think that Locke was particularly religious (I got the impression he wasn't, at least from his convo with Eko)? Any thoughts?

he could be into the Kabala:P

He seems christian to me.

he said "You MAY know it as the Old Testament." Sorry to burst your theory, but I just rewatched it, and he definitely said may not men.

"Burst my theory"? There was no theory. Read the original post before you make inflammatory comments. The OP was questioning the meaning of that line. Apparently, the line was misheard. That's still a question, not a theory.

And now that I'm off my soapbox, thanks for pointing out the error. I'll have to rewatch it myself eventually.

I also heard "you may" not "you men"

Yeah, he said "You may".

If there are ever times when you are unsure of what you heard, remember that there is the good old "Closed Captioning" function on your TV! :) The CC is normally provided by ABC, so they should come from what was in the script.... had people used this earlier this season when people thought Charlie said "it sounds a bit nazi" when in reality he said "it sounds a bit nutsy" would have avoided alot of discussions!

CC confirms that Eko said "you MAY know it as the Old Testament."

"Burst my theory"? There was no theory. Read the original post before you make inflammatory comments. The OP was questioning the meaning of that line. Apparently, the line was misheard. That's still a question, not a theory.

And now that I'm off my soapbox, thanks for pointing out the error. I'll have to rewatch it myself eventually.

She said "sorry for bursting your theory". That sounds polite to me.
Maybe you should take your own advice.

Could we get back to the OP's question and stop worrying about a misheard word? The OP's question was what is Mr. Eko's background in light of this statement (whether it was "may" or "men" doesn't really change the question)?

When I heard Mr. Eko mention that, it made me think about how so many thought that he was a priest. But, why would a Christian priest make such a statement? To me, he is what the OP suggested - another religion. The majority of Nigerians are Muslim; a close 2nd is Christians. About 10%, I believe, are what is called "native" religion. So, perhaps he is either Muslim or "native" religion or some combination of both.

I know we all like to assume Mr. Eko is Nigerian, but here's something to think about.
From Wikipedia:

The Ethiopian Orthodox Church in Axum, Ethiopia claims to still possess the Ark of the Covenant. Local tradition maintains that it was brought to Ethiopia by Menelik I following a visit to his father King Solomon. Although it was once paraded before the town once each year, it is now kept under constant guard in a "treasury" near the Church of Our Lady Mary of Zion, and only the head priest of the church is allowed to view it. Most Western historians are skeptical of this claim.

Perhaps Eko has more than just a spiritual connection to the Old Testament.

geophurry - that's an interesting idea. Kinda gave me shivers!

Could we get back to the OP's question and stop worrying about a misheard word? The OP's question was what is Mr. Eko's background in light of this statement (whether it was "may" or "men" doesn't really change the question)?

When I heard Mr. Eko mention that, it made me think about how so many thought that he was a priest. But, why would a Christian priest make such a statement? To me, he is what the OP suggested - another religion. The majority of Nigerians are Muslim; a close 2nd is Christians. About 10%, I believe, are what is called "native" religion. So, perhaps he is either Muslim or "native" religion or some combination of both.
what do you mean by "native" religion?
I don't think he is jewish- jews don't call it the old testemant (sp?). Since I'm jewish, I would know. We just refer to it as The Testament (actually The Torah-but whatever).

It didn't really strike me as something that someone of a different religion would say...if anything, it struck me as something that someone very familiar with the Christian religion would say.

I have been Catholic all my life and beaten up with religion classes thorugh school. While Catholics and some call the parabel he refers to the old testament, there are several names for it in other Christian cultures.

Here's what wikipedia says about Gensis, the first book of the Old Testament. Wipipedia is down right now, but I will edit my post with more info later:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Genesis

Introduction

Genesis begins with creation narrative, or narratives, depending on one's point of view, which may be understood literally, or as allegory. In the same view, its allegory continues to chapter eleven. It thereafter records what is agreed to be historical narrative with the call of Abram (later Abraham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham)) and his then barren wife Sarai (later Sarah) from Ur (probably in Babylonia) to Canaan (Palestine). It contains the record of Abraham's acceptance by God, and of God's promise to him that through his offspring all people on earth would be blessed (12:3). It records the doings of the first of his descendants, Isaac (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac), and Jacob (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob) (known as Israel), and their families. It ends with Jacob's descendants, the Israelites, in Egypt, in favour with the Pharaoh.
Genesis contains the historical presupposition and basis of the national religious ideas and institutions of Israel, and serves as an introduction to its history, laws, and customs. It is the composition of a writer (or set of writers, see documentary hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis)), who has recounted the traditions of the Israelites, combining them into a uniform work, while preserving the textual and formal peculiarities incident to their difference in origin and mode of transmission.
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genesis&action=edit&section=2)]

Dating and history

Based on the genealogies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy) in Genesis and later parts of the Bible, both religious Jews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew) and Christians have independently worked backwards to find the implied time of the Creation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_%28theology%29) of the world, around the beginning of the 4th millennium BC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_millennium_BC). This dating is based on a literal reading of the creation account and the bases that the six days in which God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God) created the heavens and the earth were 24-hour days (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Days), that Adam, Eve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_and_Eve), and the Garden of Eden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_of_Eden) existed, and that a complete trace of events from Creation to a historically (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History) verifiable date is listed in the biblical account.
The absence of independent evidence confirming the biblical narrative cause many scholars to question the accuracy or even the veracity of the historical account. This subject is discussed in The Bible and history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_history).
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genesis&action=edit&section=3)]

Authorship

Genesis as a completed book makes no claims about its authorship; it is an article of Orthodox Jewish faith that the book was dictated, in its entirety, by God to Moses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses) on Mount Sinai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Sinai%2C_Egypt). For a number of reasons, this view is no longer accepted by many biblical scholars, non-Orthodox Jews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Jew), Catholics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholicism), and liberal Protestants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant). Instead, they accept a theory whose roots are based on cultural evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_evolution) and philosophical naturalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_naturalism) which teaches that the text of Genesis as we see it today was redacted together around 440 BC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/440_BC) from earlier sources. See the Documentary hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis) entry for more information.
Other scholars note that when Genesis was compiled, it was made up of earlier documents which were so little changed that even their literary tradition, which put the author's name at the end of each document, was preserved, thus preserving also the authors' true identities. This retains the concept of Moses being the author of Genesis, though making his role more that of an editor who chose the earlier works to include than as an author who wrote every word.


I believe Ecko comes from a more traditionally based Christian society who would use an older name to define the story.

what do you mean by "native" religion?
I don't think he is jewish- jews don't call it the old testemant (sp?). Since I'm jewish, I would know. We just refer to it as The Testament (actually The Torah-but whatever).

There was some discussion of it on the boards last week. The native religion I believe is called animist. You can find some information on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animist)

wow, that dude got oissed about being wrong i think.
anyway, it looks like he some form of catholic definitly way into it. and i think the old testament if not the whole bible is very important in that religion, because why would he know the story if it were not part of his beliefs. i dont know any hindu, or muslim storys.

I think we are missing the point here. To me, the most important part of that scene was that Eko KNEW the story of Josaia (I have no idea how that name is spelled in English) the king of Judea. Even your ordinary practising Jew does not know the story, it is just another story within the many other odd stories in the book of Kings, and has no special importance than other stories from Kings. It is only to scholars that this story matteres, because it marks the begining of the tradition of bringing the Torah out to the public on Shabat, and read from it to the entire congregation.
The fact that Eko (the character of course) can tell this story so flluently suggests that he is very familiar with The Bible.
geophurry:
While everything you brought is very well known and documented (not the actual fact that they have the Lost Ark, but the fact they CLAIM to have the lost Ark), one should remember that the Ethiopnians are refering to the covenant only, and that's only the five first books of the bible, i.e. The Torah, and not the rest. The story Eko tells is from Kings, which is not part of the Torah, but from the second part (Prophets).
I wanted to add that this episode had brought me back to life!
ETA:
I think Muslims do not learn the bible, or if they do, it's only the Torah part, not the rest. I am not sure though....

But, Eko's knowledge can also mean that he is a religious scholar, not necessarily a "man of the cloth".

But, Eko's knowledge can also mean that he is a religious scholar, not necessarily a "man of the cloth".

That is a damn good point and could explain alot about Ecko!! Nice Honbun26!

There was some discussion of it on the boards last week. The native religion I believe is called animist. You can find some information on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animist)

"Animist" isn't the name of a religion per se. It's a general term used to describe a type of religious belief. I know this sounds like I'm splitting hairs but it actually is important. An animist is a type of believer who believes animals have special powers and represent certain things. For example most Native American tribes were once "animists" and a lot of african tribes still are.
Just a point of clarification.

I suspect as stated earlier that Eko is Ethiopian/Christian, because:
1. He begins his "King Josiah" story by telling Locke, "Long before the time of Christ..." I don't have the exact quote, but he mentions "Christ," not "Jesus of Nazareth."
2. A Muslim (I am not one) usually says, Jesus (or Issa), then "Peace be upon him," after referring to Jesus.
Whatever his background, Eko has been a great addition and in my opinion, a kind of natural kindred spirit to Locke.
BUT...why did Eko, who knows well the Josiah story, blow the line when quoting Psalm 23, one of the best known Psalms? Watch the teaser for next week, Eko says, ..."though I walk through the shadow of the valley of death..." instead of "though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death" see Psalm 23:4,King James Version

Maybe he was referring to the "Tanach" which is the Hebrew name for the Old Testament (which contains the Torah - the books of Moses)

BUT...why did Eko, who knows well the Josiah story, blow the line when quoting Psalm 23, one of the best known Psalms? Watch the teaser for next week, Eko says, ..."though I walk through the shadow of the valley of death..." instead of "though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death" see Psalm 23:4,King James Version

This is being discussed in quite a bit of detail on this thread:

The story Mr. Eko told (http://www.thefuselage.com/Threaded/showthread.php?t=28091)