This is a certainty that the Israelites themselves left on record in their sacred Hebrew literature:
"A wandering Aramean was my father, and he went down into Egypt, and sojourned there, few in number; and he became there a nation, great, mighty, and populous."
This appears in all texts of the Haggadah, i.e., the story of Passover, recited in every observant Jewish home be they German, Moroccan, Spanish&Portugese, Ethiopian, Russian, Indian, Polish, Yemenite, etc.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
There is no evidence that Israelites as people existed in the Levant before the late 14th century BC.
Of course Biblical accounts say that, but where is the tangible extra-Biblical evidence of an Israelite nation within another nation that happens to be Dynastic Egypt?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In all due respect you just can't go and invent a meaning for well established idioms. Seed essentially is semen.
The saying, "seed is no more," is idiomatic usage of precise meaning. It means no one is left of a people to reproduce and engender more of that people. In short, in our context, genocidal extermination.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: ... if by "his seed is not", the author meant 'severely incapacitated', ...
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to reread Manetho and Cheremon to see if they explicitly call the emmigrants Israel else there is none. But then neither is Merneptah's stele evidence of a nation named Israel. It is evidence of a people named Israel.
That said, in their consciousness of self, the Israelites record their evolution from literally being 1 - b*nei Yisra'el to 2 - 'Am Yisrael with the following meanings:
1a) the Son's of Israel, a dozen male children of one man, 1b) the Children of Israel, a clan and tribal designation;
2a) a people Israel, with or without land, 2b) the nation Israel, an autonomous territorial polity.
B*nei can alternately mean "sons of" or "children of." `Am can in turn mean either "people" or "nation"
Surely there was a conscious that they were a people while in Egypt else would they have left en masse?
So what is the first extra-Hebrew documentary evidence of an established territorial polity naming itself Israel? With or without it, the bottomline is that without Hebrew documents there is no way to place Israel in Egypt or as an exode from Egypt. Without Hebrew documents there is no foundational premise for the argument.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
There is no evidence that Israelites as people existed in the Levant before the late 14th century BC.
Of course Biblical accounts say that, but where is the tangible extra-Biblical evidence of an Israelite nation within another nation that happens to be Dynastic Egypt? [/QUOTE]
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
I have to reread Manetho and Cheremon to see if they explicitly call the emmigrants Israel else there is none.
Manetho himself is said to have lived sometime in the 4th century BC or sometime thereof, and so, anything about the origins would have been something related to him by the written sources available to him at the time. By around this time, the early texts of the Bible were being edited into their final form. By Manetho's time, the Kingdom of Israel had already existed and had gone through destruction by Assyrian and Babylonian conquests. Needless to say then, by this time, Israelite biblical traditions would have already been in place, containing all the legends and accounts of the Israelite people. Manetho therefore, cannot tell us anything about the origins of Israelites, other than stories that were related to him many years after the fact and wherever its lack thereof. Manetho's list on the other hand, proves to be useful, when being compared with earlier Dynastic King lists during a comparative analysis between the durations of Dynasties and the lifespans of Israelite figures of the 'Patriarchal history', as well as, when sorting out the most parsimoniously accurate dating possible for the chronology of Dynasties and events associated with them.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
But then neither is Merneptah's stele evidence of a nation named Israel. It is evidence of a people named Israel.
That's what was being said here all along; what did you think was being said about the Merneptah inscriptional Israelites?
It is worthwhile reading preceding posts of a thread before posting a new comment.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
That said, in their consciousness of self, the Israelites record their evolution from literally being 1 - b*nei Yisra'el to 2 - 'Am Yisrael with the following meanings:
1a) the Son's of Israel, a dozen male children of one man, 1b) the Children of Israel, a clan and tribal designation;
2a) a people Israel, with or without land, 2b) the nation Israel, an autonomous territorial polity.
B*nei can alternately mean "sons of" or "children of." `Am can in turn mean either "people" or "nation"
Surely there was a conscious that they were a people while in Egypt else would they have left en masse?
That Israelites became a people sometime by the late 14th BC, there is little doubt of that.
That Israelites formed a nation by 11th century BC or sometime thereof, again there is little doubt.
That there was an Israelite nation within Kemet, there is much doubt about that.
That Israelites as a society existed anywhere else prior to emigration of Nile Valley groups into the Levant, there is much doubt about that too.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
So what is the first extra-Hebrew documentary evidence of an established territorial polity naming itself Israel?
As noted in the intro note, again reason to take note of previous posts of the thread, the next archaeological re-appearance of Israel comes in the 10th century BC. This time around, Israel appears as a nation, not just a people.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
With or without it, the bottomline is that without Hebrew documents there is no way to place Israel in Egypt or as an exode from Egypt. Without Hebrew documents there is no foundational premise for the argument.
As I have noted elsewhere, from Greenberg's notes, the bible like any other accounts of antiquity, start with a mythological component that transitions into the actual historical component. The only difference, as I noted above, is that the mythological component of the bible persists even into the historical era, at a time when the history of other social complexes of that general region were more or less accurately recording actual events and historical personalities. In otherwords, the mythological component of the bible takes longer to wind down than those of its contemporaries mentioned in the Bible, like those in either Egypt, Sumer or Babylon. One just need to be able to try to sort out the historical component of the bible from its mythological component. This is where cross-reference between multidisciplines kick in.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
In all due respect you just can't go and invent a meaning for well established idioms. Seed essentially is semen.
I didn't invent anything. If you pay attention to what you read, you'll have noticed that what I did write, was a qualifier statement.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: [QUOTE]The stele may have exaggerated the state of affairs, but that depends on what they were trying to say in the first place. Indeed, it will be generations after generations before Israel would reappear on archaeological record...and so, if by "his seed is not", the author meant 'severely incapacitated', then perhaps that was done to some extent. But the significance of the stele's inscription doesn't lie with the extent of its exaggerations or whether the stele is even describing an actual battle; rather, how much we can infer from it, the state of Isreal at the time of making this inscription.
Evergreen Writes:
LOL - Fringe versus Fringe!
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: The Merneptah stele states that YSRL's seed is no more. But we know that Israel did indeed have seed after Merneptah's time.
Evergreen Writes:
In that the Merneptah Stele refers to a people and not a country and since these people were CLEARLY wiped-out (if we to are to assume the stele is authentic) then we have to assume the possibility of the much later HISTORICAL Kingdoms of Israel and Judah deriving **CULTURAL** components from the earlier referenced Ysreal (possibly a small group of Aten worshippers). This is consistent with archaeologist Israel Finkelsteins summation that the people who went on to form the citizenry of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah were really in situ Canaanites and not Africans.
Of course additional archaeological, linguistic, genetic and historic information informs us that the Canaanites in turn were primarily of SW Asia origin.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
The stele may have exaggerated the state of affairs, but that depends on what they were trying to say in the first place. Indeed, it will be generations after generations before Israel would reappear on archaeological record...and so, if by "his seed is not", the author meant 'severely incapacitated', then perhaps that was done to some extent. But the significance of the stele's inscription doesn't lie with the extent of its exaggerations or whether the stele is even describing an actual battle; rather, how much we can infer from it, the state of Isreal at the time of making this inscription.
Evergreen Writes:
LOL - Fringe versus Fringe!
All trolling aside, do you have alternative assessments made from the stele inscriptions different from the expert one I provided? If so, let's have it.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
The Merneptah stele states that YSRL's seed is no more. But we know that Israel did indeed have seed after Merneptah's time.
Evergreen Writes:
In that the Merneptah Stele refers to a people and not a country and since these people were CLEARLY wiped-out (if we to are to assume the stele is authentic) then we have to assume the possibility of the much later HISTORICAL Kingdoms of Israel and Judah deriving **CULTURAL** components from the earlier referenced Ysreal (possibly a small group of Aten worshippers). This is consistent with archaeologist Israel Finkelsteins summation that the people who went on to form the citizenry of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah were really in situ Canaanites and not Africans.
Of course additional archaeological, linguistic, genetic and historic information informs us that the Canaanites in turn were primarily of SW Asia origin.
Recap: Given the above mentioned concordance between Merneptah inscriptional Israelites and the Bible Israelite, there is no reason to assume that "Israelite Kingdom", whose various political figures are mentioned in the Bible, has no relationship with the Israelites mentioned in the Merneptah Stele.
Both the Biblical Israelites and the Merneptah inscriptional Israelites are situated in Canaan.
There is no evidence of *two disparate unrelated* Israelite historical lineages anywhere at anytime; therefore, the burden of proof lies squarely on the party who advocates such a relationship between the said inscriptional Israelites and the Israelite polity that appears on archaeological record by around the 9th century BC.
^Since you're basically saying that two disparate Israelite groups existed in antiquity, produce the requested evidence above. Produce the disparate Israelite traditions independent of one another, and that don't converge on the Biblical tradition.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: [QUOTE]All trolling aside, do you have alternative assessments made from the stele inscriptions different from the expert one I provided? If so, let's have it.
Evergreen Writes:
No trolling, I just want to protect the credibility of the site from your psuedo-scientific theory. I don't need to present an alternative assessment because the Merenptah Stele indicates that the Yisrael mentioned by the Egyptians were wiped out.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: [QUOTE] I don't need to present an alternative assessment because the Merenptah Stele indicates that the Yisrael mentioned by the Egyptians were wiped out.
Evergreen Writes:
If you don't except that these people were wiped out then I have to say that you are selectively using the stele to further your own fringe agenda. You can't pick and chose the parts of the stele you like. Either you accept it as valid or you don't.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
No trolling, I just want to protect the credibility of the site from your psuedo-scientific theory. I don't need to present an alternative assessment because the Merenptah Stele indicates that the Yisrael mentioned by the Egyptians were wiped out.
Well, if you proclaim that something is pseudo-science, and yet cannot explain why, with objective material to the contrary, that would constitute trolling. It seems that you're frantically reacting from emotion, rather than intelligent thinking.
quote: Originally posted by Evergreen:
because the Merenptah Stele indicates that the Yisrael mentioned by the Egyptians were wiped out
The Merneptah stele may or may not exaggerate state of affairs of certain events so-described, but this is not where the importance of the inscription lies. Sometimes the events on these steles were more of a symbolic commemoration to the pharaoh, and not necessarily meant to describe precise events of battles or even actual specific battle. What the inscription does tell us however, without exaggeration, is the state of Israel, where it was located, and that Egyptians did in fact come head to head with them in confrontations in territories under their sphere of influence. Additional material can be inferred from the inscriptions, as I have already laid out without challenge, with the assistance of cross-reference with other evidence, both biblical and extra-biblical.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote: I don't need to present an alternative assessment because the Merenptah Stele indicates that the Yisrael mentioned by the Egyptians were wiped out.
Evergreen Writes:
If you don't except that these people were wiped out then I have to say that you are selectively using the stele to further your own fringe agenda. You can't pick and chose the parts of the stele you like. Either you accept it as valid or you don't.
Don't be ridiculous; it is not the matter of cherry-picking. It is a matter of cross-referencing available evidence:
- There is only a *single* Isrealite tradition, represented by Biblical account, spanning predynastic times to the late dynastic periods.
- There is only a *single* Israelite people mentioned in the first archaeological record ever of Israel - not two.
- There is also only a *single* Israelite polity mentioned in the first archaeological appearance of an Israelite 'polity' - not two.
- There is only a *single* Israelite origin for the tribes associated with Israelites in the Bible, and there is also a *singular* Israelite polity that arises amongst these people in the Bible - nothwistanding that it does state that it disintegrates later on, into two polities. The polities in question would have still stem from a singular Israelite lineage, not two unrelated disparate Israelite cultural lineages.
- *Political* commemorations are not expected to be unbiased or unexaggerated, and so, it is not unreasonable to assume that the events mentioned in the inscription may have been symbolically exaggerated to some extent or the other. This is different from the observation of the *state of Israel* at the time of the commemoration.
^There, you have it. You on the other hand, are reduced to emotional bickering, while not providing any objectively backed up alternatives.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's no doubt that no historical evidence shows Israelites ever resided in Egypt or moved out of it.
Merneptah stele locates YSRL as a people in the Levant not in Egypt and other than wrongly saying they were exterminated tells us nothing about YSRL.
Only because of Hebrew literature can we propose Israel ever living and engendering in Egypt with a consciousness of being a cohesive social entity. So if the corpus of Hebrew literatue says that a family grew into a tribe encompassing a people who became a nation in Egypt then that's just as acceptable as relying on said corpus for placing Israel in 19th dynasty Egypt.
To do away with one is to do away with the other unless we like cherries picked ala the Manetho is valid only where I deem him to be methodology.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: That Israelites as a society existed anywhere else prior to emigration of Nile Valley groups into the Levant, there is much doubt about that too.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not the first or only military exaggeration made by a pharaoh.
The stele's existance and the midrash's tale when taken together make it plausible that a faction of Israel during Merneptah's reign were completely wiped out. Big coincidence both sources would hit on the same time period, the same people, their same status, their same outcome.
What you want to protect is not the site's integrity but your own self-proclaimed mission against black American's religious choices and fancies. Why does it rankle you si much if a ahndful of people make up an origin myth for themdelves? What people don't have a non-scientifically proven origin myth and why aren't you deconstructing theirs?
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: [QUOTE]All trolling aside, do you have alternative assessments made from the stele inscriptions different from the expert one I provided? If so, let's have it.
Evergreen Writes:
No trolling, I just want to protect the credibility of the site from your psuedo-scientific theory. I don't need to present an alternative assessment because the Merenptah Stele indicates that the Yisrael mentioned by the Egyptians were wiped out.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
While the Nebi'iym and Kethubiym collections let on to the K*na'ani component of Israel and Judah it also makes known that there was no people that didn't marry in to the Two Kingdoms of the 12 Tribes, continental Africans included.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: ... archaeologist Israel Finkelsteins summation that the people who went on to form the citizenry of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah were really in situ Canaanites and not Africans.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well there are those archaeologists who do propose that Israel and Judah were different confederacies of different ethnic bases who invented the Torah and Nebi'iym corpus to seal their earlier short lived unity as Israel.
But I can't recall any archeaological record of a kingdom of Israel neither as a 12 tribe nor as a 10 tribe polity.
Like Judah, there's a conquest record for Israel but unlike Judah that inscription knows a House of Omri not a kingdom of Israel.
Merneptah's stele mabe some 500 years before Shalmanessar tells the status of Israel but says nothing of a state, as in nation, of Israel as there was no such polity in the 14th century BCE only a non landowning people without any territorial holdings, but an unsettled population wandering about in other people's states or the fields outside the various chieftaincies' settlements.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
The polities in question would have still stem from a singular Israelite lineage, not two unrelated disparate Israelite cultural lineages. . . . ... the *state of Israel* at the time of the commemoration.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a program on the History Channel I saw recently called 'Bible Battles'. In it, scholars explain that Hebrews were never slaves in Egypt as the correct Hebrew word meant servants. So it goes they were paid laborers as well as mercenaries. According to one scholar, when their numbers grew the Pharaoh became concerned that their position between Egypt and Sinai could threaten Egypt if they joined sides with their Asiatic brethren. Thus the conflict ensued between the Pharaoh identified as Seti I and the Hebrews who the scholars identified as the Habiru.
So what is wrong with the Habiru theory and besides that, is this an accurate picture of the Israelite ancestors??
Posts: 26550 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: There's no doubt that no historical evidence shows Israelites ever resided in Egypt or moved out of it.
Where do you then suppose the Merneptah inscriptional Israelites came from - certainly were not in Canaan all along , and by what tangible evidence?
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
Merneptah stele locates YSRL as a people in the Levant not in Egypt...
You'll spare yourself strawmen and irrelevancies, if and when you can get yourself to learn to read posts that have already been presented before you came in. Can't emphasis that enough.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
Only because of Hebrew literature can we propose Israel ever living and engendering in Egypt with a consciousness of being a cohesive social entity.
Yes, the biblical literature gives us an idea of this, which is why it is considered in the multidisciplinary approach. I don't know how many times this has to be told to you, before it sinks in. The biblical tradition is essentially Israelite interpretation of their history. However, biblical literature wasn't enough to tell me this. It was, as I keep reiterating for dummies, because I looked at the 1)fact that Israelites appear in no record prior to the Merneptah inscription, 2)they first appear as a people without sovereign territory in the Rameside period and then much later, they appear as a people with a polity, and 3)there is only a single tradition of Israelite that comes in the form the Bible, which invokes the emigration of Israelite forebearers in the Rameside period. It is about 'analysis by correlation' between tangible extra-biblical evidence and biblical material, and so, when push comes to shove, the biblical material has to be correlated with archaeological evidence to get a bigger picture of what likely happened, outside of all exaggeration and politics in literature, be it in the bible or texts of the extant cultures in the timeframes invoked by biblical literature. But if you have alternative evidence of where Israelites did come from, aside from the Nile Valley, I'd like to see it.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
So if the corpus of Hebrew literatue says that a family grew into a tribe encompassing a people who became a nation in Egypt then that's just as acceptable as relying on said corpus for placing Israel in 19th dynasty Egypt.
Nope. You have no shred of evidence of any nation of people in dynastic Egypt, of Israelites. There is no evidence available here, to even make any sort of 'analysis by correlation'.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
To do away with one is to do away with the other unless we like cherries picked ala the Manetho is valid only where I deem him to be methodology.
You provide no evidence to begin with. Use your head; Manetho was not in dynastic Egypt, when the Merneptah stele mentions Israel for the first time, nor was he there, when the first Israelite kingdom appears in archaeology. In fact, biblical literature was being edited into its final form by around Manetho's time. By Manetho's time, as I told you but went on def ears, we are told that Israelite polities had been destroyed by Assyrian and Babylonian invasions. How the heck then, can you rely on Manetho in learning about the origins of the Israelites? Manetho's list is useful, but not in the sense that you imagine it to be.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
Instead of seeking the idiom's meaning you invented one
Instead of reading what is posted, you lie.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
quote:if by "his seed is not", the author meant 'severely incapacitated'
. However you want to cover for it, you have been corrected.
Covering up is a figment of your imagination. If you take the inscription too literally, when it says 'his seed is not', then I can only imagine that you'll take someone who says "we totally annihilated so and so team" too literally. According to your logic, it cannot possibly be a political catchphrase for defeat of the enemy to the extent that the said enemy is deemed adequately incapacitated in the possibility of recovering and regrouping so as to become a geo-political threat and/or rival again, because you've made yourself into self-appointed authority on 'idioms' and political catchphrases. It never occurs to you that politically-commemorated inscriptions would use exaggerated language on events that have become part of the symbol of national greatness, so as to give grandiose to that sense of achievement of whatever it is, that is sought to advance the image of the authority at hand. This is only a mystery to the politically unalert.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Well there are those archaeologists who do propose that Israel and Judah were different confederacies of different ethnic bases who invented the Torah and Nebi'iym corpus to seal their earlier short lived unity as Israel.
Who talked about 'ethnic bases'. I'm talking about the singular Israelite *origins* invoked in Israelite biblical tradition, and you go onto speak of 'ethnic bases'.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
But I can't recall any archeaological record of a kingdom of Israel neither as a 12 tribe nor as a 10 tribe polity.
I can't recall any tangible extra-biblical evidence of the figures of "Patriarchal History", let alone the 12 tribes that eminate from them. But I do know of an archaeological evidence that speaks of the "king of Israel"; if that doesn't speak of Israel as a nation or polity by this time, I don't know what else does.
quote: Like Judah, there's a conquest record for Israel but unlike Judah that inscription knows a House of Omri not a kingdom
Translations of inscription on the Mesha Stele:
I am Meš‘a, son of Kmš[yt], king of Moab, the Dibeonite. My father was king over Moab (for) thirty years, and I assumed kingship after my father. I constructed this sanctuary to (the deity) Kemoš in Qeriho, a shrine of deliverance, because he delivered me from all who would cast (me) down, and because he granted me revenge against all my enemies.
Omri was king of Israel, and he oppressed Moab (for) many days because Kemoš was angry with his land. His son succeeded him, and he said "Behold, I too will afflict Moab." During my time he said [this?]. But I took vengeance upon him and upon his house, and Israel was utterly annihilated forever.
Omri had taken possession of the whole of the land of Me(h)deba’, and he dwelt there (during) his days and (during) a portion of his son’s days—forty years. But Kemoš restored it (to me) during my days. And I built Baal-Me‘on, and I fashioned a cistern within it, and I rebuilt Kiryatayin.
The people of Gad had dwelt in the land of ‘Ataroth from of old, and the king of Israel rebuilt ‘Ataroth for himself. I did battle with the city and I captured it, and I killed all the people […] the city became (?) a possession of Kemoš and Moab. Then I removed from there its ’r’l dwdh and I dragged it before Kemoš at Kiryoth, and I settled within it the people of Šrn and the people of Mhrt.
And Kemoš commanded me, "Go, seize Nebo from Israel!" I traveled by night and did battle with them from the break of day until noon. I seized it and slew everyone within it: seven thousand m[e]n […] and women […] and maidens because they were vowed as an offering to ‘Ashtar-Kemoš. I took from there [… ves]sels of (the deity) Yhwh and I dragged them before Kemoš.
Then the king of Israel fortified Yahatz and he remained there while preparing for his battle with me. But Kemoš drove him out before me. I took two hundred men from Moab, all its elite troops (?), and I led it (i.e., this force) against Yahatz and captured it, adding it to Dibon.
I rebuilt Qeriho: the wall of the forests (?) and the wall of the hill. I rebuilt its gates and I rebuilt its towers and I rebuilt the royal palace, and I fashioned containers (?) (as) a ciste[rn for wat]er in the midst of the city. But there was no well within the city of Qeriho, so I commanded all the people, "Each one of you dig a pit in his house!" And I dug trenches (?) at Qeriho using Israelite prisoners.
I rebuilt Aroer and I constructed the highway by the ’Arnon. I rebuilt the Beth-Bemoth because it was destroyed. I rebuilt Betzer because (it was) ruins with fifty men of Dibon, for all of Dibon was obedient (to me). I reigned as king over the hundreds in the towns which I annexed to the land (of Moab). I rebuilt […Mehd]eba, Beth-Dibalthim, and Beth Baal-Meon, and I raised up there my […..] [……] the land and in Horanain he settled in her […].
That Israel by this time is associated with a polity and a territory, there is little doubt about that.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
Merneptah's stele mabe some 500 years before Shalmanessar tells the status of Israel but says nothing of a state, as in nation,
And what did you suppose I was saying all along, save for trying to forward a pseudo-argument of semantics? If I were talking about the "nation", I would have directly said so. You say "status", and I say "the state of Israel"; so what? I take it that you'll next misinterpret this: "state of affairs", to mean "nation of affairs." LOL.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
of Israel as there was no such polity in the 14th century BCE only a non landowning people without any territorial holdings, but an unsettled population wandering about in other people's states or the fields outside the various chieftaincies' settlements.
Could some literate person please inform literacy-challenged alTakruri that this had already been pointed out here, long before he even interjected the discussion. He is simply arguing with himself and nobody else.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
There's a program on the History Channel I saw recently called 'Bible Battles'. In it, scholars explain that Hebrews were never slaves in Egypt as the correct Hebrew word meant servants. So it goes they were paid laborers as well as mercenaries. According to one scholar, when their numbers grew the Pharaoh became concerned that their position between Egypt and Sinai could threaten Egypt if they joined sides with their Asiatic brethren. Thus the conflict ensued between the Pharaoh identified as Seti I and the Hebrews who the scholars identified as the Habiru.
So what is wrong with the Habiru theory and besides that, is this an accurate picture of the Israelite ancestors??
As noted earlier:
Re: Forget about the Habiru, there is no evidence that they constituted a people and/or one which would have designated themselves as such, much less to be equated with the Hebrews.
According to Greenberg:
In these early times the archaeological records make frequent reference to a class of people known as Habiru or 'Apiru, many of whom were enslaved in Egypt. The term seems to be a classification or slang expression for mercenaries, servants and outlaws, a term of derogation often translated as "people of the dust." Many scholars see in Habiru a source for the name Hebrew and opinion shifts about on this from time to time. On the basis of complicated philological issues scholars generally reject the connection.
In any event, the Habiru were not an ethnic group. Studies of Habiru names show that they contained both Semitic and Indo-European elements. If Hebrew is derived from Habiru it would most certainly be a post-Exodus derivation, being used to describe the Israelites at a time when they were not yet settled in a territory and therefore exhibiting characteristics associated with the Habiru class. The name Hebrew, as a term for the Israelites, is not attested to until late in the first millennium.
If "Hebrew" derives from "Habiru", I'd like to see the reconstruction of the etymological origin, that will be necessary to learn how it came about, and how and when it evolved into the present term.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Glad to see you looked up Omri after you learnt of him from me. Still some hope for you if you ever can discuss topics without rude ad hominems you'll be worth further engagement and I can then teach you more of what you have no idea of.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Glad to see you looked up Omri after you learnt of him from me.
You are either too thick-headed and/or so gullible for nurturing that false sense of achievement, to think that the Moabite Stone would be mentioned right there in the intro notes, and yet the author of it wouldn't have known what is contained in the said evidence. This is the same sort of "intellectual creativity" that you use, when you attribute to me the claim that the Merneptah inscriptional Israelites had a territory at the time of their mention therein, even though it is clearly spelt out, even before you interjected, to the contrary with substantial corroboration. You are not short of wild imaginations, I'll give you that much.
Please do go on with not bothering to read anything posted in the thread, as evidenced by literally every post you've made here, and instead, let imaginations of your false sense of achievement run as wild as it can possibly get; don't let FACTS stand in the way.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
Still some hope for you if you ever can discuss topics without rude ad hominems you'll be worth further engagement and I can then teach you more of what you have no idea of.
...like you having the brains to actually challenge any of the points I've made; yeah, I have no idea about your capacity to do that. Teach me why I have to suddenly believe you have brains, and are capable of first reading pre-existing posts in the thread, so you won't make a fool of yourself in making claims like this last post of yours.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Very typical. When you can't put up evidence upon a challenge or feel threatened by perfectly valid points differing from your own you substitute with nasty personal remarks, the surest sign of defeat if indeed you were being debated.
You don't even know what the f uck you're babbling about in constructing windmills to tilt against (instead of calmly engaging in a discussion with respect for others and their points of view) so don't expect me or anyone else to.
You're the one most guilty of what you so quickly berate others for being and doing.
The next lesson for you to learn is that every little thing is not a challenge. You often miss points of agreement others have with you because you see everything as a death match that you must come out of to stay alive. Get a grip. Sit down and have a sip.
Now if you've regained your composure and can reply respectfully let's go back to what brought out your temper tantrum:
What in the Merneptah stele indicates that YSRL ever inhabited Egypt or left from Egypt. I'd like to compound that with when where and under what circumstances do you suppose the Israelite identity first manifested and among which precise ethnies did it do so.
If you can't curb your tendency for rabid quips I won't bother to post to your thread anymore (which I guess is really your true aim anyway). Just remember, discouraging continued correspondance by a display of ill manners is not equivalent to explaning your points or getting others to really understand what you seek to relay, or show that you've grasped (other than through intentional maligning) any of their points in return.
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver: You are either too thick-headed and/or so gullible for nurturing that false sense of achievement,
You are not short of wild imaginations,
not bothering to read anything posted in the thread,
imaginations of your false sense of achievement like you having the brains
why I have to suddenly believe you have brains,
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
What's typical is your amazing interjections into discussions without bothering to read pre-existing posts, that would save you the trouble of regurgitating that which had already been covered time and again, and then re-forwarding as a red herring.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
When you can't put up evidence upon a challenge or feel threatened by perfectly valid points differing from your own you substitute with nasty personal remarks, the surest sign of defeat if indeed you were being debated.
You are not talking out of intelligence; you're obviously talking besides yourself out of emotion. Fact is, I've laid out the necessary points to set up the argument put forth in the intro note. It is now up to you to either contribute further to that or challenge that which has already been put forth. Not anyone's fault that you were incapable of either.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
You don't even know what the **** you're babbling about....
...which is why you haven't been able to challenge a thing I've said, without feeling the need to regurgitate what's already been put on the table, and then telling people that they have to thank you for bringing the said regurgitation to their attention. Turning regurgitation into a red herring argument, isn't exactly what one would call a challenge, nor is argument by ignorance.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
You're the one most guilty of what you so quickly berate others for being and doing.
Really!
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
The next lesson for you to learn is that everything is not achallenge. You often miss points of agreement others have with you because you see everything as a death match that you must come out of to stay alive. Get a grip. Sit down and have a sip.
How can I miss anything, when you're busy just regurgitating what had already been covered prior to your interjection, only to have you turn these regurgitations into some sort of a challenge to the very person who presented the original material to begin with? How can I miss anything, when you're busy misinterpreting that which had been posted? What next; you're going to tell me that everything that had been uttered prior to your interjection, was brought to my attention thanks to you? LOL.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
Now if you've regained your composure and can reply respectfully let's go back to what brought out your temper tantrum:
If I have a tantrum, you must be suffering from pms, as it is obvious that you're trying to argue by ignorance, since you don't actually have any original and counter points to offer. So, please heed to your advice.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
I'd like to compound that with when where and under what circumstances do you suppose the Israelite identity first manifested and among which precise ethnies did it do so.
I say, scroll your eyes over to pre-existing posts prior to your interjection. It would have saved you from getting into trouble of your own doing.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
If you can't curb your tendency for rabid quips I won't bother to post to your thread anymore (which I guess is really your true aim anyway).
Wow, like you've contributed something meaningful as of yet; other than regurgitations, red herrings, lies and strawmen. You really are more delusional than I had thought.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Some unobservant folks talk of "Jews" in ancient Egypt prior to the possible departure of Israelite forebearers from the Nile Valley and then onto the Levant. The absurdity of such claims stems from the fact that no such entity existed in Dynastic Egypt at the time in question...nor do we come across any Egyptic literature or any other concrete evidence attesting to some *monotheistic* foreign Ammu-affiliated group that existed therein, even under the Hyksos leadership.
However, we do learn about a relatively discernable monotheistic inclination of the Amarna era leadership, that is distinct from AE spiritual belief systems of earlier periods. Certainly during this period, I cannot think of any *monotheistic* group in the Levant, which is where the Israelites would locate by the 13th century BC. To this end, I don't find the following unreasonable:
Re: When the Israelites came out of Egypt, the people brought with them the many stories about Egyptian gods and goddesses, stories they believed to be true histories of their country. But because the Israelites were militantly monotheistic, with a strong prejudice against the god Osiris, the deities were transformed into human ancestors.
As with any immigrant group, after centuries of immersion in new cultures and surroundings, the settlers adopted the traditions and beliefs of their new neighbors, often integrating their old beliefs with the newly learned traditions. And as the biblical prophets make clear, over and over, Canaanite culture exerted a mighty force over the Israelites.
Akhenaten’s brand of monotheism, the only one of its kind in the region at the time, and it interesting link to Israelite monotheism:
Remarkably, Akhenaten did little to counteract the foreign revolts and generally ignored his allies’ calls for help. Under his reign, Egypt’s Canaanite empire collapsed. This state of affairs continued throughout the balance of the 18th Dynasty. Although many Egyptologists assume that Horemheb, the last king of the dynasty, reinstituted much of Egypt’s authority in Canaan, no evidence to that effect exists. Indeed, shortly after his death, records depict Sethos I attempting to recapture control all along the routes leading from Egypt into Canaan.
More important than Akhenaten’s inattention to foreign affairs was the domestic religious revolution wrought in his name. Ill prepared to be king after his father’s designated heir died prematurely, Akhenaten assumed the Theban view of Amen as chief deity in Egypt. Beginning in the fifth year of his reign, life in Egypt changed. Akhenaten launched a religious revolution that had a profound impact on Egypt’s religious affairs.
This new religion held that only one deity existed, Re-Harakhty, manifest in the form of Aten, the sun disk. No other gods were to be worshiped and graven images of deity were banned. Representations of Amen, the chief deity of Thebes, were not only prohibited, but the god’s name and image were physically removed from monuments all over Egypt. Akhenaten also downplayed the role of Osiris in funeral…
…The elevation of a northern, Set-worshiping, Hyksos-appeasing pharaoh could not have occurred without some difficulty in Thebes and other parts of Egypt and its empire. Perhaps this was the sign Osarseph (Moses) waited for.
Sensing the opportunity for rebellion and a rehabilitation of the Atenist cult, Osarseph organized a military alliance aimed at overthrowing Rameses I. In the north he induced the kingdom of Shechem to join him. In the south he probably had Ethiopian contingents. And throughout the country were the remnants of the Aten cult, the displaced allies who wanted revenge. To these we must add disparate groups of resenters, power seekers, mercenaries, and opportunists, “a mixed multitude” of non-Atenists.
Osarseph launched a two-front attack, from the Shechemites in the north and his own troops in the south. Soon after, the Shechemites were stopped at the Egyptian borders, but Osarseph had a large enough force to hold his ground in the south. Eventually, the two sides negotiated a peace treaty, granting safe passage out of Egypt for Osarseph, his army, and their families.
This negotiated departure from Egypt constituted the Exodus. The civil war between the forces of Osarseph and the armies of the pharaoh appear in the Bible, along with the negotiations for safe passage, as the story of the Ten Plagues, an epic account drawing from upon Egyptian literary conventions to describe events.
Osarseph or Moses, to use the shortened form of his adopted name (Ramose or Hormose), settled his entourage in the area associated with the tribe of Reuben. As was common in ancient times, people tended to identify foundation settlements with a mythical ancestor, and in later Israelite writings this mythical ancestor came to be known as Reuben. Because this territory served as the first homeland of Israel, Reuben, according to conventional mythological grammar, came to be known as the first born son of Jacob.
….Over time the Israelites in Reuben spread out into central Jordan and then across the river into the largely unoccupied hills of central Canaan, establishing many small communities throughout the land. From the hills in Canaan further settlements spread north and south.
At the same time that Israel moved into the central highlands, Canaan experienced several waves of invasion from the powerful Sea Peoples’ confederation, chief of which were the Philistines. Led by Greek warrior castes, the Sea Peoples established strong roots in this new territory and on several occasions, most notably during the reigns of Merneptah (c. 1239 -1229 BC) and Rameses III (c. 1197 - 1166 BC), they battled fiercely against Egypt itself. The pressures exerted by the Sea Peoples in Canaan and against Egypt provided the cover that allowed the Israelites to smoothly cross over to the Jordan and easily settle in the central highlands.
Despite the biblical allegations, at this time Israel had no tribal structures. They may have had influential families, political factions, and some settlements with special military strengths, but there were no tribes. As evidenced by the Song of Deborah, the subsequent tribal divisions reflected the growth and merger of territorial bases... - G. Greenberg
^It would be ridiculous to assume that this monotheism, with its roots in the Nile Valley, would continue to resemble the original religion without modifications through external influences from Canaanite neighbors of Nile Valley Israelite forebearers, and so, reading further...
***While Israel’s allies shared political and military allegiances, they didn’t share religious views. *** In addition, many of the Egyptians who left Egypt with Moses did not subscribe to Atenist orthodoxy. The presence of Canaanite, Greek and Egyptian deities and priests within the Israelite ranks fueled dissention among the mainstream Atenists, leading to a variety of conflicts, intrigues, and schisms.
It is at about this point in history that our inquiry into Israel’s origins ends. Shortly thereafter the monarchy emerged. Under King David, a fusion of ideals seems to have taken place. On the one hand, he established the orthodox Atenist view as the central religion of ancient Israel. On the other, however, he (and Solomon after him) seems to have encouraged all the other factions to worship in their own way, as long as they recognized the fundamental supremacy of the Atenist priesthood. Much of the subsequent Israelite writing about this time revolves around these religious feuds and schisms. Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
The rivalry with corresponding aggression and destruction marked a chaotic period, wherein Israelites amongst themselves and against other groups, struggled to survive and attain political domination, making record keeping quite difficult. Hence, under such situations of relative chaos, sparse and scattered reference to a questionably intact social group under the "Israelite" banner would have had to go up against greater odds against survival for the ages to come...
Hence,
***While Israel’s allies shared political and military allegiances, they didn’t share religious views. *** In addition, many of the Egyptians who left Egypt with Moses did not subscribe to Atenist orthodoxy. The presence of Canaanite, Greek and Egyptian deities and priests within the Israelite ranks fueled dissention among the mainstream Atenists, leading to a variety of conflicts, intrigues, and schisms.
It is at about this point in history that our inquiry into Israel’s origins ends. Shortly thereafter the monarchy emerged. Under King David, a fusion of ideals seems to have taken place. On the one hand, he established the orthodox Atenist view as the central religion of ancient Israel. On the other, however, he (and Solomon after him) seems to have encouraged all the other factions to worship in their own way, as long as they recognized the fundamental supremacy of the Atenist priesthood. Much of the subsequent Israelite writing about this time revolves around these religious feuds and schisms. - G. Greenberg.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Manetho was not in dynastic Egypt, when the Merneptah stele mentions Israel for the first time, nor was he there, when the first Israelite kingdom appears in archaeology. In fact, biblical literature was being edited into its final form by around Manetho's time. By Manetho's time, as I told you but went on def ears, we are told that Israelite polities had been destroyed by Assyrian and Babylonian invasions. How the heck then, can you rely on Manetho in learning about the origins of the Israelites? Manetho's list is useful, but not in the sense that you imagine it to be.
…I compare Manetho’s reconstructed history with the Genesis birth-and-death chronology, demonstrating that dynasties One through Eighteen both contain virtually the same chronological history.
Third, I show that predynastic chronology in Genesis (from the birth of Adam to the birth Methuselah) is derived from the same source as Manetho’s chronology of the Egyptian gods, and that both are based on the Theban doctrine of Creation. The examination shows that the Bible’s seven days of Creation derive from Egyptian theology and that the story of Noah’s Flood revolves around Egyptian calendar cycles.
Fourth, the precise alignment between Genesis and Manetho chronologies enables us to resolve almost every major chronological dispute about Egyptian dynastic history prior to the Nineteenth Dynasty.
At the core my study is a comparison of the many inconsistencies in the different versions of Manetho.
By comparing them in each of their sources and placing them in the context of the archaeological record, I am able to reconstruct what Manetho must have originally written. The evidence shows that Manetho’s redactors made two particular errors over and over, leading to a badly mangled version of what he wrote.
First was the failure of the redactors to properly account for co regencies. Second was the constant misreading of lines of summation as descriptions of additional lines of kings, causing either dynastic totals to be double-counted or consecutive dynasties to be added together.
And...
I also provide detailed arithmetic pattern analysis of the figures used in Manetho’s troubling Second Intermediate Period, showing how his original dynastic chronology was distorted, what chronology he originally used for the Second Intermediate Period, and how Genesis has the same dynastic date sequence as Manetho for the Second Intermediate Period.Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Examples of a few sources that certain Isrealite mythology likely draw from:
- Predynastic chronology in Genesis from Adam to Methuselah ~ shares the same source as that of Manetho's chronology of Egyptian gods, and "both are based on the Theban doctrine of Creation".
- Story of Noah’s Flood ~ built around Egyptian calendar cycles.
- Genesis birth-and-death dates ~ based on the same chronology that characterizes Dynasty chronology and durations, interestingly from First Dynasty through to the Eighteenth Dynasty.
- Biblical twelve tribes ~ based on stories of "Horus the Elder ruling over the twelve daylight hours while his brother Set ruled over the twelve nighttime hours", as well as infusions of other legends from the Nile Valley; e.g. - the story of the Psammatichus and the Bronze Cup in the story of the Twelve Egyptian Kings’ sacrifice in the Temple of Hephaestus.
- Story of Joseph and the Silver Cup ~ draws from the aforementioned Twelve Egyptian Kings’and the Bronze Cup in the Temple of Hephaestus, as retold by Herodotus.
- Single deity worship ~ draws from Atenist concept, while Neteru personalities had found their way into human ancestors of Isrealites.
- The conquest stories ~ based accounts of Sea Peoples’ invasion of Canaan, as evidenced by accounts in ‘The Song of Deborah‘.
- The ancestor Reuben, first son of Jacob ~ based on “mythological grammar” built around the assignment of a mythical ancestor, called “Reuben”, to the first Levantine settlement area of newly arrived Israelite forbearers from the Nile Valley .
^References: Loosely based on G. Greenberg notes.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Jews (biblical) originated in Egypt and later moved to Canaan.
Originally these Jews were Egyptian blacks but intemarried with whites (when they moved out of egypt) to form the jewish people of today.
What I understand is ‘Jewish’ consciousness started once or just before the Jews were expelled from Egypt, they were mainly Asiatic invaders to Egypt, were expelled but adopted many Egyptian cultural norms (they were very mixed at the time)
They moved to Canaan, took canaanite land/assimilated with them leading to the Israeli nation of today.
Jewish culture is strongly patriarchal , there must have been a strong asiatic element at the begging of Jewish history .
It is quite unlikely that the first people to call themselves ‘Jews’ were mainly black Egyptians, as Egyptians were more or less matriarchal. It is likely, they were mixed with blacks but the Asiatic element was preponderant
Posts: 96 | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did not Hebrew scripture state that the Hebrews lived in Goshen (the eastern Delta area right at the front of Sinai), and that they originally came from Asia??
Posts: 26550 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Hebrew literature says that one man named Abram left Paddan Aram (Iraq) with his wife Sarai, who was also a blood relative of his. This Abra(ha)m came to move about in Kenaan (Lebanon/Palestine) and at one point crossed into Missraim (Egypt) where his wife acquired an Egyptian maidservant, Hajar, who bore Abraham seven sons. Abraham's primary heir was the only son he had by his blood relation wife. That son was Yisshaq. [Abraham's son Yishmael (by Hagar) married an Egyptian woman procurred by his mother. Abraham's sons Zimran, Yaqkshan, Medan, Midyan, Yishbaq, and Shuahh were sent eastward to make do for themselves.
Continuing on with the Israelite lineage we are dealing with one man, Abraham and Sarah's son Yisshaq. Yisshaq was born in Kenaan and never left that land. His father Abraham acquired a wife for him out of Paddan Aram employing his Kenaanite servant Eliezer. The woman Eliezer came back with was named Ribqah. She bore Yisshaq twin sons, Yaaqob and Esau. Yaaqob relocated to Paddan Aram. Esau ranged the southern parts of Kenaan.
Yaaqob married four women who were his mother's blood relatives. Through them he had 12 sons; Reuben, Shimengon, Lewi, Yehudah, Yisa(s)khar, Zebulun, benYamin, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, and Yoseph.
Yaaqob returned to Kenaan and made a deal with his uncle Laban to never crossover again to Aram Soba (Lebanon/Syrai). We surmise his sons, with the exception of Yosef, either married women of Kenaan or else their own sisters (by different mothers).
Yosef was placed into a pit by his brothers (benYamin had nothing to do with it). Yishmaelites or Midyanites retrieved him and enslaved him. Yosef was sold back and forth between Midyanites and Yishmaelites until Egyptians finally bought him. He married in Egypt. It's disputed if his wife was native Egyptian or naturalized Aamu Egyptian. She bore him many children but we have the name of only the two whom Yosef's father adopted as his own sons, Menasseh and Ephrayim.
Yosef had his father Yaaqob and all Yaaqob's progeny come down to Egypt. He settled them in Goshen. We are told they numbered to the tally of only 70 people.
210 years/3 generations later their number had swelled to 600,000 men of fighting age (20 - 50 years old) when they en masse exited Egypt along with a crowd of people of various ethnic origins.
If Abraham, Yisshaq, Ya`aqob, (Sarah, Ribqah, Leah Rahhel Zilpah Bilhah) ever lived in any "Asia," it was AfroAsia not EurAsia. They had no truck with Greece, Anatolia, the Caucasus, central Asia, etc. Their sphere was Mesopotamia, the Levant, and Egypt.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Did not Hebrew scripture state that the Hebrews lived in Goshen (the eastern Delta area right at the front of Sinai), and that they originally came from Asia??
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Jews (biblical) originated in Egypt and later moved to Canaan.
Based on available evidence, both biblical and extra-biblica; Yes!
quote:Originally posted by mentu:
Originally these Jews were Egyptian blacks but intemarried with whites (when they moved out of egypt) to form the jewish people of today.
If you consider native Egyptian 'blacks', then yes, they would have had to have engaged in an exogamous relationship with their Levantine neighbors.
quote:Originally posted by mentu:
What I understand is ‘Jewish’ consciousness started once or just before the Jews were expelled from Egypt, they were mainly Asiatic invaders to Egypt, were expelled but adopted many Egyptian cultural norms (they were very mixed at the time)
For you to come to that conclusion, you'd have to have concrete evidence that "Jewish" consciousness existed prior to the Amarna period, and that it was located at a specific region of Egypt, at a specific time. I can't think of any such evidence; can you?
You'd also have to show that "Jews" existed concurrently with predynastic Egyptians through to the Dynastic times prior to the 18th dynasty.
quote:Originally posted by mentu:
They moved to Canaan, took canaanite land/assimilated with them leading to the Israeli nation of today.
They would have first moved into southern Jordan, then to central Jordan, and then turned west to Central Canaan, where they'd locate [which would have been relatively unoccupied regions at the time], and then form alliances with northern-city states of Canaan, some of which could very well have been Sea People strongholds, and their neighbors, because Canaan at the time, would have been under Egyptian sphere of influence to some extent, likely when it wasn't at its strongest but nonetheless still present, but also prone to invasions by sections of rivaling Sea Peoples, of which the Philistines were notable. Israelites would have capitalized on the pressure from both the Sea Peoples rivals to the south and elsewhere and the Egyptians, to form alliances with several of their neighbours and those polities to their north. This would have given them more military and political support, enough to survive as newly arrivals in Canaan. "The Song of Deborah" gives credence to the very real possibility that this is what occurred.
quote:Originally posted by mentu:
Jewish culture is strongly patriarchal , there must have been a strong asiatic element at the begging of Jewish history.
If you can provide me some extra-biblical evidence that the original Israelites where socially inclined to be this or that, and then compare it with that of Egyptian society, I'll be glad to examine it. Moreover, even Dynastic Egypt was simplistically matriarchal as some make it out to be; it was in ways, both patriarchal and matriarchal.
quote:Originally posted by mentu:
It is quite unlikely that the first people to call themselves ‘Jews’ were mainly black Egyptians, as Egyptians were more or less matriarchal. It is likely, they were mixed with blacks but the Asiatic element was preponderant.
I don't know the ethnic nature of the original Israelite forbearers from the Nile Valley, but it is safe to assume that they could have come from just about *any* section of Egyptian society at the time, as they would not have likely been united under "ethnicity",or "class" but more so in religion and/or political ambitions. If you can demonstrate to me that the Israelite Nile Valley forbearers were likely to have been so and so ethnic makeup, please do so with as much tangible evidence as possible. Thanks.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Arwa: Sorry to cross talk. Since English is my 5th language.
Is it one brain or brains?
Thank and happy new year.
People say both really, but the correct usage of the word in singular...brain. No one has "brains" which is plural.
Posts: 1219 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Just remember, discouraging continued correspondance by a display of ill manners is not equivalent to explaning your points or getting others to really understand what you seek to relay, or show that you've grasped (other than through intentional maligning) any of their points in return.
Evergreen Writes:
Well said. Point taken.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
- It appears in the 13th century BC on a stele dedicated to Merneptah, who is part of the Rameside Dynasty. Indication in the Bible, as noted by the mention of Pi-Rameses, suggests that emigration of Biblical Israelites occurred sometime in the Rameside era - though the construction of that city under that name was undertaken some time during the reign of Rameses I, and not Rameses II.
Retracting error, as highlighted: The city was in fact named so under Rameses II rather than Rameses I, but the events and particulars described wherein this "Pi-Raameses" is mentioned in the bible, point to an earlier timeframe than the reign of Rameses II...which is understandable, when it is taken into consideration that the Hebrew bible was edited into its final form c. 6th century BC onwards.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How much weight is given the following in terms of understanding the origins of said peoples / tribes / nations?
NOAH’S GENERATIONS, GENESIS 10: THE SONS OF HAM AND THE BIRTH OF NIMROD
6: And the sons of Ham: Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan. 7: And the sons of Cush; Seba, and Havilah, and Sabtah, and Raamah, and Sabtechas. And the son of Radmah; Sheba and Dedan. 8. And Cush begat Nimrod; he began to be a mighty one in the earth. 9. He was a mighty hunter before the lord; wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod, the mighty hunter before the Lord. 10. And the beginning of his Kingdom was Babel, and Erech, in the Land of Shinar. 11. Out of that land went forth Assur, and builded Ninevah, and the city of Rehoboth, and Calah.
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since Noah is placed in the mythological component of Israelite history, then so is his immediate descendants.
Aside from lack of archaeological substantiation of these figures, there also other peculiar aspects about them. As I noted elsewhere:
Note that the ‘patriarchal’ personalities such as Abraham, Noah et al. had extraordinarily lengthy lifespan. For instance, Noah was said to have been about 600 years old during the Flood, and then lived 350 years after that, giving him a total lifespan of 950. Shem lived for 600 years, Abraham lived for 175 years and Jacob about 180 years. These are just examples of the personalities mentioned in Jewish traditions.
“The Book of Genesis contains numerous genealogical trees tracing the histories and families of many nations and people. One of these contains some rather unusual information. While the other family trees just list the sequences of births, this particular tree, encompassing some twenty-six generations over several millennia, provides a chronological record of birth and death that begins with the birth of Adam at the dawn of Creation, continues past Noah’s Flood, and ends with the death of Joseph, the final event in Genesis.
The people mentioned in this chronology lived lives of extraordinary lengths. Adam, for example, lived for 930 years. And Joseph, the shortest life of all those listed, died at the age of 110. As a general rule, those born closer to Creation lived substantially longer lives than those born later.
The bulk of this chronology appears in Genesis 5 and 11. The former includes births and deaths that occurred before the Flood, and the latter, ending with the birth of Abraham, lists only births and deaths that occurred after the Flood. Other biblical passages permit us to extend the chronology from Abraham’s birth to the death of Josephs.
Because this chronology begins in the mythic period of Creation and continues through Noah’s Flood, scholars routinely dismissed it as a fabrication. Nevertheless, historians still accept that the chronology may be modeled after other Middle Eastern King lists.
Both the Egyptians and the Babylonians produced ancient king lists, and in both cultures the earliest kings belonged to a mythological period, with many of them each ruling for thousands of years. In both cultures, however, these lists proceeded from a mythological to a historical period, accurately recording a succession of true kings. Historians have had no trouble separating the lists into mythological and historical portions.
The biblical chronology, however, presents something of an anomaly. While it too begins in the mythological period, with several long-lived ancestors, it **continues well into the historical era, late into the second millennium B.C.**, but the **people named in this later time still seem to occupy a mythological status, living far longer than any believable human life span, often hundreds of years. Also, none of the people named have turned up in any records as actual rulers among the Hebrews or any other Semitic-speaking nation.**
While there is much speculation and writing about the meaning and origin of this chronology, other than the belief that it is modeled after Babylonian-style king lists, no answers have yet come forward that satisfy the scholarly community. Despite the fact that it crosses deeply into the historical era, from which there is much archeological data, scholars dismiss the entire chronology as fiction. **Still, while rejecting the credibility of this list,** many scholars still believe that the Genesis patriarchal history (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) derives from historical memories about real people, and that the timeframe associated with those memories coincides with the second millennium timeframe in Genesis.” - G. Greenberg
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The term "African origin of Jewish people" should be "African origin of Jewish religion" since the former artificially injects foreign bloodlines where they don't belong.
Posts: 213 | From: New York City, USA | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nope it is right, because he is arguing for *Nile Valley* emigrants as the forebearers of Israelites...unless of course, you consider Nile Valley populations not being African.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think people need to focus more on the importance of domination of perceived realities of how things are suppose to be (which is usually 100% unrealistic). Anyone who dominates a perceived reality, controls those who come under it. It is that simple. This is not necessarily a bad thing depending on how one looks a situation.
When people think of Jewish people today, the perceived dominant image is the black and white dressing, facial hair dominant, Mongolian/Mongolian European mixed people from Euro-Asia who are not from Africa. Because of this perception, and by the very virtual of commonsense alone, disregarding any Euro-Asian reason, it is absolutely wrong to say, "African origin of Jewish people" when it should read, "African origin of Jewish religion".
Posts: 213 | From: New York City, USA | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
From the little I've read of Greenberg he posits that schismatic "non-Atenists" emmigrants left with everything that culturally and theologically marks the "Jewish people" (though there was no "Jewish people" until the second incarnation of Judah as the nation called Judea). I don't know if Greenberg goes into the anthropology.
He seems to go along with those proposing that certain "Sea Peoples" confederated with Israel; Denyen as Dan, Shardana as Asher, Shekelesh as Issachar.
Greenberg states that Zebulun "was either a native Canaanite people from before the Exodus period or one of the Sea People groups that arrived After it."
If so these four (Dan, Asher, Issachar, Zebulun) of the twelve tribal precursors of the Jewish people had no continental African origin. I don't know how consistent Greenberg's books are in supporting or contradicting their subtitles. "... these four political entities were not Hebrew tribes and did not participate in the Exodus ..."
In the end, Greenberg only allows for two of the Twelve Tribes of Israel to have been exoders, Benjamin and Ephraim/Manasseh. But then he also says there were no tribes of Israel at the time of the Exodus -- which was for him an alliance between Osarsiph and the Levantines at Shechem and some vague Ethiopians to overthrow Ramesses I that failed but resulted in "Eventually the two sides negotiated a peace treaty, granting safe passage out of Egypt for Osarseph, his army, and their families. This negotiated departure from Egypt constituted the Exodus.".
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
I think people need to focus more on the importance of domination of perceived realities of how things are suppose to be (which is usually 100% unrealistic). Anyone who dominates a perceived reality, controls those who come under it. It is that simple. This is not necessarily a bad thing depending on how one looks a situation.
When people think of Jewish people today, the perceived dominant image is the black and white dressing, facial hair dominant, Mongolian/Mongolian European mixed people from Euro-Asia who are not from Africa.
You and Greenberg are on two different planets. He is talking of "Israelite origins" - that is, the people who made it possible for such a thing called "Israelites" to come to existence in the Levant, and you talk of "Jewish people today" and how they are perceived *today*. I take it that you are unaware of how odd that sounds.
quote:Originally posted by KemsonReloaded:
Because of this perception, and by the very virtual of commonsense alone, disregarding any Euro-Asian reason, it is absolutely wrong to say, "African origin of Jewish people" when it should read, "African origin of Jewish religion".
Is religion "people"? Is Greenberg talking about the forbearers of "Isrealites" as *people*, or is he talking about just "religion"? Man, seriously,... LOL.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Greenberg relies on the contradictions inherent in biblical texts, as well as weighing that against archaeological evidence to come to the conclusion that the Israelite Nile Valley forbearers were not "tribal", so as to even suggest there was 12 tribes that came out of the Nile Valley.
^One example of this, is his examination of "The Song of Deborah":
Under Chapter 14 of the Bible Myth, The Twelve Tribes Myth and the Canaanite Conquest, we are given the following pieces:
The Song of Deborah - dating back to a century after the first archaeological record of Israel.:
The Merneptah victory stele shows the existence of Israel in the late 13th century BC. From the Song of Deborah, we have a roster of the Hevrwe alliance that existed about a century after Merneptah, and it differs substantially from that of the traditional tribes. Missing from the list are Manasseh, Simeon, Judah, Levi and Gad. Although Manesseh is omitted, the roster does contain two subdivisions of that tribe, Machir and Gilead.
The poem does mention Naphtali, but the context suggests that in time of Deborah Naphtali was a Canaanite kingdom ruled by king of Hazor. From Jacob’s blessing we can assume that Zebulun originally encompassed the territory belonging to Naphtali (that is, up to the borders of Zidon), and that later Naphtali became a separate entity. This led to the subsequent insertion of Naphtali’s name into the Song of Deborah.
Reuben is also mentioned in the poem, but Reuben was not originally a tribe. It was the territory where Israel first settled after the Exodus, and for this reason Reuben was thought of as the first son of Jacob.
Historical evidence also shows that at the time of Deborah the Sea Peoples were active on the Palestinian coast and in the northern part of Canaan.
Four tribes mentioned in the Song of Deborah - Dan, Asher, Zebulun, and Issachar - all lie across the territories dominated by the Sea Peoples and all seem to have some connection to the Sea Peoples’ confederation. Both Dan and Zebulun are clearly linked to ships, and Dan is also linguistically related to the Denyen, one of the Sea Peoples groups. Asher and Issachar also seem to have names that share linguistic roots with the Sea Peoples tribes of Shardana and Shekelesh.
This leaves a base group of Benjamin, Ephraim, Machir, and Gilead. Neither Machir nor Gilead were among the children of Jacob, and in later times the two were absorbed under the name of Manasseh. Their presence in the list suggests that the naming of Jacob’s sons occurred at a later time.
Benjamin and Ephraim are both Rachel tribes, and the integration of Machir and Gilead into Manasseh indicates that the original Exodus group consisted primarily of a Rachel confederation.
Although the Book of Joshua describes “twelve tribes” sweeping across Canaan and establishing a powerful military presence, such a picture is inconsistent with the archaeological evidence and contradicts the viewpoints in the Book of Judges, which shows Israel to have been only a minor player on the scene, for the most part incapable of displacing the Canaanite kings and consistently subjected to Canaanite domination.
The conquest by twelve tribes is also inconsistent with the evidence from the Song of Deborah, which shows that several of the more powerful tribes didn’t yet existed.
The falseness of the conquest picture is demonstrated by the various accounts of the conquest of Jerusalem. In Joshua, it is alleged that the Judaeans couldn’t drive out the Jebusites but lived there with them “unto this day,” while in Judges I Judah is depicted as defeating the city and torching it. Elsewhere in Judges I it is claimed that the Benjaminites couldn’t drive out the Jebusites, and it was they who lived with them “unto this day.” Finally, in the story of David we learn that Jerusalem was completely in the hands of Jebusites, and neither the Benjaminites nor Judaeans were living there.
The conquest stories were propaganda accounts designed to enhance the claims of the united monarchy, and later of Judah, to the various territories brought under its dominion. To some extent, the conquest stories may have been borrowed from accounts of Sea Peoples’ invasion of Canaan.
The question over whether there were twelve or thirteen tribes originated in Egyptian mythology. The notion of Jacob’s twelve sons ruler over twelve territories was derived from the myths of Horus the Elder ruling over the twelve daylight hours while his brother Set ruled over the twelve nighttime hours. There was also a folk tradition indicating that at one time Egypt was ruled by twelve kings. Coinciding with the idea of twelve kings ruling twelve territories was the idea that there were thirteen sacred territories, each representing the final resting place of one of the parts of Osiris’s body. This accounted for some of the confusion over the total number of tribes.
The Evolution of the Twelve Tribes Myth
Although the twelve tribes existed only as myths, it is worth spending some time on some Egyptian traditions that may have been responsible for this belief. As noted in chapter 12, frequency of groups of twelve probably derives from the daily battle between Horus Elder and Set. This solar imagery could have been important factors that led to the idea that there was a House of Israel with twelve sons. But some other Egyptian influences may also have played a role.
^One example of this, is the Egyptian story of "The Bronze Cup", after which the story of Joseph was modeled.
So, what the "Song of Deborah" tells us, by examination:
Despite the biblical allegations, at this time Israel had no tribal structures. They may have had influential families, political factions, and some settlements with special military strengths, but there were no tribes. As evidenced by the Song of Deborah, the subsequent tribal divisions reflected the growth and merger of territorial bases.
Also, recap:
…The evidence suggested by the Song of Deborah indicates that the Israelies in central Canaan formed an alliance with the leaders of several northern city-states, some of which may have been Sea Peoples’ strongholds. Out of this alliance grew the entity of a “Greater Israel,” which served as the model for what later came to be known as Israel tribal confederation.
***While Israel’s allies shared political and military allegiances, they didn’t share religious views. *** In addition, many of the Egyptians who left Egypt with Moses did not subscribe to Atenist orthodoxy. The presence of Canaanite, Greek and Egyptian deities and priests within the Israelite ranks fueled dissention among the mainstream Atenists, leading to a variety of conflicts, intrigues, and schisms.
It is at about this point in history that our inquiry into Israel’s origins ends. Shortly thereafter the monarchy. emerged. Under King David, a fusion of ideals seems to have taken place. On the one hand, he established the orthodox Atenist view as the central religion of ancient Israel. On the other, however, he (and Solomon after him) seems to have encouraged all the other factions to worship in their own way, as long as they recognized the fundamental supremacy of the Atenist priesthood. Much of the subsequent Israelite writing about this time revolves around these religious feuds and schisms. Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
I must again point out that the Hebrews' presence in Egypt as claimed in their texts was specifically in Goshen which is the eastern Delta area directly in front of Sinai. So the question is were they native Egyptians absorbed by Asiatics or Asiatics influenced by Egyptians??
You and your source make pretty valid points about the very existence or nature of the purported 'Twelve Tribes' of Israel. Note that this theme was seen even before the birth of Jacob/Israel, where Abraham's eldest son Ishmael also had twelve sons who became founders and chieftains of their own tribes. Thus the twelve tribes of Ishmael were Nebaioth, Kedar, Adbeel, Mibsam, Mishma, Dumah, Massa, Hadad, Tema, Jetur, Naphish, and Kedemah. These twelve Ishmaelite tribes were named after the sons of Ishmael by an Egyptian wife. So again, we have another of many connections the Hebrews have to Egypt.
And is it possible the Biblical enumeration of 12 may derive from ancient beliefs other than Egyptian like those of ancient Cannan and Babylon??
Posts: 26550 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
I must again point out that the Hebrews' presence in Egypt as claimed in their texts was specifically in Goshen which is the eastern Delta area directly in front of Sinai. So the question is were they native Egyptians absorbed by Asiatics or Asiatics influenced by Egyptians??
I've already gone through how the Israelite forbearers spread into the Levant, and how so, because it happened to coincide with a time wherein Egyptian authority would have still been present in the region though relatively weakened, but at the same time, frequent Sea People invasions were taking place in the region. So Israelites would have likely been selective in their approach to settling areas of Canaan, which again I've already noted, and as further evidenced by accounts in "The Song of Deborah".
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
You and your source make pretty valid points about the very existence or nature of the purported 'Twelve Tribes' of Israel. Note that this theme was seen even before the birth of Jacob/Israel, where Abraham's eldest son Ishmael also had twelve sons who became founders and chieftains of their own tribes. Thus the twelve tribes of Ishmael were Nebaioth, Kedar, Adbeel, Mibsam, Mishma, Dumah, Massa, Hadad, Tema, Jetur, Naphish, and Kedemah. These twelve Ishmaelite tribes were named after the sons of Ishmael by an Egyptian wife. So again, we have another of many connections the Hebrews have to Egypt.
And is it possible the Biblical enumeration of 12 may derive from ancient beliefs other than Egyptian like those of ancient Cannan and Babylon??
Greenberg gives several *specific* Egyptian sources that strongly correlate with Israelite themes, i.e. too strong to be just mere coincidences. Of course, as I have noted, Canaanite theological themes had also influenced the Israelites, such that you get themes from both the Nile Valley and Canaan. It should come as no mystery, as to why that would be the case.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL more proof "Djehuti" is an anti-African ideologue of the Lefkowitzian variety. Obviously he/she has been schooled before on the stolen legacy of the Egyptians. The familiar theme seems to be ascribing influences to Canaan and Babylon (Asia) that rightfully belongs in Africa/Egypt. Poor Jewess. Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic