quote:
As such, the solution to learning about true Isrealite origins lies more so in Egyptian history than Asian:
I generally concur with this. My question is, do believers in Abrahamic faiths find this notion inherently disturbing? And if so, why? What difference does it make to the validity of the faith if it has Kemetian as well as Mesopotamian roots?
The point about the Abrahamic faiths is a useful one. Judaism, Christianity and Islam could be seen as local and cultural variations of the basic theme of monotheism, all for reasons of cultural hence ethnic autonomy. To ensure these appropriations myth, history and sociology all had to be woven into one thesis. But what stands out and is implicit in Rasol's question is that a certain kind of hierarchical ethnocentrism seems to bedevil the programmes of the 3 faiths.
In this connection there would seem to be a certain mythic and folkloric devaluing of any black/African connection found in all 3 faiths.
The African Falasha probably experience have been differentially evaluated in sociological terms in their new home of Israel and there may be some elements in the Torah that view the offspring of Misraim negatively--note that I have not read such but seen references.
Christianity was adopted by Europe and is now dominated by its Western expression and all power and autonomy lies with the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury. African Christianity takes 2 forms: i)Coptic--which is limited mainly to Egypt and Ethiopia; ii)Mainstream Christianity has been imposed on Africans who are seen as mere underlings in this overarching European structure. In Biblical myth and lore the African/black has not been assigned a role of full equality and dignity. The contructed writings and mythography testify to this.
Islam--a local expression for cultural autonomy for people living in the Arabian peninsula-- which borrows heavily from the Chapter 1(Judaism) and Chapter 2(Christianity) of the 3 chaptered book of Monotheism follows on the same tradition. Differentiation takes place immediately with the introduction of Bilal presented not as equal but as servant--lacking in full autonomy and agency. This paradigm rubs off postively and negatively for all concerned.
When the received doctrines are challenged or presented as having an Egyptian root there's bound to be heated reaction. That is the sense of Rasol's coy question.
For those who believe that a spiritual life is necessary should it be that s ame principle of autonomy and agency be applied to Coptic Addis Ababa and Touba, Senegal instead of supplications to Rome, Canterbury or Makka--or otherwise.
quote:There is a rather obvious answer to this question: it’s a matter of reconciling extra-biblical reality with biblical interpretations, and the fear of the outcome becomes the issue here. This fear in turn translates into the superficial issue of whether the Israelites were ethnically and culturally Kemetian or Mesopotamian. Myself being one, whose faith draws from Abrahamic belief, can understand this feeling. It is not a matter of attack but a fact that, religion is taught to us very early on as one that is intolerant to questioning. These are supposed to be divine words, and its questioning can only mean the questioning of the Almighty. At any rate, tracing origins of distant generations is usually handled enthusiastically and energetically, but somehow when the same is applied to the Israelites, it becomes a rather uncomfortable issue to various folks. The Jews, needless to point out, are a group that identifies ethnicity and faith as one.
Originally posted by rasol:
I generally concur with this. My question is, do believers in Abrahamic faiths find this notion inherently disturbing? And if so, why? What difference does it make to the validity of the faith if it has Kemetian as well as Mesopotamian roots?
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
Actually, the Hebrews supposedly originated with Abraham and Noah as a people who wandered from the Tigris and Euphrates and then into Egypt.
quote:
Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
^We are dealing with comparative analysis here, using Biblical accounts and extra-Biblical evidence within a multidisciplinary framework. This topic is not about a mere recitation of the Bible.
If you're suggesting that what you're stating is fact, then naturally what you need to do, is to back it up with evidence.
quote:Mystery is correct. We are dealing with multidisciplinary findings, not just recitations from Biblical legends, according to which everyone descends from Noah. Now whether or not Abraham existed or that he was from Mesopotamia remains to be seen. What is clear is that Israelites only became a people while in Egypt.
Originally posted by Doug M:
Actually, the Hebrews supposedly originated with Abraham and Noah as a people who wandered from the Tigris and Euphrates and then into Egypt.
quote:The Israelites mentioned in the Merneptah Stele show every indicator that they would have been formed around emigrants from the Nile Valley. So, if by "Exodus", one means mass migration, then the Merneptah inscriptional Israelites could not likely have been pre-Exodus Israelites. Those inscriptional Israelites were in Canaan, as the Merneptah Stele describes them. There is no evidence that Israelites as people existed in the Levant before the late 14th century BC.
Originally posted by alTakruri:
Per midrash (oral history eventually written
down) a small contingent of Israelites left
Egypt before the mass exodus and were totally
anihilated. This madrash was extant hundreds
of years before he Merneptah stele was uncovered.
I see the midrash and the stele as mutual
evidence of both's veracity -- the midrash says
all of these pre-Exodus Israeltes were wiped out
and Merneptah claims to have exterminated YSRL.
quote:This idea of the pharaoh's involved and the time
Manetho writes of two royal advisors [of Ramses II]
suggesting the expulsion of a population of "lepers"
and such from Egypt which we infer as the origins of
the Judeans of Manetho's time. He writes that those
to be cast out were led by a man named Osarsif from
Heliopolis who changed his name to Moses demanding
of the "impure" people stationed in Avaris that they slay
roast and eat the sacred animals and cease worship of
the gods. The then reigning pharaoh was supposed to
have fought the impure people and their foreign allies
to the point of persuing those in retreat clear to the
border of Syria.
Another Egyptian writer, Cheremon, tells a similar story as
compared to the ones in the Torah and of Manetho. Cheremon
makes Yoseph a conspirator alongside Moshe!?! This author
also introduces a character who, after as a babe being born
of a mother who concealed herself in a cave, delivers Egypt
from the polluted ones when he grows up.
Manetho gives these royal names in his version:
0) Ramses - father of Amenophis
1) Amenophis
2) Sethos Ramses - son of Amenophis
Cheremon mentions:
1) Amenophis
2) Messene - his son
Torah tells us the Hebrews worked on the cities Pithom and Raamses.
If so, the Exodus had to happen after there was a Ramses.
Currently Egyptologists know of these successive 19th
dynasty pharaohs. They fit Torah, Manetho and Cheremon:
1) _Ramses I_ -1307
2) _Sethos I__ -1306
3) _Ramses II_ -1290 (as Manetho's Ramses)
4) _Merneptah -1224 (as Manetho's and Cheremon's Amenophis)
5a) Sethos II_ -1214 (as Manetho's Sethos grandson of Ramses son of Amenophis)
5b) Amenmesse co-regent w/Sethos II (as Cheremon's Messene son of Amenophis)
Seeing Manetho and Cheremon possibly using the name Amenophis
for Merneptah -- of "Israel stele" fame --, their sequence otherwise
fits known history though the dates are skewed by 100 years when
compared with the Jewish reckoning of circa 1313 BCE (i.e., 2448 AM)
as the year of the Exodus.
Still, knowing Moshe was 80 at the Exodus and 80 years before
Merneptah's reign gives -1304 to -1294 for the beginning years
of repair work on Pithom and Raamses which allows the latter city
to be named in honor of Ramses I.
quote:
Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote:The Israelites mentioned in the Merneptah Stele show every indicator that they would have been formed around emigrants from the Nile Valley. So, if by "Exodus", one means mass migration, then the Merneptah inscriptional Israelites could not likely have been pre-Exodus Israelites. Those inscriptional Israelites were in Canaan, as the Merneptah Stele describes them. There is no evidence that Israelites as people existed in the Levant before the late 14th century BC.
Originally posted by alTakruri:
Per midrash (oral history eventually written
down) a small contingent of Israelites left
Egypt before the mass exodus and were totally
anihilated. This madrash was extant hundreds
of years before he Merneptah stele was uncovered.
I see the midrash and the stele as mutual
evidence of both's veracity -- the midrash says
all of these pre-Exodus Israeltes were wiped out
and Merneptah claims to have exterminated YSRL.
quote:Note that the Phillistines are credited as
When Moses was made king of Ethiopia the Assyrians again rebelled, but Moses subdued them and placed them under yearly tribute to the Ethiopian dynasty.
Now, it happened in the hundred and eightieth year after Israel had gone down into Egypt, that there arose thirty thousand men of the tribe of Ephraim, and formed themselves into companies. And they said:
"The time, mentioned by the Lord to Abraham at the covenant of the pieces (Gen. 15: 13), has arrived; we will go up out of Egypt." And trusting in their own might these men left Egypt.
They did not take any provisions with them, save what was necessary for a day's journey; they took naught but gold and silver, saying, "We shall be able to buy food of the Philistines."
As they travelled towards Gath, they met a party of shepherds and said to them, "Sell us your flocks, for we are hungry."
But the shepherds replied:
"The flocks are ours, and we will not sell them to you."
Then the men of Ephraim seized upon the flocks by force, and the shepherds made a great outcry, which reached the ears of the inhabitants of Gath, who assembled to ascertain its cause. And when the Gathites learned how their brethren had been treated, they armed themselves and marched forth to battle with the wrongdoers; and many fell from both parties. On the second day the men of Gath sent messengers to the cities of the Philistines, saying:
"Come and help us smite these Ephraimites, who have come up from Egypt, seized our flocks, and battled with us for no cause."
And the Philistines marched forth, about forty thousand strong, and they smote the Ephraimites, who were suffering from weariness and hunger, and there escaped from the death dealt out to Ephraim, only ten men.
Thus were the men of Ephraim punished for going up out of Egypt before the time appointed by the Lord.
The bodies of those who fell remained unburied in the valley of Gath, and their bones were the same bones which rose up, endowed with life, in the time of Ezekiel, as his prophecies record.
The ten who escaped returned to Egypt and related to the children of Israel what had occurred to them.
During this time Moses was reigning in Ethiopia in justice and righteousness.
quote:
Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
There is no evidence that Israelites as people existed in the Levant before the late 14th century BC.
quote:Well, if Midrash left the Nile Valley before the forebearers of the Merneptah inscriptional Israelites, then there is no archaeological evidence of it...or is there?
Originally posted by alTakruri:
Yes, the midrash is explicit that members of the
tribe of Ephraim left the Nile Valley at least a
generation before the 12 tribe confederacy did
and they were completely wiped out.
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.
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.
quote:Well, the "exodus" from the Nile Valley, as I just noted in my last response to you, would not have occurred under Merneptah's watch, for Israel was already in Canaan by the time the inscription was made.
Originally posted by alTakruri:
By the chronology found in the Sepher `Olam and
the purported time of Merneptah's reign the
mass exode of K'lal Yisra'el had not yet occured.
quote: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?
Originally posted by alTakruri:
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 is recited at the Passover table each year
with the comment "-- from this we learn that
Israel became a distinct nation in Egypt."
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.
quote:
Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
... if by "his seed is not", the author meant 'severely incapacitated', ...
quote: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]
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by alTakruri:
I have to reread Manetho and Cheremon to see if
they explicitly call the emmigrants Israel else
there is none.
quote:That's what was being said here all along; what did you think was being said about the Merneptah inscriptional Israelites?
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.
quote:That Israelites became a people sometime by the late 14th BC, there is little doubt of that.
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?
quote: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.
Originally posted by alTakruri:
So what is the first extra-Hebrew documentary
evidence of an established territorial polity
naming itself Israel?
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by alTakruri:
In all due respect you just can't go and invent a meaning
for well established idioms. Seed essentially is semen.
quote:Evergreen Writes:
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.
quote:Evergreen Writes:
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.
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.
Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Evergreen Writes:
Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
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.
LOL - Fringe versus Fringe!
quote: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.
Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Evergreen Writes:
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.
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.
quote:Evergreen Writes:
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.
quote:Evergreen Writes:
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Evergreen:
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Evergreen:
because the Merenptah Stele indicates that the Yisrael mentioned by the Egyptians were wiped out
quote:Don't be ridiculous; it is not the matter of cherry-picking. It is a matter of cross-referencing available evidence:
Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Evergreen Writes:
I don't need to present an alternative assessment because the Merenptah Stele indicates that the Yisrael mentioned by the Egyptians were wiped out.
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.
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.
quote:. However you want to cover for it, you have been corrected.
if by "his seed is not", the author meant 'severely incapacitated'
quote:
Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
quote: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.
Originally posted by alTakruri:
In all due respect you just can't go and invent a meaning
for well established idioms. Seed essentially is semen.
quote:
Originally posted by Evergreen:
quote:Evergreen Writes:
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.
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.
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.
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.
quote:Where do you then suppose the Merneptah inscriptional Israelites came from - certainly were not in Canaan all along , and by what tangible evidence?
Originally posted by alTakruri:
There's no doubt that no historical evidence shows
Israelites ever resided in Egypt or moved out of it.
quote: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.
Originally posted by alTakruri:
Merneptah stele locates YSRL as a people in the Levant
not in Egypt...
quote: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.
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.
quote: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'.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote:Instead of reading what is posted, you lie.
Originally posted by alTakruri:
Instead of seeking the idiom's meaning you invented one
quote: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.
Originally posted by alTakruri:
quote:. However you want to cover for it, you have been corrected.
if by "his seed is not", the author meant 'severely incapacitated'
quote: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'.
Originally posted by alTakruri:
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote:Translations of inscription on the Mesha Stele:
Like Judah, there's a conquest record for Israel but unlike
Judah that inscription knows a House of Omri not a kingdom
quote: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.
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,
quote: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.
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.
quote:As noted earlier:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
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??
quote: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.
Originally posted by alTakruri:
Glad to see you looked up Omri after you learnt of
him from me.
quote:...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.
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.
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,
quote: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.
Originally posted by alTakruri:
Very typical.
quote: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.
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.
quote:...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.
Originally posted by alTakruri:
You don't even know what the **** you're babbling
about....
quote:Really!
Originally posted by alTakruri:
You're the one most guilty of what you so
quickly berate others for being and doing.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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:
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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).
quote:Akhenaten’s brand of monotheism, the only one of its kind in the region at the time, and it interesting link to Israelite monotheism:
Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
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.
quote:Hence,
Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
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...
quote:…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.
Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
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 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??
quote:Based on available evidence, both biblical and extra-biblica; Yes!
Originally posted by mentu:
Is this what you are saying?
Jews (biblical) originated in Egypt and later moved to Canaan.
quote:If you consider native Egyptian 'blacks', then yes, they would have had to have engaged in an exogamous relationship with their Levantine neighbors.
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.
quote: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?
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)
quote: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.
Originally posted by mentu:
They moved to Canaan, took canaanite land/assimilated with them leading to the Israeli nation of today.
quote: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.
Originally posted by mentu:
Jewish culture is strongly patriarchal , there must have been a strong asiatic element at the begging of Jewish history.
quote: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.
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.
quote:People say both really, but the correct usage of the word in singular...brain. No one has "brains" which is plural.
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.
quote:Evergreen Writes:
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
- 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.
quote:Thank you my king
Originally posted by King_Scorpion:
quote:People say both really, but the correct usage of the word in singular...brain. No one has "brains" which is plural.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by KemsonReloaded:
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.
quote:Is religion "people"? Is Greenberg talking about the forbearers of "Isrealites" as *people*, or is he talking about just "religion"? Man, seriously,... LOL.
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".
quote: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".
Originally posted by Djehuti:
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??
quote: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.
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??
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
