...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Deshret
»
Multidisciplinary approach to the origins of Isrealites: Kemetian or not?
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mystery Solver: [QB] [QUOTE]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]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 [i]nation[/i] named Israel. [b]It is evidence of a [i]people[/i] named Israel.[/b][/QUOTE]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 - [i]b*nei Yisra'el[/i] to 2 - [i]'Am Yisrael[/i] 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. [i]B*nei[/i] can alternately mean "sons of" or "children of." [i]`Am[/i] 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]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?[/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. [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.[/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. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3