Ancient Israel what really happened?

ubergeneral

Warlord
Joined
Feb 14, 2013
Messages
262
The study of Israel is the most difficult and infuriating civilization to reasearch. Unlike other nations the ancient history is mixed with mythology to the point where it's really difficult to tell myth from fact.

This causes a few big problems for me. First off the conflict in Israel today is a very real thing. The United states has totally invested itself into the conflict and unfortunately it's been at the expense of the United states. The biggest belief in Israel is that the land is the promised land and they have the right to it by god.

next I get pointed to biblical texts showing many stories about ancient israel.

So I have a few questions.

1. Where did the people of Israel come from? Is it really true that Abraham immigrated from Ur?

What exactly are the Israeli people? The levatine region wasn't uninhabited in 3000 bc could the Israeli people just be an ethnic group?

What is the relationship between early Judaism and Canaanite religion? Did early Jews worship many gods? Did Judaism evolve from Canaanite religion?

Did the conquest of Joshua happen? Is the kingdom of david an empire? Would this conquest be a just war or is it a genocide. And if it was a war fought under the grace of God wouldn't this be a double standard?
 
1. Abraham was Mespotamian, that much scholars have figured out. Which city state he was from is uncertain, though I'd wager that he was from Ur.

As for the Israeli question- there is little evidence that they were slaves in Egypt. There are no records of large scale migration, no interbreeding despite the populations being so close together and the pyramids were not built by slaves as thought, but by well paid workers
http://harvardmagazine.com/2003/07/who-built-the-pyramids-html
 
First of all what do you mean by myth? Is it hard to figure out from the mythology what is fact or fiction? If you think that the Old Testament is just a myth meaning a widely held belief that is false, then you have already condemned anything written in the Old Testament. The OT is not a widely held belief. It was the writings of people whom we suspect actually lived in the historical timeframe of ancient Israel.
 
The study of Israel is the most difficult and infuriating civilization to reasearch. Unlike other nations the ancient history is mixed with mythology to the point where it's really difficult to tell myth from fact.

In most cases with most nations history does emerge from myths, which do not provide definitive answers. Theory of Indo-Aryan migration is hotly debated and can be very inflammatory, for example.

As for ancient Israelites did you start with Wikipedia?
 
Maybe let's start from the beginning.

Jews are one of Semitic-speaking peoples, who (Semites as a whole - not Jews) are believed to have originated ~6000 years ago. Today there are two main theories as to the place of origin of Proto-Semites - either Eastern Levant or Western Mesopotamia (they are actually in close proximity to each other). The earliest attested Semitic language was Akkadian, spoken by people who conquered Sumerians and founded the Akkadian Empire.

There are two theories regarding the relationship between Akkadian language and other Semitic languages - one of them says that all other Semitic languages originated from groups of Akkadian-speakers who migrated west from Mesopotomia into Levant, the other theory (which assumes that Semitic languages originated in Eastern Levant, not in Western Mesopotamia) claims that those Proto-Semites who migrated east became Akkadian-speakers and Eblaite-speakers, etc. (Eastern Semites), while those who migrated west and south formed other Semitic languages (Central Semites and Southern Semites). Of course the 2nd theory doesn't exclude the possibility that some of Non-Akkadian Semitic peoples could have originated from Akkadian anyway.

Semitic migration to Palestine (or rather Western and Southern Levant in general) was not a single event, but it took place in at least 3 major waves of peoples migrating from the east (from Eastern Levant or from Mesopotamia) arriving to the same place and overlapping with previous Semites who had migrated there before.

The Biblical story which says that Abraham was born in Ur is of course a legend and we don't know whether it is true or not, but undoubtedly it reflects the eastern origin of Hebrews (Israelites) and the fact of their migration from the east is true. It should not be surprising anyway that various groups of people were migrating from Mesopotamia to other places, considering that Mesopotamia was the most densely populated area in entire Western Eurasia at that time.

Theory about Eastern Levantine origins of Proto-Semites and their early divergence for Eastern Semites (mostly Akkadians) and others - of whom Akkadians migrated east and others migrated mostly west and south - is probably the correct one, but - as I wrote - it doesn't exclude the Mesopotamian origin of Hebrews.

That early divergence of Semites took place shortly before the 1st wave of Semitic migrations to Palestine, while Hebrews arrived to Palestine much later - during the 3rd wave of Semitic migrations. This suggests that early on they could have indeed lived somewhere far away from Palestine, perhaps in Mesopotamia.

There are also written sources which seem to support Mesopotamian origins of Hebrews. One of them mentions the Habir peoples (could they be Hebrews? most probably yes) living in Mesopotamia, near the city of Ur, ca. 2750 - 2600 BC. Later sources mention such names like Habiri and Ibrim (could both or at least one of these names be Hebrews? most likely yes) migrating to Palestine during the 15th century BC, as part of the 3rd wave of Semitic migrations.

Then we have Egyptian sources mentioning some Hebiri (once again: most probably Hebrews) in Egypt during the 13th and the 12th centuries BC. Of course they were not building pyramids, because their presence in Egypt took place centuries after the end of "pyramid-building movement" (according to the link posted below, the last of Egyptian pyramids were constructed in the 18th century BC - almost 500 years before the beginning of Hebrew presence in Egypt):

http://www.ancientegypt.co.uk/time/explore/pyr.html

After settling in Palestine, Hebrews mixed with local peoples - other Semitic tribes who had arrived there before them (as I wrote, Semitic migrations started at least 5500 years ago, while Hebrews first visited Palestine only around 3500 years ago, and ~3300 years ago visited Egypt, just to come back to Palestine some 3100 to 3050 years ago). Even the Bible gives examples - grandmother of King David was an ethnic Moabite. So when Jews emerged as a nation (and they emerged as such perhaps only in their own kingdom* - established in year 1020 BC), they were no longer descendants of just Hebrews alone. They also assimilated or absorbed many other Semitic tribes. Among tribes absorbed by Hebrews / Israelites - and thus taking part in ethnogenesis of Jews - were for example Kenites, Rechabites, Kenisites, etc. They were also intermarrying with Edomites, Egyptians, Moabites, etc. And Moses even had an Ethiopian wife. Only centuries later Jewish laws concerning marriages of Jews with Non-Jews became much more restricted. But already at that time, Jews were a mix of many tribes.

*But already before establishing a kingdom (1020 BC), Jews had been a loosely united tribal union:

It consisted of many tribes, both with immigrant Hebrew and local Non-Hebrew background:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederated_Tribes_of_Israel#Main_text

So ethnogenesis of Jews took place in Palestine, even though one of major parts of their ancestors - Hebrews - migrated to Palestine from other places.

As for the Hebrew language - it belongs to Canaanite subdivision of Semitic, which included for example Hebrew and Phoenician. Canaanite subdivision - together with Aramaic, Ugaritic and Amorite subdivisions - were parts of Northwest Semitic languages, which were parts of Central Semitic languages:



Amorites had migrated to Western Levant long before Hebrews and founderd the Kingdom of Yamhad:

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_people#Semitic-speaking_peoples

That is the relationship between early Judaism and Canaanite religion? Did early Jews worship many gods? Did Judaism evolve from Canaanite religion?

Yes, Judaism did evolve from Canaanite religion, but at the beginning they most probably worshipped many gods. It evolved from Polytheism through Monolatrism (recognizing the existence of many gods but believing that only one is the chosen god worth worshipping) to Monotheism.

==============================================

One of variants of the theory about Eastern Levantine origin of Semites ca. 6000 years before present:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2839953/

 
If the Bible wasn't written the way it was, people would have accepted the story of the Israelites as fact, but people want to prove the Bible wrong in every case, even though it is the most accurate history book we've got.
 
So what meaning were the stories in the old testament? How did they orginate?

For Abraham how could the story been written? Is the story really an accurate account of the migration from Mesopotamia or was it born as a fictitious account based off of tribal memory?

What about the story of Moses? Can it be proven that their was migration to egypt? If not what was the purpose of the story? The book of exodus really puts down egyptian gods by making them look bad.

Last is jousha. I've read people claim that the conquest was just because the other tribes worshiped evil gods. The Bible puts down other tribes by saying that they are offspring of fallen angels or nifellem. Was there a conquest in Israel Luke is says in the bible and if there was, was it a just war?
 
1. Abraham was Mespotamian, that much scholars have figured out.

I think that's granting too much. Scholars aren't certain whether Abraham even existed, let alone where he came from.

I think that any biblical history set before the period of the kings, and probably before the Exile, is too mingled with legend and myth to be of much historical value. Part of the problem is that in most cases there aren't any alternative sources for the same events to help us work out what's history and what isn't.
 
The study of Israel is the most difficult and infuriating civilization to reasearch. Unlike other nations the ancient history is mixed with mythology to the point where it's really difficult to tell myth from fact.

This is not at all uncommon for the classical and pre-classical era anywhere. A popular refrain from Dachs in threads like these is that there are scholars of Baktrian and Turkish (and Celtic/Germanic) history that would ABSOLUTELY KILL for a source like the Bible. Some cultures' entire histories are built around faces on coins and a handful of runic inscriptions written (often illegibly) onto bones.¹ Meanwhile the Levant gets a massive tome with names and details and relative dates and everything. So yes, the job of scholars of Ancient and Classical Judea entails a lot of digging through mythical accounts of the region to try to pull out what elements of truth can be gleamed from the myth, but that's true of much of history for this era. Unless you mean to tell me there was an honest-to-god Troy that was besieged for 10 years by Myceneans, championed by a half-god who was literally immortal unless shot in the heel. Or that Constantine succeeded at Milvian Bridge because the painted chi-rhos on his men's shields literally imbued them with the God-granted power to fend off any and all attacks. Or that the entirety of Bede's History is 100% accurate and infallible.

¹Obvious hyperbole
 
If the Bible wasn't written the way it was, people would have accepted the story of the Israelites as fact, but people want to prove the Bible wrong in every case, even though it is the most accurate history book we've got.
Archaeology and geology disagree with you.
 
this is sort of a catch22. It may be the most accurate book but that doesn't make anything it says correct.
 
this is sort of a catch22. It may be the most accurate book but that doesn't make anything it says correct.

And so far archaeology and geology does not out right prove it is wrong, but that is a different thread. The Hebrews did not leave behind much in the way of archaeological markers past the time frame of King David, but that does not prove they did not exist. If humans wanted to understand, there is a traceable and logical explanation for Moses and the Exodus if people ever looked deeper into the situation and there is still evidence available today that could back it up.

First of all the Hebrews were not a competitive people group at odds with Egypt. They were part of the makeup of the natural order of Egyptian life up to the last ~50 years of their time in Egypt. That they bested a Pharaoh would not be something that a Pharaoh may want to publish for various reasons. The years they would have been in Egypt cover around 1800 to 1400 BC. This would have been during the 13th to 17th dynasties, and even Egypt does not have great archaeological evidence during this time either. Even the Egyptians were not that much different from their Semitic roots. The family group that came from Abraham seemed to be in a regular communication and trade status with the Pharaohs. Another descendant of Abraham was Median founder of the Midianite tribes who also lived and traded between Akkad/Assyria and Egypt. Their pottery has been found dating back to the 13th century BC.

The Hebrews were not the ruling class as some have theorized in the Hyksos rulers. They were semi nomadic herdsmen, who having outgrown their agrarian ways, offered themselves as employees of the Pharaohs. The point of disfavor with modern skeptics is the supernatural essence woven into their stories. It was not magic and wizardry though. It was the manipulation of physics and biology in a natural but more than ordinary way. As for evidence left behind, they were not monument builders. They were agrarian nomads. They were only in the desert for 40 years, not hundreds of years like their cousins the Midianites. They did not even build great cities or huge monuments until the Kingdom years. Like I said though, the only record has been refuted as assumed lies, of which none of them can be proven as lies.
 
The main thing used to identify Hebrew settlements was the absence of pig bones (along with the usual Canaanite pottery). Certainly, there's no evidence of their presence outside of the Levant. I think the question is whether this culture appeared after the supposed Exodus or whether it was in the Levant from well before that point. That being said, the non-biblical sources aren't extremely helpful either. The first outside reference to Israel says it is completely destroyed by the Egyptians (obviously, Egyptian sources are prone to exaggeration and misinformation as well).

I can't recall the specific example off the top of my head, but there's at least one obvious example of incorporating something they can see in every day life (I don't think it was the walls of Jericho being collapsed, but it was a similar example) and incorporating an explanation into the story. Archaeology has since proven that explanation to be wrong. But, of course, that doesn't discredit the whole story, just that one element.
 
SeekTruthFromFacts said:
Is there a history book from the era of the Exile or before that you consider more accurate?
The Bible is not a history book. And that's an awful means of assessing its relative historical value. Does this mean the Bible is useless as a historical source? Not at all. But your approach devalues the wealth of other sources that are available to scholars.

Owen Glyndwr said:
Obvious hyperbole
No, it's not. :p
 
You might want to re-read Classical Hero's comment. Is there a history book from the era of the Exile or before that you consider more accurate?
He claims the Old Testament is an accurate history book, when it is obviously not.

And so far archaeology and geology does not out right prove it is wrong, but that is a different thread. The Hebrews did not leave behind much in the way of archaeological markers past the time frame of King David, but that does not prove they did not exist. If humans wanted to understand, there is a traceable and logical explanation for Moses and the Exodus if people ever looked deeper into the situation and there is still evidence available today that could back it up.
Please link this "traceable and logical explanation for Moses and the Exodus."

The point of disfavor with modern skeptics is the supernatural essence woven into their stories. It was not magic and wizardry though. It was the manipulation of physics and biology in a natural but more than ordinary way.
Manipulation how? It's only valid if it can be observed using the scientific method, or if there is archaeological, or geological evidence.
 
He claims the Old Testament is an accurate history book, when it is obviously not.


Please link this "traceable and logical explanation for Moses and the Exodus."


Manipulation how? It's only valid if it can be observed using the scientific method, or if there is archaeological, or geological evidence.

The Miracles of Exodus: a Scientist Reveals the Extraordinary Natural Causes Underlying the Biblical Miracles (Harper Collins, 2003). Author: Colin Humphreys
 
Colin Humphreys is to Old Testament studies what David Icke is to the search for extra-terrestrial life.

Humphreys' arguments rely on the assumption that everything that happens in the book of Exodus really did happen and can be explained through purely naturalistic means. These assumptions belong in the eighteenth century, when explanations of this kind were in vogue (and people thought that e.g. Jesus walking on water could be explained by him knowing where the stepping stones were), but before people had realised that the biblical texts are of the same genre as other ancient Middle Eastern writings: legend and myth. People like Humphries come along every once in a while; his equivalent in a previous generation was Immanuel Velikovsky, who thought all the miracles in the Old Testament (and every other religion) could be explained by Venus turning into a comet and hurtling past the Earth every so often. It's not science, it's wishful thinking. It's also utterly alien to the actual thinking of the Bible, which presents the events of the Exodus and other miracles as great actions by God, not naturalistically explicable events. I don't understand the desire to retain the bald facts of Exodus while stripping away the supernatural element of the book; if you don't believe in a God who can perform miracles of this kind, why do you want to believe the other stuff in the text?
 
That is one way to look at it, but then again, why would you deny the naturalistic ability of God? It would seem to me that God has power over the every day mundane things, not just the revolutionary ideas that happen every thousand years. Would you question Humphries ability as a scientist, or just critical of his detective skills in the field?
 
Top Bottom