The archaeological and historical evidence of the early history of the Jews before 600 BCE.

[shunyadragon]

That was an "extreme over statement based on a religious agenda"? Seriously? Whine less.



Therefore? The fact remains that the defeat of "Israel" was something that mighty Egypt deemed boast-worthy.

No the correct translation DID NOT refer to a State of Israel. It refers to a people, which was by the known evidence Canaanite pastoral tribes in the Hills of Judah. There is absolutely no independent evidence of the existence of a State of Israel at that time.

Seriously? Get your facts straight and Whine less.

 

[shunyadragon]

Torah or Tanach?

If you insist on redundant yet superficial bible-bashing you could at least work on on your presentation.

The problem here is your evidence manipulation, bashing, whining about the lack of evidence, and pleading your case from 'arguing from ignorance,'

 

[IndigoChild5559]

No the secular citation does not confirm anything you stated. The Merneptah Stele, does not confirm the existence of Israel as a state in the translation I cited. The Merneptah Stele, only confirms the existence of the Hebrews, which yes they were pastoral Canaanite tribes in the Hills of Judah.

That's because Israel has not always HAD a state. It doesn't mean Israel doesn't exist. There are PLENTY of times that Hebrews/Israelites/Jews have not had a state, but certainly have existed, the most recent being the 2000 year long stretch between the fall of Judea and the formation of the modern state of Israel.

It seems to me (and you can clear this up if needed) that you thought I was referring to some kind of kingdom, but I was not. When I say "Israel" I am referring to the Children of Israel, Hebrews/Israelites/Jews, that confederation of tribes whose origins go back into legendary times, and who still exist today. For example, I am not an Israeli, I am an American. But I am also part of Israel.

 

[GoodAttention]

No the correct translation DID NOT refer to a State of Israel. It refers to a people, which was by the known evidence Canaanite pastoral tribes in the Hills of Judah. There is absolutely no independent evidence of the existence of a State of Israel at that time.

Seriously? Get your facts straight and Whine less.

So are you admitting there is evidence that people who resided on the Hills of Judah being referred to as Israel around 1200BCE?

And this evidence would be part of the early history of the Jews before 600 BCE?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So are you admitting there is evidence that people who resided on the Hills of Judah being referred to as Israel around 1200BCE?

And this evidence would be part of the early history of the Jews before 600 BCE?

We have clear evidence that the tribal confederacy known as Israel existed in 1200 BCE, but whether they lived in the hills of Judah is unknown.

We know the southern Kingdom of Judah existed from approximately 930 BCE until 586 BCE. What happened before that is largely disputed.

The Bible presents a united kingdom under Saul, David, and Solomon, and if that existed, certainly those who dwelt in the hills of Judah would have been Israel.

But many historians, including Jewish ones, dispute that such a united kingdom existed. These scholars say the evidence is more indicative of the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah having entirely different origins, and that it was only when Israel was destroyed and its people fled south to Judah, that the populations combined, that their myths and legends were subtly altered to be compatible, and that Judah was edited into the Israelite stories.

You will have to weigh things for yourself and determine what you think is the historical truth.

 

[GoodAttention]

We have clear evidence that the tribal confederacy known as Israel existed in 1200 BCE, but whether they lived in the hills of Judah is unknown.

We have a majority consensus stating the Egyptian translation, Isiriar, is Yisrael. Nothing further can be extrapolated from this, except to say that the Egyptians were very accurate in converting the name Israel phonetically, and that this is potential evidence for the Hebrew language.

The better translation could be inhabitants of the Jezreel valley, which Hebrew itself translates as "God sows". This takes into context the potential "laying waste" of farmland, and the destruction of seed. Given it describes a valley and not a city, the herioglyphs would still use the peoples rather than place description.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

That's because Israel has not always HAD a state. It doesn't mean Israel doesn't exist.

This is obvious to anyone interested in an honest conversation.

 

[shunyadragon]

So are you admitting there is evidence that people who resided on the Hills of Judah being referred to as Israel around 1200BCE?

No, there were Canaanite Tribes in the Hills of Judah referred to as Hebrews,

And this evidence would be part of the early history of the Jews before 600 BCE?

Israel NO, Canaanite Hebrew pastoral tribes,

 

[GoodAttention]

No, there were Canaanite Tribes in the Hills of Judah referred to as Hebrews,

Referred to by whom and in what language?

Israel NO, Canaanite Hebrew pastoral tribes,

So is the the word/name "Israel" being used independantly by the Egyptians to (potentially) refer to a Hebrew tribe in the Judean Hills, and if so how did they derive this word/name?

OR

Is the word/name Israel being described phonetically on the stele because the Egyptians had enough respect for these people that they would refer to them with the name they gave themselves, being Israel?

 

[shunyadragon]

We have clear evidence that the tribal confederacy known as Israel existed in 1200 BCE, but whether they lived in the hills of Judah is unknown.

No we do not have any evidence of a tribal confederacy/

We know the southern Kingdom of Judah existed from approximately 930 BCE until 586 BCE. What happened before that is largely disputed.

What exists between 930-600 BCE does not justify the unfounded claim of a State or confederacy called Israel in 1200 BCE.

The Bible presents a united kingdom under Saul, David, and Solomon, and if that existed, certainly those who dwelt in the hills of Judah would have been Israel.

IF that existed. There is absolutely no independent evidence confirming the existence of Saul or the created accounts of military conquests and victories From Saul to Joshua. It is more than obvious that the accounts of the Pentateuch do not have a foundation in archeological and historical evidence in history.

But many historians, including Jewish ones, dispute that such a united kingdom existed. These scholars say the evidence is more indicative of the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah having entirely different origins, and that it was only when Israel was destroyed and its people fled south to Judah, that the populations combined, that their myths and legends were subtly altered to be compatible, and that Judah was edited into the Israelite stories.

By far most archeologists and historians acknowledge that there is absolutely no archeological or historical evidence for the existence of Kingdoms or states or Confederations called Israel in the North or the South in ~1200 BCE. The evidence between ~1200 BCE and 900 BCE is virtually sketchy beyond belief. No Hebrew records that confirm the Biblical account and only second sources from surrounding Kingdoms with establish written language,

You will have to weigh things for yourself and determine what you think is the historical truth.

I do not weigh things for my self, I based it on the known archeological and historical evidence before 900-600 BCE,

The better translation could be inhabitants of the Jezreel valley, which Hebrew itself translates as "God sows". This takes into context the potential "laying waste" of farmland, and the destruction of seed. Given it describes a valley and not a city, the herioglyphs would still use the peoples rather than place description.

The better translation? Refence please! You need to specifically document this biased assertion. Egyptian records do indeed refer to specific places that exist and Kingdoms as in the Amarna letters. The descriptions absolutely do not refer to a "state," and there is no independent evidence for an existence of a state,

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

No the correct translation DID NOT refer to a State of Israel.

And I DID NOT suggest otherwise.

We have a majority consensus stating the Egyptian translation, Isiriar, is Yisrael. Nothing further can be extrapolated from this, except to say that the Egyptians were very accurate in converting the name Israel phonetically, and that this is potential evidence for the Hebrew language.

The better translation could be inhabitants of the Jezreel valley, which Hebrew itself translates as "God sows". This takes into context the potential "laying waste" of farmland, and the destruction of seed. Given it describes a valley and not a city, the herioglyphs would still use the peoples rather than place description.

One author writes:

More recently, some have suggested that "seed" refers to grain rather than human progeny. Accordingly, the Israelites were engaged primarily in agriculture, and Merneptah focused his aggression on their crops because they did not inhabit cities. The line is, however, a stereotypical expression, and although the name Israel is prefaced with unspoken scribal symbols ("determinatives") that designate Israel as a "foreign people" rather than a "foreign land," we cannot say much about its social constitution. Similarly, while the Merneptah monument refers to both "Canaan" and "Israel," it does not support the Bible's sharp distinction between the two entities. Instead, it simply classifies Canaan as a territory and Israel as a population; to what extent they overlapped is not clear.​

​

The fact that Merneptah's stele mentions Israel suggests that it was a force to be reckoned with. Otherwise, this people's putative annihilation would not have earned them a line on the monument. It's hardly a feat to have wiped out a small band of farmers who did not have the means to engage in combat. Whatever the case may be, Merneptah's monument provides proof positive that a people called Israel existed in the Levant in 1207 BCE, and as we established from the Amarna Archive, they do not seem to have been there - or at least their presence went unnoticed - a century and [a] half earlier. [emphasis added - JS] [source]​

A few pages later, he summarizes ...

At this early stage, the name Israel appears to have designates a powerful tribe, or even alliance of tribes, that posed a threat to Egyptian armies. Its members may have been semi-nomadic outsiders who lived in the periphery of cities and urban civilizations in Canaan. Thanks to Merneptah's stele, we know that the name long antedates the emergence of the Northern kingdom in the tenth and ninth centuries. we can also be confident that those who bore the name in Merneptah's time possessed some political signifigance; otherwise, the Egyptian scribes would not have deemed their subjugation worthy of mention. [ibid]​

 

[shunyadragon]

Referred to by whom and in what language?

The archaeological evidence, genetic evidence of the Hebrew tribes has determined by any reasonable doubt that they were Canaanite, with Canaanite Gods and the later evolution of their written language was Phoenician/Canaanite.

So is the the word/name "Israel" being used independantly by the Egyptians to (potentially) refer to a Hebrew tribe in the Judean Hills, and if so how did they derive this word/name?

The word Israel as s state was not used. The correct translation refers to a people not a state named Israel.

OR

Is the word/name Israel being described phonetically on the stele because the Egyptians had enough respect for these people that they would refer to them with the name they gave themselves, being Israel?

You are stretching the evidence beyond the translation of Stella to justify your agenda, There is absolutely no independent evidence of the existence of a state or confederacy in the Hills of Judah.

Again, again, and again . . . There is absolutely no evidence that a Hebrew written language existed at this time. It is obvious that tribes have a name the the tribes us to refer to themselves, and the Egyptians would refer to, but beyond that there is absolutely no "independent" evidence to confirm your claim.

 

[shunyadragon]

And I DID NOT suggest otherwise.



One author writes:

More recently, some have suggested that "seed" refers to grain rather than human progeny. Accordingly, the Israelites were engaged primarily in agriculture, and Merneptah focused his aggression on their crops because they did not inhabit cities. The line is, however, a stereotypical expression, and although the name Israel is prefaced with unspoken scribal symbols ("determinatives") that designate Israel as a "foreign people" rather than a "foreign land," we cannot say much about its social constitution. Similarly, while the Merneptah monument refers to both "Canaan" and "Israel," it does not support the Bible's sharp distinction between the two entities. Instead, it simply classifies Canaan as a territory and Israel as a population; to what extent they overlapped is not clear.​

​

The fact that Merneptah's stele mentions Israel suggests that it was a force to be reckoned with. Otherwise, this people's putative annihilation would not have earned them a line on the monument. It's hardly a feat to have wiped out a small band of farmers who did not have the means to engage in combat. Whatever the case may be, Merneptah's monument provides proof positive that a people called Israel existed in the Levant in 1207 BCE, and as we established from the Amarna Archive, they do not seem to have been there - or at least their presence went unnoticed - a century and [a] half earlier. [emphasis added - JS] [source]​

A few pages later, he summarizes ...

At this early stage, the name Israel appears to have designates a powerful tribe, or even alliance of tribes, that posed a threat to Egyptian armies. Its members may have been semi-nomadic outsiders who lived in the periphery of cities and urban civilizations in Canaan. Thanks to Merneptah's stele, we know that the name long antedates the emergence of the Northern kingdom in the tenth and ninth centuries. we can also be confident that those who bore the name in Merneptah's time possessed some political signifigance; otherwise, the Egyptian scribes would not have deemed their subjugation worthy of mention. [ibid]​

One author states? Who? Reference please! "Some have suggested" is not a competent statement based on the evidence.

It did not reference on the Stelle that the Hebrews were a force to be reckoned with. The Stella simple states in one line they were defeated.

A line on a monument doe not justify the existence of a state or Confederacy. There are no other Egyptian references describing Israel as a state or confederacy.

Where is the independent evidence of the existence of a state or confederacy??????

 

[GoodAttention]

The better translation? Refence please! You need to specifically document this biased assertion. Egyptian records do indeed refer to specific places that exist and Kingdoms as in the Amarna letters. The descriptions absolutely do not refer to a "state," and there is no independent evidence for an existence of a state,

I did warn you of folly when you go digging up the past.

The Merneptah stele descriptions do not refer to "Hebrews", and the Amarna letters are from more than a century prior.

There is no avoiding the word/name Israel c1200BCE. The fact that it wasn't a "state" is irrelevant to the archaeological and historical evidence of presented, nor does it take away from the history of the Jews before 600BCE.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

One author states? Who? Reference please!

With an exclamation point no less.

If you return to my post, you can either ...

1. go to the line "One author writes," note that author is a link, and follow it, or
2. go to the end of the first quote, note that the reference to "source" is a link, and follow it.

 

[shunyadragon]

I did warn you of folly when you go digging up the past.

The Merneptah stele descriptions do not refer to "Hebrews", and the Amarna letters are from more than a century prior.

No problem. The example is clear, and not much different in the context of time. Egypt did refer to places and people as cited.
The importance of the Anarna letters is they demonstrate that the Egyptians conquered and colonized most of the Levant described as Canaan at the time

There is no avoiding the word/name Israel c1200BCE. The fact that it wasn't a "state" is irrelevant to the archaeological and historical evidence of presented, nor does it take away from the history of the Jews before 600BCE.

There is no avoiding the actual factual evidence that the Stelle refer to a people the Hebrews used to describe themselves, and you cannot avoid the fact that there is absolutely no evidence of the existence of a state or confederation.

Independent source please!

 

[GoodAttention]

The archaeological evidence, genetic evidence of the Hebrew tribes has determined by any reasonable doubt that they were Canaanite, with Canaanite Gods and the later evolution of their written language was Phoenician/Canaanite.

You should be stating the Hebrew tribes of the Judaen Hills specifically.

The word Israel as s state was not used. The correct translation refers to a people not a state named Israel.

This would need to be compared and contrasted to how the Egyptians referred to the Sea Peoples, the Hittiites, the Hurrians, and then also Israel in ther Mernepteh stele before coming to any conclusion.

You are stretching the evidence beyond the translation of Stella to justify your agenda, There is absolutely no independent evidence of the existence of a state or confederacy in the Hills of Judah.

Irrelevant comment as claim was never made.

Again, again, and again . . . There is absolutely no evidence that a Hebrew written language existed at this time. It is obvious that tribes have a name the the tribes us to refer to themselves, and the Egyptians would refer to, but beyond that there is absolutely no "independent" evidence to confirm your claim.

Your obvious prejudice in discussing this is fascinating, so I will ask you this final question.

For the time period 1270 to 1200BCE the conclusions from the archaeological evidence is the following.

Reference to Israel a people (NOT a state), however the location, language, and ethnicity of these people is unknown AND
Hebrew tribes existed in the Judaen Hills

Do either of these conclusions warrant inclusion in your list of archaeological and historical evidence of the early history of the Jews before 600BCE?

Or are Jews no longer connected to any evidence of Hebrews or Israel anymore?

 

[shunyadragon]

With an exclamation point no less.

If you return to my post, you can either ...

1. go to the line "One author writes," note that author is a link, and follow it, or
2. go to the end of the first quote, note that the reference to "source" is a link, and follow it.

In retrospect the reference by Jacob L. Wright agrees with me not you.

More recently, some have suggested that "seed" refers to grain rather than human progeny. Accordingly, the Israelites were engaged primarily in agriculture, and Merneptah focused his aggression on their crops because they did not inhabit cities. The line is, however, a stereotypical expression, and although the name Israel is prefaced with unspoken scribal symbols ("determinatives") that designate Israel as a "foreign people" rather than a "foreign land," we cannot say much about its social constitution. Similarly, while the Merneptah monument refers to both "Canaan" and "Israel," it does not support the Bible's sharp distinction between the two entities. Instead, it simply classifies Canaan as a territory and Israel as a population; to what extent they overlapped is not clear.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Refocusing on "the archaeological and historical evidence of the early history of the Jews before 600 BCE, and noting that Merneptah presumed Israel to be a recognizable ethnicon some six centuries earlier, I found the article Whence Came the Israelites and Their Language more than a little interesting. This is particularly true of its section on Language which begins:

During the past several years, my study of North-west Semitic languages, especially more recent discoveries in the late twentieth century, has led me to the conclusion that ancient Hebrew has more affinities with Aramaic and Moabite than with Phoenician (the real Canaanite of the Iron Age). This can have profound significance for the origin of the Iron I settlers.​

After a fairly dense (for me) discussion, he offers ...

The absence of the prefix preterite and the prefix preterite narrative sequences in Phoenician, the one language that can rightly be called 'Canaanite', means that a radical change in our classification is long overdue. The narrative prefix preterite sequences with the augmented conjunction are not Canaanite. This is a syntactic feature shared by three languages that have their origin in the eastern steppe lands of the Fertile Crescent. It is, in fact, a very strong argument for classifying ancient Hebrew and Moabite not as Canaanite dialects, but as Transjordanian languages.​

This says nothing about a magical exodus, a mighty conquest, or a united monarchy. It does, however, further suggest that the "they're just Caananites" mantra might be too simplistic.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In retrospect the reference by Jacob L. Wright agrees with me not you.

Congratulations on finding the author. I would suggest that you read the book if I thought it would do any good.