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

[GoodAttention]

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.

This should also be considered from the Egyptian point of view also. When translating the Merneptah stele, the use of Canaan is grossly inaccurate, since the Egyptians use of the word could have been describing the Phoenicians (the real Canaan), Retjenu, Dhajy, or Khor.

This would completely change the interpretation of the lands being discussed and also whether they were conquests by Egypt at all, but rather historical records of battles and destruction taking place in the places, citites, and people described (as they are lands under Egyptian suzerainty) against invading forces such as the Sea Peoples, Philistines, or even by rebellious elements of the Egyptian armies.

 

[shunyadragon]

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

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

The Stella referred to people not state nor a confederacy.

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]

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

1. No, it does not.
2. See post #138. You're repeating yourself. Take a nap.

 

[shunyadragon]

This should also be considered from the Egyptian point of view also. When translating the Merneptah stele, the use of Canaan is grossly inaccurate, since the Egyptians use of the word could have been describing the Phoenicians (the real Canaan), Retjenu, Dhajy, or Khor.

I do not believe the Phoenicia the True Canaan, the the Phoenicians considered themselves Canaanites.


Source: Phoenicia - Wikipedia

The Phoenicians directly succeeded the Bronze Age Canaanites, continuing their cultural traditions following the decline of most major cultures in the Late Bronze Age collapse and into the Iron Age without interruption. It is believed that they self-identified as Canaanites and referred to their land as Canaan, indicating a continuous cultural and geographical association.[8] The name Phoenicia is an ancient Greek exonym that did not correspond precisely to a cohesive culture or society as it would have been understood natively.[9] Therefore, the division between Canaanites and Phoenicians around 1200 BC is regarded as a modern and artificial division.[8]

This would completely change the interpretation of the lands being discussed and also whether they were conquests by Egypt at all, but rather historical records of battles and destruction taking place in the places, citites, and people described (as they are lands under Egyptian suzerainty) against invading forces such as the Sea Peoples, Philistines, or even by rebellious elements of the Egyptian armies..

The evidence is not only the Amarna letters, but wide spread evidence of Egyptian temples, administration. mansions and other records of Egyptian occupation of moat of Canaan. The only players in true contention for Canaan were Philistines,
h

 

[shunyadragon]

1. No, it does not.
2. See post #138. You're repeating yourself. Take a nap.

Your religious agenda is getting in the way of the clear plain reading of the reference.

A nap won't help you.

The reference does not refer to a state or a confederacy.

Evidence please for a state or confederacy at that time.

 

[GoodAttention]

I do not believe the Phoenicia the True Canaan, the the Phoenicians considered themselves Canaanites.

If interpreting the Mernepteh stele it is only the Egyptian consideration of Canaan you should be taking, not what you believe.

The evidence is not only the Amarna letters, but wide spread evidence of Egyptian temples, administration. mansions and other records of Egyptian occupation of moat of Canaan. The only players in true contention for Canaan were Philistines,
h

The Amarna letters describe life in the Canaan in 1350BCE or thereabouts. The Mernepteh stele puts a timeline of at least 100 years afterwards.

The Philistines established themselves in the Pentopolis, however as we know the Hebrew presence in the Judaen Hills predates their arrival.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Your religious agenda is getting in the way of the clear plain reading of the reference.

I have no religious agenda. Your assumption otherwise is interesting.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

The origins of the Hebrews as a Canaanite tribe fits the archaeological and historical evidence.

Yes oral traditions and Babylonian and Sumerian myths are a part of the sources, but the reality of history is the Pentateuch, Noah flood, Creation myth, and Exodus are not historically accurate. Any imaginary ethnocentric involvement with India just compounds the mythology.

Come on, my friend. You have not replied. Where is parting of the sea? Where is a volcano at Mount Sinai and so many other things. Be merely repeating the statements that the origins of Hebrews, that Canaanite tribe fits the archaeological and historical evidence, will not make any progress in this discussion. If that is what your views without any evidence to back, then we have to close this part of the discussion.

The second part. I agree that the Pentateuch is not historically accurate, but it does not mean that it is historically false either. The ground reality is that in the larger view it is an inspired text and it is correct but certain anachronisms have crept in and they may be expunged as may be required. But this is not the issue. The issue is that before we expunge anything from the Bible, we have to make sure that it is not reconcilable with the history as we know it. My point is that the Exodus is not a myth and the exodus from India provides the evidence that it is not a myth. Therefore, the question is not of compounding the mythology. The task is to unravel the mythology and to understand what it was made of. I really think that we should, with an open mind consider whether the exodus took place from the Indus Valley. If we find or it does not then very fine. Then, let us expunge the Exodus from the Bible. But if we find that it matches with Indus Valley, then why touch the Bible at all!

 

[shunyadragon]

I have no religious agenda. Your assumption otherwise is interesting.

There are not any archeological evidence of any cities as confirmed by your reference,

Accordingly, the Israelites were engaged primarily in agriculture, and Merneptah focused his aggression on their crops because they did not inhabit cities.

 

[shunyadragon]

Come on, my friend. You have not replied. Where is parting of the sea?

There is no such thing as parting og the sea,

Where is a volcano at Mount Sinai and so many other things.

There is no such volcano at Mount Olympus in Exodus.

Be merely repeating the statements that the origins of Hebrews, that Canaanite tribe fits the archaeological and historical evidence, will not make any progress in this discussion. If that is what your views without any evidence to back, then we have to close this part of the discussion.

Yes if you reject the sound academic objective evidence of archeology, history and science concerning the history of the Hebrews, for believing in the Created history and mythology of the Pentateuch mixed with Hindu mythology ah . . . there will be no progress in our discussion

The second part. I agree that the Pentateuch is not historically accurate, but it does not mean that it is historically false either.

The Pentateuch contains some historical facts and individuals confirmed by archeology, but it is not historically accurate and therefore in conflict with known archeology, history and science, and yes much of it is historically false.

The ground reality is that in the larger view it is an inspired text and it is correct

No, as documented by science, archaeology and known documented history.

but certain anachronisms have crept in and they may be expunged as may be required. But this is not the issue. The issue is that before we expunge anything from the Bible, we have to make sure that it is not reconcilable with the history as we know it. My point is that the Exodus is not a myth

Exodus is not based on known history, and archaeology. There is absolutely no evidence of the relationship of anything in the Pentateuch with India.

and the exodus from India provides the evidence that it is not a myth.

No objective evidence provided for any such relationship.

Therefore, the question is not of compounding the mythology. The task is to unravel the mythology and to understand what it was made of. I really think that we should, with an open mind consider whether the exodus took place from the Indus Valley. If we find or it does not then very fine. Then, let us expunge the Exodus from the Bible. But if we find that it matches with Indus Valley, then why touch the Bible at all!

I will have an open mind for coherent objective evidence, but none has been provided, The Pentateuch is Created history based on some facts and documented people, but basically it is created history and mythology after 600 BCE with no relationship to India.

 

[GoodAttention]

Accordingly, the Israelites were engaged primarily in agriculture, and Merneptah focused his aggression on their crops because they did not inhabit cities.

Hmm. I wonder if there is any evidence for where these crops could have been? NOT within any state or confederacy of course, but perhaps along the Judaen Hills or even within the Jezreel Valley?

Would definitely have to be somewhere fertile enough to grow crops...

If only these pesky Israelites had left behind some sort of evidence, or even a few words here or there, that could help narrow this search...

 

[shunyadragon]

Hmm. I wonder if there is any evidence for where these crops could have been? NOT within any state or confederacy of course, but perhaps along the Judaen Hills or even within the Jezreel Valley?

Would definitely have to be somewhere fertile enough to grow crops...

If only these pesky Israelites had left behind some sort of evidence, or even a few words here or there, that could help narrow this search...

I believe the history of the Hebrews grew out of hunter gatherer and than pastoral animal agriculture as the stock of available wild animals diminished, and included farming crops over time as rainfall cycles permitted, Farming was definitely not as productive as the river valley Kingdoms of the ancient world, and that is the main reason they did not develop diverse prosperous kingdoms like Egypt and Babylonia,

Agriculture - Canaan & Ancient Israel @ University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology

www.penn.museum

Farming was the principal occupation of people in both the Bronze and Iron Age. Farm work dictated the pace of life throughout the year, with different tasks for different seasons. Dry summers and wet winters meant that planting occurred in the late fall and harvest in the early summer. The main crops were wheat, barley, legumes, figs, grapes and olives.

Because most river valleys in the region were unsuited for irrigation on a large scale, farmers were dependent on rain. They built and maintained stone terrace-walls to retain water and soil on the steep slopes of the highlands. By late in the Iron Age, some farmers used elaborate systems of conduits and check-dams to capture and redirect rainwater into fields and thus were able to raise crops in areas receiving less than five inches of precipitation per year.

This seasonal schedule is reflected in the Gezer Calendar, a 10th century BCE inscription excavated at Tel Gezer in Israel.

two months of sowing
two months of late sowing
one month of hoeing weeds
one month of barley harvesting
one month of harvesting and measuring (wheat)
two months of cutting grapes

From the earliest beginnings of farming, the basic tool used was the hoe. It was used to break up the soil before planting and for weeding and thinning the crops. The mattock, a heavier tool for breaking up the soil was also used by farmers. Some examples of bronze and iron mattocks and hoes are displayed in the exhibit at the Museum.

Another important agricultural tool was the ard, or scratch plow. The ard had a wooden point, clad with either bronze or iron, which could penetrate the fields to a depth of a few inches. The ploughman controlled the point with a handle and the and was pulled by draft animals (horses, donkey or cattle). Grain was then sown in the ploughed fields.

Canaanite flint Grain was harvested using sickles of flint, bronze and later, iron.

Harvesting was an activity which involved the whole community. Grain was cut and gathered on threshing floors which were usually of beaten earth. Oxen would pull a heavy wooden sledge, studded underneath with jagged flints, in circles over the grain. This process served to cut up the straw and crush the husks around the grains. The results were placed in a broad, flat winnowing basket and tossed in the air. The breeze would carry away the lighter chaff, leaving the heavy grain. The chaff was then collected for use in making mud-bricks and manufacturing pottery.

 

[GoodAttention]

I believe the history of the Hebrews grew out of hunter gatherer and than pastoral animal agriculture as the stock of available wild animals diminished, and included farming crops over time as rainfall cycles permitted, Farming was definitely not as productive as the river valley Kingdoms of the ancient world, and that is the main reason they did not develop diverse prosperous kingdoms like Egypt and Babylonia,

Agriculture - Canaan & Ancient Israel @ University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology

www.penn.museum

Farming was the principal occupation of people in both the Bronze and Iron Age. Farm work dictated the pace of life throughout the year, with different tasks for different seasons. Dry summers and wet winters meant that planting occurred in the late fall and harvest in the early summer. The main crops were wheat, barley, legumes, figs, grapes and olives.

Because most river valleys in the region were unsuited for irrigation on a large scale, farmers were dependent on rain. They built and maintained stone terrace-walls to retain water and soil on the steep slopes of the highlands. By late in the Iron Age, some farmers used elaborate systems of conduits and check-dams to capture and redirect rainwater into fields and thus were able to raise crops in areas receiving less than five inches of precipitation per year.

This seasonal schedule is reflected in the Gezer Calendar, a 10th century BCE inscription excavated at Tel Gezer in Israel.




From the earliest beginnings of farming, the basic tool used was the hoe. It was used to break up the soil before planting and for weeding and thinning the crops. The mattock, a heavier tool for breaking up the soil was also used by farmers. Some examples of bronze and iron mattocks and hoes are displayed in the exhibit at the Museum.

Another important agricultural tool was the ard, or scratch plow. The ard had a wooden point, clad with either bronze or iron, which could penetrate the fields to a depth of a few inches. The ploughman controlled the point with a handle and the and was pulled by draft animals (horses, donkey or cattle). Grain was then sown in the ploughed fields.

Canaanite flint Grain was harvested using sickles of flint, bronze and later, iron.

Harvesting was an activity which involved the whole community. Grain was cut and gathered on threshing floors which were usually of beaten earth. Oxen would pull a heavy wooden sledge, studded underneath with jagged flints, in circles over the grain. This process served to cut up the straw and crush the husks around the grains. The results were placed in a broad, flat winnowing basket and tossed in the air. The breeze would carry away the lighter chaff, leaving the heavy grain. The chaff was then collected for use in making mud-bricks and manufacturing pottery.

I was unaware of the Gezer calender, very informative.

Now I wonder if perhaps these Hebrew farm-types were in fact in multiple locations throughout this Egyptian controlled area.
Perhaps they were residing and working the land as you say throughout all the known hill and valley areas that were perfect for farming and growing crops.

Now...and just hear me out here....what if they had a farmers union of sorts? Like a collective for reasons such as sharing seeds with each other, or perhaps one area was growing more of one type of crop compared to the other, or for animal husbandry. Regardless, lets say that it would have made sense for these farmers to be part of an alliance? collective? workers union? at the very least friendship? They were all subject to Egypt so they would have had this in common.

What evidence do we have they could have done this? Nothing concrete I suppose, but only the damn predictability of human bloody nature both what we do in the open and in the shadows.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

We have a majority consensus stating the Egyptian translation, Isiriar, is Yisrael.

Yes, you are aboslutely right. The majority of historians and Egyptologists agree the inscription on the Merneptah Stele refers to Israel. In case anyone has any doubts, the Stele also includes a determinative that indicates Israel is a foreign people, a tribal or ethnic group.

 

[GoodAttention]

A determinative that indicates Israel is a foreign people, a tribal or ethnic group.

Foreign to Egypt, meaning they were not Egyptian, nor was their presence regarded as under the direction of Egypt. Israel was also not subordinate to Egypt, given they were not as a city or state that could be subdued.

The question now, is Israel an Egyptian name or term for these people, and if not then what language is it from.

 

[Colt]

Based on the archaeological, and historical evidence the following will be proposed in this Thread.

(1) There are no records written by Hebrews before 800-600 BCE. In fact the only records known are from other Kingdoms, like Egypt and Kingdoms that defeated Hebrews in battle.
(2) Before 1000 BCE the Hebrews were various pastoral Canaanite tribes in the Hills of Judah in the North. No known written language or written records from Independent sources,
(3) The Canaanites dominated the region and the City of Jerusalem up to ~1550 BCE
(4) Egypt conquered most of the Levant and colonized the region between ~1550 - 1000 BCE. The Amarna letters, archaeology and other Egyptian records document this. During this time the Levant was contested between the Egyptians and the Hittites.
(5)The Period of upheaval in the late Bronze Age collapse Egypt's hold on the Levant began to deteriorate in ~1100 BCE, by ~1000 BCE
(6) There is a lack of independent records to determine who occupied Jerusalem in the Period o Upheaval.
(7) The Hebrews began to increase in fluence and prosperity, in the region as a loose Confederation as the Egyptians retreated from the Levant. Invasions by the Sea people? and Phoenicians controlled the costal regions. The Philistines dominated the Southern Levant.
(8) A line of Kings including David likely existed between 1200 BCE and 800 BCE and on, but there is no evidence to support a United Monarchy independent of the Bible, before 900-800 BCE..

Imagine if the Canaanites had and Old Testament religious book that they wrote about themselves? Considering that the Israelites and Canaanites intermarried it might sound a little different than the wildly exaggerated version of history that we are left with!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There are not any archeological evidence of any cities as confirmed by your reference,

@shunyadragon, are you OK? I ask only because I honestly find your post confusing. It is presumably a response to the following exchange ...

Your religious agenda is getting in the way of the clear plain reading of the reference.

I have no religious agenda. Your assumption otherwise is interesting.

... but what does "There are not any archeological evidence of any cities as confirmed by your reference" have to do with religious agenda? Absolutely nothing.

As for:

Accordingly, the Israelites were engaged primarily in agriculture, and Merneptah focused his aggression on their crops because they did not inhabit cities.

It is simply dishonest (or remarkably stupid) to wrench this out of context. Here is the entire paragraph. I've provided addition formatting to highlight what you choose to ignore ...

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.

If you wish to engage in the future. Please do so thoughtfully and honest and drop the thoroughly absurd nonsense about my so-called "religious agenda."

 

[shunyadragon]

@shunyadragon, are you OK? I ask only because I honestly find your post confusing. It is presumably a response to the following exchange ...



... but what does "There are not any archeological evidence of any cities as confirmed by your reference" have to do with religious agenda? Absolutely nothing.

As for:



It is simply dishonest (or remarkably stupid) to wrench this out of context. Here is the entire paragraph. I've provided addition formatting to highlight what you choose to ignore ...



If you wish to engage in the future. Please do so thoughtfully and honest and drop the thoroughly absurd nonsense about my so-called "religious agenda."

I believe the problems are yours and @IndigoChild5559 not acknowledging that before 900-600 BCE there is no evidence of a United Monarchy or a Hebrew state or extensive confederacy. You made odd incoherent arguments that "lack of evidence is not evidence of lack." Your the one being selective references to describe the Hebrews as a major player in the Levant before 900 BCE.

Your red bold does not support your argument for the Hebrews being any more than the archeological and historical evidence indicates,

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;

The king's of the scripture before 900 BCE may have existed as local tribal rulers, but no the descriptions of victorious armies, and large cities and temples are Created history and myth. It remains there is not any Hebrew written records before 900 BCE, and rather scant evidence between 900 and 600 BCE. The only records we have is other kingdoms defeating the Hebrews, likely because the were raiding these kingdoms and attacking some towns and cities as described in the Amarna letters,.

The scripture describes a Hebrew advanced civilization before 900 BCE. The evidence says no such civilization of kingdoms existed before 900 BCE. The problem is that advanced Kingdoms surrounding the Hebrews in the ancient world form either in large river valleys with advanced agriculture and/or trade like the Phoenicians.

 

[shunyadragon]

Imagine if the Canaanites had and Old Testament religious book that they wrote about themselves?

Actually we have extensive Phoenicians/Canaanites and Ugarits had extensive writings writings som of which are the roots of Hebrew scripture.

Considering that the Israelites and Canaanites intermarried it might sound a little different than the wildly exaggerated version of history that we are left with!

This reflects the problem of the created history in the Pentateuch after 600 BCE

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I believe the problems are yours ...

Again:

You wrote ...

Your religious agenda is getting in the way of the clear plain reading of the reference.

Please cite anything, anything whatsoever, that confirms (or even suggest) a "religious agenda."

Or retract your thoroughly stupid ad hominem.​