Was there evidence of the Philistines around 1500 BCE, before the time of the Exodus?

[Sargonski]

Yes, the Canaanites, Hebrews and Arabs are descendents Semitic tribes and related with, Eastern Middle East, African, Egyptian and Phoenician in the mix, but I seriously question the Abraham story as the explanation of the separation of Hebrews from Arabs, Though the Hebrews were definitely a Canaanite tribe that evolved in the Hills of Judah with a version of Canaanite religion and language to a Kingdom about 800-600 BCE. The Hebrews than took Canaanite writing and developed their own writing and cultural identity in the compilation of the Pentateuch and became Monotheistic.

Ancient Semitic-speaking peoples - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ancient Semitic-speaking peoples or Proto-Semitic people were speakers of Semitic languages who lived throughout the ancient Near East and North Africa, including the Levant, Mesopotamia, the Arabian Peninsula and Carthage from the 3rd millennium BC until the end of antiquity, with some, such as Arabs, Arameans, Assyrians, Jews, Mandaeans, and Samaritans having a continuum into the present day.

Their languages are usually divided into three branches: East, Central and South Semitic languages. The Proto-Semitic language was likely first spoken in the early 4th millennium BC in Western Asia, and the oldest attested forms of Semitic date to the early to mid-3rd millennium BC (the Early Bronze Age).

Speakers of East Semitic include the people of the Akkadian Empire, Ebla, Assyria, Babylonia, the latter two of which eventually switched to East Aramaic and perhaps Dilmun. Central Semitic combines the Northwest Semitic languages and Arabic. Speakers of Northwest Semitic were the Canaanites (including the Phoenicians, Punics, Amorites, Edomites, Moabites and the Hebrews), Arameans and the Ugarites. South Semitic peoples include the speakers of Modern South Arabian languages and Ethiopian Semitic languages.

Indeed .. except Hebrews did not take canaanite writing ... you can not take something you already own ... the Hebrews were Canaanites and thus their language/writing was Canaanite .. through the normal process the language of different groups changes over time.

The Israelites never adopt monotheism .. long after Israel = the Northern Kingdom - is destroyed .. they move closer to monotheism.. but only after the God of Judah is destroyed by the Babylonian God Marduk .. does Judaism adopt monotheism - copying aspects of the Persian Religious beliefs .. on the basis of the "Messiah" known as Cyrus the Great.

 

[Sargonski]

The word indigenous refers to the first homo sapiens to occupy a territory. The Canaanites were not that.

Not necessarily .. and yes the Canaanites were the indigenous people in the region when David showed up .. just as the Palestinians were the indigenous people when the Israeli's showed up .. and are that to this day in the land of Palestine .. as as the Kurds in Kurdistan .. the Indians in North America .. and all other indigenous peoples occupied by Colonialism.

A nice try .. but big fail in the end for those desperate to apologize for Israeli Occupation and Ethnic Cleansing of indigenous populations in Palestine for last 8 decades.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

The present archaeological evidence can easily dismiss Abraham.

Yes at the present location. Not if he lived elsewhere.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Indeed .. except Hebrews did not take canaanite writing ... you can not take something you already own ... the Hebrews were Canaanites and thus their language/writing was Canaanite .. through the normal process the language of different groups changes over time.

The Israelites never adopt monotheism .. long after Israel = the Northern Kingdom - is destroyed .. they move closer to monotheism.. but only after the God of Judah is destroyed by the Babylonian God Marduk .. does Judaism adopt monotheism - copying aspects of the Persian Religious beliefs .. on the basis of the "Messiah" known as Cyrus the Great.

Hebrews were not Canaanites. Abraham lived in Canaan for a short time. His home was Chaldea.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Because Geneticists have determined that the Canaanites have their origins in a people from the Caucasus mountains of Iran migrating to the Levant and intermarrying with the Neolithic people there.

DNA from the Bible's Canaanites lives on in modern Arabs and Jews

A study of ancient DNA traces the surprising heritage of these mysterious Bronze Age people.

www.nationalgeographic.com

We also know from Archaeology that the very first group of people of the Levant were the a homo sapiens group some 90,000 years ago who were unsuccessful in settling there. A second group of Paleolithic people that scientists refer to as the Boker Tachtit, did successfully settle in the Levant some 50,000 years ago. We can say then that these were the indigenous modern humans to the Levant since were the first group of homo sapiens to successfully settle there. They lived there alongside Neanderthals.

History of the ancient Levant - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Good point. But we are discussing 4000 bce onwards. Can you help. What are the texts for Canaanite religion? I want to study.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Good point. But we are discussing 4000 bce onwards. Can you help. What are the texts for Canaanite religion? I want to study.

Since I'm not a historian or an archaologist, I really wouldn't know. Good luck with googling.

 

[shunyadragon]

Hebrews were not Canaanites. Abraham lived in Canaan for a short time. His home was Chaldea.

Genetics, culture, language and archaeology have determined Hebrews were Canaanites.

 

[shunyadragon]

The word indigenous refers to the first homo sapiens to occupy a territory. The Canaanites were not that.

By this reasoning the Neanderthals were the first indigenous people followed by Homo sapiens that interbred with Neanderthals.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Hebrews were not Canaanites. Abraham lived in Canaan for a short time. His home was Chaldea.

You are treating an origin myth as history. That is a mistake. The Abraham story is designed to teach. It is not meant to be a historical record. If you want to know what actual historians and archeologists think, this is a really really excellent vid:

 

[IndigoChild5559]

By this reasoning the Neanderthals were the first indigenous people followed by Homo sapiens that interbred with Neanderthals.

If you accept Neanderthals as fellow homo sapiens, that would make sense. Is that what you think?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Good point. But we are discussing 4000 bce onwards. Can you help. What are the texts for Canaanite religion? I want to study.

Here is what I found for you. The first written records are dated about 3300 BCE. Any prehistoric things from 4000 BCE would have to be based on archeology alone. The archeological record dates the Canaanites from 3500 to 2100 BCE. We begin to know about Canaanite religion from early Ugaritic texts. You can use that information to google further if it is your interest.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Not necessarily .. and yes the Canaanites were the indigenous people in the region when David showed up .. just as the Palestinians were the indigenous people when the Israeli's showed up .. and are that to this day in the land of Palestine .. as as the Kurds in Kurdistan .. the Indians in North America .. and all other indigenous peoples occupied by Colonialism.

A nice try .. but big fail in the end for those desperate to apologize for Israeli Occupation and Ethnic Cleansing of indigenous populations in Palestine for last 8 decades.

You are misusing the word indigenous. It makes no sense to say that indigenous merely means the people who were there before the latest newcomer. If that were the case, then the Jews would be the established indigenous, and the Arabs who are attempting to kick them out and take over the land would be the newcomers. Is that what you want to say? I don't think so. No, indigenous means the original inhabitants of the land, and that would not be either the Jews, or the Levantine Arabs, or even the Canaanites they both descend from.

The Hebrew/Israelites/Jews were a Canaanite people. You might enjoy watching the following video, to see what actual historians and archeologists have to say about the origins of the Jewish people.

 

[Sargonski]

Good point. But we are discussing 4000 bce onwards. Can you help. What are the texts for Canaanite religion? I want to study.

Ugarit texts found at Rash Shamra .. detailing the Baal Cycle .. EL worship .. the Canaanite Pantheon .. tons of youtube documentaries and podcasts on the topic .. What do you want to know ? Coles notes Version ?

In the beginning you have two primordial Gods .. of order and chaos .. Tiamat is the Chaos God .. the Salt water .. which is separated from the freshwater on land -- very similar to the separation of the water in Genesis.

There are a bunch of God Children . who battle .. EL ends up becomming Chief God on Earth .. has 70 Children with Asherah .. "Sons of God" mentioned in the Bible numerous times .. Psalm 82 leaving no doubt who sired these misbehaving dieties. ..

The earth is divided .. each God given a portion of its peoples .. Jacob being the portion of YHWH .. Deuteronomy 32:8. but this is also everyone elses story .. Each Walled City has a Patron which they drag out to war.. .. from a religious perspective these gods are battling Tiamat to .. the winner becomes chief God of Earth .. usurping the position of EL but El then moves up to the Chief position in the heavens.

This is the battle we see playing out in the Bible ... YHWH .. God of Jealousy .. battling the other Gods both for attention .. and for war.

In one of the main stories we have .. enuma elish Marduk wins the battle .. defeating Tiamat (the Sea Monster of the Bible) becoming Chief of Gods on earth .. you can find the same story .. substituting the name of Patron God winning ..

In the Bible Story we have Lord YHWH .. rider of the clouds motive .. taking on the characteristics of BAAL -- clearly the Chief Rivalry of YHWH throughout the Bible. .. fighting the Liviathan .. the Sea Monster .. the Great Serpent and Sea Dragon ..

 

[Sargonski]

You are misusing the word indigenous. It makes no sense to say that indigenous merely means the people who were there before the latest newcomer. If that were the case, then the Jews would be the established indigenous, and the Arabs who are attempting to kick them out and take over the land would be the newcomers. Is that what you want to say? I don't think so. No, indigenous means the original inhabitants of the land, and that would not be either the Jews, or the Levantine Arabs, or even the Canaanites they both descend from.

The Hebrew/Israelites/Jews were a Canaanite people. You might enjoy watching the following video, to see what actual historians and archeologists have to say about the origins of the Jewish people.

I am not misusing the word indigenous .. and I did not say there were merely people there before latest newcomer. It is you who is spouting completely false nonsense declaring that indigenous people can only mean first homosapiens .. simply a false claim.

saying the first homo sapiens does not even make any sense --- as these would presumably what .. tell me how we distinguish between a "First Homo Sapien" to enter the Land and one who was not related to the first homo sapien.

You are talking ridiculous nonsense. backtracking now to "Original inhabitants" ..is silly for the same reason but changes not the meaning I have put forth in any case.

The Canaanites .. in context of the time -- were the original inhabitants .. as much as the native indians .. riding around . one tribe scoping anothers land.

Your claim that the Kurds are not indigenous .. by UN classification .. same as the Palestinians .. is equaly nosensical ..

If a people have occupied the land for a significant period of time ..a few generations or more .. and another nation comes knocking .. the people occupying the land at that time are indigenous .. in the simple case .. and certainly in the case of the Palestinians . .. and indigenous by UN Legislation .. this one settled in court.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I am not misusing the word indigenous .. and I did not say there were merely people there before latest newcomer.

When you said that the Palestinians were indigenous, you were definitely ascribing "indigenous" to the latest newcomer. Did you want to walk that back?

 

[Sargonski]

Hebrews were not Canaanites. Abraham lived in Canaan for a short time. His home was Chaldea.

Hebrews were most definitely Canaanites - hence why if you go back far enough the language is the same.

Abe came to Canaan .. took a Canaanite Wife .. first born son a Canaanite .. second born son's children married up with Ishmailes clan or foreign wives .. for many centuries after which semetic nomadic tribes became powerful .. Semetic Kings controling Egypt for ~ 100 years.. around 1500 the Pharoah's strike back and retake Egypt .. which is very powerfull for the next 300 years . life would be rough for the Nomads .. who were at all times subject to the massive slave trade that existed at the time .. waves of these nomads who had taken over Egyptian Lands were forced to migrate back into Canaan .. ekking a meagar living out of raiding .. the Egyptians and HIttites in full control of all the cities in the region sans perhaps a few high in the hills ..

Then came the bronze age collapse .. Hittite empire disappears off the map .. massive decline in Egypt .. definitely some slave revolts .. some slave migrations at this time .. but the Nomads were now Boss .. all the cities in the region were up for grabs .. many having been sacked or abandoned already.

These folks out of Egypt .. would join up with the Nomadic tribes ... to which they were related. Moses for example was related to the Midianites .. Canaanite to the core.. and what ever hoge pogdge of Hebrew speaking Nomadic Tribes .. and some former slaves that got together .. were all Canaanite .. hailed from around some or a number of Canannite cities .. and so on.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Hebrews were most definitely Canaanites

Yes, that is the present consensus of scholars, including geneticists, historians, and archeologists. The Jewish historian I have been studying lately basically divides the Tanakh (OT) into two parts -- the part describing things BEFFORE the bronze age collapse, which is essentially literature designed to teach, not record history, and the part describing things AFTER the bronze age collapse, which is when the authors actually lived, and which is a pretty accurate source of actual history.

 

[Sargonski]

Yes, that is the present consensus of scholars, including geneticists, historians, and archeologists. The Jewish historian I have been studying lately basically divides the Tanakh (OT) into two parts -- the part describing things BEFFORE the bronze age collapse, which is essentially literature designed to teach, not record history, and the part describing things AFTER the bronze age collapse, which is when the authors actually lived, and which is a pretty accurate source of actual history.

what bearing does this have on the exodus story .. some claiming it happens 2-3 centuries prior to the 'BAC .. some claiming around the time of the BAC ..the concensus stating saying the Conquest of Canaan could not have happened prior to the BAC

 

[IndigoChild5559]

what bearing does this have on the exodus story .. some claiming it happens 2-3 centuries prior to the 'BAC .. some claiming around the time of the BAC ..the concensus stating saying the Conquest of Canaan could not have happened prior to the BAC

The exodus is an origin story, just as the story of the Patriarchs is. That doesn't mean there aren't remnants of actual history. But there is no verification of any of the characters in the portions of the Tanakh that occur before the Bronze Age Collapse. These are stories that were orally passed on for ages before being written down. Think of them as literature designed to teach, not factual history.

I was listening to a historian earlier this week who was saying how many scholars think it was only the tribe of Levi that came out of Egypt, due to the fact that all the names of Levites in the Bible are Egyptian based, whereas the names of people in the other tribes are Hebrew based. It is very interesting to keep up with the latest understandings of historians and archeologists.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I was listening to a historian earlier this week who was saying how many scholars think it was only the tribe of Levi that came out of Egypt, due to the fact that all the names of Levites in the Bible are Egyptian based, whereas the names of people in the other tribes are Hebrew based. It is very interesting to keep up with the latest understandings of historians and archeologists.

Take a look at R. E. Friedman's The Exodus. It's worth the read.