|
Post by Salvador on Apr 13, 2004 22:10:21 GMT -5
Although the old testament claims that the Isrealites had first settled in the western part of Palestina by the year 1200 BC, there is no evidence whatsoever.
Interestingly the Hebrews/Israelites/Jews are not mentioned by either the Greeks Egyptians or any other peoples until the age of the Romans.
Can anyone account on this?
|
|
Sandwich
Full Member
La pens?e d'un homme est avant tout sa nostalgie
Posts: 208
|
Post by Sandwich on Apr 14, 2004 1:22:34 GMT -5
Your knowledge of Akkadian, Elamite and Ugaritic is impressive. The research to prove this negative must have been exhausting, if exhaustive. Perhaps learning all those languages and reading all those ancient texts led to your missing the following website? www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Religions/non-iranian/judaism.htmIt might provide avenues for further research.
|
|
|
Post by Salvador on Apr 14, 2004 10:13:34 GMT -5
Thanks for the link Sandwich. It was very helpfull, though I am not entirely content.
I am sure you are aware of the theories which claim that the Jews did not exist by the year 1200 BC but long after. That means that the biblical records are not correct.
To me it is very strange that they were not mentioned by the Egyptians in the first place.
Though I am a student of history I admit that I am not an expert in Jewish history. I was just curious if there was SOLID proof of their existence.
|
|
|
Post by Salvador on Apr 14, 2004 10:26:10 GMT -5
|
|
Sandwich
Full Member
La pens?e d'un homme est avant tout sa nostalgie
Posts: 208
|
Post by Sandwich on Apr 14, 2004 15:13:32 GMT -5
Quite an interesting site, although one cannot help but doubt its eagerness to present a complete and balanced picture. Here's another that is equally unacademic and anti-zionist but not gratuitiously offensive. www.robotwisdom.com/issues/judaism.htmlYou may have heard of Sennacherib, the Assyrian King, who, in a document from Nineveh, boasted that: "In my third campaign I marched against Hatti. Luli, king of Sidon, whom the terror-inspiring glamour of my lordship had overwhelmed, fled far overseas and perished. … As to Hezekiah, the Jew, he did not submit to my yoke, I laid siege to 46 of his strong cities, walled forts and to the countless small villages in their vicinity, and conquered them by means of well-stamped earth-ramps and battering-rams brought thus near to the walls combined with the attack by foot soldiers, using mines, breeches as well as sapper work. I drove out 200,150 people, young and old, male and female, horses, mules, donkeys, camels, big and small cattle beyond counting, and considered them booty. Himself I made a prisoner in Jerusalem, his royal residence, like a bird in a cage. ... Thus I reduced his country, but I still increased the tribute and the katru -presents due to me as his overlord which I imposed upon him beyond the former tribute, to be delivered annually. Hezekiah himself, whom the terror-inspiring splendor of my lordship had overwhelmed and whose irregular and elite troops which he had brought into Jerusalem, his royal residence, in order to strengthen it, had deserted him, did send me, later, to Nineveh, my lordly city, together with 30 talents of gold, 800 talents of silver, precious stones, antimony, large cuts of red stone, couches inlaid with ivory, ... and all kinds of valuable treasures, his own daughters, concubines, male and female musicians. In order to deliver the tribute to do obeisance as a slave he sent his messenger." Somehow, the site you referenced does not mention the extent of this tribute when describing Sennacherib's relations with Hezekiah. Or the Gihon spring tunnel. jeru.huji.ac.il/eb26.htm which seems to suggest that parts of the old testament are useful historical sources. In any case, all this hardly supports the assertion that Jews are not mentioned by the rulers of the region before the Romans, does it? Stimulating though. I'd never heard of this Hezekiah until your post prompted a bit of investigation. Maybe I'll check Egyptian sources next.
|
|
|
Post by danielou on Apr 14, 2004 17:28:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Artemidoros on Apr 14, 2004 19:10:34 GMT -5
The "deluge" appears in the religious myths of many nations, some in the vicinity of the Black Sea and some very distant ones. Having said that, I do think that the most distant origins of the Jews go back to the area of the Black Sea. I would also like to add that not only the Jews were present in Jerusalem in antiquity but the Arabs were not very far away either. According to Plutarch, Alexander the Great's men fought Arabs on mount Anti-Lebanon.
|
|
Sandwich
Full Member
La pens?e d'un homme est avant tout sa nostalgie
Posts: 208
|
Post by Sandwich on Apr 15, 2004 9:51:00 GMT -5
The best book I have found on this subject is Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times by Donald B Redmond 1992 Princeton Univ. Press He is eloquently dismissive of much Biblical mythologizing, especially concerning Solomon and David, while carefully referencing all the inscriptions and other evidence archaeologists have discovered. Earliest Egyptian records go back to 13th Century BC, and it seems the Jews were originally camelless bedouin who took over the Canaanite plains and settlements. The reason they - and the name of their god - are recorded is that their banditry had been a problem for some time, in an area of military significance to the Pharaos. For all subsequent periods for which we have evidence about anything beyond the rise and fall of the Nile etc, the Jews appear, even though they were never a particularly significant people in an area dominated by contending great empires. I will post some extracts later - when I've actually bought the book. Personally I think antisemitism is not only disgusting, it's damn disreputable. The moment you come across it, you know the source is going to be flaky. The remark (falsely attributed to TS Eliot) that the discovery of the extermination camps would "make an intelligent antisemitism impossible for a generation" was clearly a major underestimation.
|
|
|
Post by Sharrukin on May 8, 2004 2:01:53 GMT -5
Israel was indeed mentioned in Egyptian sources.
In the fifth year of Merneptah, king of Egypt, c. 1232 BC:
"The chieftains are prostrated, saying 'Salaam!', and no one lifts his head among the Nine Bows. Destruction is for Tjehenu, Khatti is at peace, the Canaan is plundered with every evil. Askelon is carried off, Gezer is captured, Yenoam is made non-existent, Israel is waste and has no seed, Khor has become a widow because of Egypt." "
|
|
|
Post by Graeme on May 8, 2004 11:48:49 GMT -5
I don't wish to upset anyone, but the Bible is crap. Abraham/Abram did not come from Ur of the Chaldees. He is mythohistorical, the eponymous ancestor of the Jews and Arabs.
There are recent sources in the state of Israel among archaeologists who have been investigating biblical accounts from what is actually found in situ. Apparently the Israelites occupied certain parts of Canaan and were Canaanites. Their origin was local and nothing to do with the Chaldeans or Ur. Archaeologists have earned a lot of anger in the state of Israel because Jerusalem was not in existence when claimed to be in the Bible, there is no proof of David or Solomon, but proof of the kings before and after them.
Check archaeological sources from Israel.
|
|
|
Post by Sharrukin on May 9, 2004 1:57:03 GMT -5
Irregardless of the shaky nature of how it portrays Hebrew history, it still warrants reading to test certain hypothesis. If archaeology can disprove its history, well that's fine. We have an independent source. However, if archaeology can verify some of its history, don't you think it is worth the time to use it to investigate certain facits of history. Herodotus, "the father of history" had been much maligned even in antiquity, yet some of his "facts" have been verified through modern methods of research. Do we throw away Herodotus just because some of the things he wrote about are just utterly fantastic?
Why couldn't he come from "Ur of the Chaldees"? Even if we cannot except the biblical dates of his florit, and granted that the "Chaldees" are an anachronism, we do in fact know that there were trade routes and military alliances amongst the great Amoritic powers of the time. Mari, on the Middle Euphrates, controlling most of northern Mesopotamia had relations with the King of Hazor (in Canaan) as well as the King of Babylon. What makes you think that a man from Ur could not travel to Canaan?
Now that's strange. We do in fact have references to "Jerusalem" in Egyptian sources going back to the Execration Texts of between about the mid. 20th cent. to the 19th cent. BC. In the Amarna Letters (14th cent. BC) we do have correspondences between the vassal king of Jerusalem and the pharoah of Egypt. So, when did it not exist?
|
|
|
Post by Graeme on May 9, 2004 9:56:36 GMT -5
You are taking Egyptian sources and extrapolating to Palestine as being in the same space and time with the bibical stories. The Egyptian sources are mostly factual the biblical ones fictitious or chronologically incorrect. Something like Piltdown man.
There is no proof that Abram/Abraham, Terah his father. Lot his nephew, Laban his uncle or Sarai/Sarah ever existed in Ur or Haran or Canaan. Even Joseph and his technicolour coat is a good story especially for a musical. Lots of primitives have good stories about their history and genesis. Why not the Hebrew/Habiru/Jews/Israelites or whatever name they chose to use?
Why is it that David and Solomon the greatest kings of the tribes of Israel left nothing to substantiate their existence whereas lesser kings have? If you accept the biblical stories then Abram is a liar regarding his wife not being his wife and incestuous because Sarai was his sister. And what about Lot and his daughters - incest was very big in those hallowed times.
|
|
|
Post by Sharrukin on May 9, 2004 11:34:08 GMT -5
I would agree that we are on firmer ground with Egyptian sources, but in broad outlines, the biblical sources are still in the same space and time.
I'm certainly not saying that their stories are history. These should be considered family stories, not indicators of folk migrations. Yet again in broad outlines, it is not impossible that they didn't exist. It was an ancient practice amongst Semitic cultures to indicate their origins by geneology. Even the Amoritic kings of Babylon traced their descent by geneology to an Amoritic tribe, and the Amoritic Assyrian kings likewise traced their descent from the very same specific tribe. Abraham's relative's (despite some with names which reflect locales) seem to have clustered around northwest Mesopotamia, the region being known (anachronistically) as Aram Naharaim. For three generations there was interaction between the Canaanite part of the family and the "Aramaean" part of the family.
That depends on how you judge evidence. Archaeologically, we know of building projects in Jerusalem and throughout Palestine attributed to the time of the United Monarchy. While it is true that inscriptions that seemed to say "House of David" are still hotly debated, one such indicator of at least a kingship is the very few remnants of the original Temple itself. But okay, I know that this isn't necessarily 'proof', but it cannot be used to write it off either!!! Josephus writes that according to a 'History of Tyre', extant in his day, but unfortunately lost to us, Solomon had regular interaction with the king of Tyre. His chronology of the kings of Tyre, is still used today as a frame-work for Phoenician history. So, at one time there was a foreign source that verified the existence of Solomon. My conclusion is that they did leave something to 'substantiate' their existence. As it stands, substance is a judgement call.
I never said that I accept the biblical stories at face value. As far as their moral character, that's not even relevant to this conversation. I'm speaking in terms of broad outlines. In that sense we know that persons could travel from Ur to Canaan. We know that Egypt received Asiatics as visiters which ultimately became settlers. We know that groups called collectively, Amorites settled the greater part of the Fertile Crescent and that Amoritic powers had communications between Canaan and northern Mesopotamia, so we know that families could interact between Canaan and northwestern Mesopotamia. Many of the customs described in the patriarchal narratives are verified in corpi of inscriptions of various Middle Eastern sources, which are relevant for those times.
Should the Bible be used as a 'primary source'? No!!! However, like using Herodotus, it can be used as 'support' for archaeological conclusions (if any).
|
|
Ioulianos
Full Member
Anegnon,Egnon,Kategnon
Posts: 199
|
Post by Ioulianos on May 9, 2004 19:32:15 GMT -5
Should the Bible be used as a 'primary source'? No!!! However, like using Herodotus, it can be used as 'support' for archaeological conclusions (if any). I dont remember Herodotos mentions Zeus giving any tablets to Themistocles with his orders written there,or Ares cursing persian kids,Hermes promising persian lands to Spartans,...Herodotos doesnt evolve supernatural in his stories.Perhaps you shoul compare bible with Homer.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on May 10, 2004 1:54:30 GMT -5
I dont remember Herodotos mentions Zeus giving any tablets to Themistocles with his orders written there,or Ares cursing persian kids,Hermes promising persian lands to Spartans,...Herodotos doesnt evolve supernatural in his stories.Perhaps you shoul compare bible with Homer. Well, the god Pan did appear to the messenger sent by the Athenians to Sparta according to Herodotus. I would call that "supernatural".
|
|