Jesus Christ, Made In Our Likeness

[Swammerdami]

Sorry though, Steve, I'm passing you up for Judas, but I do have an opening for "doubting Thomas" still.

If the great red dragon with seven heads and ten horns is already taken, can I be Baalzebub, God of Ekron?

 

[TomC]

Still happens today indeed. And If defending yourself and your family had no option but to neccisitate certain harsh measures from serious violence, then call it as you will. Morally wrong.

You know what else still happens? People misrepresenting their motivations for abominable behavior. You might be surprised by how many people think that Russia is defending themselves against ukro-nazis. That Russians are the victims in the current conflict.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

Sorry though, Steve, I'm passing you up for Judas, but I do have an opening for "doubting Thomas" still.

If the great red dragon with seven heads and ten horns is already taken, can I be Baalzebub, God of Ekron?

Sorry, not really sure, but I think the casting pool for certain parts goes entirely to the modern GOP.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

There are plenty of scholars who consider Hebrew and Habiru to be cognates, as much circumstantial evidence implies. "Hebrew" probably began as an exonym: In Genesis it is used when quoting Egyptians. Hebrews refer to themselves in Genesis as "Children of Israel" or such.

What is the relationship between the earliest Israelites (or "Hebrews") and the people known throughout the Levant as Habiru or 'Apiru ?

None. 'Apiru is Akkadian and that term long predates Israelites. It is a term for a class of people, not a tribe of people. Not a national peoples. The term lasted for centuries and became a loan word in many ancient cultures.

Interesting. It sounds like you know something about the DATES of those terms. Care to share? And which "class of people" were the 'Apiru? BTW it is certainly plausible that a class or tribe might have TWO names and that one of those names to PREDATE the other. "Yankee", for example, is an ethnonym of uncertain origin which predates the U.S.A.

Above we're told that the early Israelites were peace-loving:

Moses sent messengers from Kadesh to the king of Edom, saying...
“Now we are here at Kadesh, a town on the edge of your territory. Please let us pass through your country. We will not go through any field or vineyard, or drink water from any well. We will travel along the King’s Highway and not turn to the right or to the left until we have passed through your territory.”

Was this before they called themselves Israelites? Back when the Egyptians called them Hebrew/Habiru?

By the way, it is not unusual for the name of a class of people to transform and become the name of a "tribe," or vice versa.

Earliest Akkadian term apiru meant runaway slaves, or peasants, and other similar people. Homeless persons, vagrants. An ancient Akkadian term meant "people of the dust".

Wikipedia, Apiru

....
Regarding the identity, the academic consensus is well established that Apiru and Hebrews represent two different groups. The Biblical Hebrews are an ethnic group while Apiru were a much wider multi-ethnic group distinguished by social status.
.....

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Sorry though, Steve, I'm passing you up for Judas, but I do have an opening for "doubting Thomas" still.

If the great red dragon with seven heads and ten horns is already taken, can I be Baalzebub, God of Ekron?

Here in Houston, the annual Houston Rodeo is in full swing. Ride 'em Cowgirl!

Revelation 17
3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.
4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
5 And upon her forehead was a name written, Mystery, Babylon The Great, The Mother Of Harlots And Abominations Of The Earth.

 

[Swammerdami]

There are plenty of scholars who consider Hebrew and Habiru to be cognates, as much circumstantial evidence implies. "Hebrew" probably began as an exonym: In Genesis it is used when quoting Egyptians. Hebrews refer to themselves in Genesis as "Children of Israel" or such.

By the way, it is not unusual for the name of a class of people to transform and become the name of a "tribe," or vice versa.

My primary source for what follows is Redford's book. While browsing that book just now, I copy-pasted a few paragraphs that may be useful:

during the fourth-quarter of the thirteenth century B.C., Egypt knew of a group, or political entity, called “Israel״ and occupying part of the land of Canaan.

. . .

Canaanite mayors were obliged, on Pharoah’s demand, to round up and dispatch to Egypt specified numbers of men, women, and children: 56 from Gezer, 20 slaves to accompany the daughter of the mayor of Ammia, 10 slaves, 21 maidservants, and 80 prisoners of war from the same city. In Ramesside times sale into slavery is attested, and boatloads of Canaanite slaves were regular arrivals in Egyptian ports. Cliché-ridden allusions to “stocking (the temple’s) workhouse with male and female slaves of His Majesty’s captivity” continue in texts of the 19th Dynasty as frequently as before.

. . .

Beginning in the reign of Amenophis III, Amurru became a favorite haunt for those “cossacklike” bands of outlaws known as ‘Apiru, as well as for seminomadic West Semitic speaking clans.

. . .

A separate group called the 'Apiru lay slightly beyond the fringe of “polite” Canaanite society of the Late Bronze Age. These were a collection of antisocial renegades, castoffs from society, who maintained a semi-independent community in the rural districts of the Canaanite states. Though often in the service of these states, the 'Apiru generally guarded their independence and freedom of movement. Much has been written in speculation on the adverse social conditions within Canaanite society that must have given rise to such a group; and it is not unlikely that a combination of mismanagement, economic straits, and natural phenomena may have combined ... to produce a “flight from the land” on the part of a disenfranchised element of the population. Whatever the reason the 'Apiru, as their name suggests (“dust makers,” i.e. people who vacate the premises with speed) display a gypsylike quality, and proved difficult for the state authorities to bring under effective control.

Many scholars believe the Akkadian "Habiru/'Apiru" to be cognate with "Hebrew"; and many don't. I don't know what the count of Yeas and Nays is, if that's relevant! As an ignorant layman I may not be entitled to an opinion, but I have an opinion anyway! I claim that there is huge reason to think the words are cognates.

Note that even IF the words are cognate that does NOT mean the Habiru of the Armana Letters are the same ethnic grup as the Hebrews of Genesis and Numbers. And even if these are the same people, it doesn't follow that these are the Israelites: the Israelites MIGHT have expropriated stories about an earlier different people. And note that that the word Habiru spoke to occupation and life-style more than ethnicity.

Arguments:

• Phonetically, "Habiru" and "Hebrew" look like cognates.
• It appears that the Egyptians did NOT have a word distinct from Habiru which might correspond to Hebrew. (But as I mentioned earlier "Hebrew" as it appears in Genesis appears to be a rendering of an Egyptian exonym.)
• The writers of the Torah did NOT have a word distinct from Hebrew which might correspond to Habiru. This DESPITE that the stories of the Torah, whether complete fiction or having some basis in fact, are set in the time of the Habiru.
• There are very strong connections between what the Amarna Letters tell us about the history of the Habiru, and what the Torah tells us about the early history (or mythology) of the Hebrew/Israelites. I list a few of these connections in the points following.
• Kadesh was the chief site of encampment for the Israelites during their wandering in the Zin Desert. Redford tells us "Kadesh became from the outset the focus of Egyptian attacks and political pressure." And the eventual "Battle of Kadesh is better documented than any other military engagement prior to Marathon in 490 B.C.
• Amurra/Amorites, Gezer, and Lachish are among several other places given prominent mention both by Redford's history of the 18th Dynasty Empire, and the Old Testament.

During the centuries of conflict, city-states or tribes frequently changed sides. (The Habiru in particular were noted for this.) The accounts therefore become confused, and we should assume that the campaigns of Moses and Joshua -- written centuries after the facts -- are filled with fiction.

BUT, my only claim here is NOT that Biblical stories of events before King David are trustworthy history. ALL I argue in this post is that "Habiru" and "Hebrew" are most probably cognates. (I suspect that some scholars who reject this cognacy do so to avoid the charge of "anti-Semitism.")

 

[DBT]

Sorry though, Steve, I'm passing you up for Judas, but I do have an opening for "doubting Thomas" still.

If the great red dragon with seven heads and ten horns is already taken, can I be Baalzebub, God of Ekron?

Your throne and scepter are being prepared as we speak.

 

[Lion IRC]

Judgement was on an entire nation.

Collective punishment is a war crime.

For good reasons.

Judgement "on an entire nation" is monstrous, immoral, and evil.

No matter who does it.

When the leader(s) of an "entire nation" precipitate(s) aggression which in turn provokes retaliation against their "entire nation" then they the bear responsibility for the collective punishment.

I can't think of any war in which the entire nation didn't collectively suffer the consequences.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

There are plenty of scholars who consider Hebrew and Habiru to be cognates, as much circumstantial evidence implies. "Hebrew" probably began as an exonym: In Genesis it is used when quoting Egyptians. Hebrews refer to themselves in Genesis as "Children of Israel" or such.

By the way, it is not unusual for the name of a class of people to transform and become the name of a "tribe," or vice versa.

My primary source for what follows is Redford's book. While browsing that book just now, I copy-pasted a few paragraphs that may be useful:

during the fourth-quarter of the thirteenth century B.C., Egypt knew of a group, or political entity, called “Israel״ and occupying part of the land of Canaan.

. . .

Canaanite mayors were obliged, on Pharoah’s demand, to round up and dispatch to Egypt specified numbers of men, women, and children: 56 from Gezer, 20 slaves to accompany the daughter of the mayor of Ammia, 10 slaves, 21 maidservants, and 80 prisoners of war from the same city. In Ramesside times sale into slavery is attested, and boatloads of Canaanite slaves were regular arrivals in Egyptian ports. Cliché-ridden allusions to “stocking (the temple’s) workhouse with male and female slaves of His Majesty’s captivity” continue in texts of the 19th Dynasty as frequently as before.

. . .

Beginning in the reign of Amenophis III, Amurru became a favorite haunt for those “cossacklike” bands of outlaws known as ‘Apiru, as well as for seminomadic West Semitic speaking clans.

. . .

A separate group called the 'Apiru lay slightly beyond the fringe of “polite” Canaanite society of the Late Bronze Age. These were a collection of antisocial renegades, castoffs from society, who maintained a semi-independent community in the rural districts of the Canaanite states. Though often in the service of these states, the 'Apiru generally guarded their independence and freedom of movement. Much has been written in speculation on the adverse social conditions within Canaanite society that must have given rise to such a group; and it is not unlikely that a combination of mismanagement, economic straits, and natural phenomena may have combined ... to produce a “flight from the land” on the part of a disenfranchised element of the population. Whatever the reason the 'Apiru, as their name suggests (“dust makers,” i.e. people who vacate the premises with speed) display a gypsylike quality, and proved difficult for the state authorities to bring under effective control.

Many scholars believe the Akkadian "Habiru/'Apiru" to be cognate with "Hebrew"; and many don't. I don't know what the count of Yeas and Nays is, if that's relevant! As an ignorant layman I may not be entitled to an opinion, but I have an opinion anyway! I claim that there is huge reason to think the words are cognates.

Note that even IF the words are cognate that does NOT mean the Habiru of the Armana Letters are the same ethnic grup as the Hebrews of Genesis and Numbers. And even if these are the same people, it doesn't follow that these are the Israelites: the Israelites MIGHT have expropriated stories about an earlier different people. And note that that the word Habiru spoke to occupation and life-style more than ethnicity.

Arguments:

• Phonetically, "Habiru" and "Hebrew" look like cognates.
• It appears that the Egyptians did NOT have a word distinct from Habiru which might correspond to Hebrew. (But as I mentioned earlier "Hebrew" as it appears in Genesis appears to be a rendering of an Egyptian exonym.)
• The writers of the Torah did NOT have a word distinct from Hebrew which might correspond to Habiru. This DESPITE that the stories of the Torah, whether complete fiction or having some basis in fact, are set in the time of the Habiru.
• There are very strong connections between what the Amarna Letters tell us about the history of the Habiru, and what the Torah tells us about the early history (or mythology) of the Hebrew/Israelites. I list a few of these connections in the points following.
• Kadesh was the chief site of encampment for the Israelites during their wandering in the Zin Desert. Redford tells us "Kadesh became from the outset the focus of Egyptian attacks and political pressure." And the eventual "Battle of Kadesh is better documented than any other military engagement prior to Marathon in 490 B.C.
• Amurra/Amorites, Gezer, and Lachish are among several other places given prominent mention both by Redford's history of the 18th Dynasty Empire, and the Old Testament.

During the centuries of conflict, city-states or tribes frequently changed sides. (The Habiru in particular were noted for this.) The accounts therefore become confused, and we should assume that the campaigns of Moses and Joshua -- written centuries after the facts -- are filled with fiction.

BUT, my only claim here is NOT that Biblical stories of events before King David are trustworthy history. ALL I argue in this post is that "Habiru" and "Hebrew" are most probably cognates. (I suspect that some scholars who reject this cognacy do so to avoid the charge of "anti-Semitism.")

The Israelites leaving Egypt camped out at Kadesh-Barnea 38 years. Kadesh is not Kadesh-Barnea. Kadesh is far to the North, the Orantes river, now a border between Lebanon and Syria. Kadesh-Barnea is a series of oasises South of Jerusalem. No trace of the alleged Israelite occupation there has been found despite several archaeological expeditions there.

 

[Jarhyn]

Sorry though, Steve, I'm passing you up for Judas, but I do have an opening for "doubting Thomas" still.

If the great red dragon with seven heads and ten horns is already taken, can I be Baalzebub, God of Ekron?

Your throne and scepter are being prepared as we speak.

Shit, are you trying to compete with my recruitment drive here?

 

[lpetrich]

The RCC church I went to as a kid had a large white blonde haired blue eyed Jesus on a cross hanging over the alter.

I remember gong into a black neighbor's house and seeing a painting of a block Jesus. I was too young to see the significance.

Nordic Jesus Christ? Black Jesus Christ? Xenophanes would have understood.

On Power Of Myth Campbell pointed out images of Buddha in Asia vary with a cultures physical characteristics.

Made in their likeness there also.

 

[steve_bank]

Humans tend to self segregate on many levels not just racial issues.

Birds of a feather tend to flock together.

Ever since emancipation blacks have struggled to find their own ethnic identity. Certainly understandable and perfectly natural.

Throughput history Jews have been very parochial. I grew up around Italians and they were very clannish. Cultural pressure to marry within the community.

My grandmother's sister was married to a feisty Irishman. Strong Irish Roman Catholic family.

When one of the kids marred a Protestant it was a big deal in the family.

I live on th edge of Chinatown in Seattle. There are stores with Chinese signage and only Chinese is spoken in the store. Walk in as an outsider and you can feel like a non person.

Some Orthodox Jews in NYC tend to use only Jewish businesses and do not mix with outsiders.

All lumped together as the 'human condition'.

The progressive ideology of total equal representation on all aspects of society is doomed to fail. They are trying to overcome natural tendencies and inertia by imposing an ideology.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Yep.
And people typically overlook the fact that the Israelites tried to make peace with their Canaanite enemies first

As Lion points out, the Israelites sent peaceful envoys. Not all nations wanted peace with them.

How is it "peace" when you think God promised you the homeland that another group has settled, and has found a way to sustain life from the land? At best, for the Canaanites to make "peace" with a group of armed fanatics would mean their expulsion, and the "peaceful" group taking over their fields and homes. But you think it's unreasonable of the Canaanites to not invite this new army in?

 

[Jarhyn]

Yep.
And people typically overlook the fact that the Israelites tried to make peace with their Canaanite enemies first

As Lion points out, the Israelites sent peaceful envoys. Not all nations wanted peace with them.

How is it "peace" when you think God promised you the homeland that another group has settled, and has found a way to sustain life from the land? At best, for the Canaanites to make "peace" with a group of armed fanatics would mean their expulsion, and the "peaceful" group taking over their fields and homes. But you think it's unreasonable of the Canaanites to not invite this new army in?

Yet again, I reference a common experience with the AI of the Civ games:

"we want to pass through your country to go to this other country."

"Ok, you're an ally and I don't like them anyway."

"Ok, this turn we move onto your land."

"Fine... But why did you just move towards my city."

"Because WE DECLARE WAR!"

Literally every time this happens at this point, I put an escort about 2.5x bigger than the moving army between them and my cities.

The problem is that as soon as they attack, so does the neighbor they originally claimed they wanted to go after, and now I'm in a war on two fronts.

Then, I don't play Civ anymore, either.

 

[Swammerdami]

It may seem like a useless tangent, but I think the "equation" between Habiru and Hebrew is interesting for the light it may shed on the origin of the Israelites. Yes, the word mutated. Originally it described a class of people -- mercenaries, bandits and other wanderers -- but eventually became an ethnonym for the Israelites. This does NOT mean that all Habiru were, or become Israelites, nor that all early Israelites were Habiru, but light is still shed ... at least if we avoid taking a conclusion too far.

The word "Hebrew" occurs 6 times in Genesis, 14 times in Exodus,, once in Deuteronomy, and 8 times in 1 Samuel. With very very few exceptions these instances of "Hebrew" arise when spoken to or by non-Israelites; i.e. the word is used as an exonym. The principal exception is the very first instance of "Hebrew" in the Bible: Genesis 14:13. After Abram had left Egypt but before God made a covenant with him, a man flees a battle and relays news to "Abram the Hebrew." Remember this was BEFORE Abram had any sons, let along the grandson Jacob/Israel. It was a sort of exonym BEFORE any Jewish religion.

There is an important exception. While "Hebrew" doesn't occur in the KJV Numbers it DOES occur in Douay–Rheims Numbers 24:24: At the end of the divination of Balaam we read "they shall come in galleys [and] shall waste the Hebrews." In the KJV we read instead "ships shall come [and] shall afflict Eber." Perhaps someone will compare with the Hebrew Torah but we see an alternate etymology of "Hebrew" here: It refers to Eber, the 4-gt grandfather of Abram the Hebrew.

It doesn't bother me that "Hebrew" may have TWO etymologies (although it would be nice to have someone check the original Torah). In particular, one can't blame the Israelites for concocting an alternate etymology if Habiru/Hebrew was a pejorative. Indeed the fictitious pedigree of Abram may have been concocted just to provide an ancestor with a name cognate to "Hebrew"!

There are plenty of scholars who consider Hebrew and Habiru to be cognates, as much circumstantial evidence implies. "Hebrew" probably began as an exonym: In Genesis it is used when quoting Egyptians. Hebrews refer to themselves in Genesis as "Children of Israel" or such.

Quoting from the same Wikipedia article from which Charlie quotes:

The ethnic connotation of the term Hebrew synonymous with the people of Israel were attributed to the later Jewish tradition. "It could well be", writes Stuart A. West, "that the word Hebrew was originally only a sociological designation, indicating status or class - in which case the words Hebrew and Habiru are synonymous. The fact that in the later Books of the Bible and in its usage in post-biblical times, the word Hebrew has been used as an ethnic designation simply means that the original meaning of the word has been changed." Loretz assigns all mentions of Hebrew in the Bible to post-exilic period centuries after Apiru disappeared from the sources.

Greenberg concluded his research: The ʿApiru were ethnically diverse but this term can be related to the term "Hebrew" both in etymology and meaning. The ethnic and social spheres may have met in Abraham the Hebrew, who may at once have been an Apiru as well as the ancestor of the Israelites. "Hebrew" will then be a peculiarly Biblical adaptation of the social term. A considerable possibility remains that the beginnings of the Israelite history are bound with the wandering Apiru. The Bible might have preserved a vague memory that the Patriarchs had once been Apiru.

By the way, it is not unusual for the name of a class of people to transform and become the name of a "tribe," or vice versa.

....
Regarding the identity, the academic consensus is well established that Apiru and Hebrews represent two different groups. The Biblical Hebrews are an ethnic group while Apiru were a much wider multi-ethnic group distinguished by social status.
.....

The question before us is NOT whether the Habiru and Israelites are different groups -- of course they were -- but simply whether Habiru and Hebrew are cognates. On that question, the consensus is certainly NOT well established. Do we actually have a count of the Yeas and Nays? I've excerpted from the same section of the same Wikipedia page you quote elsewhere that some scholars do NOT agree with this alleged "consensus."

Note that even IF the words are cognate that does NOT mean the Habiru of the Armana Letters are the same ethnic group as the Hebrews of Genesis and Numbers. And even if these are the same people, it doesn't follow that these are the Israelites: the Israelites MIGHT have expropriated stories about an earlier different people. And note that that the word Habiru spoke to occupation and life-style more than ethnicity.

Arguments:

• Phonetically, "Habiru" and "Hebrew" look like cognates.
• It appears that the Egyptians did NOT have a word distinct from Habiru which might correspond to Hebrew. (But as I mentioned earlier "Hebrew" as it appears in Genesis appears to be a rendering of an Egyptian exonym.)
• The writers of the Torah did NOT have a word distinct from Hebrew which might correspond to Habiru. This DESPITE that the stories of the Torah, whether complete fiction or having some basis in fact, are set in the time of the Habiru.
• There are very strong connections between what the Amarna Letters tell us about the history of the Habiru, and what the Torah tells us about the early history (or mythology) of the Hebrew/Israelites. I list a few of these connections in the points following.
• Kadesh was the chief site of encampment for the Israelites during their wandering in the Zin Desert. Redford tells us "Kadesh became from the outset the focus of Egyptian attacks and political pressure." And the eventual "Battle of Kadesh is better documented than any other military engagement prior to Marathon in 490 B.C.
• Amurra/Amorites, Gezer, and Lachish are among several other places given prominent mention both by Redford's history of the 18th Dynasty Empire, and the Old Testament.

During the centuries of conflict, city-states or tribes frequently changed sides. (The Habiru in particular were noted for this.) The accounts therefore become confused, and we should assume that the campaigns of Moses and Joshua -- written centuries after the facts -- are filled with fiction.

BUT, my only claim here is NOT that Biblical stories of events before King David are trustworthy history. ALL I argue in this post is that "Habiru" and "Hebrew" are most probably cognates. (I suspect that some scholars who reject this cognacy do so to avoid the charge of "anti-Semitism.")

The Israelites leaving Egypt camped out at Kadesh-Barnea 38 years. Kadesh is not Kadesh-Barnea. Kadesh is far to the North, the Orantes river, now a border between Lebanon and Syria.

Thanks for the correction! "Kadesh" occurs at least 28 times in KJV (and 33 times in Douay-Rheims where it is spelled "Cades"). I don't know which of those Kadeshes are which. The parallels I cited between the alleged early history of the Israelites and ancient Egyptian histories went beyond Kadesh.

Kadesh-Barnea is a series of oasises South of Jerusalem. No trace of the alleged Israelite occupation there has been found despite several archaeological expeditions there.

(A) AFAIK there is little or no archaeological evidence for the military campaigns in Canaan that we know occurred 3000+ years ago. There was a famous Indo-Aryan invasion of India about 3800 years ago -- NO archaeological evidence. Et cetera, et cetera. There are lots of "40"s in the Bible; if the myths have any basis the actual duration might have been 4 weeks or 400 years. How many man-years are needed before no archaeological evidence would found?

and perhaps more importantly,

(B) No atheist believes that 600,000 Israelites accompanied Moses for 40 years in the desert. Instead of 600,000 there may not even have been six. The whole story is FICTION. There are interesting clues: At one point the Egyptians drove a band of Habiru out of Egypt, IIRC. But the only controversy about Moses' Exodus is whether it is 99.99% fiction, or only 99.9% fiction.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Merneptah's stele is the first mention of Israel. One of the Nine Bows, city states that had drifted away from Egyptian hegemony after the Egypt - Hittite wars. As a people, not a state. Many city states of Canaan had relations with herders who sometimes had satellite small villages on the outskirts of Canaanite cities. These Israelites abandoned the area for their hilltop farms. So we have a good idea of the origin of Israel. Not nomads, but herdsmen, with territories, and important relations with Canaanite cities proper.
The problem with the Torah and Joshua and Judges were that they were written and redacted long after events, and obviously, the Israelites had no memory of Merneptah's attacks. 200 years after they migrated to the hilltop farms, they migrated to Israel proper. according to Exodus, they went into the wilderness to avoid the warlike Philistines. Who were defeated by Rameses III. And only were a problems after Rameses VI abandoned Canaan. This wreaks havoc with the Exodus tall tales timeline. Any mention of Hebrews was quite late and therefore meaningless as to origins.

 

[Learner]

Hi Swammi, you asked me what I thought about the connection between the Habiru and Hebrews. As interesting as the topic is, it's an area I need to read and study more on, when I can get time, if only - so your post wasn't ignored (your posts on various topics I find interestingly good to read btw).
At least Cheerful is engaging with you in the conversation here.
(Haven't ignored you either ideologyhunter, apologies for that)

 

[Swammerdami]

Merneptah's stele is the first mention of Israel. One of the Nine Bows, city states that had drifted away from Egyptian hegemony after the Egypt - Hittite wars. As a people, not a state. Many city states of Canaan had relations with herders who sometimes had satellite small villages on the outskirts of Canaanite cities. These Israelites abandoned the area for their hilltop farms. So we have a good idea of the origin of Israel. Not nomads, but herdsmen, with territories, and important relations with Canaanite cities proper.
The problem with the Torah and Joshua and Judges were that they were written and redacted long after events, and obviously, the Israelites had no memory of Merneptah's attacks. 200 years after they migrated to the hilltop farms, they migrated to Israel proper. according to Exodus, they went into the wilderness to avoid the warlike Philistines. Who were defeated by Rameses III. And only were a problems after Rameses VI abandoned Canaan. This wreaks havoc with the Exodus tall tales timeline. Any mention of Hebrews was quite late and therefore meaningless as to origins.

I essentially agree with all this! And send a big Thank you to Cheerful Charlie for engaging in the discussion.

IIUC, the tales of Kings David and Solomon are, at best, exaggerations and Biblical history before them is completely unreliable. But I think that invented myths often have SOME relationship to historic fact, and may provide interesting clues for guesswork.

We KNOW that the Habiru were a military force in Canaan during Egypt's New Kingdom, making and breaking alliances with small Canaanite states. We see that the pre-Davidic "Hebrews" in the Torah myths parallel the Habiru closely.

In addition to "Habiru", ancient Egyptian texts speak of the "Shasu", linked to the semi-arid region of Edom and Moab (and to unwelcome settlements in the Delta), linked to the name "Yahweh" and linked to a life-style similar to the Habiru/Hebrew. (Edom/Esau was the alleged brother of Israel/Jacob.) Redford identifies the Shasu with the early Israelites. Here are some excerpts from Redford's book. Only once does Redford explicitly suggest a connection between Shasu and Apiru/Habiru.

Egyptian Nilotic society had, since the dawn of time, given practical and moral priority to sedentary life and poured contempt on the uncontrolled movement of people. The verb Ps (pronounced perhaps *shase) meant basically to move on foot, and it is often used of journeys or of the daily motion of the sun, which is all innocent enough. But very early it took on a nuance of speed and furtiveness: messengers speed on foot to far-off places, and malcontents flee punishment. A participial form was applied from at least as early as the 5th Dynasty to those “wanderers” the Egyptians habitually came into contact with in the north, and rapidly became a term with societal implications. The resultant S3sw (*shaswe), the “Shasu,” came to be used of wandering groups whom we would call bedu, with the significant distinction that unlike their modern counterparts they lacked the camel.
. . .
The only reasonable conclusion is that one major component in the later amalgam that constituted Israel, and the one with whom the worship of Yahweh originated, must be looked for among the Shasu of Edom already at the end of the fifteenth century BC.
. . .
In the northern hill country the presence of similar elements [similar to Shasu] around Shechem posed a threat to Beth Shean, and the route between the coastal road and the Jordan was already in jeopardy at the outset of Sety Ts reign. While he was again able to quell the disturbances, his records betray the presence of a strong dissident group (whom he terms 'Apiru) in the hill country where, three generations earlier, Lab’ayu had run amok. One wonders to what extent these elements encouraged the Canaanite towns of the Esdraelon and Galilee to join in the revolt against Egypt on the morrow of Ramesses IPs defeat at Kadesh.
. . .
from about 1320 to 1260 b .c ., the Shasu are chronicled as continuing to foment trouble in their native habitat of the steppe, and as pressing westward through the Negeb toward major towns along the Via Maris. It is not, in my opinion, an unrelated phenomenon that a generation later under Merneptah an entity called “Israel” with all the character of a Shasu enclave makes its appearance probably in the Ephraimitic highlands ...

 

[Jarhyn]

Merneptah's stele is the first mention of Israel. One of the Nine Bows, city states that had drifted away from Egyptian hegemony after the Egypt - Hittite wars. As a people, not a state. Many city states of Canaan had relations with herders who sometimes had satellite small villages on the outskirts of Canaanite cities. These Israelites abandoned the area for their hilltop farms. So we have a good idea of the origin of Israel. Not nomads, but herdsmen, with territories, and important relations with Canaanite cities proper.
The problem with the Torah and Joshua and Judges were that they were written and redacted long after events, and obviously, the Israelites had no memory of Merneptah's attacks. 200 years after they migrated to the hilltop farms, they migrated to Israel proper. according to Exodus, they went into the wilderness to avoid the warlike Philistines. Who were defeated by Rameses III. And only were a problems after Rameses VI abandoned Canaan. This wreaks havoc with the Exodus tall tales timeline. Any mention of Hebrews was quite late and therefore meaningless as to origins.

I essentially agree with all this! And send a big Thank you to Cheerful Charlie for engaging in the discussion.

IIUC, the tales of Kings David and Solomon are, at best, exaggerations and Biblical history before them is completely unreliable. But I think that invented myths often have SOME relationship to historic fact, and may provide interesting clues for guesswork.

We KNOW that the Habiru were a military force in Canaan during Egypt's New Kingdom, making and breaking alliances with small Canaanite states. We see that the pre-Davidic "Hebrews" in the Torah myths parallel the Habiru closely.

In addition to "Habiru", ancient Egyptian texts speak of the "Shasu", linked to the semi-arid region of Edom and Moab (and to unwelcome settlements in the Delta), linked to the name "Yahweh" and linked to a life-style similar to the Habiru/Hebrew. (Edom/Esau was the alleged brother of Israel/Jacob.) Redford identifies the Shasu with the early Israelites. Here are some excerpts from Redford's book. Only once does Redford explicitly suggest a connection between Shasu and Apiru/Habiru.

Egyptian Nilotic society had, since the dawn of time, given practical and moral priority to sedentary life and poured contempt on the uncontrolled movement of people. The verb Ps (pronounced perhaps *shase) meant basically to move on foot, and it is often used of journeys or of the daily motion of the sun, which is all innocent enough. But very early it took on a nuance of speed and furtiveness: messengers speed on foot to far-off places, and malcontents flee punishment. A participial form was applied from at least as early as the 5th Dynasty to those “wanderers” the Egyptians habitually came into contact with in the north, and rapidly became a term with societal implications. The resultant S3sw (*shaswe), the “Shasu,” came to be used of wandering groups whom we would call bedu, with the significant distinction that unlike their modern counterparts they lacked the camel.
. . .
The only reasonable conclusion is that one major component in the later amalgam that constituted Israel, and the one with whom the worship of Yahweh originated, must be looked for among the Shasu of Edom already at the end of the fifteenth century BC.
. . .
In the northern hill country the presence of similar elements [similar to Shasu] around Shechem posed a threat to Beth Shean, and the route between the coastal road and the Jordan was already in jeopardy at the outset of Sety Ts reign. While he was again able to quell the disturbances, his records betray the presence of a strong dissident group (whom he terms 'Apiru) in the hill country where, three generations earlier, Lab’ayu had run amok. One wonders to what extent these elements encouraged the Canaanite towns of the Esdraelon and Galilee to join in the revolt against Egypt on the morrow of Ramesses IPs defeat at Kadesh.
. . .
from about 1320 to 1260 b .c ., the Shasu are chronicled as continuing to foment trouble in their native habitat of the steppe, and as pressing westward through the Negeb toward major towns along the Via Maris. It is not, in my opinion, an unrelated phenomenon that a generation later under Merneptah an entity called “Israel” with all the character of a Shasu enclave makes its appearance probably in the Ephraimitic highlands ...

And for whatever it's worth, it sounds more and more plausible that the whole "letting an armed mercenary tribe through our lands" thing would be rejected by the locals, especially if the armed mercenaries in question had a reputation for just taking whatever they wanted.

 

[Jarhyn]

Oh come on this thread is so fun!

Ok, someone else should take a turn playing "accidental Jesus".

I figure there have got to be at least 2-3 good contenders on the forum, mostly on account of the fact that challenging religious authorities as a free thinker after being interested in apologia for the sake of truth is one of the common paths to the "infidel" community, and is a core element of the Jesus narrative, and I suspect atypical persons who loudly and honestly pursue their beliefs are also common.

The consequences of doing so in continued opposition to some established religious authority is also large, and if done adjacent to a region or community for which your system of thought is a philosophical step forward, the consequences to be expected are both as strict and as arbitrary as the ones in the bible.

Nothing has ultimately changed other than the fact that now when people are the same kind of assholes as were discussed in that same book, they commonly claim direct affiliation with the person who told them to NOT be like that and who they promptly ignored, regardless of whether that person was "Jesus" or some puppet telling a story that doesn't need to have happened to be important.

As a result, that story has been told a number of times and is more or less true not just of one person's life but of several.

I'm just curious if anyone else here has taken a low flying pass around those tropes.