Flux Æon

I'm responding to a Letter to the Editor in a local newspaper where a letter writer uses the Bible to support his contention that Jews lived in "the Holy Land" since "Biblical Times". I know that other than Jews first occupied that area, but I'm looking for credible, definitive sources that support my contention so I can respond to his obviously prejudicial opinion.

I've tried doing searches here, but I guess I'm using the wrong words or terms to find what I need.

I have found references elsewhere that reference what I'm looking for based on information found in the Eblaite tablets that date as far back as 2300 B.C. It's helpful, but I'd prefer to have more sources, especially those that can be assessed easily on the 'net.

Could any of you please point me in the right direction? I'd appreciate it.

Thanx in advance.


(BTW...while you may not see many posts by me, I religiously :redface: check in occasionally to teach myself more about the various subjects discussed here. But as I've said before....I feel like a pair of brown shoes at a tuxedo party, and especially enjoy reading the repartee!) :eating_popcorn:

Clivedurdle

Archaeology is very clear - no invasions.

But some tribes who have always been there develop a fascinating lack of pig bones in their rubbish dumps.

And the rest is classic coevolution.

show_no_mercy

The Merneptah Stele is the earliest archaeological reference to a people called "Israel", which gives the existence of "Israel" to around 1,200 BCE

Though the archaeological evidence indicates that there was no invasion, at least at the scale presented in Joshua. The Canaanites were Israelis, just wandering nomadic Canaanites who eventually developed their own type of Semitic religion.

Clivedurdle

Are pigs difficult for nomadic people to keep?

Googling - guess what is not on the list!

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/xp...madstudent.pdf

Flux Æon

I have found references to the Natufian (around 12,000B.C.E) and Yarmukian cultures (8,500 B.C.E. - 4,300 BCE). Does that alone support my contention that only Abraham's arrival in Hebron around 19th century B.C.E began the biblical journey that brought about the writer's contention that "Israel is the name that belongs on that piece of historical territory.
In that light, couldn't it just a easily been renamed for the two cultures I mentioned that predated the biblical Abraham?

Took me a second to get the reference to pigs. :redface:

Clivedurdle

Abraham?

Who he?

http://www.worldagesarchive.com/Refe..._(Harpers).htm

yalla

The Merneptah Stele is the earliest archaeological reference to a people called "Israel", which gives the existence of "Israel" to around 1,200 BCE

Actually the Merneptah Stele does not refer to "Israel".
It refers to egyptian glyphs which have been translated as "Israel".
Perhaps not deservedly so.

Check out the Wiki source cited and you will see this:

"Towards the end of the text, Spegielberg was puzzled by the mention of one symbol, that of a people or tribe whom Merenptah had victoriously smitten--"I.si.ri.ar?"[4] Petrie quickly suggested that it read: "Israel!"[4] Spiegelberg agreed that this translation must be correct. "Won't the reverends be pleased?" remarked Petrie.[4] At dinner that evening, Petrie who realized the importance of the find said:

"This stele will be better known in the world than anything else I have found."[4]
It was the first mention of the word "Israel" in an Ancient Egyptian text a
"
My emphases.

Look at what happened [or at least what is reported as having happened].
According to the above:
1.Spegielberg was puzzled .
He was the philologist, the language expert.
He was " puzzled".
2.It was the first time this word had been seen. It could, in fact. mean anything. Which is why Spegielberg was "puzzled".
3.Petrie "quickly suggested " ...
Thought planted and Spegiel berg agreed it must be so and thus we have been assuming such ever since.
4.It could have been something else and had not Petrie jumped in and Spegielberg agreed then more considered analysis may have been less emphatic in concluding an answer that would 'please the reverends"
5.Check out this wiki site on Flinders Petrie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flinders_Petrie

Note this:
"He was raised in a devout Christian household (his father being Plymouth Brethren), ...."
Note also, from the description of the find:
"....It was Petrie whose quick imaginative mind leapt[t] to the solution : "Israel!"

6.Check out this wiki article on Wilhelm Spiegelberg

http://translate.google.com.au/trans...%3Den%26sa%3DG

Note this:
"Died in 1930 converted to Christianity ..."


And finally:
This abstract:
http://journals.cambridge.org/action...ine&aid=552580
suggests:

"In terms of popularity traditional Christian approaches to ancient Egypt eclipsed all rivals, every major practising Egyptologist of the 1880s employing them and publications receiving large, demonstrably enthusiastic, audiences. Support for biblical Egyptologists demonstrates that, in Egyptology, the fin de siècle enjoyed a little-noticed but widely supported revival of Old-Testament-based Christianity amidst a flowering of diverse beliefs."
The name of Flinders Petrie is specifically included.

Flux Æon

I'm deeply grateful for the responses. I just want ya'll to know that I really did try to search the forum for information and I'm not letting ya'll do my homework for me. Also, I've already found sufficient evidence elsewhere, that added to your contributions, easily makes my point.

Muchisimas Gracias!

spin

Here's a different perspective on the issue:

A recent carbon-dating of materials that come from a specifically locations in Israel (Megiddo K6 and Lachish VI -- the numbers indicate strata) provides an uncalibrated dating range of 1194-1114 BCE. The Philistine pottery at those sites at those levels date early Philistine presence to that time. [I. Finkelstein & E. Piasetsky, "Radiocarbon Dating and Philistine Chronology", Egypt and Levant XVII, ed M. Bietak, Vienna 2007]

A reading of Judges doesn't know anything about the arrival of the Philistines on the Levantine coast. In fact, in Genesis the Philistines are already in the Levant at the time of Abraham and Isaac. The arrival of the Philistines was such a serious event in the area that soon after that time the Egyptians had lost control of the coastal area and later the uplands as well.

The bible knows nothing about the arrival of the Philistines, yet if a culture was there at the time they couldn't miss such a presence. I'd have to conclude that there was no maintained tradition that reached back as far as the arrival of the Philistines, for if there had been, you'd expect the bang to be recorded. Instead, you have the local population (without sign of a recent arrival of its own) becoming aware of the Philistines as its awareness spread beyond its little world around Jerusalem and then the wider uplands area.

This suggests that this group of people as a cultural entity doesn't go back as far as the arrival of the Philistines. (This seems to match the linguistic evidence that the Phoenicians were the earliest separation from the Canaanite group of languages and Hebrew was a later, more conservative split.)


spin

Doug Shaver

Not even the Bible claims that the Israelites were there first.

I'm not aware that anybody contends otherwise. What the writer is probably trying to defend is the notion that the Israelites conquered Canaan after spending a few centuries enslaved in Egypt.