Tammuz

Most people already know that the stories in the Bible are not objective accounts of what really happened in the past. Only about 700 B.C.E and onwards, confirmed history starts to agree with the Bible (even though the Bible is of course biased).

But from where did the Israelites (i.e Jews) come? Some connect them with the Hyksos, and speculate that the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt eventually was legendarized to become the Exodus story. Another version of this hypothesis is that king Josiah's scribes, who are believed by some to have made up the Patriarch stories, rewrote the story of the expulsion from Egypt to being their relief from Egypt. According to this hypothesis, Josiah's scribes wrote up a lot of things, and Josiah tried to give his people a common identity (which included religion) and so on because he had expansionist ambitions.

Others connect the Israelites with the Habiru. This seems not impossible. The Habiru were probably much like the Cossacks, i.e outlaws and drop-outs of various Levant societies. The Habirus were, at least a couple of them, in Egypt, among other places. The Habiru were not a people in the same way that the Egyptians or Phoenicians were, and they spoke no common language, and had no common ethnic origin. But it is possible that they eventually became. Perhaps Josiah would be the unifying man in this scenario?

And there are those who connect the Israelites to the Canaanites, and believe that the Israelites are the same people that have inhabitated Canaan for millennias.

What do modern research actually tells about this issue? Have I got it totally wrong with the three theories I posted above? Is there any consensus on the origin of the Israelites?

David B

That is something that I have never previously considered, know nothing about, and am now intrigued by.

I really look forward to reading the responses of our experts.

David B

Amaleq13

You might be interested in viewing this earlier thread:

Hyksos and Hebrew

but certainly this even earlier thread you'll find linked in the above:

Introduction to Biblical Criticism and Archaeology II

Newton's Cat

The Abrahamic customs and laws detailed in the OT are practically identical to Hurrian customs and laws (only discovered in the 1950s and not given wide publicity). The Hurrian were not Semites. The Hurrians lived in Northern Mesopotamia - the region where the Kurds now live. The Kurds are not Semites. Genetic studies indicate that the Kurds and the Jews are genetically related. The Jews, as far as their origins are concerned, seem not to have been Semites.

Diogenes the Cynic

There is no cultural connection between the Israelites and the Hyksos. The Hyksos has already been destroyed several centuries before the Israelites emerged asa distinct cultural group from the Canaanite.

The Habiru connection is tenuous but not entirely out of the question. The Habiru were not an ethnic or cultural group or any unified group at all. That was just a sort of generic word for groups who lived on the fringes of established civilization and made their living as bandits or mercenaries. According to Finkelstein and Silverman (in David and Solomon) "David's" polity may have begun as a similar sort of bandit chiefdom which moved into a vacuum of power after "Saul's" prior kingdom was destroyed by the Assyrians.

In any case, the Israelites originated as indegenous Canaanites. The Hebrew language emerged from Canaanite and the original Israelite deities cam from the Canaanite pantheon.

Tammuz

Thank you for the links and posts.

But where did the Hurrians go? The Kurds are Indo-Europeans, and the Hurrians were probably a Caucasian people related to modern-day Chechens, Ingushetes, Dagestanis and other Caucasian peoples.

Are you sure about that? Doesn't genetical research also tell that the Jews are closely related to the Arabs too?

Hmm, actually I read some article (or rather a part of an article) connecting the Israelites to the Hyksos, which referred to Israeli archeologists. Though the article was not in English. I can check it up more closely if you want.

I consider the connection quite interesting. I' myself have speculated that the various origins of the Habiru might constitute the foundation for the story that they were twelve tribes. In other words, the Habiru of Egyptian origin formed one "tribe" or division, the Habiru of of Canaanite origin formed another "tribe", the Habiru of Sumerian origin formed yet another "tribe" and so on. And later the story of Jacob and his twelve sons was concieved (perhaps based on some earlier legend(s), perhaps a total fantasy) to give those "tribes" a common origin and identity. But this is just my personal speculation.

Yeah that's a common explanation for their origin and perhaps the most probable. Though, what separated the Israelites from the other Canaanites? And is it true that there was expelled Atenic priests who sparked the monotheism, which was finally fully developed (with Satan, angles etc) during the Babylonian exile?

Rick Sumner

This article suggests that calling Hebrew a "Canaanite language" might be jumping the gun.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Clivedurdle

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

Sauron

Reading that article was like reading a scared pompous professor looking at retirement without receiving his CMG, KCMG, or GCMG. Here is how he discusses respected, fellow scholars who believe that Hebrew is a Canaanite language:


Rainey is correct is saying that the line of evidence from pottery is important to Albright, Dever, etc. But Rainey never addresses the pottery head-on. Instead, he discusses the claim of a cultural gap in Jordan, and a lack of late Bronze Age material (above). He disagrees, and says that there is prima facia evidence for such culture. That's great and all, but are there affinities between the early Iron Age Israelite sites and artifacts, and the late Bronze Age items in Jordan? We don't know, because Rainey doesn't tell us. And even if no cultural gap had ever existed in Jordan, that still does not refute a connection between coastal Canaanite pottery and early Iron Age pottery in the hills, when that connection is based upon affinity of the articles. The connection between early Israelites and Canaanites isn't merely the fact that the items appear in the correct dating position; it's also the fact that the stylistic and aesthetic forms of these items is identical.

Finally, the idea that Finkelstein's modern-day Israeli mentality somehow has blocked him from envisioning an ancient world where Transjordan harbored people other than anti-Israeli terrorists is insulting to Finkelstein and ridiculous on its face. There are many excellent archaeologists in Israel now; are they all likewise crippled in their ability to view ancient Jordan as anything except a proto-terrorist state? If so, then they should all be ignored or fired from their jobs, since they can't possibly do their work with such a devastating handicap.

All in all, the article was disappointing and Rainey sounded like a bitter, hunted man looking back at the end of his career and trying to make his mark. This is just another example of why BAR is to the science of archaeology, what Discovery Channel is to real science.

spin

I don't think so. It's fair to say that Hebrew is closer to the non-coastal Canaanite languages such as Ammonite and Moabite, which the article basically says. It is not a new discovery that Hebrew is closer to those than Phoenician which left the fold earlier and had diverged more, ie Hebrew as an independent language is younger than Phoenician, as it hadn't "travelled" or diverged as much.

The distinction between "coastal" Canaanite and the other Canaanite languages, calling them "Transjordanian" is merely silly polemic. The notion of a Transjordanian entity is a geographical term misapplied to create an artificial distinction.


HTH


spin