Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jayhawker Soule · 02-23-2002, 04:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Answerer:
From historical view, Israel should belong to the canaanites in the first place, but too bad as they are wiped out by the Jews.

Actually, if you give any credence to the book THE BIBLE UNEARTHED - Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origen of its Sacred Texts - by Israel Finklestein and Neil Asher Silberman, you find:

Quote:

The process that we describe here is, in fact, the opposite of what we have in the Bible: the emergence of early Israel was an outcome of the collapse of the Canaanite culture, not its cause. And most Israelites did not come from outside Canaan -- they emerged from within it. There was no mass Exodus from Egypt. There was no violent conquest of Canaan. Most of the people who formed early Israel were local people -- the same people we see in the highlands throughout the Bronze and Iron Ages. The early Israelites were -- irony of ironies -- themselves originally Canaanites! [pg. 118]

Perhaps it's better to question first and answer later.

Beelzebub · 02-23-2002, 04:52 AM

Marduck- Palestine was an "administrative district", under the Ottoman Turks & the name was kept when Britain took over after WW1. When Britain left, this area was supposed to go to what was known as Transjordan. After the 1948 battle for Israel, the Israeli's ended up with it. Though the people there call themselves Paletinians, they have no connection with the ancient people who lived there, so there are considered to be "newbies" in the area, dating from 1948.Hope this clears it up.

Jayhawker Soule · 02-23-2002, 05:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by marduck:
Now you are confusing me even more, my dad served in Egypt in WWII and told me he was in Palestine?? that was 1943? I'm not sure I get the connection to the Philistines who never were from Caanan. Thought we were talking about non Jews who live in Israel and the people held in the refuge camps called Palistinians??
In Bible days the non Jews in Israel were called Samarians, so the book said.

Your dad was correct. He was in a place named Palestine - a place named, not for the people who lived there, but in spite of them. To continue quoting from the above referenced link:

Quote:

In the First Century CE, the Romans crushed the independent kingdom of Judea. After the failed rebellion of Bar Kokhba in the Second Century CE, the Roman Emperor Hadrian determined to wipe out the identity of Israel-Judah-Judea. Therefore, he took the name Palastina and imposed it on all the Land of Israel. At the same time, he changed the name of Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina.

As for the non Jews in Israel, there were bunches of them, partly due to a tendency of conquerors to relocate populations. Mazar writes, for example:

Quote:

Tiglath-Pileser III of Assyria conquered the Galilee and exiled its inhabitants. Samaria proper remained independent for only another decade, then it too was conquered and its population exiled [720 B.C.E.]. The kingdom was annexed to the Assyrian empire and divided into several provinces. Foreign peoples were brought from afar and resettled in the Israelites' stead. Eventually, the foreign people came to be known as "Samaritans," centered at Sechem and Samaria. [Archaeology of the Land of the Bible; 10,000 - 586 B.C.E. by Amihai Mazar

Note that some view Mazar as "old school", permitting the Torah to overly influence his interpretation of the archaeology rather than the other way around.

Emanual Tov discusses the Samaritans in his book Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, e.g.:

Quote:

The Samaritans believe that the Jews, rather than they, separated from the Central stream of Judaism at the time of the priest Eli in the eleventh century BCE. Among scholars, Gaster adheres to this view. A completely different view is found in 2 Kgs 17:24-34 according to which the Samaritans were not related to the Israelites, but were people brought to Samaria by the Assyrians in the eighth century BCE, after the destructon of the Northern Kingdom. In the Talmud they are indeed named "Kutim," that is, people from Kitah, a region of Assyria (cf. 2 Kngs 12:24).

Against the testimony of both the Samaritan community and the Jews, most scholars ascribe the origins of the community to a much later period. According to one view, based on the book of Ezrea, the Samaritans are the people of Samaria (the Northern Kingdom) who separated from the people of Judah (the Judaites) in the Persian period (see esp. Ezra 4:1-5). Others, on the basis of Josephus, Antiquities, XI, 340-345, ascribe the origen of the community as wellas the building of the temple in Sechem to the period of Alexander the Great. Accordin to Purvis the Samaritans separated from their Jewish brethren after the destruction of their temple by John Hyrcanus in 128 BCE. The paleographical evidence mentioned above also points to theis date. [from Chapter 2.IB: Pre-Samaritan Texts and the Samaritan Pentateuch]

Haran · 02-23-2002, 05:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by marduck:
In Bible days the non Jews in Israel were called Samarians, so the book said.

The Bible calls them Samaritans. Although I see "Samarians" used to refer to the same people, I believe that the correct term is Samaritan.

They are supposedly the Jews left behind when the rest were taken off into captivity. I don't think they have much to do with modern day "Palestinians", though some Samaritans may be Palestinians...maybe.

Haran

Marduk · 02-23-2002, 06:56 AM

Thanks for all the input guys.
Could it be possible that everyone now in the area are all descended from the same people and all the ‘differences’ are artificial i. e. Religious/political. It almost seems that way.
I remember a recent post saying that DNA tests suggest this.

Jayhawker Soule · 02-23-2002, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by marduck:
Thanks for all the input guys.
Could it be possible that everyone now in the area are all descended from the same people and all the differences are artificial i. e. Religious/political. It almost seems that way.

Leaving aside the "Out-of-Africa" verses multregionalism debates, I assume that we're all pretty much the same people if you go back far enough. I'm not sure, however, that I'm comfortable with the term "artificial", because it suggests a counterposition between

artificial, religious/geo-political, and
real (e.g. ethnic / "racial")

distinctions.

Haran · 02-23-2002, 07:45 AM

For those who don't know:

Palestinian does not equal Muslim.

There are some Christian Palestinians, even within Arafat's cabinet.

Haran

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-23-2002, 04:52 AM	#12
Beelzebub Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Connecticut Posts: 554	Marduck- Palestine was an "administrative district", under the Ottoman Turks & the name was kept when Britain took over after WW1. When Britain left, this area was supposed to go to what was known as Transjordan. After the 1948 battle for Israel, the Israeli's ended up with it. Though the people there call themselves Paletinians, they have no connection with the ancient people who lived there, so there are considered to be "newbies" in the area, dating from 1948.Hope this clears it up.

02-23-2002, 06:56 AM	#15
Marduk Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: the 10th planet Posts: 5,065	Thanks for all the input guys. Could it be possible that everyone now in the area are all descended from the same people and all the ‘differences’ are artificial i. e. Religious/political. It almost seems that way. I remember a recent post saying that DNA tests suggest this.

02-23-2002, 07:45 AM	#17
Haran Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Dallas, Tx Posts: 1,490	For those who don't know: Palestinian does not equal Muslim. There are some Christian Palestinians, even within Arafat's cabinet. Haran

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.