steve_bnk

It would appear one does not have to go back to the Canaanites to muddy modern Jewish origins. Jews were spread all around the region and at times at odds with each other. There is no traceable single path back to a hypothetical Moses. There does not seem to have been a single Hebrew group.

It would appear the term Jew for the 1000 years BCE is analogous to the general use of term Christian applied over the last 1000 years of history. Too broad to have any meaning.


The Jewish Torah canon doesnot appear competed until the CE. Uld say Judoiasm asit exists today came out of post Roman destruction theologians.

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

I read A Guide For The Perplexed a long time ago. The origins of Judaism by analogy are probably similar to how the RCC theology evolved over time. Who were the key Jewish writers in the CE that interpreted scripture and shaped Judaism? BCE were there any surviving writings other than what went into the Torah?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Develop...ew_Bible_canon


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_...0.93_63_BCE.29

'...Hellenistic period (c. 332 – 110 BCE)[edit]Main article: Hellenistic Judaism
In 332 BCE, the Persians were defeated by Alexander the Great of Macedon. After his demise, and the division of Alexander's empire among his generals, the Seleucid Kingdom was formed.

Greek culture was spread eastwards by the Alexandrian conquests. The Levant was not immune to this cultural spread. During this time, currents of Judaism were influenced by Hellenistic philosophy developed from the 3rd century BCE, notably the Jewish diaspora in Alexandria, culminating in the compilation of the Septuagint. An important advocate of the symbiosis of Jewish theology and Hellenistic thought is Philo.

The Hasmonean Kingdom (110 – 63 BCE)

A deterioration of relations between hellenized Jews and orthodox Jews led the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes to impose decrees banning certain Jewish religious rites and traditions. Consequently, the orthodox Jews revolted under the leadership of the Hasmonean family (also known as the Maccabees). This revolt eventually led to the formation of an independent Jewish kingdom, known as the Hasmonaean Dynasty, which lasted from 165 BCE to 63 BCE.[9] The Hasmonean Dynasty eventually disintegrated as a result of civil war between the sons of Salome Alexandra, Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II. The people, who did not want to be governed by a king but by theocratic clergy, made appeals in this spirit to the Roman authorities. A Roman campaign of conquest and annexation, led by Pompey, soon followed....

Many of the Judaean Jews were sold into slavery while others became citizens of other parts of the Roman Empire.[citation needed] The book of Acts in the New Testament, as well as other Pauline texts, make frequent reference to the large populations of Hellenised Jews in the cities of the Roman world. These Hellenised Jews were affected by the diaspora only in its spiritual sense, absorbing the feeling of loss and homelessness that became a cornerstone of the Jewish creed, much supported by persecutions in various parts of the world. The policy encouraging proselytism and conversion to Judaism, which spread the Jewish religion throughout the Hellenistic civilization, seems to have subsided with the wars against the Romans.

Of critical importance to the reshaping of Jewish tradition from the Temple-based religion to the rabbinic traditions of the Diaspora, was the development of the interpretations of the Torah found in the Mishnah and Talmud.....'

Davka

The issue is not quite as settled as outhouse seems to think. There are competing models of the Israelite settlement of Canaan:

Although the overwhelmingly accepted position among Biblical Archaeologists is that the Biblical account of the Exodus and the Conquest is utterly at odds with the archaeological evidence, the question of how the Yahwists came to dominate Canaan is far from settled. There is more than enough evidence to discard the Biblical story as pure fantasy, but not enough to establish precisely what did happen.

outhouse

That is correct, and if this was something that really mattered I like you, could get the exact page number.


If this was critical and not just proving something against some biblical literalist, I would have posted it.

Jaybees

That fits with the views held by many societies regarding their own origins, whether they be Navajos or Ionic Greeks. That past, from before they had a written language, was peopled by heroes doing great deeds, emerging triumphant over adversity and paving the way for the current age that, alas, is not as golden as that past.

outhouse

False bud. What I claimed are facts are facts.

That man is not a archeologist, and has cherry picked much information to come to his unfounded conclusion.

Its like a cherry picked version of wiki from old biased material.


By the way the conquest was probably from the 7th century *[1]

This is true



Laughable and false my friend.


First. All proto Israelites after 1200 BC who settled the highlands were not Yahwist. They were Polytheistic following a family of Canaanite deities even by 1000 BC.

Second. They did not dominate Canaan and ZERO evidence indicates this.



The only evidence there is for 1200 BC is the Merneptah stele, which indicates a semi nomadic people's seed was wiped out at roughly 1209 BC.



By archeology alone, we see the highlands of Israel starting out with just a few settlements and in a few hundred years we see a gradual migration and by 1000BC there are thousands of settlements.


You cited some work from 1925 for gods sake

Most of what is known about the ethnogenesis of Israelites has taken place
in the last few decades



http://www.bibleandscience.com/bible.../unearthed.htm


[1] Finkelstein and Silberman posit that the stories of the conquest fit better into the 7th century BC where Josiah was trying to take back land lost to the Assyrians who had conquered Samaria.


TOTO

Finkelstein and Silberman believe that the Israelites were actually the Canaanites. Surveys of Israel reveal that there was no conquest, nor infiltration, but a revolution in lifestyle (107). There is a shift from earlier tent camps to villages to rectangular pillared houses. There was a shift from pastoral nomads to a permanent agricultural life (112-13).

Finkelstein and Silberman state, “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 of the Israelites did not come from outside Canaan—they emerged from within it” (p.118).

outhouse

The battle between biblical minimalist and biblical maximalist, will not stop no matter how strong the evidence is.

Its like arguing with YEC, or conspiracy theorist, or biblical literalist, it doesn't do any good.



At best we can follow the middle of the road, which is what Finklestein and Silberman have done.



There is one other Jewish archeologist Avraham Faust who has also worked on Israels ethnogenesis, and holds a little different view. But many claim his work is biased.

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/r...-ethnogenesis/

Here Faust work is reviewed by Dever. He even takes Faust side somewhat.




Faust’s bold re-examination of the vexed problem of “Israelite ethnicity” will no doubt meet with opposition and even scorn, and he is likely to be demonized for his conservatism—so “out of style.”



I can hardly claim to be objective, since Faust straight-forwardly bases his approach on my 1993 “new style of Biblical archaeology,”as well as my “proto-Israelite” label,

outhouse

So if you want to get into detail about the current state of arguments of Israel's ethnogenesis, my take is something like this.

Finklestein and Silberman have provided facts detailing the emergence of proto Israelites from Canaan.

Faust and Dever also follow this proto Israelite model and emergence within Canaan.

Faust and Devers disagreements are "who" made up these displaced Canaanites avoiding calling them Canaanites.


My opinion only.

Grog

I didn't spend a lot of time looking and didn't find this exact quote, but here's this:

Duvduv

Well, that most certainly "settles it," doesn't it? Once it's stated by Finkelstein, then ipso facto it must be true, right? "Irony of ironies"?? And how, pray tell, can he possiibly know this??!

Quote:

The early Israelites were--irony of ironies--themselves originally Canaanites. (Finkelstein, 2001, p.118)

outhouse

What is the alternitive?

Did they wakeboard behind the ark too?


Does the sun revolve around the earth?



What settles it is the fact they used Canaanite dieties, alphabet and the same exact pottery for two hundred years.