6 ms·

Wouldn't it be amusing if the Israelites were genetically Canaanites --- just with religious differences? Someone would have a lot of explaining to do. Or may

Wouldn't it be amusing if the Israelites were genetically Canaanites --- just with religious differences? Someone would have a lot of explaining to do. Or maybe a lot of denying and covering up to do. This would flip the scripture so to speak.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
csomar 3y ago
What if language could help? The Israelite accent is quite similar to that of the Turks (than of the Arabs). I'd assume they came from the South Of Turkey (before the Turks came to the region) and were distantly relative to the Canaanites but not enough to blend in. > just with religious differences I think that was before Judaism/Christianity. Islam is much more recent though. The region did not have that until hundreds of years later.
- qwytw 3y ago
  > The Israelite accent is quite similar You mean modern Hebrew speakers?
optionalsquid 3y ago
> Wouldn't it be amusing if the Israelites were genetically Canaanites --- just with religious differences? As I understand it, that is the expectation: The consensus among archeologists seems to be that ancient Israelites were simply another group of Canaanites who came to dominate the region. The Exodus is not a historical event.
- jimmytucson 3y ago
  Exodus is not the story of the origin of the Jewish people, so its historicity has nothing to do with whether or not the Israelites are descendent from Canaanites.
- jqpabc123 3y ago
  Yes. Basically, this would flip the Old Testament on it's head.
  - wslh 3y ago
    The point here is not to target the Old Testament but think in wider terms about believes vs. history/archeology. You can find similar challenges in other religions and cultures.
    - jqpabc123 3y ago
      The point is to accurately unveil history. Nothing I said suggests otherwise. I was simply looking at potential aftereffects of the unveiling --- and why any such unveiling might be vehemently opposed by entrenched non-scientific interests.
      - wslh 3y ago
        > I was simply looking at potential aftereffects of the unveiling I think the world is less run by logic than people generally think. I don't think there will be an aftereffect. There is an Status quo and that's it. This observation is general and in anyway targeted in the context of the article. The Status quo involves any of us.
    - hersko 3y ago
      This is Haretz; the point probably is to target the Old Testament.
  - edgyquant 3y ago
    No it wouldn’t and is basically assumed as fact already.
- wslh 3y ago
  From the article I understand that the Israelites were a group of Canaanites. Regarding the Exodus, again, according to this article, there could be a connection between the withdrawal of the Egyptians from the region. The topic of challenging scriptures (for every religion) with archeology is very interesting because you need to have the mind open where one and/or the other have gray areas but you cannot repress them.
- otabdeveloper4 3y ago
  > Israelites were simply another group of Canaanites Yes. > The Exodus is not a historical event. This does not follow from your premise at all. (Nowhere does it say that people of the Exodus weren't Canaanites genetically.)
  - optionalsquid 3y ago
    My comment was not meant as an argument with the last sentence as its conclusion. Sorry for the (obvious) lack of clarity on my part. Rather, the statement about the Exodus was meant to expand on the "who came to dominate the region": It was meant to convey that they did not come to dominate through systematic genocide of the other Canaanites as depicted in the bible. It is my understand that there is little to no evidence of this event (or the preceding events) having occurred. The overall understanding that I was trying to communicate was simply that the ancient Isrealites were Canaanites who stayed in Canaan.
    - otabdeveloper4 3y ago
      > they did not come to dominate through systematic genocide of the other Canaanites That does not follow either. Civil wars happen all the time, and are usually accompanied by large-scale ethnic cleansing.
      - optionalsquid 3y ago
        > That does not follow either. Civil wars happen all the time, and are usually accompanied by large-scale ethnic cleansing. It is my understanding that there is little to no evidence of such an event having occurred.
        hobo_in_library 3y ago
        nit: (as a non-Christian) There is little to no __archeological__ evidence The Bible's testimony itself, along with conclusion that people believed in this historical event at some point in time, is at least a some evidence towards it.
cmrdporcupine 3y ago
Ok, but that's not shocking or amusing because that's the already-known archaeological situation of the pre-Roman Levant understood by anybody who was paying attention and didn't have an ethno-supremacist or religious axe to grind? There were probably dozens of different West Semitic speaking cultures/groupings, with plenty of cultural mixing. Hebrew (and Aramaic) speakers were only one of many in the region, all with competing claims over grazing and growing lands, etc. The Bible basically alludes to this all over. What you have there is the stories of various fragments of it that distilled into more or less powerful tribal federations and, eventually, kingdoms. Told from their vantage, because the others did not commit theirs to writing. And by the 3rd or 4th century AD, all West Semitic languages had basically gone functionally (but not liturgically) extinct, but the cultural and religious traditions of one of them tenaciously held on through the diaspora.
- jqpabc123 3y ago
  Yes but semi-plausible debate still exists. Genetic evidence could eliminate this.
- codesnik 3y ago
  "by the 3rd or 4th century AD" - that early?!
  - cmrdporcupine 3y ago
    Hebrew itself was "extinct" as a spoken language by about 200ce. Until the 20th century when it was revived. It was replaced by Aramaic and Greek. Aramaic lived for a longer period, but then slowly died out. As a liturgical language western Aramaic / Syriac lived on, and eastern variants for longer but as a widespread, spoken lived language in the Levant I believe Greek replaced it, and then Arabic. I understand that "Jewish Palestinian Aramaic" lingered on for some time in some smaller communities.
    - qwytw 3y ago
      > I believe Greek replaced it I think that was only the case in urban areas and/or amongst the more educated upper and middle classes. Syriac and other Aramaic languages were still widespread amongst local Christian population well into the Islamic perod.
air7 3y ago
Ha, if logical inconsistencies could "flip the scripture" the world would be very different place than it is...
Digory 3y ago
Not really. The story of Abraham begins in “Ur of the Chaldees.” The modern consensus is that it should be in southern Iran, but historical sources had it in northern Iran or closer to Turkey. Which is also the source of the Phoenicians / Canaanites. Between that, the sojourn to Egypt, and the constant complaints about intermarriage in the OT, you’d already expect these to be roughly the same gene pool. More interesting may be the connection (or lack thereof) between OT-era Jews to modern Jews, which plays into political and racial arguments.
- mythrwy 3y ago
  I think you mean maybe Iraq (Mesopotamia) not Iran?
  - Digory 3y ago
    Correct.
- empath-nirvana 3y ago
  > The story of Abraham begins in “Ur of the Chaldees.” You're presuming some historicity there that I don't think is warranted. A lot of the stories in Genesis had their origin in stories from Mesopotamia, and I wouldn't read much more into that than you'd read into the Aenead claiming that the Romans originated in Troy. They're just borrowing legitimacy from an older historical tradition.
  - shusaku 3y ago
    You’ve missed his point. He’s just saying that if archeological evidence suggests that Iron Age Israelites are genetically just caaninites, there is no inconsistency with the legend. A shocking number of people in this thread seem to think the exodus narrative would imply the Israelites were Egyptians.
yieldcrv 3y ago
I mean you kind of have to be told these things child to ever believe that stuff, our brains work too well after that Just like yours is trying to, but with competing information The simple, adult, quantifiable reality is that there is always cross drift between populations by mere nature of humans being compatible species to produce viable offspring with one another
hutzlibu 3y ago
The scripture remained quite intact despite the rise of astronomy and evolution theory. That is because only some people take old scripture literal (but those who do, tend to be quite dangerous).
- edgyquant 3y ago
  As a sort of born again Christian I’ve come to believe that modern fundamentalists are among a very small group of people who believe the Torah to be literal. For ancient people they were myths used to remember common law
bjourne 3y ago
That is mostly assumed these days. The Israelites were people that inhabited the Canaanite hinterland. Where they came from and whether they "came from" somewhere else is unknown and we can only speculate. Perhaps they were herders who migrated westwards from the Jordan valley and beyond. They show up in history at around the same time as the Philistines (1200 BC) whose origins are also unknown. The early Israelites were polytheists but had some affinity for Yahweh which was one Canaanite god among many. Why, how and when the Israelites became monotheists and why Yahweh became their only god is unknown. My guess (speculation follows) is that the Israelites were influenced by the Babylonians and Zoroastriansim. Zoroastrians worshipped fire and Yahweh was the god of fire (and smoke). Perhaps the many conflicts with other Canaanites caused them to adopt foreign practices to distinguish themselves from their enemies. Ritual circumcision perhaps was borrowed from Egypt. There is not a shred of evidence of an emigration from Egypt and archaeologists have been searching for it for over 200 years. So why the Exodus is in the Bible is unknown. At the time these stories were written down Egypt was a regional super power, so perhaps whoever wrote it felt that "having been to Egypt" was something to brag about? Perhaps the story is allegorical?
- Tuna-Fish 3y ago
  The story of Moses is probably an allegory of the plucky Israelites beating the local great power who held them in captivity, and fleeing to found their own state... written by people who were presently held in captivity by the local great power, Babylon. Unlike the story of Exodus, the Babylonian captivity is a well-attested historical event, which agrees with archeological evidence and is found in multiple sources.
  - bjourne 3y ago
    Yeah, also possible. The Exodus story might have been propaganda meant to prevent Israelite captives in Babylon from losing hope of an eventual return. It might also have served as a threat to the Babylonians/Persians; "See what our god did to the Egyptians, perhaps it's best for you to let us go..." While the Babylonian captivity probably did happen, the Bible doesn't mention that the same fate befell many other people the Babylonians conquered and whose intelligentsia they transferred. The destruction of many Philistine cities appear to have been even more complete than the destruction of Jerusalem.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

csomar 3y ago

What if language could help? The Israelite accent is quite similar to that of the Turks (than of the Arabs). I'd assume they came from the South Of Turkey (before the Turks came to the region) and were distantly relative to the Canaanites but not enough to blend in. > just with religious differences I think that was before Judaism/Christianity. Islam is much more recent though. The region did not have that until hundreds of years later.

qwytw 3y ago
> The Israelite accent is quite similar You mean modern Hebrew speakers?

optionalsquid 3y ago

> Wouldn't it be amusing if the Israelites were genetically Canaanites --- just with religious differences? As I understand it, that is the expectation: The consensus among archeologists seems to be that ancient Israelites were simply another group of Canaanites who came to dominate the region. The Exodus is not a historical event.

jimmytucson 3y ago
Exodus is not the story of the origin of the Jewish people, so its historicity has nothing to do with whether or not the Israelites are descendent from Canaanites.
jqpabc123 3y ago
Yes. Basically, this would flip the Old Testament on it's head.
- wslh 3y ago
  The point here is not to target the Old Testament but think in wider terms about believes vs. history/archeology. You can find similar challenges in other religions and cultures.
  - jqpabc123 3y ago
    The point is to accurately unveil history. Nothing I said suggests otherwise. I was simply looking at potential aftereffects of the unveiling --- and why any such unveiling might be vehemently opposed by entrenched non-scientific interests.
    - wslh 3y ago
      > I was simply looking at potential aftereffects of the unveiling I think the world is less run by logic than people generally think. I don't think there will be an aftereffect. There is an Status quo and that's it. This observation is general and in anyway targeted in the context of the article. The Status quo involves any of us.
  - hersko 3y ago
    This is Haretz; the point probably is to target the Old Testament.
- edgyquant 3y ago
  No it wouldn’t and is basically assumed as fact already.
wslh 3y ago
From the article I understand that the Israelites were a group of Canaanites. Regarding the Exodus, again, according to this article, there could be a connection between the withdrawal of the Egyptians from the region. The topic of challenging scriptures (for every religion) with archeology is very interesting because you need to have the mind open where one and/or the other have gray areas but you cannot repress them.
otabdeveloper4 3y ago
> Israelites were simply another group of Canaanites Yes. > The Exodus is not a historical event. This does not follow from your premise at all. (Nowhere does it say that people of the Exodus weren't Canaanites genetically.)
- optionalsquid 3y ago
  My comment was not meant as an argument with the last sentence as its conclusion. Sorry for the (obvious) lack of clarity on my part. Rather, the statement about the Exodus was meant to expand on the "who came to dominate the region": It was meant to convey that they did not come to dominate through systematic genocide of the other Canaanites as depicted in the bible. It is my understand that there is little to no evidence of this event (or the preceding events) having occurred. The overall understanding that I was trying to communicate was simply that the ancient Isrealites were Canaanites who stayed in Canaan.
  - otabdeveloper4 3y ago
    > they did not come to dominate through systematic genocide of the other Canaanites That does not follow either. Civil wars happen all the time, and are usually accompanied by large-scale ethnic cleansing.
    - optionalsquid 3y ago
      > That does not follow either. Civil wars happen all the time, and are usually accompanied by large-scale ethnic cleansing. It is my understanding that there is little to no evidence of such an event having occurred.
      - hobo_in_library 3y ago
        nit: (as a non-Christian) There is little to no __archeological__ evidence The Bible's testimony itself, along with conclusion that people believed in this historical event at some point in time, is at least a some evidence towards it.

cmrdporcupine 3y ago

Ok, but that's not shocking or amusing because that's the already-known archaeological situation of the pre-Roman Levant understood by anybody who was paying attention and didn't have an ethno-supremacist or religious axe to grind? There were probably dozens of different West Semitic speaking cultures/groupings, with plenty of cultural mixing. Hebrew (and Aramaic) speakers were only one of many in the region, all with competing claims over grazing and growing lands, etc. The Bible basically alludes to this all over. What you have there is the stories of various fragments of it that distilled into more or less powerful tribal federations and, eventually, kingdoms. Told from their vantage, because the others did not commit theirs to writing. And by the 3rd or 4th century AD, all West Semitic languages had basically gone functionally (but not liturgically) extinct, but the cultural and religious traditions of one of them tenaciously held on through the diaspora.

jqpabc123 3y ago
Yes but semi-plausible debate still exists. Genetic evidence could eliminate this.
codesnik 3y ago
"by the 3rd or 4th century AD" - that early?!
- cmrdporcupine 3y ago
  Hebrew itself was "extinct" as a spoken language by about 200ce. Until the 20th century when it was revived. It was replaced by Aramaic and Greek. Aramaic lived for a longer period, but then slowly died out. As a liturgical language western Aramaic / Syriac lived on, and eastern variants for longer but as a widespread, spoken lived language in the Levant I believe Greek replaced it, and then Arabic. I understand that "Jewish Palestinian Aramaic" lingered on for some time in some smaller communities.
  - qwytw 3y ago
    > I believe Greek replaced it I think that was only the case in urban areas and/or amongst the more educated upper and middle classes. Syriac and other Aramaic languages were still widespread amongst local Christian population well into the Islamic perod.

air7 3y ago

Ha, if logical inconsistencies could "flip the scripture" the world would be very different place than it is...

Digory 3y ago

Not really. The story of Abraham begins in “Ur of the Chaldees.” The modern consensus is that it should be in southern Iran, but historical sources had it in northern Iran or closer to Turkey. Which is also the source of the Phoenicians / Canaanites. Between that, the sojourn to Egypt, and the constant complaints about intermarriage in the OT, you’d already expect these to be roughly the same gene pool. More interesting may be the connection (or lack thereof) between OT-era Jews to modern Jews, which plays into political and racial arguments.

mythrwy 3y ago
I think you mean maybe Iraq (Mesopotamia) not Iran?
- Digory 3y ago
  Correct.
empath-nirvana 3y ago
> The story of Abraham begins in “Ur of the Chaldees.” You're presuming some historicity there that I don't think is warranted. A lot of the stories in Genesis had their origin in stories from Mesopotamia, and I wouldn't read much more into that than you'd read into the Aenead claiming that the Romans originated in Troy. They're just borrowing legitimacy from an older historical tradition.
- shusaku 3y ago
  You’ve missed his point. He’s just saying that if archeological evidence suggests that Iron Age Israelites are genetically just caaninites, there is no inconsistency with the legend. A shocking number of people in this thread seem to think the exodus narrative would imply the Israelites were Egyptians.

yieldcrv 3y ago

I mean you kind of have to be told these things child to ever believe that stuff, our brains work too well after that Just like yours is trying to, but with competing information The simple, adult, quantifiable reality is that there is always cross drift between populations by mere nature of humans being compatible species to produce viable offspring with one another

hutzlibu 3y ago

The scripture remained quite intact despite the rise of astronomy and evolution theory. That is because only some people take old scripture literal (but those who do, tend to be quite dangerous).

edgyquant 3y ago
As a sort of born again Christian I’ve come to believe that modern fundamentalists are among a very small group of people who believe the Torah to be literal. For ancient people they were myths used to remember common law

bjourne 3y ago

That is mostly assumed these days. The Israelites were people that inhabited the Canaanite hinterland. Where they came from and whether they "came from" somewhere else is unknown and we can only speculate. Perhaps they were herders who migrated westwards from the Jordan valley and beyond. They show up in history at around the same time as the Philistines (1200 BC) whose origins are also unknown. The early Israelites were polytheists but had some affinity for Yahweh which was one Canaanite god among many. Why, how and when the Israelites became monotheists and why Yahweh became their only god is unknown. My guess (speculation follows) is that the Israelites were influenced by the Babylonians and Zoroastriansim. Zoroastrians worshipped fire and Yahweh was the god of fire (and smoke). Perhaps the many conflicts with other Canaanites caused them to adopt foreign practices to distinguish themselves from their enemies. Ritual circumcision perhaps was borrowed from Egypt. There is not a shred of evidence of an emigration from Egypt and archaeologists have been searching for it for over 200 years. So why the Exodus is in the Bible is unknown. At the time these stories were written down Egypt was a regional super power, so perhaps whoever wrote it felt that "having been to Egypt" was something to brag about? Perhaps the story is allegorical?

Tuna-Fish 3y ago
The story of Moses is probably an allegory of the plucky Israelites beating the local great power who held them in captivity, and fleeing to found their own state... written by people who were presently held in captivity by the local great power, Babylon. Unlike the story of Exodus, the Babylonian captivity is a well-attested historical event, which agrees with archeological evidence and is found in multiple sources.
- bjourne 3y ago
  Yeah, also possible. The Exodus story might have been propaganda meant to prevent Israelite captives in Babylon from losing hope of an eventual return. It might also have served as a threat to the Babylonians/Persians; "See what our god did to the Egyptians, perhaps it's best for you to let us go..." While the Babylonian captivity probably did happen, the Bible doesn't mention that the same fate befell many other people the Babylonians conquered and whose intelligentsia they transferred. The destruction of many Philistine cities appear to have been even more complete than the destruction of Jerusalem.