4 ms·

> Wouldn't it be amusing if the Israelites were genetically Canaanites --- just with religious differences? As I understand it, that is the expectation: The c

> 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.

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.