Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: ABH Re: The Gates of Solomon and the Wall of Jerusalem

Expand Messages
  • stinehartjimr
    Jon S.: In this post, let me address your last two points, in reverse order. 1. You wrote: “It is Larry Herr who is excavating the Transjordan, no-one to
    Message 1 of 26 , Feb 1 6:44 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Jon S.:

      In this post, let me address your last two points, in reverse order.

      1. You wrote: “It is Larry Herr who is excavating the Transjordan, no-one
      to my knowledge has ever claimed there were large population movements. Why
      do you think there was?”

      My whole point is precisely that there were never any large population
      movements from the Transjordan west into Canaan. If there were no such large
      movements west, then the stunning growth of Israelite villages in hill country
      north of Jerusalem in the 12th century BCE owes little or nothing to people
      moving west from the Transjordan across the Jordan River into Canaan.
      Cisterns were important. It began to rain more, and that was important.
      Although the Hebrews were modest, the remnants of the Hurrians and Canaanites were
      in much worse shape, and as such often wanted to be absorbed by the
      up-and-coming Hebrews. By living in defensible (if modest) hill country, loss of
      life through military attacks from outsiders was minimized.

      In short, there are a whole bunch of reasons why the Israelites grew in
      numbers beginning about 1200 BCE. What did n-o-t happen, though, is that a
      large number of Hebrews were living in the Transjordan and they decided to
      move west into Canaan. When scholars start talking like that, they reference
      Joshua, not archaeology.






      2. You wrote: “You should be familiar with it already, it was all covered
      in Finkelstein's, The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement, 1988.
      Including the explaining of how these settlements spread from the Desert fringes
      (at the Jordan) into the hills (Central hill country), and finally to the
      western slopes.


      There is nothing to contradict this, it is basic common knowledge.”

      Wow! That’s all “basic common knowledge”, is it? But you seem to have
      left out the part about that being a minority view, which is rejected by a
      majority of scholars.

      The Hebrews never lived in “the Desert fringes”, whether “at the Jordan”
      or anywhere else. No, they herded sheep and goats in central hill country.

      Yes, after the Israelites became much stronger and over a century had
      passed, they gingerly began trying to expand west “to the western slopes”. That
      didn’t go real well, though, as the Philistines won most of the battles for
      the Shephelah. So unlike hill country, the Shephelah has no natural
      defenses, so people who tend sheep and goats cannot control the Shephelah on their
      own. “There is nothing to contradict this, it is basic common knowledge.”

      Here’s a quote attributed to Finkelstein that seems to echo my view that
      the Hebrews were indigenous to Canaan, essentially being part of the Canaanites
      , rather than being invaders or migrants from the Transjordan:

      "According to the archaeological findings, the Israelites came from the
      local stock: they were actually Canaanites who became Israelites in a
      socio-economic process."
      _http://prophetess.lstc.edu/~rklein/Documents/grounds.htm_ (http://prophetess.lstc.edu/~rklein/Documents/grounds.htm)
      13 years after Finkelstein published what you cite, he published at p. 64
      of “The Bible Unearthed” this extremely unflattering portrait of the
      Transjordan, which lacks any excitement whatsoever on any level:
      “Arad simply did not exist in the Late Bronze Age. The same situation is
      evident eastward across the Jordan…. Excavations at Tel Hesban south of
      Amman, the location of ancient Heshbon, showed that there was no Late Bronze
      city, not even a small village there. And there is more here…..[W]e now
      know that the plateau of Transjordan was very sparsely inhabited in the
      Late Bronze Age. [Yes!!!!!] In fact, most parts of this region, including
      Edom,…were not even inhabited by a sedentary population at that time.”
      It’s hard to imagine a less exciting place at the end of the Late Bronze
      Age and the beginning of the Iron Age than the Transjordan. As Finkelstein
      explicitly says: “[T]he plateau of Transjordan was very sparsely inhabited
      in the Late Bronze Age.”
      There’s no way that the Israelites originated in the Transjordan, and then
      crossed the Jordan River in large numbers to found hundreds of Hebrew
      villages in hill country north of Jerusalem in the 12th century BCE. Not.
      Never happened.
      “There is nothing to contradict this, it is basic common knowledge.”
      Jon, please cite something to back up your claim that the Israelites
      started out in the Transjordan and migrated west across the Jordan River into
      Canaan.
      Jim Stinehart

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Jon Smyth
      Jim. Let me offer a couple of quotes by Larry Herr, taken from his Tell El-Umayri and the Madaba Plains Region in, Mediterranean Peoples in Transition, 1998.
      Message 2 of 26 , Feb 1 4:27 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Jim.

        Let me offer a couple of quotes by Larry Herr, taken from his Tell El-Umayri and the Madaba Plains Region in, Mediterranean Peoples in Transition, 1998.

        "Finkelstein has suggested a westward spread of the small early Iron I highland settlements in Cisjordan from the desert fringe in the east to the sharply eroded western hills.
        Zertal makes the same suggestion but carries the origin of the groups that settled in the region to the eastern portions of the Jordan Valley. However, both Finkelstein and Zertal, along with most archaeologists, assume the settlements involved were "Israelite" in the sense that they belonged to groups which would become the Israel of the Bible, Dever's "proto-Israelites".........Our finds do not contradict these models." (p.258)

        "As late as 1992 Dever strongly asserted there was no archaeological evidence for highland settlements in central Transjordan from which Israel could have come. This is no longer the case."
        Tell el-Umayri's strong connections with Shechem tie the hill countries of Cisjordan and Transjordan together. Its early date of settlement and sedentary strength mean that biblical memories of tribal movements into Cisjordan from the east reflect a correct historical core".(p.260)

        Regards, Jon S.
      • lmbarre@gmail.com
        I think that brt is a semantic cognate of shasu. Both mean to move about (on foot), that is Bedouins. John Milton Barré, PhD ... From: Jon Smyth Date:
        Message 3 of 26 , Feb 2 10:15 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          I think that 'brt is a semantic cognate of shasu. Both mean to move about
          (on foot), that is Bedouins.




          John Milton Barré, PhD
          -------Original Message-------

          From: Jon Smyth
          Date: 1/30/2013 1:09:55 PM
          To: AncientBibleHistory@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: ABH Re: The Gates of Solomon and the Wall of Jerusalem




          --- In AncientBibleHistory@yahoogroups.com, jimstinehart@... wrote:
          >
          >
          > Jon S.:
          >
          > 1. You wrote: “It only fits a 13th century BCE Exodus if you leave out
          > the three hundred years they spent in Heshbon.”
          >
          > Judges 11: 26 is referring to 300 “years” after the Exodus. As usual,
          it’
          > s unclear whether that’s (i) 300 12-month years, or (ii) 300 “turnings
          of
          > the years”, effectively being 300 6-month years, or (iii) just a long
          time in
          > general, not being any exact period of time.

          You have me at a disadvantage here, I have never come across so many
          varieties of a year :-)

          However you choose to interpret the year count, so long as you apply the
          same logic to 1 Kings 6:1, where it says..

          "And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the
          children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt,...."

          Then how can we complain...

          > Going straight home to
          > Canaan would have been too risky, in terms of an Egyptian force being able
          to
          > capture them.

          Why do you assume this occurred in a period when Egypt occupied Canaan?
          If this story played out before Egypt occupied Canaan, and before those
          north Sinai forts were built along the "Way of the sea", then speed was
          their only concern. Nothing barred their progress.

          > Historically, the Hebrews never wiped out anybody! Are you kidding? They
          were
          > herders of sheep and goats, not bloodthirsty conquerors. The families who
          > came back to Canaan from Egypt may have quickly become the leading
          families
          > of the Israelites, being the underlying reality of the stories about
          Joshua.

          I don't think they wiped out anybody. At the time I envisage them occupying
          the hills of Judea the Egyptians had done all the ethnic cleansing for them.
          But then thats what the Biblical tradition tells us, that "Hornets" went
          before them and cleared out the Hivite, Hittite, Canaanite, etc.
          The Hornet being the royal symbol of Egypt, or representative thereof.

          > Well, as I noted above, if we’re talking Heshbon in particular,
          there’s no
          > there there in the Late Bronze Age, per Hisban, which is part of the
          Madaba
          > Plains Project.

          Yes Hisban/Heshban as a city did not exist. We have a similar problem with
          another location Alush/Halutza. It is listed on the Exodus route but it was
          either a Roman or Alexandrian? era toponym, for the moment I just forget
          which.
          These Exodus stories were likely written down in the early Monarchy period.

          The area of Transjordan where their ancestors settled is what they are
          referring to, in their time Hisban existed, so thats what they call the
          region. Remember, this is a tradition, not history, not in our sense of the
          term.
          In their tradition the multitude consisted of well over 600,000 people, so
          of course they are not talking about a single village, town or city. This
          number would occupy a whole region.

          > Where is this “filtering westward” coming from? The Hebrews were
          > indigenous to Canaan, not to the Transjordan. The Hebrews/Isralites grew
          by
          > absorbing history’s losers.

          We don't know who these 'Hebrews' were. Most likely in my opinion, the name
          refers to the Habiru, those without ethnic ties, who live on the edge of
          organized societies.

          Regards, Jon S.





          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • lmbarre@gmail.com
          It is unrealistic to think that anyone people came to comprise Israel, as the proto-Israelites became Israelite. Jepthath was a Apiru, Heber and Jael were
          Message 4 of 26 , Feb 2 10:38 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            It is unrealistic to think that anyone people came to comprise Israel, as
            the "proto-Israelites" became Israelite. Jepthath was a Apiru, Heber and
            Jael were kenites. The Canaanites of various names were west of the Central
            Highlands. All sort of various people, Jebusites, Shiites, Horites, and so
            on.




            John Milton Barré, PhD
            -------Original Message-------

            From: jimstinehart@...
            Date: 1/31/2013 8:35:55 AM
            To: AncientBibleHistory@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: ABH Re: The Gates of Solomon and the Wall of Jerusalem



            Jon S.:

            1. You wrote: “I don't think they [the Israelites/Hebrews] wiped out
            anybody. At the time I envisage them occupying the hills of Judea the
            Egyptians
            had done all the ethnic cleansing for them.”

            No such thing ever happened. Consider for example the Ayalon Valley in the
            Late Bronze Age, which lost 50% of its Middle Bronze Age population. The
            city of Gezer in fact was bigger than ever, in the southwest Ayalon Valley.
            The only other town worth mentioning was Ayalon in the southeast. But the
            northern Ayalon Valley, a truly rural area, had lost 90% of its Middle
            Bronze
            Age population!

            That wasn’t because of any “ethnic cleansing” by the Egyptians, for heaven’
            s sake. Why would they do such a pointless thing? Nor did a Hebrew
            super-hero like Joshua wipe out the people of the northern Ayalon Valley
            either.
            No, what happened is that it failed to rain. The peasants died off or fled
            to within eyesight of Gezer. There may have been fewer than 500 souls left
            in the northeast Ayalon Valley in the Amarna Age. Per the Patriarchal
            narratives, they included the first Hebrews.

            In the truly rural areas of Canaan, not within eyesight of a city, the
            peasants were almost gone! That’s unique to the Late Bronze Age. There were
            only tent-dwellers in those rural areas: the Hapiru. Including a small
            number of Hebrews.

            The single most important factor causing population increase in
            south-central Canaan beginning about 1200 BCE was that cistern use increased

            dramatically. That allowed hundreds of Hebrew villages in the safety of hill
            country
            north of Jerusalem to prosper in a modest fashion, even without rain in the
            long, hot summer. I see the Hebrews as being indigenous to Canaan.

            2. You wrote in a later post: “[W]e have the archaeology showing us
            evidence of a 'new' people with 'new' methods creating camps in the hills
            gradually spreading westward in the LB/EI Age.”

            We’re all looking forward to seeing your evidence for that. In my view,
            the first Hebrews started out in the Ayalon Valley in the mid-14th century
            BCE, and then when they were kicked out of there by the powers that be at
            Gezer, the Hebrews retreated to the defensible site of hill country north of

            Jerusalem. That’s a movement from west to east, the exact opposite of what
            you
            claim.

            The Transjordan was not heavily populated. On what basis do you see a
            large number of people moving west from the Transjordan into Canaan? What
            would
            draw them to hill country, of all places? That was good for herding sheep
            and goats in a defensible site, nothing else.

            Egypt paid no attention to the southern half of the Transjordan. There are
            no Amarna Letters from that part of the world! You’ve got the Hurrians in
            the northern half of the Transjordan in the Amarna Age with their vaunted
            chariots, but there’s not much going on in the southern half of the
            Transjordan in the Late Bronze Age. Except a small number of those wild and
            crazy
            Shasu (who in my opinion have nothing to do with the Hebrews).

            But please, we’re all ears to hear exciting things about the Transjordan at
            the end of the Late Bronze Age. Why would there be a big population in the
            Transjordan, and why would that big population up and move west across the
            Jordan River into Canaan at that time? Lay it on us.

            Jim Stinehart

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • stinehartjimr
            John Milton Barré: You wrote: “It is unrealistic to think that anyone people came to comprise Israel, as the proto-Israelites became Israelite. Jepthath
            Message 5 of 26 , Feb 4 7:04 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              John Milton Barré:

              You wrote: “It is unrealistic to think that anyone people came to comprise
              Israel, as the "proto-Israelites" became Israelite. Jepthath was a Apiru,
              Heber and Jael were kenites. The Canaanites of various names were west of the
              Central Highlands. All sort of various people, Jebusites, Shiites, Horites,
              and so on.”

              Not so.

              1. If we place Jephthah in the mid-11th century BCE, when Heshbon actually
              existed, then he’s too late to be an Apiru or a Hurrian. (Per #5 below,
              the Hurrians in Canaan by that late date were confined to being families of
              Hurrian ancestry living in Jerusalem.) Nor is Jephthah ever said to be an
              Apiru or a Hurrian. Jephthah is an Israelite.

              2. XBR, mistransliterated by KJV as “Heber”, is actually Xaburu, meaning “
              Heaven on Earth” in Hurrian. Add the Hurrian word “the” at the end, which
              here is -u-ne, and you have Xa-bu-ru-u-ne, which is XBRWN,
              mistransliterated by KJV as “Hebron”. It means “The Heaven on Earth [place]” in Hurrian.

              3. "Jael" is not a west Semitic name with the incongruous meaning “Male
              Ibex”, as conventionally supposed. No, Jael is married to a man with a
              Hurrian name, XBR, and she’s said to be a Hurrian, that is, a “Kenite”, per #4
              below. Y‘L is the Hurrian woman’s name A-a-li, meaning “[Hurrian] Lady” or “
              Noblewoman”.

              4. “Kenite” is QYN-Y, being the Hurrian name Qa-a-ni-ia that means “God
              Is Firm” and implies “Teshup Is Firm”. All people in the Bible who are said
              to be QYN-Y are Hurrians and have bona fide Hurrian names.

              The Song of Deborah is really old, so it has a bunch of vintage Hurrian
              names like this from the remnant of the Hurrians who were still active in
              Canaan in the 13th and 12th centuries BCE.





              5. “Jebusites” is YBWSY, being the Hurrian name A-bu-u-se-ia, which means
              “Saved by God” and implies “Saved by Teshup”. With the -Y in YBWS-Y also
              functioning as the west Semitic ending meaning “people”, YBWS-Y means “the
              A-bu-u-se-ia people”, that is, “the Saved by Teshup people”, that is, the
              Hurrians.

              Almost everyone agrees that “Araunah” is a vintage Hurrian name, so the
              reference to “Araunah the Jebusite” at II Samuel 24: 20 logically implies
              that “Jebusite” means the Hurrians. A remnant of the largely extinct Hurrians
              indeed remained in Jerusalem through the 7th century BCE. Joshua 15: 63
              famously and accurately states: “As for the H-YBWS-Y [Hurrians/“Jebusites”]
              the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them
              out: but the H-YBWS-Y [Hurrians/“Jebusites”] dwell with the children of Judah
              at Jerusalem unto this day.”

              6. Who do you mean by the “Shiites”? Is that XT-Y [mistransliterated by
              KJV as “Hittites”]? XT-Y is Xuti-ia, a well-attested Hurrian personal name
              that means “Praise Teshup”. With the -Y in XT-Y also functioning as the
              west Semitic ending meaning “people”, XT-Y means “the Xuti-ia people”, that
              is, “the Praise Teshup people”, that is, the Hurrians. All people in the
              Bible who are said to be XT-Y are Hurrians and have bona fide Hurrian names.





              7. “Horites” is XR-Y, which as I noted in a prior post is the standard
              way in the ancient world to refer to the Hurrians. (By contrast, YBWS-Y and
              XT-Y are colorful Patriarchal nicknames for the Hurrians.)

              Why do you keep referencing all these Hurrian names? The Hebrews and
              Israelites weren’t Hurrians (though a fair number of early Hebrew men seem to
              have married Hurrian brides).

              In order to determine how old and historically accurate certain portions of
              the Bible are (especially the Patriarchal narratives, which in my opinion
              date all the long way back to the Amarna Age, when Hurrian charioteers
              briefly dominated the ruling class of Canaan), you need to go beyond both the KJV
              mistransliterations of these exotic names, and the traditional west Semitic
              misunderstandings of these vintage Hurrian names.

              Think Hurrian!

              Jim Stinehart



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Jon Smyth
              I m pretty sure you are correct, it is from the remains of those hillcountry settlements that we can tell their main influence was from outside the region.
              Message 6 of 26 , Feb 4 1:43 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                I'm pretty sure you are correct, it is from the remains of those hillcountry settlements that we can tell their main influence was from outside the region. However, any disenfranchised Canaanites, Amorites, and local Shasu might easily have joined them.
                I would expect that should be a given.

                Regards, Jon S.

                --- In AncientBibleHistory@yahoogroups.com, "lmbarre@..." wrote:
                >
                > It is unrealistic to think that anyone people came to comprise Israel, as
                > the "proto-Israelites" became Israelite. Jepthath was a Apiru, Heber and
                > Jael were kenites. The Canaanites of various names were west of the Central
                > Highlands. All sort of various people, Jebusites, Shiites, Horites, and so
                > on.
                >
                > John Milton Barré, PhD
              • nu_cee
                Hello Jim, re your: Rather, the Israelites absorbed the declining Hurrians and other peoples in Canaan who wanted to go with a winner. Please advise how your
                Message 7 of 26 , Feb 4 2:21 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hello Jim,

                  re your: "Rather, the Israelites absorbed the declining
                  Hurrians and other peoples in Canaan who wanted to go with a winner."

                  Please advise how your concept "winner" is actualized in such a way that "peoples" would be interwoven into the "Israelites".

                  nucee, nuchamber

                  --- In AncientBibleHistory@yahoogroups.com, jimstinehart@... wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  > Jon S.:
                  >
                  > 1. You wrote: “It only fits a 13th century BCE Exodus if you leave out
                  > the three hundred years they spent in Heshbon.”
                  >
                  > Judges 11: 26 is referring to 300 “years” after the Exodus. As usual, it’
                  > s unclear whether that’s (i) 300 12-month years, or (ii) 300 “turnings of
                  > the years”, effectively being 300 6-month years, or (iii) just a long time in
                  > general, not being any exact period of time. If we pick the middle
                  > alternative, we’ve got Jephthah operating 150 years after a 13th century BCE
                  > Exodus, which would be the mid-11th century BCE or so. That fits pretty well with
                  > everything else, doesn’t it?
                  >
                  > Moreover, archaeologically there’s no there there at the traditional site
                  > of Heshbon until the Iron Age. So perhaps that more or less fits with
                  > Jephthah operating there in the mid-11th century BCE or so.
                  >
                  > 2. In a later post, you then clarified what you’re driving at in your
                  > comments regarding Heshbon: “The ‘three hundred years in Heshbon’ is part of
                  > that Biblical tradition. It is a part which is conveniently ignored by the
                  > Ramesside Exodus proponents for obvious reasons, it shows the flawed thinking
                  > which goes into the chronological calculations.”
                  >
                  > I actually don’t see much of a dating problem there. The Exodus is early
                  > 13th century BCE. Jephthah operates at Heshbon 300 6-month years later, in
                  > the mid-11th century BCE, when the traditional site of Heshbon is occupied in
                  > the early Iron Age. The dates actually work quite well.
                  >
                  > 3. You wrote: “ Anyone who chooses to debate the Exodus is already
                  > accepting of the tradition. There never has been any archaeological evidence of
                  > the Biblical Exodus. Therefore, if 'we' are to debate an Exodus at all then
                  > we are admitting that the Biblical tradition holds some grain of truth, or
                  > was inspired by some long forgotten story.”
                  >
                  > Yes, but rather than being a dating issue, that may instead be a question
                  > of the level of exaggeration. Perhaps a few families of Hebrews broke a
                  > labor contract in Egypt in the early 13th century BCE, initially hiding out in
                  > the Sinai, and then fleeing to the Transjordan. Going straight home to
                  > Canaan would have been too risky, in terms of an Egyptian force being able to
                  > capture them. These Hebrew families were able to move through the southern
                  > Transjordan smoothly, but then ran into hostilities at Gilead. Instead of
                  > massacring every man, woman, child and suckling in Gilead, as the Biblical
                  > account claims, these Hebrew families washed their hands of the Gilead people and
                  > headed home to Canaan. Wherever they went in Canaan (west of the Jordan
                  > River), they were welcomed back home by their fellow Hebrews who had never
                  > left Canaan, being treated as the returning prodigal son, as it were. Joshua’s
                  > “instant Conquest” is describing this warm welcome back home, not the
                  > total annihilation of numerous groups of indigenous peoples whose one and only
                  > sin was living in what the Hebrews considered to be their Promised Land.
                  > Historically, the Hebrews never wiped out anybody! Are you kidding? They were
                  > herders of sheep and goats, not bloodthirsty conquerors. The families who
                  > came back to Canaan from Egypt may have quickly become the leading families
                  > of the Israelites, being the underlying reality of the stories about Joshua.
                  >
                  > 4. Going back a moment now to your first post, in response to my question “
                  > Do you have any non-biblical support for your assertion that the Hebrews
                  > allegedly entered Canaan from the east?”, you wrote: “Absolutely, but it is
                  > archaeological evidence. The excavations of Larry Herr in the Madaba Plains
                  > Project, and a number of papers published in, From Nomadism to Monarchy,
                  > 1994. If you need me to go over these points in detail, where would you like
                  > to start?”
                  >
                  > Well, as I noted above, if we’re talking Heshbon in particular, there’s no
                  > there there in the Late Bronze Age, per Hisban, which is part of the Madaba
                  > Plains Project.
                  > _http://www.madabaplains.org/hisban/overview-excavations.htm_ (http://www.madabaplains.org/hisban/overview-excavations.htm) Then
                  > Heshbon becomes populated in the Iron Age. That’s certainly not showing
                  > Israelites coming from the Transjordan into Canaan, I don’t think. Yes, nearby
                  > Jalul has LBA remains, perhaps signifying 300 “years” of occupation after an
                  > early 13th century BCE Exodus. But be that as it may, I don’t see why you
                  > would see the Israelites as originating in Jalul.
                  >
                  > In fact, Ammon and Moab and Canaan are all three populated in both the Late
                  > Bronze Age and the Iron Age. Why would anyone be surprised at that? And
                  > why would that be thought to suggest a movement of Israel west from the
                  > Transjordan into Canaan? Both sides of the Jordan River were populated in the
                  > relevant time periods.
                  >
                  > What you seem to be focusing on is the claim by Nadav Na’aman at pp.
                  > 218-281 in “From Nomadism to Monarchy”, in his chapter “The Conquest of Canaan in
                  > the Book of Joshua and in History”, that Israel in the Merneptah Stele was
                  > in the Transjordan. Anson Rainey takes that view as well. Yet it remains a
                  > minority view among scholars, though it’s a respectable minority view. The
                  > real impetus behind the odd claim that the Hebrews were indigenous to the
                  > Transjordan, however, is to try to salvage something from the Conquest
                  > tradition, rather than an objective analysis of archaeology, isn’t it?
                  >
                  > 5. In your later post you then said: “We do have archaeological evidence
                  > which suggests the sudden appearance of a new people in the Judean hills.
                  > And, these 'new' people appeared in the last centuries at the close of the
                  > Late Bronze Age.
                  >
                  >
                  > These people eventually became known as Israelites, what they were named
                  > while they were filtering westward is unknown.”
                  >
                  > Where is this “filtering westward” coming from? The Hebrews were
                  > indigenous to Canaan, not to the Transjordan. The Hebrews/Isralites grew by
                  > absorbing history’s losers. In particular, they absorbed Caleb the
                  > Kenizzite/Qa-ni-zi-ia/Hurrian, and Heber and Jael the Kenites/Qa-a-ni-ia/Hurrians.
                  > Caleb/Kelip is not a west Semitic name meaning “Dog”, any more than Jael is a west
                  > Semitic woman’s name meaning “Male Ibex”. Rather, all of those are
                  > vintage Hurrian names all the way, in every way. And the coup de grace was when,
                  > in the 10th century BCE, King David was able to sweet-talk Araunah the
                  > Jebusite/A-bu-u-se-ia/Hurrian into ceding Jerusalem to the Israelites. [“Araunah”
                  > is a Semiticized version of an attested Hurrian name meaning “lord”.]
                  >
                  > The Bible is telling us what happened, and it fits archaeology quite
                  > nicely, if we will just give up on the Biblical myth that the Israelites often and
                  > routinely massacred every man, woman, child and suckling who stood in their
                  > way. Never happened! Rather, the Israelites absorbed the declining
                  > Hurrians and other peoples in Canaan who wanted to go with a winner.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > 6. But if I’m wrong, and the Hebrews were indigenous to the Transjordan
                  > and “filtered westward” into Canaan from the east, please set forth your
                  > non-biblical evidence for that minority view. We will learn from you.
                  >
                  > Jim Stinehart
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                • stinehartjimr
                  nucee, nuchamber: You wrote: “re your: ‘Rather, the Israelites absorbed the declining Hurrians and other peoples in Canaan who wanted to go with a
                  Message 8 of 26 , Feb 5 7:55 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    nucee, nuchamber:

                    You wrote: “re your: ‘Rather, the Israelites absorbed the declining


                    Hurrians and other peoples in Canaan who wanted to go with a winner.’


                    Please advise how your concept "winner" is actualized in such a way that ‘
                    peoples’ would be interwoven into the ‘Israelites’.”

                    About 250 Hebrew/Israelite villages suddenly sprang up in hill country
                    north of Jerusalem in the 12th century BCE. (The only scholarly dispute re that
                    fact is whether these villages are clearly “Hebrew”, as opposed to merely
                    being “Canaanite”, but most analysts see these as being Hebrew villages.)
                    How is it that the Hebrews as a tribe grew so quickly in the 12th century
                    BCE? One possibility being explored by Jon S. is that Hebrews who had been
                    living in the Transjordan moved across the Jordan River into hill country
                    north of Jerusalem; but the majority view, per Finkelstein, rejects that
                    entirely. The Hebrews seem to be former Canaanites, indigenous to Canaan, who
                    have developed into their own separate tribe based largely on religion, and in
                    the 12th century BCE this relatively new tribe expanded tremendously.

                    One of the ways the Hebrews grew so fast in the 12th century BCE is that
                    they, as I said, “absorbed the declining Hurrians and other peoples in Canaan
                    who wanted to go with a winner.” In this post I will focus on the Hurrians,
                    but somewhat similar considerations would apply to Canaanites as well.

                    Based on the Amarna Letters, we know that in the mid-14th century BCE
                    Hurrian charioteers dominated the ruling class of Canaan for a generation or two.
                    But then totally unexpectedly, toward the end of Akhenaten’s reign, the
                    Hurrians’ homeland of Mitanni/Naharim in eastern Syria was utterly and totally
                    defeated by the mighty Hurrians in the Great Syrian War (referenced at
                    Genesis 14: 1-11). During the course of the 13th century BCE Mitanni then
                    gradually disintegrated By 1200 BCE, the Hurrian state of Mitanni was no more,
                    and the Hurrians themselves had declined so dramatically that they were on
                    the verge of going extinct. Given that historical scenario, it’s not
                    surprising that there were remnants of Hurrian warriors in 12th century BCE Canaan
                    who were looking for a “winner” to join up with. The only winners in
                    non-coastal Canaan in the 12th century BCE were the Hebrews/Israelites, who were
                    busily creating new village after new village in hill country north of
                    Jerusalem (having abandoned the first Hebrews’ original home at
                    XBRWN/Xa-bu-ru-u-ne/“Hebron” [which means “The Heaven on Earth place” in Hurrian] in the
                    nearby northeast Ayalon Valley as having no natural defenses).

                    Not surprisingly, the Bible contains many reminisces of the early Hebrews
                    absorbing remnants of the Hurrians. Consider for example “Caleb the Kenizzite
                    ”. “Kenizzite” is QNZ-Y : Qa-ni-zi-ia : The Blessed Teshup Is Firm
                    People, being one of the colorful Patriarchal nicknames for the Hurrians. “Caleb”
                    is KLB : Kelip : Pleasing [to God], being a very well-attested Hurrian
                    personal name. The traditional view that this “Kenizzite”/Hurrian has a west
                    Semitic name with the derogatory west Semitic meaning of “Dog” makes no
                    sense on any level. Rather, Caleb is an ethnic Hurrian with a vintage Hurrian
                    name who went with a winner: he joined up with the Hebrews, as his own
                    people the Hurrians were going extinct, whereas the Hebrews were getting
                    stronger and stronger:

                    “[I]t seems probable that the oldest form of tradition knew Caleb the
                    Kenizzite, who had guided the spies, as a man living in those regions, familiar
                    with the landmarks and the roads, not belonging to Israel but ready to join
                    them, and encouraging them to act in conformity with the wishes of Moses.”
                    Pieter Arie Hendrik de Boer, “Oudtestamentische Studien”, Part 10 (1954), p.
                    167.

                    The same story applies to “Heber” and “Jael”, who are “Kenites” : QYN-Y
                    : Qa-a-ni-ia : The Teshup Is Firm People, being another colorful Patriarchal
                    nickname for the Hurrians. I have previously given the Hurrian derivations
                    of the names “Heber” and “Jael”. In the ancient Song of Deborah, which
                    likely dates to the 13th or 12th centuries BCE, the Hurrian Jael throws in
                    her lot with the Hebrews and assassinates the enemy general Sisera in his
                    sleep. The Hurrian meaning of “Jael” is fittingly “[Hurrian] Noblewoman”, as
                    Jael does the assassination the womanly way by lulling evil Sisera to sleep
                    in her house by giving him milk. What’s happening here is that the Hurrian
                    remnant is going with the winner, linking up with the ever-expanding Hebrews
                    as the Hurrians themselves are virtually going extinct. There’s no way
                    that the “Kenite”/Hurrian woman Jael has a west Semitic name with the
                    incongruous west Semitic meaning “Male Ibex”, which unfortunately is the
                    traditional view. Not.

                    The stories of “Caleb” and “Jael”, the “Kenizzite” and the “Kenite”,
                    make sense if and only if one realizes that all of their names are Hurrian!
                    Those are Exhibits A and B of my contention that “the Israelites absorbed the
                    declining Hurrians and other peoples in Canaan who wanted to go with a
                    winner.”

                    Jim Stinehart
                    (http://books.google.com/books?id=_-EUAAAAIAAJ&dq=caleb+kenizzite&sitesec=reviews)


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • stinehartjimr
                    Pardon my typo. I meant to say that it was the mighty Hittites who defeated the Hurrians in the Great Syrian War near the end of Akhenaten s reign. That
                    Message 9 of 26 , Feb 5 9:12 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Pardon my typo.

                      I meant to say that it was the mighty "Hittites" who defeated the Hurrians
                      in the Great Syrian War near the end of Akhenaten's reign.

                      That sentence should read: "But then totally unexpectedly, toward the end
                      of Akhenaten’s reign, the Hurrians’ homeland of Mitanni/Naharim in
                      eastern Syria was utterly and totally defeated by the mighty Hittites in the
                      Great Syrian War (referenced at Genesis 14: 1-11)."

                      Jim Stinehart


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.