Re: The Gates of Solomon and the Wall of Jerusalem
- 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
> John Milton BarrÃ©, PhD
- 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".
--- In AncientBibleHistory@yahoogroups.com, jimstinehart@... wrote:
> Jon S.:
> 1. You wrote: âIt only fits a 13th century BCE Exodus if you leave out
> the three hundred years they spent in Heshbon.â
> Judges 11: 26 is referring to 300 âyearsâ after the Exodus. As usual, itâ
> s unclear whether thatâs (i) 300 12-month years, or (ii) 300 âturnings of
> the yearsâ, 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, weâve 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, doesnât it?
> Moreover, archaeologically thereâs 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 youâre driving at in your
> comments regarding Heshbon: âThe âthree hundred years in Heshbonâ 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.â
> I actually donât 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: â 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.â
> 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. Joshuaâs
> âinstant Conquestâ 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 â
> Do you have any non-biblical support for your assertion that the Hebrews
> allegedly entered Canaan from the east?â, you wrote: âAbsolutely, 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?â
> Well, as I noted above, if weâre talking Heshbon in particular, thereâs 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. Thatâs certainly not showing
> Israelites coming from the Transjordan into Canaan, I donât think. Yes, nearby
> Jalul has LBA remains, perhaps signifying 300 âyearsâ of occupation after an
> early 13th century BCE Exodus. But be that as it may, I donât 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 Naâaman at pp.
> 218-281 in âFrom Nomadism to Monarchyâ, in his chapter âThe Conquest of Canaan in
> the Book of Joshua and in Historyâ, 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 itâs 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, isnât it?
> 5. In your later post you then said: âWe 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.â
> Where is this âfiltering westwardâ coming from? The Hebrews were
> indigenous to Canaan, not to the Transjordan. The Hebrews/Isralites grew by
> absorbing historyâs 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 âDogâ, any more than Jael is a west
> Semitic womanâs name meaning âMale Ibexâ. 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. [âAraunahâ
> is a Semiticized version of an attested Hurrian name meaning âlordâ.]
> 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 Iâm wrong, and the Hebrews were indigenous to the Transjordan
> and âfiltered westwardâ 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]
- 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.
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
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- 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)."
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]