Jewish history

[Michael]

Judaism is a religion. anyone can be a Jew. You should be asking where did this belief come from?

 

[S.A.M.]

What he said is essentially correct, though he did not couch it in politically correct language

The close relationship between the Hebrews and the people of the desert and steppes is recognized in the story of Ishmael, the nomadic first son of Abraham; but it is through Isaac, the second son about whom so very little is recorded, that the Hebrews trace their own family line. Both Isaac and his son Jacob maintain a separateness from the people among whom they dwell, taking wives from among their own kin in Haran (Gen. 24; 28). The story of Jacob, who becomes Israel, and his twin brother Esau, who becomes Edom, is colored with rivalry, trickery and bitter misundertanding but also contains echoes of Hurrian custom. In Hurrian law, birthright could be purchased, and some of the terminology associated with Isaac's blessing of his sons reflects Hurrian patterns.6

The stories about Jacob also accord with Nuzi (Hurrian) law for it is recorded that a man may labor for his wife.7 In dealing with his uncle Laban, Jacob's trickery was matched by his uncle's deceptive acts. There is no condemnation of chicanery but, rather, the attitude that to best a man in a business contract revealed cleverness. When Jacob's hopes to inherit his uncle's estate were dashed by the birth of male heirs, he broke contract and fled, and it was only when a new contract was made that relationships were healed. The account of Jacob's night wrestling with an angelic visitor has probably come down to us through various recensions, for it now contains two aetiological explanations: one concerning the name "Jacob-Israel" and the other giving the reason why the ischiatic sinew is not eaten by Hebrews. Other traditions associate Jacob with Bethel and Shechem.

A somewhat different tradition of Hebrew beginnings is reflected in Ezek. (16:3 ff.), where mixed ancestry — Amorite, Hittite and Canaanite — is attributed to the Jerusalemites. But here we have a unique situation, for Jerusalem was a Jebusite stronghold which did not become a Hebrew city until the time of David (II Sam. 5). The firstfruits liturgy (Deut. 26:5) traces Hebrew ancestry to the Aramaeans, but the designation appears to be used in a broad rather than a specific sense.

Etymological analyses of the term "Hebrew" ( 'ibri) have given little help to the study of origins. The term has been related to a root, meaning "to go over" or "to go across"; hence, a "Hebrew" would be one who crossed over or one who went from place to place, a nomad, a wanderer, a designation that would fit some aspects of patriarchal behavior. A similar term, habiru, is found in cuneiform documents from the twentieth to the eleventh centuries, often used interchangeably with another word, SA.GAZ. At times the Habiru appear to be settled in specific locations; at times they serve in the army as mercenaries, or are bound to masters as servants. The El Amarna tablets refer to invaders of Palestine as 'apiru, a word bearing close relationship to the terms habiru and "Hebrew."14 Extensive research has led many scholars to the conclusion that the term "Hebrew" was first used as an appellative to describe foreigners who crossed into settled areas and referred not to a specific group but to a social caste. If the word "Hebrew" parallels habiru or 'apiru, we know that these people on occasion were employed, at times created settlements of their own, and at other times attacked established communities. The suggestion that the terms 'apiru, habiru and "Hebrew" relate to those who have renounced a relationship to an existing society, who have by a deliberate action withdrawn from some organization or rejected some authority, and who have become through this action freebooters, slaves, employees or mercenaries presents real possibilities.15 In the Bible the word Hebrew becomes an ethnic term used interchangeably with "Israelite."16

Perhaps the best that can be said is that the Hebrews of the Bible appear to be one branch of the Northwest Semitic group, related linguistically to Canaanites, Edomites and Moabites, who moved from a semi-nomadic existence to settled life in the Bronze Age.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gerald_larue/otll/chap8.html

 

[S.A.M.]

Theories on the creation of a biblical identity:

http://prophetess.lstc.edu/~rklein/Documents/grounds.htm


According to Finkelstein's theory, the legends about earlier periods were invented for the same purpose. "The people of Judah started to market the story of Joshua's conquest of the land, which was also written in that period, in order to give moral justification to their territorial longings, to the conquest of the territories of Israel. The story also contains a `laundering' of foreigners, which was exactly the problem Josiah faced when he conquered Israel. So they relate the story of the Gibeonites, who were terrified by the might of Joshua and his army and begged for their lives, and told Joshua that they were not indigenous Canaanites but foreigners who came from afar. Joshua made an alliance of peace with them, but when he found out they had cheated him, he did not expel them but made them hewers of wood and drawers of water - in other words, he laundered them.

"That is the situation Josiah and his people faced with foreign deportees the Assyrians brought to the Land of Israel, and the biblical text comes and says, `Have no worry, this already happened before: there were strangers in the land then, too, and Joshua laundered them during the conquest. Our conquest is not really what it looks like, it is only the restoration of past glories.'

So they must have had a good information ministry?

"I don't believe that there was a department for the invention of stories in Jerusalem. There were folktales that were handed down from generation to generation, local traditions and legends, and they were the basis for the creation of the biblical narrative. Maybe there really was no conquest, and maybe there were vague memories of local events. In any case, the scribes in the period of Josiah collected these materials and forged them into a coherent story containing a message it was important for them to get across. They didn't actually care whether there ever was such a person as Joshua. Jericho and the area of Bethel, and the Shefelah and the Galilee were on the agenda of Judah. They never actually conquered many of these regions. `This was once ours,' they said, `as in the time of Joshua, and all we are doing is putting history back in its track, correcting the course of history and on this occasion renewing the glorious monarchy of David, which was the first to rule these territories.'"

Are you saying that the story of the conquest of the land is a complete fiction?

"It is a story which, as it is presented in the Bible, definitely never happened. Archaeology shows that it has no historical grounds. Many of the sites that are cited in the story of the conquest were not even inhabited in the relevant period, so there was nothing to conquer, there were only hills and rocks. Jericho was not fortified and had no walls, and it's doubtful that there was a settlement there at the time. Therefore, in the case of the story of the conquest of Arad, for instance, some scholars said that the war was fought against the forces of one Bedouin sheikh.

I don't think Finkelstein is entirely correct, though, as the genetic studies do not support his theory [that the Hebrews are indigenous to Canaan, as they are closer to Assyrians]

 

[swarm]

Carico
So you can start by telling us who was the first real Jew and where did he come from since you claim that Adam, Eve and their descendants were fictional characters.

Wow. Don't you even read your own myths?

Abraham is the first "real jew."

 

[Pinocchio's Hoof]

But is any of it true? Scholars have had trouble finding anything supposively from the Books of Moses, the early chapters of the Bible, that date prior to the Babylonnian Captivity. Indeed, some of the later Books of the Bible... taking up from after the Stay in Egypt... have a kind of discontinuity from the Books of Moses... suddenly the Jews are not careful about Priestly Rules and such that only a chapter before had been so all important. many Scholars therefore suppose that the Jews only became acquainted with the Legends and Stories of Abraham and Moses when they came to Babylon. It was a huge Cosmopolitan City, the Center of a broad Empire, in commerce with another Huge Empire, Persia. They were probably amazed and delighted with the Literature they found. So they stole some of it. They created a Legend for themselves.

In 1854 Hurmuuzd Rassam found the remains of a library in Nineveh, the library was collected by King Ashurbanipal in about 650 b.c. In 1873 George Smith found tablets with a tale of a flood (think it was about Gilgamesh) nearly identical to Noah so you would have to presume that as the jews were enslaved about 100 years later under the reign of Nebuchadnezzar that they took their stories directly from babylon and encorporated them as their own..

Why.

Because they were enslaved..an attempt to rewrite their history to a more fantastical one?

I'm wondering when the first hebrew text's were found (i dont know too much about early text that would be for fraggle rocker to awnser) the rosetta stone was greek and egyptian, there was another stone found in Behistun in western iran dated 520 B.c. which contained Persian,Sumerian and Babylonian....does anyone know?

 

[Carico]

ccording to Finkelstein's theory, the legends about earlier periods were invented for the same purpose. "The people of Judah started to market the story of Joshua's conquest of the land, which was also written in that period, in order to give moral justification to their territorial longings, to the conquest of the territories of Israel. The story also contains a `laundering' of foreigners, which was exactly the problem Josiah faced when he conquered Israel. So they relate the story of the Gibeonites, who were terrified by the might of Joshua and his army and begged for their lives, and told Joshua that they were not indigenous Canaanites but foreigners who came from afar. Joshua made an alliance of peace with them, but when he found out they had cheated him, he did not expel them but made them hewers of wood and drawers of water - in other words, he laundered them.

So then YOUR history of the Jews is that they sat around on the ground and wrote fables about their history. Is that correct? :bugeye:

If so, then they have the best history of all of us because they weren't violent and had no wars unlike the rest of mankind.

 

[S.A.M.]

So then YOUR history of the Jews is that they sat around on the ground and wrote fables about their history. Is that correct? :bugeye:

If so, then they have the best history of all of us because they weren't violent and had no wars unlike the rest of mankind.

Umm the reason they possibly invented their own history is not because they were less violent. Its because as brigands, slaves and labourers, they were social outcasts and had aspirations for land ownership. Its like immigrants who move to the US and then their children consider US history as their own history, the language, social, cultural and political values of Americans as their values. Except, these immigrants [the Hebrews] wanted to take over the land for themselves.

The notion that Israel enters into a Covenant of WAR and of PEACE, with her God, who promises to give the Hebrews ALL THE LAND OF CANAAN, mirrors the reports from mayors loyal to Pharaoh that the `Apiru grand plan is to make ALL THE LANDS OF CANAAN APIRU LANDS, to the very border of Egypt. The `Apiru leagues or covenants follow the same procedures outlined for Israel by Moses. First, offer PEACE, if accepted the city must be servants to Israel, if they resist, destroy them in war. I really see no differences between God's Covenant with Israel, promising her victory over her enemies and the `Apiru tactics, both had the same ultimate goal, winning ALL THE LAND OF CANAAN for themselves.

http://www.bibleorigins.net/Hebrewhabiruslaves.html