Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Hyksos, Habiru, and the Hebrews


  • Please log in to reply
207 replies to this topic

#31    Mr. Mummy's Merry Maiden!

Mr. Mummy's Merry Maiden!

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 113 posts
  • Joined:14 Jul 2007

  • - Indeed, I am alive today; tomorrow is in god's hands -

Posted 26 June 2010 - 07:11 PM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 26 June 2010 - 05:40 AM, said:

Yes, Brier is less than perfect. Fringe, however, he is not. He is in fact one of the leading experts in mummification and the rituals and practices of death and burial in pharaonic Egypt.
Fringe?!...Poor Brier.  :no:  Well, I enjoy listening to his historical ideas, too. One thing that seperates him from fringe is that he always states that his theories are only his own musings and never tries to portray them as absolute truth. He isn't afraid to put forward new ideas, which many academics are. It makes him enjoyable to listen to.  ;)

Sorry to interrupt your discussion, but any mention of Bob gets my attention. LOL  :rolleyes:

Please vote for Merrydancer Kornflake! http://www.summeroft...allery?photo=56

#32    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,109 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"Here the tide is ruled, by the wind, the moon and us."

  • God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands

Posted 26 June 2010 - 07:19 PM

View PostThe Spartan, on 26 June 2010 - 03:55 PM, said:

Not getting off topic, but I thought , i would pop in this stuff

did you know that the Hebrew God had a 'Wife"?
Did you know that even after Judaism was established as a Monotheist religion, the Hebrews did worship his "wife"?

God's wife's name was Asherah


We know, but did you know that God was originally female? That's according to Gimbutas and Follman.

God was female, later on they split her psychological characteristics into a male and female part (a female and male god), and much later they just deleted the female part (damn male chauvenistic pigs)


Here's what I'm talking about:



I know for a fact that God is a woman. I have incontrovertible evidence. Here it is: God is a woman because just like every other woman on this planet, She doesn't like me. Well, maybe She likes me as a friend, She has not tried to smite me or anything (not yet, although after this article it may be coming), but She sure as hell has not deemed to favor me with love. My logic is infallible so don't try to deny the truth. This is the new gospel. What about the bible, you may say. Clearly that presents God as a man. Let's re-examine some of the more popular bible stories shall we?



The Garden of Eden. God creates Adam who lies around naked playing with a bunch of animals all day. God decides to create a companion for Adam? No, for Her. She creates another woman because Adam has no fashion sense and he never seems to want to leave the Garden. Clearly a trip to Nordstrom is all but impossible. God created Eve so She would have a friend to chat with and do other girlie things. Everything is happy in the Garden until Eve discovers the 'forbidden fruit' (a more obvious euphemism you will not find). Eve, God bless her, must have been a little slow because with all of Adam's nakedness it still took her a while to find that fruit. The bible tells us that God is enraged (jealous?) by this and expels both of them from the Garden of Eden.



Abraham and Isaac. The bible says the Lord commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac in order to demonstrate his love to God. Sounds a little needy, doesn't it? Apparently the ring he had gotten Her was not enough. I don't know why God expected more, She knew Abraham was just a poor son of an idol maker when they first met. I think it was less of a command than we think. Here's how the conversation probably went :


God: Don't you love me, Abe?


Abe: Of course I love you.


God: Prove it.


Abe: OK, name it and I'll do it.


God: Kill Isaac for me.


Abe: I'm not going to kill my son.


God: I thought you loved me.


Abe: I do, but I can't kill my son.


God: Why not?


Abe: Well, Thou commanded that I shalt not.


God: That's not for another 1,000 years. You can do whatever the **** you want. I'll forgive you.


Abe: I'm not killing my son.


God: Why?


Abe: For one, my wife will get really pissed off.


God: Your wife?! I don't know why I let you have that old b****.


Abe: I love my son.


God: I thought you loved me.


Abe: I do.


God: Then kill your son. I'll give you another, I promise. You can name him Carl.


Abe: No.


Two Weeks Later


God: Abe, did you kill your son like I asked you?


Abe: Sorry, I forgot.


God: Well, get on it.


Four Weeks Later


God: Did you kill your son?


Abe: No, for God's sake.


God: Don't take my name in vain. All I asked was if you'd killed your son. There's no need to get huffy


Seven Weeks Later


God: Did you do it yet?


Abe: You know I didn't.


God: I'm not speaking to you until you do.


Abe: Oh come on God, don't be like that.


Ten Weeks Later


Abe: I didn't do it, don't ask.


God: I'm going to send a plague. You want that?


Abe: How about I sacrifice a nice baby goat? Would that make you happy?


God: No. I want your son or nothing.


Abe: Fine. Alright. You win. I'll kill Isaac. Sheesh. Anything to get you off my back. Are you happy now?


God: Yes.


Abe: You're killing me inside, you know.


God: Wait! Don't really kill him. I was just joking.


Abe: That wasn't funny.


God: Well, I had to know if you really loved me.


Abe: For a god you are very insecure.


God: Ssshh. Just hold me.



What about Sodom and Gomorra? Clearly that shows the act of an angry masculine God.


Two words: cat fight. What was in those cities? Violence, gambling, and PROSTITUTION. There's nothing a nice girl hates worse than a bunch of hoes out on the town. I'd say they got off easy with the fire and brimstone. "Oh no you didn't just gimme that look, Lott's wife!" BAM! Pillar of salt.



Alright, that's the Old Testament. But the New Testament shows God to be a man. He fathered a child! Yes, very interesting. The bible states that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born, but it doesn't say anything about Joseph. What if God really had sex with Joseph? What if she implanted her Holy egg in Joseph? Science has shown that a male can have an ectopic pregnancy in his body cavity. The three wise men were really bringing frankincense, myrrh, gold and a C-section for Joseph. It's entirely possible. The C in C-section is named after Caesar who was already long dead by that time. Doctors knew how to do those things and with a little divine intervention miracles can happen.



So you see the bible and the world make a lot more sense if you just accept that God is and always has been a woman.




-- David P. Follman

December 23, 2005



#33    archernyc

archernyc

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,752 posts
  • Joined:26 May 2010
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:isn't it obvious?

  • Respectful of believers and skeptics alike.

Posted 26 June 2010 - 07:29 PM

View PostAbramelin, on 26 June 2010 - 07:19 PM, said:

We know, but did you know that God was originally female? That's according to Gimbutas and Follman.

God was female, later on they split her psychological characteristics into a male and female part (a female and male god), and much later they just deleted the female part (damn male chauvenistic pigs)

Hilarious! I'm ashamed to admit that I myself have occasionally resorted to circular reasoning :blush:

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle

#34    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,109 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"Here the tide is ruled, by the wind, the moon and us."

  • God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands

Posted 26 June 2010 - 07:53 PM

View Postarchernyc, on 26 June 2010 - 07:29 PM, said:

Hilarious! I'm ashamed to admit that I myself have occasionally resorted to circular reasoning :blush:


OK, I admit, I am a dumb a**, AND English is not my mother-tongue. What's circular reasoning in my last post?

Btw, your name is not Julia, right?,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,


#35    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Telekinetic

  • 7,628 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 26 June 2010 - 11:24 PM

View PostMr. Mummy, on 26 June 2010 - 07:11 PM, said:

Fringe?!...Poor Brier.  :no:  Well, I enjoy listening to his historical ideas, too. One thing that seperates him from fringe is that he always states that his theories are only his own musings and never tries to portray them as absolute truth. He isn't afraid to put forward new ideas, which many academics are. It makes him enjoyable to listen to.  ;)

Sorry to interrupt your discussion, but any mention of Bob gets my attention. LOL  :rolleyes:

Hey, old friend! Great to hear from you. And I couldn't agree more. Brier is usually pretty clear in stating when he's positing something speculative, and this is a key difference between a professional, polished researcher and the lunatic fringe. There is nothing really wrong with speculation and historians do this too, but you must make certain that it is understood as speculation. Fringe writers, on the other hand, will state speculative nonsense as though it's hard fact and leave it at that. They want you to buy their tripe without questioning it and without digging deeper to make informed opinions of your own, and unfortunately few people who read fringe tripe ever bother to question it or dig deeper to make informed opinions of their own. The nonsense is perpetuated...like an intellectual virus.

Brier is usually pretty solid. He does his share of speculating but he tries to corroborate it with available facts. I do not agree with everything he says or writes, but I have a lot of respect for him.

------------------------------------------------------

On another note, I want to thank everyone who's contributed thus far to this thread. All of you have made it lively and engaging. I plan to return to comment further, but I just got home from the museum, I am famished, and I have ordered a pizza. And it's mine, all mine! You can't have any! :devil:

Sorry, hunger is making me a bit daft, I guess.

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#36    danielost

danielost

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,931 posts
  • Joined:26 Nov 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the only known inhabited planet in the universe

Posted 27 June 2010 - 01:07 AM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 26 June 2010 - 04:50 AM, said:

Unexplained-Mysteries is full of posts where members try to identify the Hyksos or the Habiru as the Hebrews. Sometimes it's the Hyksos and the Habiru, as though the poster can't make up his or her mind. Doesn't much matter because every one of these posts is incorrect. Much of this, I feel, stems from posters' unfamiliarity with the very complex facts involved, and in fact such generalizations lean toward the grossly simplistic. I don't mean to sound harsh, but a proper study of these facts is all it takes to get them straight in one's head.

I realize a lot of this is due to the writings of ancient authors like Herodotus, Manetho, and Josephus. Unfortunately their material is all over the internet, so it makes for an easy and convenient source for the average enthusiast, as well as a scapegoat to ignore the mountains of professional literature where facts are relayed clearly and in full detail. It takes a significant amount of work and effort to gain a proper perspective on this, and I know this from first-hand experience. Most real answers are not to be found on the internet unless one has access to professional databases like JSTOR. Most real answers are not to be found in the writings of Herodotus, Manetho, Josephus, and the like--none of whom were actually historians as we would think of the word.

That said, I wanted to provide a summary of the Hyksos, Habiru, and Hebrews, and demonstrate why we simply cannot regard them as the same people. UM posters probably grow tired of my ever-present admonition to adhere to proper timelines, but it's just as necessary to adhere to a proper understanding of how cultures and socio-politics developed in the ancient Near East. We cannot meld all of these ancient people together as though they were the mixings of a salad.

HYKSOS
Many modern fringe writers are particularly guilty of trying to paint the Hyksos as the Hebrews. There is no possible connection between them. For one thing the word "Hyksos" is merely a Greek corruption of the ancient Egyptian HKA-xAswt (Heka-Khasut), "foreign rulers." Though it appears the Hyksos rulers eventually adopted this term for themselves, it does not identify the Hyksos people as a unified cultural entity, such as were the Hebrews. In Egyptian inscriptions the term HKA-xAswt is only sparingly used to identify these people who had taken control of much of Egypt by Dynasty 15 (1650-1535 BCE). A much more common reference for them in Egyptian inscriptions is the word aAm (Ah-ahm) or styw (Set-ee-u), either of which most historians translate by the generic term "Asiatic."

I am guilty of some exaggeration. There is a bit of connection one can draw between the Hyksos and the Hebrews. Both were speakers of a Western Semitic dialect, and both came from the Levant. But trust me, that's not much of a connection. It's far from any realistic means by which we can view the Hyksos as similar to the Hebrews, the worshipers of Yahweh. We can say that certainly most of the Hyksos were from Canaan, especially southern Palestine. That some people from Mesopotamia may have been part of the Hyksos population seems certain, especially since the relatively recent discovery in Avaris of a seal fragment written in a form of cuneiform identifiable from Babylon. To date, this is the only form of writing ever found in a Hyksos context aside from Egyptian hieroglyphs.

But the preponderance of Canaanite people in the population is crystal clear. Through the years excavators have been able to identify eight different Hyksos tomb types--all are Canaanite in design (Booth 2005: 31). One of the main temples at Avaris, designated Temple II, is also clearly Canaanite in design (ibid: 27). Almost all known examples of Hyksos pottery are also Canaanite in design and appear to have been imported into the Delta from Palestine. Of those wares manufactured at Hyksos sites from Egyptian clay, the design is, again, Canaanite. Of the many Hyksos amphorae subjected to neutron activation analysis (NAA), 74% are shown to have been made from clays in southern Palestine (ibid: 40). Perhaps more telling, however, is the nature of religion. Evidence for deities venerated at Hyksos sites tells us of the popularity of Baal (often venerated as a form of the Egyptian god Set), Qedesh, Reshef, Astarte, Anat, and Harru--all Canaanite deities. Yahweh appears in no Hyksos context, period.

It must be remembered that the very earliest record for the Hebrews, archaeologically and textually, comes from the reign of Merneptah (1212-1201 BCE), of Dynasty 19. It is in the form of a victory stela listing a myriad of cities and peoples the Egyptian army had conquered under Merneptah, and the stela dates to about 1207 BCE. On it appears the people identified as ysriAr (Ees-rih-air), the Egyptian rendering of Israel. To date, no evidence of any kind for the Hebrews predates this monument, anywhere in the Near East. This was almost 350 years after the Hyksos period.

The Hyksos simply no longer existed. After Ahmose I had driven the Hyksos remnants into the Levant around 1550 BCE, the Hyksos took refuge in the town of Sharuhen, in southern Palestine. Ahmose I laid siege to Sharuhen and eventually took the town, after which he slaughtered the population. At that point the Hyksos disappeared from the historical record.

The Hyksos were not the Hebrews.

HABIRU
The appeal to many people here is that the words "Habiru" and "Hebrew" sound quite alike. Well, at least they do in modern rendering. This is not really how either word sounded by the ancient peoples who spoke them. The truth is, the situation is similar to the one with the Hyksos: the Habiru were never a unified cultural entity, such as were the Hebrews. As any first-year student of history will tell you, an argument based on the fact that two words might sound alike, is a very poorly based argument indeed. The word Habiru first appears in first half of the 18th century BCE and disappears from the historical record by the 11th century BCE (Na'aman 1986: 272). This in fact means that while "Habiru" had fallen out of use by around the time the earliest traces of the Hebrews appeared, it was used in written texts long before the Hebrews existed. The people identified as Habiru, moreover, ranged across a much wider geographical area than the Hebrews ever did. There is no connection.

The meaning of the word "Habiru" can be traced back into Akkadian to a verb from which the word derived. It means "migrant," although "refugee" is also cited (ibid: 274-75). It was only around the time the Amarna Letters of Egypt were being written that the word started to take on a derogatory meaning, such as "outlaw." At this time, the Egyptian Dynasty 18, Habiru people were on the fringes of society and were a constant nuisance to cities and villages of the Levant. This is why the Habiru are so prevalent in the Amarna Letters: vassal princes of the Levant were writing to Egypt in the time of Amunhotep III and Akhenaten to report the problems the Habiru were causing.

But in fact the Habiru were not a single, cultural, or socio-political entity. They represented a wide range of peoples from around the Levant and Mesopotamia who had fallen away from society. They spoke different languages and worshipped different gods. They were organized in loose and unconnected bands. Another important source for the Habiru is Nuzi tablets, which records many names of Habiru people. In this case they were slaves, primarily. These tablets record that various Habiru people had come from Babylon, Assur, the Land of Akkad, and from the Mitanni (Chiera 1933: 117-118).

The Habiru were not the Hebrews.

HEBREWS
I've already cited the very earliest proof for the existence of the Hebrews: the Merneptah victory stela, dating to around 1207 BCE. If we try to place the Hebrews before this time, it can be done only by loose speculation, and this is not a solid foundation for any historical argument or theory. In fact, it simply would not and could not be taken seriously. Interestingly, archaeology of the Holy Land has demonstrated that by around 1200 BCE, a different people with a different material culture were starting to rise in the highlands of Judaea (Dever 2003: 75-79). This corresponds very nicely with the Merneptah victory stela.

Textual evidence is also telling. Excavations at the site of Ketef Hinnom unearthed a tiny pair of amuletic silver scrolls from a tomb. Inscribed onto these amulets was a priestly blessing that would later appear in the Bible, specifically Numbers 6: 24-26 (Barkay 2009: 35, 124). The amulets date to the 7th century BCE and constitute the oldest definitive evidence for the sacred writings of the Hebrews. The oldest versions of the Old Testament were probably penned for the first time shortly after this.

The most distinctive trait by which the Hebrews are known is their worship of Yahweh. As important as the story of Exodus is to modern Jews and indeed to Christians and Muslims, it is considerably unlikely that the ancient Hebrews came in as an invading force and conquered Canaan. The brunt of archaeological evidence has revealed to us that the Hebrews were most likely a sect of people who had broken off from the larger Canaanite population, and set off on their own. The strictures against consuming pork and the vilification of Baal, among other things, are most likely the means by which these people who would become Hebrews were setting themselves apart from their Canaanite kin. Again, the course of history puts things in perspective: this was all happening at the collapse of the Bronze Age, when the Levant and environs were in chaos and the old city-states were falling. This sect of Canaanites set off for the highlands of Judaea to make a world of their own, and became 'Ibrim (Hebrews).

That Hebrew religion developed and evolved is quite clear to historians. The Hebrew religion was not originally monotheistic but henotheistic; in fact, there is evidence that originally Yahweh even had a consort, a wife (Dever 2005). It was during their captivity in Babylon that the Hebrew religion developed most rapidly, quite possibly being heavily influenced by the Persian elite religion of Zoroastrianism. You will recall that the Old Testament preserves a very high regard for Cyrus the Great, the Persian king who conquered Babylon, freed the Jews, and helped them to rebuild their temple in Jerusalem. The god worshiped by Cyrus was Ahura Mazda. It is after this point that Judaism swiftly seemed to develop into a true monotheistic religion in which Yahweh was the one true God.

The Hyksos were not the Hebrews. The Habiru were not the Hebrews. The Hebrews were the Hebrews.


i believe anyone from the land of ur would be a hebrew.  so if your two groups above are from or part of them are from ur then they would be hebrew.  my reasoning the arabs are hebrew.  their decdent from abraham.  unless abraham was the first hebrew.

i dont think isaacs descedents were given a group name.   remember he had two sons  jacob and esua.  and well jacob is back in ur esua was running around canaan and could traveled into and out of egypt during the 14 years that jacob was gone.  they were all nomads at this point except lot, abrahams nephew(?).  he choose the wrong city to settle in.

I am a Mormon.  If I don't use Mormons believe, those my beliefs only.
I do not go to church haven't for thirty years.
There are other Mormons on this site. So if I have misspoken about the beliefs. I welcome their input.
I am not perfect and never will be. I do strive to be true to myself. I do my best to stay true to the Mormon faith. Thanks for caring and if you don't peace be with you.

#37    archernyc

archernyc

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,752 posts
  • Joined:26 May 2010
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:isn't it obvious?

  • Respectful of believers and skeptics alike.

Posted 27 June 2010 - 01:55 AM

View PostAbramelin, on 26 June 2010 - 07:53 PM, said:

Btw, your name is not Julia, right?,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Nope, not even close.

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle

#38    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,109 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"Here the tide is ruled, by the wind, the moon and us."

  • God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands

Posted 27 June 2010 - 02:09 AM

View Postarchernyc, on 27 June 2010 - 01:55 AM, said:

Nope, not even close.
]

OK, and what about the circular reasoning?


#39    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Telekinetic

  • 7,628 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 27 June 2010 - 05:13 AM

View Postdanielost, on 27 June 2010 - 01:07 AM, said:

i believe anyone from the land of ur would be a hebrew.  so if your two groups above are from or part of them are from ur then they would be hebrew.  my reasoning the arabs are hebrew.  their decdent from abraham.  unless abraham was the first hebrew.

i dont think isaacs descedents were given a group name.   remember he had two sons  jacob and esua.  and well jacob is back in ur esua was running around canaan and could traveled into and out of egypt during the 14 years that jacob was gone.  they were all nomads at this point except lot, abrahams nephew(?).  he choose the wrong city to settle in.

In scripture Abraham was from Ur. He was the founder of Judaism. Yahweh compelled him to leave Ur (Genesis 12:1-3):

The LORD had said to Abram, "Leave your country, your people and your father's household and go to the land I will show you. I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.


Jews, Christians, and Muslims all regard Abraham as the founder of their faiths which is why these three religions are known as the "Abrahamic religions." There was no "land of Ur." Located near modern Tell el-Mukayyar, Ur was a city in southern Mesopotamia with habitation dating back to prehistory; it was an important city in Sumerian times and remained important for millennia until its final abandonment around 500 BCE. This is from memory so I can't guarantee dead-on accuracy with the dates, so feel free to double-check.

But Ur was not a Hebrew site, nor did it really have anything to do with the history of the Hebrews either in the period of monarchy (pre-exilic) or priests (post-exilic). I think you're mixing and matching ethnicities a bit too freely. Arabic and Hebraic peoples represent two completely different ethnicities and cultures, even if their religions are from the same roots. And to be picky, "Arab" as we think of the term would not describe the people of Ur or other Mesopotamian cities. "Arab" itself describes a wide range of peoples.

All of these people are basically from the same race: Caucasoid. I think folks confuse the term "race" and "ethnicity" too easily. They do not mean the same thing. While race principally describes differing physical characteristics (i.e., Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid), ethniticty is a more complex term identifying people by belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition. So Mesopotamians, Arabs, and Hebrews are basically of the same race but there are clear distinctions in their ethnicities.

Yes, Abraham was technically the first Hebrew. There are also even fine distinctions between the terms Hebrew and Israelite but I won't bog us down with the details. Suffice it to say, Abraham was the founder of the faith of Judaism. We cannot, however, identify either the Hyksos or the Habiru as Hebrews, for the reasons I explained in my OP.

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#40    danielost

danielost

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,931 posts
  • Joined:26 Nov 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the only known inhabited planet in the universe

Posted 27 June 2010 - 05:35 AM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 27 June 2010 - 05:13 AM, said:

In scripture Abraham was from Ur. He was the founder of Judaism. Yahweh compelled him to leave Ur (Genesis 12:1-3):

The LORD had said to Abram, "Leave your country, your people and your father's household and go to the land I will show you. I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.


Jews, Christians, and Muslims all regard Abraham as the founder of their faiths which is why these three religions are known as the "Abrahamic religions." There was no "land of Ur." Located near modern Tell el-Mukayyar, Ur was a city in southern Mesopotamia with habitation dating back to prehistory; it was an important city in Sumerian times and remained important for millennia until its final abandonment around 500 BCE. This is from memory so I can't guarantee dead-on accuracy with the dates, so feel free to double-check.

But Ur was not a Hebrew site, nor did it really have anything to do with the history of the Hebrews either in the period of monarchy (pre-exilic) or priests (post-exilic). I think you're mixing and matching ethnicities a bit too freely. Arabic and Hebraic peoples represent two completely different ethnicities and cultures, even if their religions are from the same roots. And to be picky, "Arab" as we think of the term would not describe the people of Ur or other Mesopotamian cities. "Arab" itself describes a wide range of peoples.

All of these people are basically from the same race: Caucasoid. I think folks confuse the term "race" and "ethnicity" too easily. They do not mean the same thing. While race principally describes differing physical characteristics (i.e., Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid), ethniticty is a more complex term identifying people by belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition. So Mesopotamians, Arabs, and Hebrews are basically of the same race but there are clear distinctions in their ethnicities.

Yes, Abraham was technically the first Hebrew. There are also even fine distinctions between the terms Hebrew and Israelite but I won't bog us down with the details. Suffice it to say, Abraham was the founder of the faith of Judaism. We cannot, however, identify either the Hyksos or the Habiru as Hebrews, for the reasons I explained in my OP.


true but abraham had two sons.  the first son became the arabs.  


true all three religions trace themselves back to abraham.  but only the jewish religion can claim to be a direct decdent of abrahams religion.  where as the muslim arabs can trace their ancesters back to him.  note i excluded the non arabs such as iran and turkey from that group.


chrstians are gentiles that can trace their religion back to christ, and since christ was a jew they can finish tracing it back to abraham.


in the days of abraham, the city of ur would have been a city-state so you can say your from the city of ur or the land of ur, which would have been what ever land the city of ur owned outside of the city.  we know that abrahams family in ur were sheperds or herders since i think they had goats rather than sheep or maybe both.


so the jews, the rest of the isrealites and the arabs are all hebrew.


but over the 400 year or so time period from abraham to the exidus the egyptians could have known them by three different names or more.


and remember there are probable to groups of people around that could be hebrew who are niether arab or jew/isrealites.  that would be lots family although i think they were supposed to have been wiped out.  and esuas family i dnt recall anything about them after jacob came back from ur.


by the way we still have city-states, just that in the united states we call them counties.




the first time abraham and saria entered egypt, they were a small group of herders.  whom the egyptians had no fear of until the pharao tried to take saria for his own.

the second time basically the samething.


after that lot joined them and they began to prosper in the land of canaan until their herds and people became to large to maintain a nomadic life together but not big enough to claim or found a city-state.  so they split their family with lot going to live by the dead sea and abraham wondering all over the rest of canaan.  probable between egypt and summer.


then when isaac was born he was sent to the land of ur to get a wife.  and he went home as soon as he did.


he had two sons, esua and jacob, jacob basically stole esuas birth right although it seems with gods blessing and his moms.  then jacob ran away to ur where he lived for 14 years marrying two sisters.

while he was gone esua got the family herds and he had to go to egypt at least once or maybe egypt had conquered canaan at that time since he had married an egyptians.  it is possible that he changed the family name so that he wouldnt brake the family rule of the one who gets the fathers blessing getting the family property.


jacob changes his name to isreal has 12 sons, one is sold into egypt and then becomes second in power only to the pharoa.  just in time to save everyone in the area from a 7 year famine.  including his family who had no idea he was steal alive.


no it doesnt say that they left the area but i would assume that small groups of them traveled back and forth to canaan and maybe as far as ur.




on another front, during our fight across iraq in this last fight i remember our troops entering the city of ur.   i dont know where it is in iraq,  i dont know if it is the same city or one built on the same spot, or just another city with the same name.

Edited by danielost, 27 June 2010 - 05:48 AM.

I am a Mormon.  If I don't use Mormons believe, those my beliefs only.
I do not go to church haven't for thirty years.
There are other Mormons on this site. So if I have misspoken about the beliefs. I welcome their input.
I am not perfect and never will be. I do strive to be true to myself. I do my best to stay true to the Mormon faith. Thanks for caring and if you don't peace be with you.

#41    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Telekinetic

  • 7,628 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 27 June 2010 - 05:51 AM

View PostSlimJim22, on 26 June 2010 - 09:39 AM, said:

...

I agree with questionmark also that Habiru or Hapiru were nomads, probably from around the Euphrates and became widespread hence why they were synonymous with refugees. They have no organization to speak of but are formed from various disparite groups of Sumerians, Hittites, Armeneans, etc. I also notice they are sometimes called Sa.Gaz, what is that about?

Anyway, perhaps it was only after Akhenaton that his supporters in exile deceided to start putting everything together from the past and then presented the story to the Habiru and convinced them to become hebrews. That is the only way I can see how it could fit and justify the biblical account. I am not saying it is perfect or true but it does seem a possibility.

...

If you feel it necessary, by all means pull my pants down and tan my hide but I still don't think this is a open and shut case but that is just my opinion and I look forward to hearing more of yours.  ;)

Pull down your pants and tan your hide? Now, Slim, that's not the sort of thing I go in for...unless you happen to be Angelina Jolie. :w00t:

I don't know of Habiru identified as Hittite or Armenean. The Habiru were mainly of Mesopotamian and Levantine extraction, although, as I mentioned in my OP, some of these people appear to have been Hurrian. The term SA.GAZ refers to the Habiru but via a Sumerian logogram; it is known from preserved Mesopotamian texts. Don't be confused by SA.GAZ--it's merely another name, so to speak, by which the Habiru were called. The Sumerian language itself was long dead by the time period we're discussing but some records were still being kept in it.

We've discussed the Akhenaten situation in past threads but I have to stress again, in no uncertain terms, that there is no evidence of people in his court or retinue having been exiled. While Akhenaten himself was certainly vilified following his death, what we see of his court is a rush to return to the old ways and especially to the cult of Amun. Certain court officials changed their names to remove the theophoric element "Aten." A good example is the great general Horemheb. We cannot say this for certain but many scholars believe he was the general under Akhenaten who went by the name Paatenemheb (The Aten is in fesitval). Following the collapse of Akhenaten's religion and city, he changed his name to Horemheb (Horus is in festival). There is no question the same happened with Tut, the boy-king. He was born Tutankhaten (Living image of Aten), but after his ascension to the throne his regents changed his name to Tutankhaum (Living image of Amun).

Akhenaten was forgotten, his name never again to be mentioned (in later inscriptions he was referred to as the Criminal of Akhetaten), but we have no evidence that people who were in his retinue were forced to leave Egypt. Indeed, were that the case, some of his most powerful courtiers like Ay and Horemheb would've disappeared from history instead of becoming even more a fixed part of it: both of these men went on to become pharaohs themselves.

View PostSlimJim22, on 26 June 2010 - 01:09 PM, said:

...

One of the greatest enigmas, to me at least is the presence of the chaldeans. I am interested as to whether you think there is any relevance to them or if they were relatively insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

You often bring up the Chaldeans as though they were a great mystery in the annals of history. I have to wonder what your sources are on this issue. While we do not know their precise origins, they appeared on the scene in the Early Iron Age as tribal peoples of Chaldea, the vast marshlands at the very southern end of what's now Iraq. They're kind of the ancient version of what we know today as the Marsh Arabs. They rose to prominence only in the eighth century BCE when they ruled Babylon on and off. The Chaldeans were a constant thorn in the side of the Assyrians, who drove them off more than once. Evidently these Chaldeans were not terribly popular with the resident population of Babylon because they welcomed the Assyrians each time they conquered the city and removed the Chaldean rulers--but these Chaldean rulers kept coming back. Eventually under Nabopolassar they united with the Medes and were ultimately successful in destroying the Assyrian empire, which had significantly weakened by that point.

So basically the Chaldeans represent the Neo-Babylonian period, which was notable but short lived. I think questionmark may have mentioned this earlier. The point I'm trying to make is that although their tribal origins are obscure, their place in history is not. They were just one more ethnic group of people in the long history of Mesopotamia.

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#42    danielost

danielost

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,931 posts
  • Joined:26 Nov 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the only known inhabited planet in the universe

Posted 27 June 2010 - 05:58 AM

you know those two groups you mention could have been a bunch of different groups, including the hebrews.

I am a Mormon.  If I don't use Mormons believe, those my beliefs only.
I do not go to church haven't for thirty years.
There are other Mormons on this site. So if I have misspoken about the beliefs. I welcome their input.
I am not perfect and never will be. I do strive to be true to myself. I do my best to stay true to the Mormon faith. Thanks for caring and if you don't peace be with you.

#43    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Telekinetic

  • 7,628 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 27 June 2010 - 06:12 AM

View Postdanielost, on 27 June 2010 - 05:58 AM, said:

you know those two groups you mention could have been a bunch of different groups, including the hebrews.

The Hyksos and the Habiru certainly were, especially the latter. The Hyksos were primarily from southern Palestine, as their material culture shows, so largely of Canaanite extraction, but they were not a homogenous group of people. The only thing that really bound them together was their dominion over much of Egypt, and that gave them a shared cultural trait of sorts. The Habiru, however, were a much wider mix of people. They were simply cast-offs from many regions and city-states and lived on the fringes of society.

The Hebrews may well have started off the same way, most likely as people leaving the established order of Canaanite city-states on the coastal Levant. The collapse of these city-states would've caused people to depart for other areas. However, even from earliest times (meaning around 1200 BCE, as I explained in my OP), archaeology of their nascent settlements in the highlands of Judah establishes them as a group becoming something different from the wider Canaanite culture. And their devotion to the god Yahweh definitely set them apart. So the Hebrews probably began as a mixture of Canaanite peoples, but they became something ethnically distinct.

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#44    danielost

danielost

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,931 posts
  • Joined:26 Nov 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the only known inhabited planet in the universe

Posted 27 June 2010 - 07:00 AM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 27 June 2010 - 06:12 AM, said:

The Hyksos and the Habiru certainly were, especially the latter. The Hyksos were primarily from southern Palestine, as their material culture shows, so largely of Canaanite extraction, but they were not a homogenous group of people. The only thing that really bound them together was their dominion over much of Egypt, and that gave them a shared cultural trait of sorts. The Habiru, however, were a much wider mix of people. They were simply cast-offs from many regions and city-states and lived on the fringes of society.

The Hebrews may well have started off the same way, most likely as people leaving the established order of Canaanite city-states on the coastal Levant. The collapse of these city-states would've caused people to depart for other areas. However, even from earliest times (meaning around 1200 BCE, as I explained in my OP), archaeology of their nascent settlements in the highlands of Judah establishes them as a group becoming something different from the wider Canaanite culture. And their devotion to the god Yahweh definitely set them apart. So the Hebrews probably began as a mixture of Canaanite peoples, but they became something ethnically distinct.


i am sure that abraham and isaac were one tribe.  when jacob and family moved to egypt they would probable been 12 tribes with a common language and religion.  they would have worked and fight as one group when needed other wise they would have stayed apart for their herds.  however when the famine hit them their flocks probable all but died out leaving them no choice but to work together and end up in egypt together.

I am a Mormon.  If I don't use Mormons believe, those my beliefs only.
I do not go to church haven't for thirty years.
There are other Mormons on this site. So if I have misspoken about the beliefs. I welcome their input.
I am not perfect and never will be. I do strive to be true to myself. I do my best to stay true to the Mormon faith. Thanks for caring and if you don't peace be with you.

#45    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,401 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 27 June 2010 - 01:58 PM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 27 June 2010 - 06:12 AM, said:

However, even from earliest times (meaning around 1200 BCE, as I explained in my OP), archaeology of their nascent settlements in the highlands of Judah establishes them as a group becoming something different from the wider Canaanite culture. And their devotion to the god Yahweh definitely set them apart. So the Hebrews probably began as a mixture of Canaanite peoples, but they became something ethnically distinct.

Which does not have to be the Israeli God, Yahwe, see:

S. David Sperling, Modern Jewish Interpretation, The Jewish Study Bible, Oxford University Press (2004) p. 1909

but one who who was part of a pantheon of gods along with Asherah and Baal, see:

Mark S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israelís Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts, Oxford University Press (2001).

The point when the Jewish precepts take effect Yahwe de facto looses his name (because Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord in vain) and is only referred to as Adon(Lord) or Elohim(Divine).

The fact that a group "preferred" one of the gods in a pantheon does not set them more apart from the mainstream as a group of Catholics praying to St. Antonius is set apart from the others or a group of ancient Greeks who had preferred services to Poseidon is set apart from the rest.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users