Sea Peoples and the Phoenicians: A Critical Turning Point in History

[Abramelin]

8 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

One can read the Egyptian texts and see if and where they fit into the accuracy and greater context of ME history. That can’t be done with most of the Bible as it runs contrary to archaeological, textual and genetic evidence. 
 

cormac

I think that's a huge generalization.

We're still trying to find out who exactly these Sea Peoples were and others who attacked Egypt, though we started with Egyptian texts about it.

But as soon as some sort of confirmation shows up from Hebrew sources, then the reaction is, "nonsense, the bible is no history book". And I dò know it isn't, but that's true for many ancient texts.

[cormac mac airt]

56 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

I think that's a huge generalization.

We're still trying to find out who exactly these Sea Peoples were and others who attacked Egypt, though we started with Egyptian texts about it.

But as soon as some sort of confirmation shows up from Hebrew sources, then the reaction is, "nonsense, the bible is no history book". And I dò know it isn't, but that's true for many ancient texts.

That in itself is wrong Abe since the Sea Peoples are generally dated to circa 1200 BC. At that point, actually circa 1208 BC, the Israelites are mentioned for the very first time. There are no contemporary Hebrew sources for the Sea Peoples dating that far back. Uncorroborated stories written centuries later are meaningless in that regard. 
 

cormac

[The Puzzler]

5 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

That in itself is wrong Abe since the Sea Peoples are generally dated to circa 1200 BC. At that point, actually circa 1208 BC, the Israelites are mentioned for the very first time. There are no contemporary Hebrew sources for the Sea Peoples dating that far back. Uncorroborated stories written centuries later are meaningless in that regard. 
 

cormac

Hmmm.

[The Puzzler]

6 hours ago, Abramelin said:

I think that's a huge generalization.

We're still trying to find out who exactly these Sea Peoples were and others who attacked Egypt, though we started with Egyptian texts about it.

But as soon as some sort of confirmation shows up from Hebrew sources, then the reaction is, "nonsense, the bible is no history book". And I dò know it isn't, but that's true for many ancient texts.

Hmmmm.

[Abramelin]

7 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

That in itself is wrong Abe since the Sea Peoples are generally dated to circa 1200 BC. At that point, actually circa 1208 BC, the Israelites are mentioned for the very first time. There are no contemporary Hebrew sources for the Sea Peoples dating that far back. Uncorroborated stories written centuries later are meaningless in that regard. 
 

cormac

Yes, no contemporary Hebrew sources.

But what we càn read from later Hebrew sources are kind of vague, and don't look like copies of Egyptian texts.

I found this kind of interesting:

https://biblicalarchaeology.org.uk/pdf/ajba/01-1_009.pdf

by Yigael Yadin, an Israeli archaelogist.

 

[The Puzzler]

2 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

Yes, no contemporary Hebrew sources.

But what we càn read from later Hebrew sources are kind of vague, and don't look like copies of Egyptian texts.

I found this kind of interesting:

https://biblicalarchaeology.org.uk/pdf/ajba/01-1_009.pdf

by Yigael Yadin, an Israeli archaelogist.

 

You’re right, the Hebrew source is the Old Testament.

I agree, we don’t take it literal, many of us, nor believe every word.

But it does contain a history of sorts.

[Abramelin]

On 10/23/2024 at 4:41 PM, Abramelin said:

And there's an even more interesting Israeli tribe, the tribe of Dan....

Tribe of Dan & ships

https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/6056/why-did-dan-remain-on-ships

( the link above contains a comment by some guy being happy to equate the tribe of Dan with the Danes, the Tuatha De Danaan, Danube and such. Better forget that guy)

Especially very interesting is this :

https://biblicalarchaeology.org.uk/pdf/ajba/01-1_009.pdf

Also mentioned here:

https://armstronginstitute.org/736-were-the-seafaring-denyen-the-tribe-of-dan

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-ancient-israeli-tribe-of-dan-and-the-sea-peoples-john-bennett/1129694731#

And combine that with what I posted in another section of UM:

 

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/381203-tribe-of-dan-sons-of-israel-or-of-greek-mercenaries-hired-by-egypt/#comment-7822252

 

Quote:

Given the indications of very strong cultural ties between Dan and the Aegean world, Ilan believes that Michael Astour and Yigal Yadin were correct: the people of Dan originated, at least in part, with the Denyen/Danuna/Danaoi of the Aegean coastal region, probably in the coastal region where Turkey and Syria meet today.

Edited October 24 by Abramelin

[atalante]

On 10/23/2024 at 7:41 AM, Abramelin said:

And there's an even more interesting Israeli tribe, the tribe of Dan....

 

Abramelin,

Modern reseach about the biblical Pentateuch (as summarized by Richard Friedman) proposes that the tribe of Levites were comparively late arrivals from Egypt, and thus had no regional land alloted to them (i.e. only Levitical cities).  BUT the Levites successully clarified to the other Israelite and Judean tribes that all of them had (in the dim past) shared an Exodus from Egypt.   

According to modern archaeology, the most rational time for generic Israelite people to get control of their biblical homeland seems to be when New Kingdom Egypt voluntarily withdrew from the Levant ca. 1150 BCE.  This positions Iron Age I as the most rational time for proto-Israelites to begin dominating their traditional lands.  Biblical dates for the Exodus should be understood in this context (instead of trying to date the Exodus ca 1500 BCE).   

In other words, the time of Egypt's Sea Peoples belongs close to the time of Biblical Exodus.    

[The Puzzler]

Abe, r u bumping this thread or what?…

[The Puzzler]

We need to understand the small denomination of the Israelites that actually followed Moses, like most were hostile, mutineers…

we seem to talk in states of Israelites being all Yahweh followers when it was not like that at all.

I want to link Hallelujah but I won’t…

Edited November 28 by The Puzzler

[cormac mac airt]

1 hour ago, The Puzzler said:

We need to understand the small denomination of the Israelites that actually followed Moses, like most were hostile, mutineers…

we seem to talk in states of Israelites being all Yahweh followers when it was not like that at all.

No, we really don't as strictly speaking there was no Moses. And the earliest attestation of Israel dates to circa 1208/7 BC from the Merneptah Stele with Israel/Israelites being Canaanite in origin, meaning they never left. In the circa 150 years prior to the Merneptah Stele Yahweh was never anything more than a "son of El". 

cormac

[atalante]

On 11/28/2024 at 8:21 AM, The Puzzler said:

We need to understand the small denomination of the Israelites that actually followed Moses, like most were hostile, mutineers…

we seem to talk in states of Israelites being all Yahweh followers when it was not like that at all.

I want to link Hallelujah but I won’t…

The 10 northern tribes considered themselves as Israelites.  Only the 2 southern tribes considered their deity as Yahweh. 

I expect that some of the 10 northern Israelite tribes were sent (and even funded with gold and silver, as reported at Exodus 12:35-36 ) by Egypt to stabilize and colonize the inland territory around Beth Shan, from which Egypt was withdrawing, ca 1150 BCE  ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beit_She'an#History ).  The Merneptah Stele, dated ca 1208 BCE, was vague about "Israelites", except to say they lacked a seed (? royal family?).  This type of "Exodus" could set up an Egyptian counterbalance to various Sea Peoples garrisons, which had been installed in the region by pharaoh Ramses III.  

Edited Saturday at 03:08 PM by atalante