'11-12-23, 04:30 spin	Re: Akhenaten jparada wrote: If the Jews are the same people who were living there from the beginning of the Bronze Age, when did they differentiate from Canaanites then? Canaanites are the same people we know as Phoenicians. It was a continuum. If we take Canaanite as a reference to a group of peoples who spoke basically the same language. The Phoenicians were the first on record to distinguish themselves. The Hebrew version is more conservative. Then there are Ammonite, Edomite and Palmyrean. Segmentation through isolation and different local conditions leads to individualization. Cultural diversification, emblematic in the diverging languages, is the key. You see such separation frequently around the world through lack of all embracing communcations communities are left to themselves and develop their own cultural traits. Radio and television has stopped the process to a great extent, but looking back we find languages which diverge valley for valley and the further away you get the less intelligible the language becomes. Language or dialect unites the speakers and separates them from those who don't use the same language.
'11-12-23, 06:20 Agrippina	Re: Akhenaten jparada wrote: If the Jews are the same people who were living there from the beginning of the Bronze Age, when did they differentiate from Canaanites then? Canaanites are the same people we know as Phoenicians. Cultural change happens over a long period. There is no definite date for when the people living in Canaan began to see themselves as "the Children of Israel" and as separate from the rest of the general population. The Bible mentions all sorts of different peoples: Midianites, Amalekites, Phoenicians, Hittites, and so on. Of course according to the Bible, Abraham arrived from Ur, started a family who were eventually exiled to Egypt. Over a million of them arrived back in Canaan and then killed off everyone else living there, leaving only the ones that secular history has identified, and then possessing the entire region which they divided between their 12 families. This is simply not true. The Jews became a more clearly identified "race" when they were sent back to Judah after their exile in the middle of the first century BCE. It's quite interesting, reading Bart Ehrman's book, in the early hours of this morning, for instance there are parts of the book of Isaiah that date from post-exiic time as opposed to the other part that dates from the 8th century. This, to me, shows that even the so-called prophecies weren't quite established by the time of the exile. Before the exile there were all sorts of forms of worship among the people of the area, which is why the Bible writers go on and on about the various failures of their culture to become entrenched and the Assyrians being able to take the people of "Israel" as opposed to the people of "Judah." The worship of Jahweh was just another of the various religions in the area until the Jerusalem Jews became settled in their religion in the middle of the first millennium BCE, Well it's what I can conclude from the reading I've done.
'11-12-23, 13:42 jparada	Re: Akhenaten spin wrote: jparada wrote: If the Jews are the same people who were living there from the beginning of the Bronze Age, when did they differentiate from Canaanites then? Canaanites are the same people we know as Phoenicians. It was a continuum. If we take Canaanite as a reference to a group of peoples who spoke basically the same language. The Phoenicians were the first on record to distinguish themselves. The Hebrew version is more conservative. Then there are Ammonite, Edomite and Palmyrean. Segmentation through isolation and different local conditions leads to individualization. Cultural diversification, emblematic in the diverging languages, is the key. You see such separation frequently around the world through lack of all embracing communcations communities are left to themselves and develop their own cultural traits. Radio and television has stopped the process to a great extent, but looking back we find languages which diverge valley for valley and the further away you get the less intelligible the language becomes. Language or dialect unites the speakers and separates them from those who don't use the same language. So it was a gradual process, then. Could it be that the reason the early Israelite kings are portrayed as being so close to the Phoenicians, not only politically but religiously as well, while the later ones seem more detached from that milieu?
'11-12-24, 01:04 spin	Re: Akhenaten Our historical understanding of Israelite kings comes from the few references to them in Assyrian records and whatever one dares to glean from the tales of Judahite and Israelite kings in the bible. To my recollection the first reference regards Ahab, who took part in a coalition of kings that checked Assyrian progress into the west at a place called Qarqar. 1 Kgs 16:31 indicates that Ahab was married to the daughter of the king of Sidon, which seems reasonable since the Phoenician cities bordered Israel to the north and it was normal for royal families to mix for political purposes. We have no way to check the veracity of the marriage, but with the way royal daughters were farmed out, it only makes sense. The Assyrians didn't stop coming with the check at Qarqar. In comparison to the Syrian statelets (which includes Israel), Assyria had vast resources. Within 150 years of the battle of Qarqar Israel/Samaria had fallen to Assyria after all those statelets further north. For much of that time the "northern kingdom" operated in the shadow of Assyrian encroachment. In 841 Samaria was paying tribute to the Assyrians and Jehu is depicted kissing the ground in front of Shalmaneser III's feet. Qarqar seems to have been a rare moment when Israel and Damascus acted in accord. They were usually antagonists. They fought when Assyria wasn't around. The bible indicates a continuing conflict, which is indirectly supported by the Assyrians. There would be two major aspects that could influence relations between Samaria and the Phoenician cities (and remember that Sidon was just one, though an important one): proximity is an obvious factor and the other would be opportunity. While Israel was engaged in the struggles with Damascus and Assyria, one can only wonder what the political relationships were like with Sidon and the other Phoenician cities, for they tended to keep out of the wars as much as possible, protected by the Lebanon and their resilience through trade. Would these tiny states have made alliances with the realms to the east and south if it would have brought them into conflict with the likes of Assyria? Take the above as a backgrounder to your question rather than an answer.