@27:35 Faust gives a reason different from Finkelstein (in Bible Unearthed) for why the pastoralists who would become the core of the Israel people moved into the highland and started growing their own grains. Finkelstein said the first Israelites were pastoralists fleeing from the Late Bronze Age collapse into the highland to grow grain, because they couldn't buy grain anymore from the sedentary Canaanites during and after the collapse. But Faust assumes that the Israel mentioned in the Merneptah stele from the 13. century was already the core group for the later Israelites (and not only a small group, from which mostly their name survived). Therefore, Faust cannot assume their flight from the Late Bronze Age collapse that would happen later and points instead to the opposite of a collapse, the strong and rigid Egyptian rule in the lowlands of Canaan, that made life difficult for pastoralists and pushed them into the highlands. . . . I wonder how future archeology can distinguish between the two different reasons and find which group contributed the dominant part of the Israelite society.'
@24:35 Faust mentions the adoption of English by immigrants in America as example of an identity of an original group covering more and more people with time. In America, even more specific transfers of identity have been observed, as described e.g. by Colin Woodard in his book American Nations. The immigrant group that was first in a certain area developed an identity from its previous habitus and when people from this area migrated into areas without previous American settlers, they took much of the identity with them. Newcomers to already settled areas adjusted to the prevailing identity in the area. There is a Puritan or Yankee identity from New England (starting point) to Minnesota or a Deep South identity from South Carolina (starting point) to East Texas. And in New York city, there is a merchant identity from the first Durch, even if the genetic heritage of the Dutch is less than 2% of New York city.
Great analogy and thank you for citing Woodard's book, which is a great one. Of particular interest in that comparison is how people from such widely divergent backgrounds end up adopting the speech patterns, worldviews and even political habits of the geographic "nation" where they settle. I think Faust's analogy is a little backward, though. Friedman, in "The Exodus", posits that there was indeed a historical Exodus--of a group identifying themselves as the Levites. It's possible that the Levites, upon arriving in (or returning to) Canaan gradually imposed their ethnos over the native Canaanites through a combination of force and a perception of prestige (coming from Egypt, as they did, they might have presented themselves as the possessors of arcane knowledge from an ancient culture). Eventually, the Levite national identity because that of all of Israel. If Friedman is right, a better analogy than Faust's might be colonial India, when almost all of the subcontinent became English-speaking cricket fans.
@@jimpalmer2981 - I've read about Friedman's hypothesis that it was the Levites who migrated (fled?) from Egypt to Canaan, and he gives some inner-biblical evidence for it, like the Egyptian names of the Levites in the Exodus story, their violent reputation, them not getting land but the right to live among the others as priests, and their priestly knowledge that might have come from Egypt. While I see no contradiction in it, there is also no evidence outside of the bible that the Levites migrated from Egypt: we haven't found archeological traces of that migration IIRC. . . . Assuming Friedman is right, I still wouldn't call it imposing their ethnos, like a conqueror, but rewriting history, like a scribe. As late as the 8. century BC, the prophet Hosea asks Israel to see themselves as heirs of the exodus and not of that trickster Jacob. And the non-oppression of foreigners in your land seems to be a Levite concern even before the migration of literate Israelites to Judah in the second half of the 8. century BC. It seems to be in Judah that the Exodus story and the Deuteronomistic law becomes dominant over the stories of Jacob and the heroic Judges, as described in the finding of the law in the temple for king Josiah, probably because it gives a blueprint of how to live together in Judah as the numerous immigrants among the natives. And the following Babylonian exile emphasizes again that Israel needs Yahweh's help to return to the promised land. . . . Maybe we could describe it as REPEATED CULTURAL dominance by the IMMIGRATING group: 1. Levites migrate to Israel and bring Exodus story. 2. Literate Israelites migrate to Judah and build out Exodus story. 3. Jews migrate back from Babylonian Exile to a Judah of peasants, bring first draft of bible. It would be the OPPOSITE of the cultural dominance of the people already living there.
@@Achill101 Well... yeah. It would be the imposition of culture by the incoming group. While there isn't any evidence of a migration that's been tied, specifically, to the Levites, there is evidence of Asiatic Semites migrating in and out of Egypt, both textual and archaeological. Whether any of those were the biblical Levites, or the people who came to be known as the biblical Levites is anyone's guess. As to imposing their ethnos... I don't know, man, getting 10% when you've got a reputation for violence already sure sounds like a shakedown to me. And as far as not getting any land goes... well, if you're already getting a dime, who needs the heart trouble of owning land? The Levites kind of sound like the Gambinos to me.
@@jimpalmer2981 - yes, I've read of evidence in Egypt of Asian Semites migrating in and out, just not of evidence in Israel. There we have only evidence of Egyptian domination and administration, before the Bronze Age Collapse and during a short time in the tenth century. . . . You first emphasized also the perception of prestige for knowledge from Egypt, and I like to think of the Levites in this way: they couldn't force their hosts to let them live among the hosts but tried to convince their hosts with their ethos to let the strangers live among them. That ethos seems what, through steps in Israel, Judah, and Babylon, became the kernel of Judaism: to please God not by sacrifices but by doing right with your fellow man. A concept that, as far as I've heard, was new to the ancient world and their cult practices. And a concept that became the basis of Christianity, too. But maybe some occasional arm-twisting by the Levites also took place ;-)
The Bible identifies Abraham as the progenitor of Israel, and he is portrayed disputing a well he has dug at Beersheba with Philistines. From Egyptian records we know the Philistines arrived in Canaan circa 1175 BC in the days of Rameses III, for he defeats their attempt to conquer Egypt from Canaan. In Beersheba's well were found Philistine sherds dating to the 12th century BC. This suggest for me that Abraham is really an Iron Age I individual. If this be so, then the origins of Israel might be sought among the Arameans of Syria, for it is at Harran that Abraham appears, before leaving Ur of the Chaldees. That is to say, perhaps Iron Age I Israel's sudden appearance on both sides of the Jordan, is that of Arameans, from Syria? Has anyone compared the pottery of these settlers with pottery from Syria circa the 13th century BC? In this scenario, Canaan was under attack from two waves of migrants, almost simultaneously, the Sea Peoples, which included the Philistines, and Israel as Arameans from Harran and Damascus. People need to eat, so cooking pots should be investigated in Iron Age I contexts for similarities with Aramean pots of that era.
"Philistine" was what they called those lands at the time of the Bible's writing. Since they likely didn't know the name of the original Bronze Age inhabitants, it seems coherent that they would refer to them as Philistines. This is also consistent with their use of the the name Abimelech (Abimilku), which meant Father-King long before the arrival of the ethnographic Philistine invaders.
@@Eljefe003 From what I've listened to many scholars believe it was likely a combination of many factors occurring at one time period including, but not limited to, movements of groups, invasion by the sea peoples, possible trade interruptions and famines caused by war and other related factors. It seems difficult to believe only one thing could basically take down most of the region at one time. We need more archeological finds so we have more data.
The existence of Abraham as a historical figure is very much in doubt since the 1970s. The story of Abraham isn't found in sources from before the 6th century BC, and additions like Abraham's origin from Ur are probably exilic.
Faust seems to be holding on to anything to try and bolster the view that Israelis are some separate ethnic group separate from even those who joined later and many lectures I have listened to seem to lean towards the wandering nomad lifestyle that slowly gained more and more other peoples but the "core group" was highly likely just canaanite nomads that for various reasons, possibly economic, political, etc joined in and the group grew. But in the end, they are canaanites, though many seem to hate that idea and would rather foster a us vs. them idea. I've seen fancy pottery from sites dated to 12th to 8th century and they have alters to the same gods as other canaanites did in rural sites even during the time of Hezekiah's supposed purges. So I don't understand this heavy desire not to be seen as another canaanite nomad group, except that maybe they fear it will not substantiate their territory claims and to deny a statehood for Palestine. It seems there are scholars at this conference who can put their biases to one side, but Faust doesn't seem that way to me. He wants to paint a tiny brush for his supposed pure Israel core group, but still never states how he explains how that happened. I don't believe in magic therefore I don't think they just proofed into existence one sabbath day. LOL!
I too believe that the Jewish identity evolved and became codified after the return from Babylon. I also don't understand how Phoenician culture is completely absent from Old Testament stories when they existed RIGHT NEXT DOOR, yet they have found the Phoenician presence all over the Levant, North Africa and Europe.
The reason he's so stringent on the single identity is because in current times it's the Biblical reference to homeland that justifies Israel's claim for anyone who is Jewish the ultimate right to relocate there and call it home. It's convenient paradigm but it flies in the face of other existing cultures who can just as much demand return of their lands (ie - Native Americans in North America).
@@Fan_Made_Videos In 1 Kings 5-7, the Phoenician city-state of Tyre supplied King Solomon with materials to build the Temple in Jerusalem. Ezekiel also mentions Tyre several times. Other cities are also mentioned. I don't know that the term "Phoenician" existed at the time.
@@Fan_Made_Videos Well, you're wrong. Dating of the J,P, E and D sources show that there was very clearly both an Israelite and a Judahite identity pre-Exile. Also, what are you talking about, "Phoenician culture being completely absent"? Have you actually read the Bible? Who do you think is credited with building the Beis ha-Mikdash? And speaking of Phoenician culture... how do you think they wrote the Tanakh, in cuneiform?
wow - delightfully informative coverage and approach on the subject matter. super edifying - thank you.
@27:35 Faust gives a reason different from Finkelstein (in Bible Unearthed) for why the pastoralists who would become the core of the Israel people moved into the highland and started growing their own grains. Finkelstein said the first Israelites were pastoralists fleeing from the Late Bronze Age collapse into the highland to grow grain, because they couldn't buy grain anymore from the sedentary Canaanites during and after the collapse. But Faust assumes that the Israel mentioned in the Merneptah stele from the 13. century was already the core group for the later Israelites (and not only a small group, from which mostly their name survived). Therefore, Faust cannot assume their flight from the Late Bronze Age collapse that would happen later and points instead to the opposite of a collapse, the strong and rigid Egyptian rule in the lowlands of Canaan, that made life difficult for pastoralists and pushed them into the highlands.
. . . I wonder how future archeology can distinguish between the two different reasons and find which group contributed the dominant part of the Israelite society.'
@24:35 Faust mentions the adoption of English by immigrants in America as example of an identity of an original group covering more and more people with time. In America, even more specific transfers of identity have been observed, as described e.g. by Colin Woodard in his book American Nations. The immigrant group that was first in a certain area developed an identity from its previous habitus and when people from this area migrated into areas without previous American settlers, they took much of the identity with them. Newcomers to already settled areas adjusted to the prevailing identity in the area. There is a Puritan or Yankee identity from New England (starting point) to Minnesota or a Deep South identity from South Carolina (starting point) to East Texas. And in New York city, there is a merchant identity from the first Durch, even if the genetic heritage of the Dutch is less than 2% of New York city.
Great analogy and thank you for citing Woodard's book, which is a great one. Of particular interest in that comparison is how people from such widely divergent backgrounds end up adopting the speech patterns, worldviews and even political habits of the geographic "nation" where they settle.
I think Faust's analogy is a little backward, though. Friedman, in "The Exodus", posits that there was indeed a historical Exodus--of a group identifying themselves as the Levites. It's possible that the Levites, upon arriving in (or returning to) Canaan gradually imposed their ethnos over the native Canaanites through a combination of force and a perception of prestige (coming from Egypt, as they did, they might have presented themselves as the possessors of arcane knowledge from an ancient culture). Eventually, the Levite national identity because that of all of Israel. If Friedman is right, a better analogy than Faust's might be colonial India, when almost all of the subcontinent became English-speaking cricket fans.
@@jimpalmer2981 - I've read about Friedman's hypothesis that it was the Levites who migrated (fled?) from Egypt to Canaan, and he gives some inner-biblical evidence for it, like the Egyptian names of the Levites in the Exodus story, their violent reputation, them not getting land but the right to live among the others as priests, and their priestly knowledge that might have come from Egypt. While I see no contradiction in it, there is also no evidence outside of the bible that the Levites migrated from Egypt: we haven't found archeological traces of that migration IIRC.
. . . Assuming Friedman is right, I still wouldn't call it imposing their ethnos, like a conqueror, but rewriting history, like a scribe. As late as the 8. century BC, the prophet Hosea asks Israel to see themselves as heirs of the exodus and not of that trickster Jacob. And the non-oppression of foreigners in your land seems to be a Levite concern even before the migration of literate Israelites to Judah in the second half of the 8. century BC. It seems to be in Judah that the Exodus story and the Deuteronomistic law becomes dominant over the stories of Jacob and the heroic Judges, as described in the finding of the law in the temple for king Josiah, probably because it gives a blueprint of how to live together in Judah as the numerous immigrants among the natives. And the following Babylonian exile emphasizes again that Israel needs Yahweh's help to return to the promised land.
. . . Maybe we could describe it as REPEATED CULTURAL dominance by the IMMIGRATING group:
1. Levites migrate to Israel and bring Exodus story.
2. Literate Israelites migrate to Judah and build out Exodus story.
3. Jews migrate back from Babylonian Exile to a Judah of peasants, bring first draft of bible.
It would be the OPPOSITE of the cultural dominance of the people already living there.
@@Achill101 Well... yeah. It would be the imposition of culture by the incoming group.
While there isn't any evidence of a migration that's been tied, specifically, to the Levites, there is evidence of Asiatic Semites migrating in and out of Egypt, both textual and archaeological. Whether any of those were the biblical Levites, or the people who came to be known as the biblical Levites is anyone's guess. As to imposing their ethnos... I don't know, man, getting 10% when you've got a reputation for violence already sure sounds like a shakedown to me. And as far as not getting any land goes... well, if you're already getting a dime, who needs the heart trouble of owning land? The Levites kind of sound like the Gambinos to me.
@@jimpalmer2981 - yes, I've read of evidence in Egypt of Asian Semites migrating in and out, just not of evidence in Israel. There we have only evidence of Egyptian domination and administration, before the Bronze Age Collapse and during a short time in the tenth century.
. . . You first emphasized also the perception of prestige for knowledge from Egypt, and I like to think of the Levites in this way: they couldn't force their hosts to let them live among the hosts but tried to convince their hosts with their ethos to let the strangers live among them. That ethos seems what, through steps in Israel, Judah, and Babylon, became the kernel of Judaism: to please God not by sacrifices but by doing right with your fellow man. A concept that, as far as I've heard, was new to the ancient world and their cult practices. And a concept that became the basis of Christianity, too. But maybe some occasional arm-twisting by the Levites also took place ;-)
The Bible identifies Abraham as the progenitor of Israel, and he is portrayed disputing a well he has dug at Beersheba with Philistines. From Egyptian records we know the Philistines arrived in Canaan circa 1175 BC in the days of Rameses III, for he defeats their attempt to conquer Egypt from Canaan. In Beersheba's well were found Philistine sherds dating to the 12th century BC. This suggest for me that Abraham is really an Iron Age I individual. If this be so, then the origins of Israel might be sought among the Arameans of Syria, for it is at Harran that Abraham appears, before leaving Ur of the Chaldees. That is to say, perhaps Iron Age I Israel's sudden appearance on both sides of the Jordan, is that of Arameans, from Syria? Has anyone compared the pottery of these settlers with pottery from Syria circa the 13th century BC? In this scenario, Canaan was under attack from two waves of migrants, almost simultaneously, the Sea Peoples, which included the Philistines, and Israel as Arameans from Harran and Damascus. People need to eat, so cooking pots should be investigated in Iron Age I contexts for similarities with Aramean pots of that era.
"Philistine" was what they called those lands at the time of the Bible's writing. Since they likely didn't know the name of the original Bronze Age inhabitants, it seems coherent that they would refer to them as Philistines. This is also consistent with their use of the the name Abimelech (Abimilku), which meant Father-King long before the arrival of the ethnographic Philistine invaders.
@@NeoJRPG Agreed.
Could the Bronze Age collapse just be explained by movement of Iron equipped cultures?
@@Eljefe003 From what I've listened to many scholars believe it was likely a combination of many factors occurring at one time period including, but not limited to, movements of groups, invasion by the sea peoples, possible trade interruptions and famines caused by war and other related factors. It seems difficult to believe only one thing could basically take down most of the region at one time. We need more archeological finds so we have more data.
The existence of Abraham as a historical figure is very much in doubt since the 1970s. The story of Abraham isn't found in sources from before the 6th century BC, and additions like Abraham's origin from Ur are probably exilic.
Faust seems to be holding on to anything to try and bolster the view that Israelis are some separate ethnic group separate from even those who joined later and many lectures I have listened to seem to lean towards the wandering nomad lifestyle that slowly gained more and more other peoples but the "core group" was highly likely just canaanite nomads that for various reasons, possibly economic, political, etc joined in and the group grew. But in the end, they are canaanites, though many seem to hate that idea and would rather foster a us vs. them idea. I've seen fancy pottery from sites dated to 12th to 8th century and they have alters to the same gods as other canaanites did in rural sites even during the time of Hezekiah's supposed purges. So I don't understand this heavy desire not to be seen as another canaanite nomad group, except that maybe they fear it will not substantiate their territory claims and to deny a statehood for Palestine. It seems there are scholars at this conference who can put their biases to one side, but Faust doesn't seem that way to me. He wants to paint a tiny brush for his supposed pure Israel core group, but still never states how he explains how that happened. I don't believe in magic therefore I don't think they just proofed into existence one sabbath day. LOL!
I too believe that the Jewish identity evolved and became codified after the return from Babylon. I also don't understand how Phoenician culture is completely absent from Old Testament stories when they existed RIGHT NEXT DOOR, yet they have found the Phoenician presence all over the Levant, North Africa and Europe.
The reason he's so stringent on the single identity is because in current times it's the Biblical reference to homeland that justifies Israel's claim for anyone who is Jewish the ultimate right to relocate there and call it home. It's convenient paradigm but it flies in the face of other existing cultures who can just as much demand return of their lands (ie - Native Americans in North America).
@@Fan_Made_Videos In 1 Kings 5-7, the Phoenician city-state of Tyre supplied King Solomon with materials to build the Temple in Jerusalem. Ezekiel also mentions Tyre several times. Other cities are also mentioned. I don't know that the term "Phoenician" existed at the time.
@@Fan_Made_Videos Well, you're wrong. Dating of the J,P, E and D sources show that there was very clearly both an Israelite and a Judahite identity pre-Exile.
Also, what are you talking about, "Phoenician culture being completely absent"? Have you actually read the Bible? Who do you think is credited with building the Beis ha-Mikdash? And speaking of Phoenician culture... how do you think they wrote the Tanakh, in cuneiform?
s a v a g e
לפי תעודות הפרעונים אמנחותפ 3 ורעמסס הוזכרו שאסו יהו שהיו נוודים בעבר הירדן ועבדו את ה' .
Jews came out of the dark ages as lost as everyone else ... except for torah.
The Torah as we know it today still didn't exist in 586 BC when Jerusalem was destroyed, which was 600 years after the dark ages.
The torah tells you our origins. Canaan to Egypt to Israel.