Can someone enlighten me about SA's argument, please?

Discussion about the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls, archaeology, etc.
ABuddhist
Posts: 699
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: Can someone enlighten me about SA's argument, please?

Post by ABuddhist »

Secret Alias wrote: Wed Jan 18, 2023 9:01 pm What "archaeological evidence" am I refusing to admit identifies the "kingdom of Judah" as "the kingdom of Israel"?
You ignore this archaerological evidence. It is not archaeological evidence which identifies the "kingdom of Judah" as "the kingdom of Israel", but it is relevant to any discussion about how accurate the traditions of either Jews or Samaritans are. Traditions can be wrong despite being old. You seem to be replacing trust in Jewish accounts with trust in Samaritan accounts - while ignoring that archaeology suggests that neither account is true.
neilgodfrey wrote: Sat Jan 07, 2023 7:29 pm
John2 wrote: Sat Jan 07, 2023 6:48 pm
Do you agree that the Kingdom of Israel ceased to exist in 722 BCE? If not, what is your evidence to the contrary?

I know this isn't addressed to me, but you (Neil) aren't saying that there weren't any Israelites (by which I mean former citizens of the Kingdom of Israel and their descendants) living in "the land of Israel" (by which I mean anywhere "from Dan to Beersheba," as the OT puts it) after 722 BCE, are you? And if not, then what does it matter if the Kingdom of Israel no longer existed? "Am Yisrael Chai," as the song goes.

But if you aren't saying this, then do you see the Jews and Samaritans that were living in Judea in the 400's BCE (as per the Elephantine Papyri) as descendants of these earlier Israelites?

I don't think I'm understanding the significance of the fall of the Kingdom of Israel in this discussion and am seeking some clarification.
The question is what we mean by the term "Israel".

The archaeological evidence (citing Finkelstein and others in works by Whitelam and Thompson) is that the population in the highland regions that we call Samaria, the region of the Iron Age kingdom of Israel that ceased to exist in 722, ... that population continued, even increased again some-time after 722. People were living there but they identified more likely as Samarians after their city Samaria. We have no evidence that there was an ethnic identity of "Israel" among those people. We don't know what they called themselves -- or even if they thought of themselves as anything other than "from a place outside Samaria" or some other village or market area.

The name of "Israel" itself disappears after 722 only to re-emerge in theological writings with ten different meanings as I listed above. And from at least one of those theological meanings and that theological literature in which Israel held a key position, the people of Judea took on the identity of Israelites by the time of Bar Kochba most clearly.

It appears that there was some kind of connection between the Samarians and the people around Jerusalem because many from the north fled south to escape Assyria in the eighth century. I suspect that sense of connection came from a common language and worship of Yahweh as one of their chief gods. But I suppose like any groups of people, there are periods of rivalry, cooperation, friendship, war --- usually depending on changing fortunes in trade and economy, common enemies, family power struggles, special religious festivals, etc. Nabateans and Edomites also worshiped Yahweh but the Judeans didn't always treat them very nicely.


Does that make sense? I'm refreshing and clarifying my own thoughts as I type so I hope I haven't added to any confusion.
Secret Alias wrote: Wed Jan 18, 2023 9:01 pm My point is just to say why not take a step back and ask why do the Jewish people get the right to define the term "Israel" for everyone.
User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 15575
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Can someone enlighten me about SA's argument, please?

Post by Secret Alias »

So the "archaeological evidence" that I am ignoring ... is that there is no archaeological evidence after the conquest. And? What is does this prove with regards to "Israel" being identified only with the northern region rather than southern region. I am still waiting for evidence that the south was ever called Israel. Surely if there were atomic bombs dropped on America and we sifted through the rubble two thousand years later we might not find references to the various names of the regions associated with native tribes. Still "Algonquin" "Navaho" "Sioux" would be identified with specific areas. The descendants of the Sioux to this day identify themselves as living here:

Image

The same situation existed with Samaritans or any people that never gained independence from colonial masters. What does it matter that "Jews" learned to ignore the descendants of the kingdom of Israel and started calling themselves with the name originally associated with the northern kingdom? I am really not getting you. You are sticking with theological names and inventions. The Samaritans are like the Sioux. I think a lot of this thinking bandied around here develops from European cultural imperialism.
User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 15575
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Can someone enlighten me about SA's argument, please?

Post by Secret Alias »

And this is not a map of the Surui who don't have a right to self-identity because they were conquered. It's a map of Brazil with a bunch of meaningless words scribbled over a certain region where deluded people have pretended to associate themselves with land that was never theirs and a name that was never theirs.

Image

The winners always have the right to determine who is right.
User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 15575
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Can someone enlighten me about SA's argument, please?

Post by Secret Alias »

And all these aboriginals are make believe people too. It's properly only a map of Australia because in 2000 years nothing will be left to identify any of these people. Their identity is all made up in their heads unless the white man agrees to sanctify their understanding. There's some "time limit" associated with making a link between a name and the land associated with it.

Image

So fucking stupid. As long as I learn (a) when a geographical association with a name disappears and (b) who makes up these rules. I assume that you will become arbiter and participant as is usually the case at this forum.
Finkelstein regards the biblical account on the Conquest of Canaan in the Book of Joshua as an ideological manifesto of the Deuteronomistic author/s of the late 7th century BCE, describing a "conquest to be" under King Josiah of Judah rather than a historical event at the end of the Bronze Age. He proposed that the original Conquest Account may have originated in the Northern Kingdom of Israel in the early 8th century BCE; it could have been influenced by memories of the turmoil that had taken place in the lowlands in the late Iron I (10th century BCE), rather than the end of the Late Bronze Age (late 12th century BCE).
ABuddhist
Posts: 699
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: Can someone enlighten me about SA's argument, please?

Post by ABuddhist »

Secret Alias wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 12:48 pm So the "archaeological evidence" that I am ignoring ... is that there is no archaeological evidence after the conquest. And? What is does this prove with regards to "Israel" being identified only with the northern region rather than southern region. I am still waiting for evidence that the south was ever called Israel. Surely if there were atomic bombs dropped on America and we sifted through the rubble two thousand years later we might not find references to the various names of the regions associated with native tribes. Still "Algonquin" "Navaho" "Sioux" would be identified with specific areas. The descendants of the Sioux to this day identify themselves as living here:
Neil Godfrey has directed you to discussions of post-conquest archaeological evidence which you are ignoring.

You cite various indigenous groups, but in those cases we have evidence from multiple time periods that they referred to themselves and their homelands with a given name.

For Israel, we have accounts from later times claiming that in earlier centturies the land and its people were always called Israel, and we have archaeological evidence from those earlier centuries claiming otherwise. The Merneptah Stele does not link Israel with any land but with a people.
Post Reply