Canaanites defeat Hebrews

What if the Hebrews/Israelites never conquer the "Promised Land"? Let's say the pagan Canaanites (Moabites, Edomites, Amorites, Phoenicians, etc.) form an alliance and defeat them. Jews go back to Egypt or Mesopotamia? Jews become assimilated into levantine polytheism? Jews allowed to stay but segregated?
 
Ooooooooooooh, controversial, man, controversial.

Problematic thing is that we cannot attest Moses, Joshua and the rest as being historical characters. We cannot attest any exodus from Egypt. In fact, there are several scholars who would argue that the Hebrew culture and Hebrew people actually evolved out of the Canaanite settlements already present there, with Judaism first developing in its enduring form during the Babylonian exile, and having its roots in Levantine polytheism.

Now, undoubtedly there are Christians (and Jews and Muslims) who are gonna disagree thoroughly with this. In any case, the lack of any reliable historical documentation of 10th century B.C., this is gonna be very hard to do...
 
Problematic thing is that we cannot attest Moses, Joshua and the rest as being historical characters. We cannot attest any exodus from Egypt. In fact, there are several scholars who would argue that the Hebrew culture and Hebrew people actually evolved out of the Canaanite settlements already present there, with Judaism first developing in its enduring form during the Babylonian exile, and having its roots in Levantine polytheism.

I remember reading speculation that at least the Levites came from Egypt, due to the fact that Moses, Hophni, and Phinehas could be Egyptian names and not Hebrew ones. Of course, there's not a lot of evidence for it, but it's something to think about.
 
That is what sounds most possible to me as well -- that there was a population movement of sorts out of Egypt, including people named Moses, Joseph, etc. (typically Egyptian names), but that they constituted a fairly small percentage of what became the Hebrews. Over time, the relatively small migration became enlarged in memory into a gigantic exodus of all the Hebrews from Egypt.

In reality, the Hebrews almost certainly diverged from their Canaanite neighbors in Canaan itself. A plausible theory I have come across is that their ancestors were farmers and shepherds who had been living in the transJordan highlands and gradually diverged in their religious beliefs (although they did not become monotheistic until the Babylonian Captivity, after exposure to Zoroastrian thought).
 
That is what sounds most possible to me as well -- that there was a population movement of sorts out of Egypt, including people named Moses, Joseph, etc. (typically Egyptian names), but that they constituted a fairly small percentage of what became the Hebrews. Over time, the relatively small migration became enlarged in memory into a gigantic exodus of all the Hebrews from Egypt.

In reality, the Hebrews almost certainly diverged from their Canaanite neighbors in Canaan itself. A plausible theory I have come across is that their ancestors were farmers and shepherds who had been living in the transJordan highlands and gradually diverged in their religious beliefs (although they did not become monotheistic until the Babylonian Captivity, after exposure to Zoroastrian thought).

Does this invalidate the idea of having instead of the OTL result of the Hebrews being dominant (or seen as such OTL) the nonHebrew Canaanites are?
 
The interesting thing for me is that there's a good chance that the story of Joseph comes out of the Hyksos conquest of Lower Egypt. The Moses bit of the bible has always struck me as being iffy however - I agree that there are theories that the Hebrews emerged from amongst the Canaanites.
And wasn't there a female counterpart to Yahweh somewhere at this time?
Bloody priests are always snipping out all the inconvenient ackward truths!
 
I don't know why the Hebrews must be Caananites. Remember, the time period in which the Exodus purportedly took place is a time of collapse. A time when hundreds of different groups were moving about; this is the time of the "Sea Peoples".
 
I don't know why the Hebrews must be Caananites. Remember, the time period in which the Exodus purportedly took place is a time of collapse. A time when hundreds of different groups were moving about; this is the time of the "Sea Peoples".
Because of archeological evidence that can't make sucessful distinction between Hebrews and Caananites except by geographical placement?
Furthermore, the settlement of Sea Peoples (at best an alliance of diverse peoples that disbanded after raiding) in Palestine was pratically limited to the coast line.
 
In reality, the Hebrews almost certainly diverged from their Canaanite neighbors in Canaan itself. A plausible theory I have come across is that their ancestors were farmers and shepherds who had been living in the transJordan highlands and gradually diverged in their religious beliefs (although they did not become monotheistic until the Babylonian Captivity, after exposure to Zoroastrian thought).

That's what I would slightly disagree with. I'm pretty sure that while the transition to monotheism came after the Babylonian Captivity, it was the end result of religious reforms under Hezekiah and Josiah before the captivity, and there definitely were monotheistic strains before.
 
Ooooooooooooh, controversial, man, controversial.

Problematic thing is that we cannot attest Moses, Joshua and the rest as being historical characters. We cannot attest any exodus from Egypt. In fact, there are several scholars who would argue that the Hebrew culture and Hebrew people actually evolved out of the Canaanite settlements already present there, with Judaism first developing in its enduring form during the Babylonian exile, and having its roots in Levantine polytheism.

Now, undoubtedly there are Christians (and Jews and Muslims) who are gonna disagree thoroughly with this. In any case, the lack of any reliable historical documentation of 10th century B.C., this is gonna be very hard to do...

Agreed - this thread seems more like an attempt at flamebaiting....
Btw, just for fairness sake, there are also "several scholars" who disagrees with the opinions of "your" "several scholars". That's the beauty of ancient history. Not a lot of it is set in stone (pun very much intended :D )
 
The interesting thing for me is that there's a good chance that the story of Joseph comes out of the Hyksos conquest of Lower Egypt. The Moses bit of the bible has always struck me as being iffy however - I agree that there are theories that the Hebrews emerged from amongst the Canaanites.
And wasn't there a female counterpart to Yahweh somewhere at this time?
Bloody priests are always snipping out all the inconvenient ackward truths!

Yes, because those that have dedicated their lives to working with these matters don't know the first thing about them, or try to deceive us because they're just that evil! :rolleyes:

Everyone please take a step back.
There.

Now: No. There is no conclusive evidence to YHWH having a consort or "female counterpart". No one is doubting that the area was highly "syncretistic" (is that a word?), a fact that the bible also mentions endlessly, as the prophets criticize Israel for trying to bet on all horses. But that does not mean that monotheism is an exilic- or post-exilic invention. There is no evidence of THAT either, just a lot of wishful thinking.
 
That is what sounds most possible to me as well -- that there was a population movement of sorts out of Egypt, including people named Moses, Joseph, etc. (typically Egyptian names),

Joseph was by no means a typical Egyptian name...and I don't remember any prominent figure in the Exodus called "Joseph" either, btw?
 
Joseph was by no means a typical Egyptian name...and I don't remember any prominent figure in the Exodus called "Joseph" either, btw?
As the Exodus is a totally mythological feature, and please don't talk about me about Manetho's report that is basically an answer to the translation of Bible, you could say that Joseph isn't an Inuit name as well.

Now: No. There is no conclusive evidence to YHWH having a consort or "female counterpart".
Elephantine Island's hebrew communauty beg to differ.

No one is doubting that the area was highly "syncretistic" (is that a word?), a fact that the bible also mentions endlessly, as the prophets criticize Israel for trying to bet on all horses.
And as archeological evidence show as well : there were cult of Canaaneite (and possibly Philistine as well even in the inner lands) deities for a relative long time.

But that does not mean that monotheism is an exilic- or post-exilic invention. There is no evidence of THAT either, just a lot of wishful thinking.
Monotheism is not an invention, not in the sense of a exiled hebrew tought "hey! maybe God is the only one?" when sleeping in walls of Babylone's shadow.
But there's an evolution form a relative monolatrism, that was not achieved after the return of the part of hebrew people whiwh was exiled.

And even when the Yerosolamit clergy decided and validated the monotheism cult as we more or less know it, there were many resistences against it, mainly in the isolated communauties but even among the hebrew/jewish people (Samaritanism could be an exemple of this)
 
As the Exodus is a totally mythological feature, and please don't talk about me about Manetho's report that is basically an answer to the translation of Bible, you could say that Joseph isn't an Inuit name as well.


Uhh...confrontational, are we?
Exodus DOES have some mythological elements. However, one should not make the mistake of saying "mythological = didn't happen". There is insufficient evidence to support such a wide statement. In fact, there ARE circumstantial evidences of an influx into Cana'an - though scholars (those of them that do support the basic tenets of the Exodus) disagree on when exactly it took place. The earliest (and traditional) date is around 1440 BC; the last around 1200 BC.
Furthermore, your "inuit"-statement made absolutely no sense. Of course Joseph isn't an inuit name.
(the fact that the name isn't all that uncommon in Greenland is another matter entirely, as that is due to Danish influence)

Elephantine Island's hebrew communauty beg to differ.

And mormons claim that satan and Jesus are brothers, flying in the face of all Christendom. Doesn't mean that mormonism can be seen as a genuine, but different, expression of Christian beliefs.
Furthermore, if you could provide some documentation of that claim, I'd appreciate it. The Hebrews made a big deal out of declaring the belief in YHWH as the only deity.

Monotheism is not an invention, not in the sense of a exiled hebrew tought "hey! maybe God is the only one?" when sleeping in walls of Babylone's shadow.
But there's an evolution form a relative monolatrism, that was not achieved after the return of the part of hebrew people whiwh was exiled.

...and that claim is also very much a subject of debate. I see no tell-tale signs of monolatrism in either the pre- or post-exilic writings. Sure, they mentions the gods of other peoples - but they do so in a way that we might mention Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. To take those mentions as evidence that Israel recognized the existence of other gods, but only allowed worship of YHWH is blatantly unscientific.

And even when the Yerosolamit clergy decided and validated the monotheism cult as we more or less know it, there were many resistences against it, mainly in the isolated communauties but even among the hebrew/jewish people (Samaritanism could be an exemple of this)

Samaritanism isn't monolatric, AFAIK.
And once again: There's no solid evidence that monotheism is an exilic or post-exilic development.
 
Last edited:
Uhh...confrontational, are we?
Exodus DOES have some mythological elements. However, one should not make the mistake of saying "mythological = didn't happen".
Who say that? Of course, mythological history of a people is based on the historical AND geographical context of its.
But, as the report of both coming and exodus by the Bible are totally based non on egyptian context, but on mesopotamian one, giving several indications on life on Euphrate's shore at this time, and by the total lack of informations from Egypt, we have to considers the only source (furthermore a religious one) as mythical.
Exodus as a fleeing from Egypt simply never happened, too much facts are contradictory to it.

There is insufficient evidence to support such a wide statement. In fact, there ARE circumstantial evidences of an influx into Cana'an - though scholars (those of them that do support the basic tenets of the Exodus) disagree on when exactly it took place. The earliest (and traditional) date is around 1440 BC; the last around 1200 BC.
There's no indication that this supposed influx (as you said, we're talking about circumstantial evidences here) modified the demography or the ethny of Palestine. On the other hand, the indigenous thesis have the merite to resolve more issues that it poses and to be based on more solid evidences, until of course anothers and contradictories are discovered, but so far it was not the case.

Furthermore, your "inuit"-statement made absolutely no sense. Of course Joseph isn't an inuit name.
(the fact that the name isn't all that uncommon in Greenland is another matter entirely, as that is due to Danish influence)
You're irony-proof, aren't you?

And mormons claim that satan and Jesus are brothers, flying in the face of all Christendom. Doesn't mean that mormonism can be seen as a genuine, but different, expression of Christian beliefs.
But the Mormon's beliefs are not coming from oblivion, and can even be related to Christianity heresies so far as dualism. The same for isolated hebrew communauties. You can't dismiss these beliefs only because you're not agreeing with, or you find it retarded.

Furthermore, if you could provide some documentation of that claim, I'd appreciate it. The Hebrews made a big deal out of declaring the belief in YHWH as the only deity.
Certainly : the papiry in aramean discovered in the island (there's is a translation here, but as i'am not an expert, i can't judge of its quality).
Cowley and Grelot have published them, it's mainly aspects of current life (including rites) but aslo correspondence with Palestinian jews who wanted to apply the reforms regarding religion to the isolated communauties : sign that and these communauties were cut from Palestine, in the case of Yeb, between their installation in Sait Egypt and this correspondence date from after a Darius (probably Darius II).
Interestingly, there was no such reform in Yeb/Elephantine and it was only after the destruction of Yeb Yahou's temple that the local rites disappered (even if the jews asked for the reconstruction, in vain as not the Palestinians nor the king allowed so).

You can find a reference to the cult of Yahou (Yahve), associated with "paedres" (i don't know the english term, and i'm not sure of the translation i recieved).
Joseph Meleze-Modrzejewski worked on that as Bezalel Porten. (I've only read Meleze-Modrzejewksi but he makes references to Porten's work.)

...and that claim is also very much a subject of debate. I see no tell-tale signs of monolatrism in either the pre- or post-exilic writings. Sure, they mentions the gods of other peoples - but they do so in a way that we might mention Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. To take those mentions as evidence that Israel recognized the existence of other gods, but only allowed worship of YHWH is blatantly unscientific.
The existence, and the workship of sister and/or wife of Yawhe, again attested in documents show that if this god was at the center of a cult (while the other were only recongnized because of their proximity to him), there was a recongition of this god as reserved (and it was quite novator for these times) to a people.

Interestingly, it was only around X-IX B.C. that the neighbouring nations and people recongized Yawhe as "proper" to Hebrews, as the king of Moab intentionaly plundered his temple to give the goods that it contained to its own god.

Of course that the sole study of Bible can't bear a total proof. But the concordence of the study of the text with archeological proofs make the theory (that can be disputed, yes, but the most disputes i've saw so far are on the fact that Hebrews would have worshipped other goods as polytheism) is one of the strongest existing on the pre-Rabbinic judaism.

Samaritanism isn't monolatric, AFAIK.
And once again: There's no solid evidence that monotheism is an exilic development.
I've said samaritanism was monolatric? I used this exemple to show that between 1)The isolated communauties 2)The main part of Hebrew people that stood in Palestine 3)The exiled, there were many difference regarding both culture and religion and that Hebrews were all except a monolithical people after the exile.
 
Some people claim that by the Current Era, all the Canaanites in what's now known as Israel were absorbed into Judaism and made monotheists. Is there any truth in that?
 
Some people claim that by the Current Era, all the Canaanites in what's now known as Israel were absorbed into Judaism and made monotheists. Is there any truth in that?

Well, "all" is probably too strong a word, given we still had polytheistic worship in many Hellenised cities. But it is at least likely that all the polytheistic Aramaic-speaking inhabitants who had not been Hellenised had been Judaised (if you count Samaritans as Jewish, of course - they were there, too). There is simply very little evidence of non-Hellenised worship of any deity other than YHWH at that point (I've seen an altar from Palestine that is conventially dated to the late first century BC at the archeological museum in Istanbul, but despite its rather traditional appearance, I suspect it belongs to an assimilated, Greek-style cult, not a lone Canaanite survival).
 
Well, "all" is probably too strong a word, given we still had polytheistic worship in many Hellenised cities. But it is at least likely that all the polytheistic Aramaic-speaking inhabitants who had not been Hellenised had been Judaised (if you count Samaritans as Jewish, of course - they were there, too). There is simply very little evidence of non-Hellenised worship of any deity other than YHWH at that point (I've seen an altar from Palestine that is conventially dated to the late first century BC at the archeological museum in Istanbul, but despite its rather traditional appearance, I suspect it belongs to an assimilated, Greek-style cult, not a lone Canaanite survival).

Well, the hellenized polytheism in Middle-East keeps often more local traits than it keeps greek ones. It would really strikes me if this assimilated deity would have ceased to be revered under the rites and the forms used before the macedonian decides do goes yahoo.
Of course, the maintain of syrians and transjordanian gods for a quite long time (You certainly have heard of Heliogabalus) certainly influenced some maintain of palestinian gods other than Yahwe monotheism.
The assimilation would, in my opinion, be more important after the roman conquest who will definitly make a choice between assimilable divinities, and not interesting ones (or too risky to assimilate without a general riot).
 
Well, the hellenized polytheism in Middle-East keeps often more local traits than it keeps greek ones. It would really strikes me if this assimilated deity would have ceased to be revered under the rites and the forms used before the macedonian decides do goes yahoo.
Of course, the maintain of syrians and transjordanian gods for a quite long time (You certainly have heard of Heliogabalus) certainly influenced some maintain of palestinian gods other than Yahwe monotheism.
The assimilation would, in my opinion, be more important after the roman conquest who will definitly make a choice between assimilable divinities, and not interesting ones (or too risky to assimilate without a general riot).

It's pretty much certain that the deities worshipped in the temples of Hellenistic and Roman Judaea are the old Canaanite ones, but it still makes a major difference. They are now part of a broader system of religious practice and have been adopted into a portable nomenclature. AFAIR the Romans just took over the religions of the area as they found them, with the interpretatio Romana just picking up the Greek labels already in place.
 
Top