Which is a thousand years after the Hyksos came and went. Which is my point, that trying to identify the Hyksos with the Isrealite story of Exodus doesn’t add up.
You seem to be saying that Abraham and the original Israelites were just worshipping Baal by a different name (Amurru), and therefore it wouldn’t be an incongruence if Moses & the Exodusian Israelites were straight-up Baal worshipers, like the Hyksos? And that therefore, the fact the Hyksos were Baal worshippers is not a reason to rule them out as being the Isrealites of Exodus?
I’m not an expert on Yahweh or Baal or Ancient Israelite history but … that doesn’t sound right. Baal was originally a generic word that means, “Lord”, like Marduk or Adonai, but by the time of the Hyksos, those had become proper names of recognizable gods. I don’t think the Isrealites of Moses’ time, who had supposedly been worshipping the Entity Known As Yahweh for centuries, would have confused that Entity with the name of a known other Entity (or even one of his aliases.)
Do you have a cite? I know there are hints this is so, leading to suppositions, but there is so little archeological evidence from that era/area that i would be surprised if it was proven.
The oldest conclusive archaeological evidence we have for Yahweh is at the Kuntillet Ajrud, which is a 9th or 8th century shrine to El, Baal, Yahweh, and Asherah. This is in Southern Israel, near the Gulf of Aqaba.
King Saul’s son, Eshbaal, is named after Baal.
Asherah poles were found up until 600 BC.
Similarly, Judean Pillar Figurines are found until 600 BC.
The Bible directly states that the Jewish monarchy were occasionally polytheistic all of the way up until at least Amon (died 641 BC).
The Bible also tells us that both Ammon and Moab are descended from Lot. Lot clearly believed in God (Yahweh). And yet, it is believed that the Ammonites worshiped Moloch and the Moabites we are certain worshiped Chemosh. From the Mesha Stele, there’s some reason to believe that Moloch and Chemosh are both references to the same deity.
Further, archaeological evidence shows that the region the Ammonites inhabited only shows evidence of them from no earlier than 1000-900 BC, so that’s some indication of what central Israel may have been believing at that time. And based on the names of Ammonites that we know, there’s some reason to believe that they did worship Yahweh and Kaus, besides Baal Hadad and El.
God (Yahweh) ordered Elijah to anoint Hazael (implying that God was favorable to the guy). The real Hazael clearly worshiped Baal Hadad.
The “bull site” in Northern Israel would indicate that the Manasseh were worshiping bull figurines circa 1200-1000 BC.
The Elephantine Papyri indicate polytheistic beliefs among the Jews of Egypt around 500 BC (they would have gone there under the reign of Manasseh - 650 BC).
wiki *Asherah poles in biblical archaeology[edit]
Some biblical archaeologists have suggested that until the 6th century BC the Israelite peoples had household shrines, or at least figurines, of Asherah,[12] which are strikingly common in the archaeological remains.[13]*have suggested that …
There’s no consensus as to what these are.
4a. Cite please.
Clearly? I mean, you have the Tel Dan Stele , but archaeologists arent even sure if it’s from Hazael.
Even given some of these, like the small sect and temple at Elephantine, simply suggest that some Israelites backslid. Which indeed, the Bible says. That does not show “Based on both the archaeological record and the Bible, there’s no reason to believe that the Jews worshiped Yahweh in majority until sometime after 800 BC and they weren’t in majority monotheistic until sometime after 600 BC.'”
All it shows is that a few Israelites backslid or tried appeasing others to keep themselves from getting killed.
Even with the kindest Bible chronology, where we assume that Moses lived around 1200 BC (1600-1300 BC is a more popular range), the Bible itself accepts that the Jews were very poor at recognizing God’s greatness and right up until 641 BC, in the Bible chronology, the nobility of the Jews was still just as likely as not to practice polytheism. That’s ~600 years of polytheism after the 10 Commandments were released. Or as I explained once before in another thread:
"Both the Bible description and archaeological finds, of which the Kuntillet Ajrut is just one example, show that the Israelites were unabashed polytheists right up until the 7th and 6th centuries. In the book, this is sort of easy to not notice. “The people worship a gold calf and God smites them. Then they start to behave.” And so on. It’s easy to miss that 600 to 1000 years of regular smitings by God had occured and they still didn’t get the message. When you look at actual dates, listed on archaeological finds, that fact becomes a bit more noticeable.
According to the Bible, God delivers them out of Egypt in a spectacular fashion - parting the waters, bringing locusts, etc. - performs some other massive miracles, gives a bunch of starving people who just wandered through a desert the power to overtake a country, delivers his law:
“Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
Then he smites a bunch of them who doubt his claim.
If you were an Israelite and you’d been taken out of Egypt, seen massive, underwear pooping miracles performed, been told to become a monotheist, had a bunch of your kin smited, and given a free country to rule, don’t you think that you’d get the idea that maybe there was some validity to this whole monotheism deal? I don’t think it would take 600 to 1000 years worth of effort to get the message, personally."
“Baal” is generally a shortening of Ba’al Hadad. Hadad is the god’s name and, as you say, Ba’al just means “Lord”.
But I’m not sure why you say someone would have needed to confuse something in order for something to happen. What do you think requires confusion, in my explanation?
He’s also known as Ish-bosheth. Bosheth means “shameful one” which was a term used when the writers started censoring references to Ba’al Hadad in the Bible.
If the boy’s name was just “Lordly One” why did they need to censor it?
It’s rather hard to suggest whether you found something from a certain period of time. The suggestion is as to whether or not there were household shrines. I made no comment about household shrines.
There’s no consensus as to what the cult figurines are? That’s fine for my purposes. The most likely answer would be Asherah, but without consensus, it’s possible that there’s someone other than Asherah that they could be representing.
Besides Tel Dan, the Bible tells us that the King of Aram before Hazael is named Ben-Hadad and that Hazael names his son Ben-Hadad.
They backslid for a thousand years?
If I was a God and I’d shown miracles, lead the people to greatness in innumerable wars, and directly talked to a number of the most important people, I’d think that backslipping would be well over with after a few weeks, let alone a few centuries.
I invite anyone to to read the Wikipedia entry and conclude from it “that the Israelites were unabashed polytheists.” I would also invite anyone to explain what the extent of henotheism or polytheism in pre-exhilic Israel has to do with the OP.
Someone earlier in the discussion asked (and I’m paraphrasing here), “What does any of this have a flying fig to do with anything?” And my answer to that would be that the idea that El/El-Elyon/El Shaddai/Yahweh-Sabaoth forever and ever personally signed over to the Israelites a strip of land bordering on the Eastern Mediterranean, in perpetuity, and declared death and damnation on anyone who did not support this claim, has been a pillar of American Middle Eastern foreign policy for decades, regardless of actual conditions on the ground. That makes it a significant issue.
The thing is, you’re taking isolated incidents like one King of 40+ and assuming this indicates a tread such that "* “Based on both the archaeological record and the Bible, there’s no reason to believe that the Jews worshiped Yahweh in majority until sometime after 800 BC and they weren’t in majority monotheistic until sometime after 600 BC.'”*
There simply isnt enough archaeological evidence to back your claim.
It is hard to understand the agenda of those who wallow in talk of idol worship in Israel, particularly since they give little thought to the ‘Israel’ about which they talk.
On the other hand, the Bible agrees that the Jews were poor at adopting monotheism until Amon, so even if there were thousands of archaeological items, it still wouldn’t be much of a revelation.
How is it relevant to a question about dating polytheistic practices in ancient Israel? Well it indicates that there were polytheistic practices in ancient Israel and it dates those practices…so…
If you feel it’s not relevant to the question asked, then I suppose there’s not much one could add.
Fortunately, this is why we don’t rely on single items of evidence. Any one item, in a proof, should be tossable - because it’s unconvincing, there’s some question about the authenticity, etc. - and so even if there’s questions about every item of evidence for something, once you achieve a certain number of them, the chance that they’re all false becomes impossible.
People asked for more detail on certain topics as the conversation went. That’s the way conversations work.
Not really. The article starts with him dismissing the “there was no Exodus” crowd as basing their conclusions on a mere absence of evidence, but he does pretty much the same thing (e.g., the absence of mention of Levites in the Song of Deborah). The only positive example he seems to offer (at least in the linked article, perhaps his larger research has more) is a supposed contrast of names, and even there, one of those is from another tribe.
Bottom line, I don’t see his theory (at least as presented in the article) as being very compelling, nor do I see that it offers anything that prior theories didn’t already have. So instead of having no evidence of 600,000 men (and their families) passing through the Sinai, we have no evidence of 23,000 people? No evidence is still no evidence, and not believing the literal story of the Bible is still not believing the literal story of the Bible.
