It’s almost like the Bible writers woke up one day and realized they where the bad guys who conquered this land and drove out the rightful owners then said maybe we should portray ourselves as innocent victims and everyone else is our unprovoked enemy
I think some of them were Canaanites themselves. It looks a lot like Jews originated as Canaanites. As far as rightful owners humanity prior to 100 years ago was just people conquering each other
Mitchell & Webb TV sketch: "Are we the baddies?" There were no rightful owners. The idea of rules in war and invasion is a very recent one in human history: League of Nations then United Nations during 20th century. Before that, if you thought you could, you simple invaded and your gods supported you or were defeated by the local gods (of high ground or of the valleys). And the effectiveness of any rules of engagement is not simple (Vietnam, Ukraine, CIA and USSR equivalent during proxy wars post WW2)
@@DevonPhoenix Bible is very clear about that. Depending on how yo define 'Jew'. Judah had sex with Tamar who produced Perez and Zerah. Most of Jacob's sons paired up with local women who were not children of Jacob (Israel) so mitochondrial DNA and X chromosomes were not descended from Judah. If Jew means descended from post-exilic inhabitant of the area around jerusalem, they also had mixed family backgrounds. Bible very clear that no such thing as pure-bred Jew, however you define it
The princes of the nations must be considered, they knew scripture , they didn't know when the child king of Judea would come, the enemy gathered there. God's Supreme covert plan to ransom our souls
Found this channel not long ago and love it. I wish more believers would be like this, embracing critical scholarship not the ultra orthodox based type that passes for scholarship in many biblical theological institutions namely in the U.S. I never tried to destroy anyone's faith or make them agnostic like I am. I just want them to really understand the biblical authors context, their sources, the diverse views within it. I love mythology and history.
@@JewessChrstnMystic And if you hear preachers in evangelical churches telling you about how horrible democrats and libtards are, you will understand that orientation perfectly....😢
...but if Fundamentalists (of Any of the 3 major abrahamic religiions) were to learn the FACTS about their respective "Faith Traditions", they risk Offending/Treatening the gods by becoming "KNOW-ers" gaining the Status of gods by obtaining "the knowledge of Good and Evil" (Gen. 2:3--7).
To Dr. Josh’s point about the defunct cities pointing towards “giants,” that matches up really well with the Classical Greek perception of the Cyclopean walls in Mycenean settlements.
The parallels with Greece are very interesting. The political organization itself looks like Greece. Scattered city states, some monarchic, some democratic, with a shared sense of culture.
Exactly. The move to finally ban the bible in lower schools in the US is far too long overdue. Some of the content found within it is just sickening to allow children access to however much you want to talk about freedom of expression. There's literally a story about how god turns a mother into salt right before the father drags their daughters into a cave and rapes them - all without so much as a peep from god. Some deity indeed - not one even remotely worthy of worship by any sane assessment.
What modern tendency to erase the violence in the biblical text? Maybe in your circles but not in mine in the UK, even in a evangelical Bible college in 1985-88 (but 'evangelical' in UK means something very different from how it has developed in the last 40 years in USA)
@@cuebj Dr. Josh did a video recently where a Christian woman with a Doctorate in theology asserted that Joshua's conquest of Canaan wasn't about violence, because God doesn't order violence like that... despite the piles of Biblical evidence to the contrary. There definitely is a tendency in the US for people to just recast all these stories as being about loving your enemies and symbolic, spiritual warfare waged through preaching and prayer and such. Here the story of Jericho is often taught as an act of nonviolent protest, fighting war by marching around and praising God instead of by killing... and then we leave out the part at the end where Joshua's army kills every man, woman, child, and animal in the city. These people (myself including) grow up thinking they worship the peace-loving God of Joshua, and don't see who the YHWH of Yehoshua is within that story.
Maybe in your circles. Always been discussed in mine from 1960s onwards. But, in UK, and with my particular background, ethnicity, polity, culture, religions plus weather, climate, pressures to migrate have always been considerations. A classic contemporary example is southern Sahara region around Lake Chad. Where it used to support huge numbers of people living around it, now it is just a large puddle. Hence the effects on people to move, often violently with a variety of up front motivations from Boko haram to simple money making kidnapping. The general pressure on more settled tribal groups from nomadic Fula people goes back hundreds of years with a long history of upsurges of extreme violence and then a drop in tensions.
People have commented on the quality of the information presented here, which I echo… However, I also wanted to acknowledge how great of an interview/conversation this was/is. I REALLY hope to see more of Dr. Benz in the near future. Great job as always #DigitalHammurabi!
Just discovering this channel and enjoying it immensely. Thanks for the interviews. One tip, if I may, (as a scholar in another field who spends a lot of time communicating with the public): short sentences! Ask your guests very simple questions, not scholarly questions. We in the public don't know much about this subject anyway, so there's no problem starting of very simple. You can let your guest go into details of their research first (then add as much as you like). By keeping the dialog more succinct terse & tight, the length of the videos could be decreased about 30% without losing any content. Just a thought. In any case, keep up the good work!
Thank you for the comment! A couple of rejoinders. This video is a few years old now. If you watch some of out more recent things, I hope you'll see that our interview techniques have come a long way. Josh (the interviewer) has MS, which affects his short-term memory, among other things. He will forget what he's saying halfway through saying it. Being short and succinct is simply not something his neurology allows him to do, so even with all the experience in the world he is not going to be able to give the style of interview you'd prefer.
I disagree with you. Not everything needs to be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. You could find that all over the 'net. Personally I like this more than a 4th grade summary.
Amen amen just a small corrección they don't want to eliminate their Canaan roots just hide them from plain view they love their moon God sin they love their God shemes they love their godees ashera they love their God baal they love their God reshep they love their God moloch they love their god El saturn they love their god salim the God of darknees from whom the city is named acter they love setch the donkey God all in all they have many loves but they don't want you to know you have to find that information in your own.
@@jwil2414 The story of Noah’s three children is a myth, because it has many scientific holes and because the flood story is an ancient polytheistic myth from Mesopotamia, rewritten in a monotheistic context… READ, PEOPLE! READ!
The panel talks about child sacrifice was practiced by the Canaanites but what about the biblical patriarch Abraham was about to sacrifice his son Issac that was commanded by God to show his loyalty?
@@inarizic4945 Why should he read the Quran. The Quran is bullshit. Muhammed got that story from the Christians, who got it from the Jews. If anything, you should read the Torah. All religious books are bullshit and I feel bad for you believing in such crap.
@@dud3man6969 Or the story was invented to pretend like they are different and the Canaanites are evil. You are blindly taking the word of some Israelites or demonized their neighboring tribes.
I loved this interview. The concept of "The others" The ones who are not us is our enemy, is something that caused a lot of needless suffering. A group of people demonizing others because of where they lived. Good and evil doesn't have a nationality or a passport, it speaks in different, tongues, wears many skins, and exists every where... even in the same person.
While we can all agree that individuals can possess great virtue and great evil, I f you don’t think a society, “the others”, can have an evil civilizational consciousness, that it’s all relative, you need to go back and brush up on your Marxism and NAZIsm.
Historically, did Israel actually do the genocide that they claim in the Bible, or is it more of the fiction created in the Exodus story to help aid in the forming of a national identity and a god that can't be defeated?
No, it was a collection of stories and myths retold by the returning exiled priests in order to re-establish their authority. Jericho wasn’t a city at the time of the supposed exodus invasion. The ‘invasion’ was just a peaceful migration into the lands left during the late Bronze Age collapse.
The historical Israelite/Canaanite distinction reminds me of Northern Ireland in the 20th century. People there worship similarly, but for political reasons hit has in recent decades been important to distinguish oneself from between Protestant or Catholic..creating an "other". But if we just go back 1000 years or so, they would all have identified as "Irish" with the "other" being the Vikings. Go back another 700 years and the were Celts and the "other" was the Romans, etc.
After listening to this great interview I looked at the battle in 2 Kings Chapter 3 where it talks about the Moabite king sacrificing his eldest to his god, and the "wrath" that pushed Israel back. What I find interesting about this passage is that the kings of Israel consulted the prophet Elisha. In verse 18 they are told that Jehovah will deliver Moab into their hands. Then they are told step by step how to destroy things once they are in the land. Israel does as they are commanded, but then they retreat from the "wrath" that burned against them. Leaving me to wonder what the hell happened. Is this another failed prophecy? Did Israel tuck tail and run from the intensity of battle? There comes a time when the bible doesn't make sense. Usually the pastor or teacher will point to the faithlessness of Israel and say Jehovah moved against them, but they did as they were told. So, what the hell? I enjoy your channel even when it leaves me looking at the history with bewilderment.
Israel was already victorious so I would not say that they were running from the intensity of battle. The battle was over so they left. The wrath mentioned here might not actually be God's wrath against Israel because it's such a short sentence and doesn't even use the word God or Lord here so we don't completely know. It might actually be the wrath of the Moabites which means their anger for being completely destroyed. Nonetheless this is not a false prophecy because the Israelites destroyed the Moabites and then left because the war was complete.
Quite simple from the text as we have it. The Israelites were not fully committed monotheistic Yhwhists. If anything, they were barely Yhwhist at all and merely consulted Elisha as one option. When confronted with such a commitment by the king of Moab to sacrifice his son, that spoke deeper and harder to their core instincts and their prime belief system - like many animals pose, roar, stretch to look bigger that their rival so the rival runs, unless they think they have 'stronger magic / muscles / mass'
I've dug into this before and I usually see a few different answers. The one I think the author intended is that the child sacrifice to Chemosh (Moab's god) empowered Chemosh enough to temporarily overpower Yahweh on Chemosh's land. This would align with the idea that every country has their own gods who protect those areas alone, and the national gods can't stray far from their assigned/inherited portion. Another possible interpretation of the sacrifice story is that the Moabite prince was sacrificed to Yahweh, and this pleased Yahweh enough to turn him against the Israelite forces. Since both of those raise a ton of theological problems, modern believers I think prefer the most naturalistic explanation that the Israelite soldiers watching a king sacrifice his son on the wall during the siege was enough to make them afraid of that king, so they fled. Still... the interpretations where the "wrath" against the Israelites is from a god do have fascinating implications.
You know how we get upset today about "appropriation"? If you look at the Genesis, you find an appropriation of the traditions of Sumer, Akkad, Canaan to paper over basic differences of Anu, Enlil, Enki, Marduk, Inanna, Nebo, etc ... to pretend they had always had an exclusive relationship to one god. In the book of Exodus, you find them attempting to appropriate Egyptian history from the flip side like their new ownership of Osiris (though a careful reading of Manetho reveals to what extent they'd screwed up that nation's history).
In regards to the setup of this monolith of "the Arabs," fully agree 100%. These are different ethnic groups with different histories and backgrounds, and their form of Arabic is different, Syrian, Palestinian, Lebanese, and Jordanian Arabic is Levantine (which is a form of Arabic that mixed with the various dialects of Aramaic), and are generally more diverse. The owner of a Lebanese restaurant next door told me that Levantine Arabic speakers can hardly understand N. African Arabic speakers because their Arabic is mixed with local languages; Amazigh, Berber, etc.
Vey true! The term “Arab,” just like the term(s) “white/black/brown, etc.“ are frustratingly ambiguous blanket terms. And I know most Lebanese, although they speak a particular dialect of Arabic, no NOT ethnically identify as Arabs. Many look to a pre-Arab Phoenician/Canaanite identity.
I come back to this conversation often (and comment often 🤷🏻♂️), I really really hope to see more of these two in talks on this channel. I don’t even care what topic.
54:20 „Avi-melech“ is a „fatherly king“, metaphoric a moraly-good ruler (see Genesis, 20,1-18; Gen 21,22-34, Gen 26,1-17; Gen 26,26-31), contrasting to Israels idea of theophoric kingdom.
I paused at the question around the 26:00 mark, so maybe this gets answered, but is it possible the Canaanites were considered too diverse in their customs, too "metropolitan"?
“What is this notion of a Canaanite and why is it such a negative thing?” If Canaanite was those serving Egypt and the ancient Hebrews viewed Egypt as their oppressors, wouldn’t it be logical for them to them vilify the Canaanites? “To be Israelite... you were anti Egypt and therefore not Canaanite.” Ah Ha!
Israelites claimed descent from the Egyptian God Set (Seth) who was the god of storms and the desert just like YHWH (son of God), and became associated with foreigners after he was worshipped by the Hyksos. Basically a type of identity politics. In the original myth Seth killed Osiris. In the rebranded Israelite version, Seth was made as a gift from the Gods in recompense for the murder of Abel by Cain (=Egypt). I feel there is a link between Canaanite and Cainite. The name Cain comes from the Hebrew root qyn meaning smith. It is said Cain built a city in the land of nod (wandering). Well, in the land where the Israelites were exiled and made to wander (Sumer) one of the settlements was called Bad Tibi meaning House of the Smiths. So it seems their contemporary (at the time of the writing of the Hebrew scriptures in the Captivity) enemies the Sumerians were associated with their ancient enemies, the Cainites and the Egyptians. Now in Sumerian mythology the first 7 Antedeluvian Kings have an advisor who is one of the Gods who descended from Heaven. Adam is the first advisor and Apkallu (who was raised to heaven = Enoch) is the seventh. Clearly the Israelites identify themselves with the Sons of God, that is, the Sons of El (the Canaanite equivalent of the Sumerian Annunaki, the Divine Council). From this emerged a spirit-world dualism, where Sumer and Egypt were identified with the world, typed by Cain, and the Gods and spirit world were identified with Israel, typed by Seth (the foreigner, for they were *foreigners* in the land of Egypt, just as YHWH says!). Israel never migrated into Canaan, but the destruction of Pharaoh's army by the Sea is a reinterpretation of the Sumerian Chaoskampf myth, again with their enemies all sort of molded together, as divine justice, something seen again in the Flood story, as the sea represents Chaos. The Serpent, Leviathan, appears in Exodus as the assistant of YHWH just as Marduk had an assistant serpent that he won after his defeat of Tiamat; Egypt's Serpents are defeated by the superior Serpent of Yah. Intermarriage between the two-Sons of God and Sons of Men-was condemned, to set the Israelites apart as a nation, and this was portrayed in Genesis through the story of the Flood (in Jewish texts such as the Cave of Treasures, the Sons of God = Sethites and Daughters of Men = Cainites) and an anti Midianite polemic in Joshua in which the alleged seduction of an Israelite man by a Midianite woman precipitates the destruction of Midian by Joshua's army. We can see remnants of this prophet-priest dualism with the number 7 in the Shia Imam scheme, where each of the 7 major Prophets is accompanied by an Imam who is an embodiment of the Divine Spirit (Adam-Seth, Abraham-Ishmael, Moses-Aaron, Jesus-Peter, Muhammad-Ali and the Second Coming of Jesus-Mahdi in the age to come, in an allegorical interpretation of Genesis 1).
Here is a little light for you Cannan was a región an in that particular región many tribes lived so Cannan was a topografical designation as for the tribes that inhabited that región each had their own little God as was the costom back them.
Would love to hear a more in depth discussion about colonial genocide, torture and destruction of artifacts through biblical justification I think it is WAY more ingrained into cultures and “accepted”, even in modern times, even now, than people would like to believe
Why tf am I getting an ad about taking a 30 minute course for Christian women who are too self sufficient to find a good Christian man? Who is doing their marketing and why are they targeting Digital Hammurabi fans 😂
I joined a prison gang when I went to prison for kids(C.Y.A). Spending my adult life covering up stupid tattoos.i adapted to my environment.Now I have a lonely but peaceful life ✌🏻💜 Josh made me think of this with his high school analogy
Great point about how one comes to the texts of Jewish and Christian Scripture. The text is what it is. Archeology and anthropology and etc. can illuminate the context and meaning of the words. In the end, what is accurate is what is accurate.
Would like to get my hands on the book by dr. Benz, but its hard to come by and retails at about a hundred dollars here in Norway (about the same with shipping from abroad). Any chance of getting it republished as a more market-friendly edition. Eisenbrauns' books are decidedly expensive.
Scholarly books are expensive: small market, deeply specialist and result of huge amounts of work both to do the research and to do the typesetting with languages, footnotes, unusual spelling, etc. Nobody expects individuals to buy them. Join a library, eg at a Theology institute, even if it means paying a membership fee
Just a note on pronunciation: Shechem is the King James transliteration of שְכֶם. Technically a two syllable word, the first is the very short shva which is never accented. It's not hard to understand why king James translators thought this is how it should be spelled, but we don't know in how they thought it would be pronounced. Now, not SHEHchem, but ShCHEM.
@Lockes Logos yeah - I spend far too much time on youtube, and have far too much to say for myself. I even watched the "red pill revisited" show with jean Baptiste, PP and Brass. Tell me you didn't actually anything they said.
@Lockes Logos I saw your comment, so I'm guessing you watched their little chat on purple pill's channel. Jean Baptiste talks absolute shite. He doesn't mean to - but he is easily led and has lapped up the rightwing propaganda. The worrying thing is that the stuff he says sounds plausible at first - but it's all based on misinformation and he has no intention of doubting "his side" is right. The sad thing is, he's been exploited big time and utterly brainwashed. I don't know if he was like he is as a result of going to Iraq, or if he was always like that- but either way it doesn't present a pretty picture of US armed forces recruiting policy or care of their vets.
@Lockes Logos I'll admit that the dems have failed to be much better than the republicans. They had a chance to make a real difference by backing Bernie - but they bottled it by sticking with the establishment. "at least we're not Trump" is not a particularly effective slogan to run on. laters dude - I've got to see if there's still a queue at the supermarket.
@Lockes Logos yeah - I've been keeping tabs. We're up to 40,000 here but everyone seems to have forgotten about how serious it is. Unfortunately, that's what happens - people just can't be arsed to isolate and social distance - these protests are a bit of an excuse to go out and mingle with people. That's the trouble with all these issues - people get bored and forget about them after a while.
@Lockes Logos It wouldn't surprise me at all. There'll be a spike in a couple of weeks , and hopefully people might remember again what's going on, and more importantly, hopefully hte government will not rush things this time. But somehow I doubt it. Best outcome is if the herd immunity thing kicks in, but until then, a lot more people are going to die.
My understanding is that the whole area directly east of the Mediterranean was called Canaan, and Phoenicia was one particularly powerful coastal city of Canaan. So all Phoenicians would be Canaanites but not all Canaanites would be Phoenicians.
The first mention of Canaan in the Bible is in the post-Flood story about Noah not fulfilling God's commandment to "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth" [9:1] and, instead, becoming "the first tiller of the soil" and who "planted a vineyard . . . drank of the wine, and became drunk" [9:20-1]. Noah's son Ham then "saw the nakedness of his father" [9:22]. According to Leviticus [20:11], "The man who lies with his father's wife has uncovered his father's nakedness; both of them shall be put to death, their blood is upon them." So, Ham had sex with his own mother (who is unnamed in the Bible), and "Ham was the father of Canaan" -- the implication being that Canaan was the result of the mother/son incest. The similar story told in Genesis 19, about the post-Disaster father/daughters incest committed by Lot after his daughters got him drunk. Lot's wife having died -- the "pillar of salt" penalty for looking back at the destruction of Sodom -- these unnamed daughters thought it their duty to repopulate the world, so they got him drunk and committed incest with him, thus becoming the mothers of Moab and Ben-Ammi -- the eponymous ancestors of the Moabites and the Ammonites. Noah -- rather than condemning his own wife and their son Ham -- instead curses the baby Canaan, as if that child had any say or responsibility in its own manner of conception! Noah curses Canaan -- and, by extension, all of his descendants, the Canaanite tribe -- calling upon him/them to be SLAVES of [the descendants of] Shem and Japheth. The brutality meted out by the invading Israelites, following the Exodus and the 40-year wanderings, upon the people living in the land of Canaan is, thus, 'justified' as being the fulfillment of Noah's curse upon Canaan. Noah was, after all, a "righteous man" [6:9], so he must have been righteous when he condemned a baby its subsequent progeny to perpetual servitude -- nay, worse than that, since Joshua is commanded to commit genocide against the Canaanites -- excepting only Rahab the harlot and her family because she had aided Israelite spies sent into Jericho prior to its destruction. Men and women. And children. The God of the Bible wanted Joshua and the Israelites to slaughter them all. Why? What was so evil about them that called for such cruelty? Because of the manner in which their eponymous ancestor had been conceived, through mother/son incest. For a similar reason, the Moabites and Ammonites are mistreated by the Israelites: their eponymous ancestors were begotten via father/daughter incest. In my view, the Israelites wanted ["coveted"] the land on which the native3 Canaanites happened to live, so they murderously stole it from them, committing genocide . . . and, later on, to retroactively justify their genocidal annexation of the territory, they invented a bogus story about how God promised to give the land to them, and the bogus stories of how the indigenous peoples already living there 'deserved' to be slaughtered -- because of the disgusting manner in which their distant eponymous ancestors had been begotten, through incest. Anyone who calls it "the Good Book" is ethically no different than the Nazis who labelled Jews "untermenschen" -- subhumans who, like rats, must have deserved to suffer the Holocaust. I have yet to encounter an apologist who can justify this sordid 'scripture'. You can bet that neither the Canaanites nor the Moabites and Ammonites ever believed that they had been spawned through parent/child incest. Those stories in Genesis are base lies told at the expense of peoples who had the bad luck to be living on land coveted by the heartless, bloodthirsty Israelites who weren't above committing genocide and then making up a fake history to 'justify' their crimes against humanity.
What we call the "Bible" is a collection of texts stemming from authors with very different interests, worldviews and moralities. The horrors described in the book of Joshua do not prevent me from loving the ancient wisdom found in the book of Ecclesiastes or in the sermon on the mount.
Perhaps those who wrote the 'good' or relatively better portions of 'scripture' were symbolically trying to plant beautiful flowers in a garden . . . but they kept the weeds already festering there. The trouble is that Believers take it all in, loving the "ancient wisdom" and accepting that the "horrors" must all be God's Will, not to b e questioned, let alone jettisoned as unworthy of being esteemed. It's like excusing Hitler because he didn't smoke cigarettes and loved his dog. An extreme example, yeah, I'll grant you, but when you consider the millennia of hard-hearted inhumanity committed by people who deem the entire Bible to be an exemplar of morality . . .
Slaughtering Canaan is how they devoted the land to God and cleansed it from corruption. It's the same as the water of the flood which cleanses the earth of sin. If you don't understand the spiritual symbolism of these writings then of course you're going to misunderstand the Bible. These Old Testament stories are shadows and the New Testament realities. For example the New Testament teaches that the flood of the Old Testament is a symbol for baptism.
I stand by my interpretation of those stories in Genesis. The Israelites wanted the land, so they stole it -- slaughtering the indigenous tribes mercilessly and then inventing a 'scripture' that justified their genocidal actions after-the-fact. The idea that the land had to be "cleansed" by murdering all the men, women, and CHILDREN is just disgusting. If the 'God' of Israel wanted to give the land occupied by the Canaanites to the 12 tribes of Israel, He could have given an ultimatum and demanded that the Canaanites flee from their land or else face destruction. Scare the shit out of them with a Pillar of Fire and a loud thunderous Voice from Heaven. God could have accomplished this without needing to have the Israelites themselves put every living thing to the sword. Just as the denizens of the land of "Shinar" could be miraculously forced to give up building the Tower of Babel, so that God "scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth" [Gen. 11:8], so too could He have lit a fire under the asses of the Canaanites and compelled THEM, too, to scatter across the globe, where they could come into conflict with all those Babel-fleeing Shinarians. It makes me sick to see how apologists -- be they Jews or Christians -- can be so inhuman as to sigh with resignation and accept such barbarous atrocities as "the will of God" -- which MUST be Good, cuz God can't be evil, can He? The people who invented these stories INVENTED THEIR 'GOD' as a literary character, using that invented 'god' to justify their own atrocities. You, as a Christian, have no problem believing that the gods in the pantheons of Israel's neighbors were all either invented by polytheistic priesthoods OR were actually Fallen Angels (i.e. 'demons') PRETENDING to be gods. Humans have been inventing false religions for as long as people have been religious. Con artists have been around as long as human history has been happening. Religion is the oldest con there is. George Carlin's routine about 'God' being the greatest bullshit story is still spot-on. "But He LOVES you!"
@@patricktilton5377 The fact that the angel of the Lord said to Joshua that he is neither for them nor against them shows that there's more going on with the narrative than just, "It is God's will to kill them all". You seem to be very unfamiliar with reading scripture as symbolic narrative. I would say that the genocide of the Canaanites when read in the context of the whole of the Torah, not even the whole Old Testament, and not even including the New Testament, but just the Torah alone reveals that the slaughter of the Canaanites is an undesirable thing. But if you want to take a negative interpretation of these things then I can't convince you unless we were to talk about this at length.
I would say the evidence would refute his claim of Canaanites not being an ethnicity like we see today. The evidence shows a common language, religious system, clothing and dietary practices. To me that says a common ethnicity.
"Ethnicity" is not a well defined idea, which is evidenced by how different people keep trying to apply that term to different ideas. At best, to categorize people (if that is really what we want to do), we have 1) culture, and 2) biological population (i.e., a set of humans that interbred freely and evidence some sort of isolation from other populations.) From the discussion in this video, it appears that Canaanites and Israelites are differentiated by a subset of culture only, that subset initially being political (subservience to Egypt) in nature. In other aspects of culture the ancient Israelites appear to be just more Canaanites, and furthermore that the entire region was one population. So I think we can tell the story without even bothering with the troublesome term "ethnicity."
Well the Hebrews had no letters of their own the Canaanite letters are the base of of the Greek & Latin letters. Not to mention so many words used till now in Europe have these roots. The Canaanites i.e. the Phoenicians left incredible archeological remains enough is Byblos Baalbeck Ugarit.. the Hebrews left nothing since they were Nomads. Even the word Hebrew means people who move , infact much of the israelite tradition is similar to the bedouin. The whiskers that religious jews wear were bedouin ones slso the tabernacle till recently bedouin tribes carried wirh them this coffin that held in it their sacred objects. So israelites left nothing except a propaganda book called the OT which most of its material was stolen from other cultures . Starting with the sumerian myth of the flood..
What about the notion that Moses was a typical leftist revolutionary. So he was someone raised in the Egyptian court, who had ambitions of his own (or in collision with other conspirators), he likely reached his cieling in that court. Then he decides to kill a slave master to earn merit amongst the slaves, he wanted to be identified with the slave class so that he could gain their allegiance for his new project. How many imperial (communist) projects have leaders who use the lower classes for their own aims. He created this notion that the slaves were entitled to more. He made a covenant with the jealous wrathful sky God ywhw (a god of hunter/herdsman- as evidenced by his preference for Able's sacrifice and snubbing of Cain. Cain was a mama's boy, an agriculturalist with reverence for the way that a seed must be broken and placed in the mother for growth. Agricultural societies often sacrifice youth at the height of their vitality as enactment of this most sacred process of life and death. So did the canaanites, and this is one of the things they were villified for). The invasion of hunter/nomadic herdsman into agricultural societies was a commonality in ancient times, and with it comes the eradication of the earth/goddess/nature and the installment of patriarchy, force, machination. So what about the idea that Moses was enciting a group of slaves to do kin-slaying? Abrahamic people were all throughout so called Cannan...and these runaway slaves claimed Abrahamic ties. IMO Moses should be seen as the quitessential two-face soothsayer who plays games with the disenfranchised, claiming to be one of them but having personally experienced nothing of their lifestyle. Ever since Moses the 'notion' of "Israel" has been weaponized for covert colonizers who instill disdain for Sacred Mother God (nature itself)
Interesting interpretation. It's kind of like a reversal of the Cain and Abel story because Cain was the agriculturalist who killed the herdsman. This just shows the metaphorical power of the Biblical stories. Have your watched Jordan Peterson's series on Genesis?
How I see it is the Israelites were one of the Tribes that were part of the "Sea Peoples" invasion. A roving band of Pirates/Raiders who accrued wealth by theft and murder, invading and raiding camps, towns and cities they encountered in their travels. Once land became available they claimed it, any objections were silenced by death or enslavement. Such a Land was Canaan (Phoenicia), good land, great resources and apparently weak and defenseless People. So they invaded Canaan, killed anyone who would stand up against them, took females and children as slaves, moved in to its cities and established their kingdom. These cities were used as a base of operation to raid surrounding nations. The Philistines were also one of the "Sea Peoples" who were in competition with Israel, they just wiped out their competitors. There was Human Sacrifice in every Religion or Culture, both Child and Adult Sacrifice at some point of their History.
You right mostly about everything you stated just one more piece of information the Israelites werent a tribe they were a religious group of thiefs an criminals from allover sumeria akad an babilone who worshipeed el SATURN as the God EL hence the name ISRAEL WHICH MEANS EL PERCEVERES AN INDEED HE HAS PERCEVERE.
Ka in Egypt, they worship Khnum/Ares/Mars/Nergal/Shem the monotheistice spirit of violence. Celts and Goths have a similar culture. Also related to John the Baptist and the Templars. Sellers of redemption.
My take is that the priests, the kings and ruling class of this Israelite group would take credit for things like abundant harvests, defeating an enemy and so on to themselves and one way of doing this maintain priests as the intermediary between the people and God so priests could take credit for things that in truth they had nothing to do with but on the other side, when things go south, the crops don't grow, a plague kills of many of the people then the priests take another method. It is the people fault someone did not offer the best animal in the herd or people were worshiping the wrong way. So now the priests conclude we need a bigger temple, more sacrifice, more rituals to restore God's grace. So when God says take this city it is obviously a priest saying this for the sake of the priest for any number of reasons and likely for the king as well as these two classes are often as one. That is my mindset (right or wrong) to look at stories like the story of Canna how are these priests using this to keep them in power. That story puts the priests at the foundation, the literal land you live on because God working through us priests an kings took this land from people that their priests had them believing in the wrong God but thanks to we the priests who talk to the all powerful god our god we won the battle. Editorial comment, this seems to still be working today in religions.
These DH interviews are so consistently good that I am going to be forced to differentiate or catalogue them according to how many [and what] items are on the corner shelf behind Mr. Megan Bowen... 😎
HI Josh, I enjoy your guests and the discussions you lead. Just a bit of hopefully constructive criticism. Perhaps you could try to limit the number and length of your asides. I think that sometimes the result is that not enough time is spent on the subject at hand. Thanks!
@DigitalHamurabi speaking of the giants in the land, given that Egypt had at this time fortifications in what is called the land of Canaan, could instead of the giants refering to the physical size of individuals, rather be an alagorical reference to those Egyptian fortificatuons and the power that they would project into the area?
The Israelites and Judahites were both Caninities, so on the question of evil, I think that is self evident. Yahweh was a Canaanite God and Asher was his consort, previously the Consort of Bal . There can't be any question I don't think that the Canaanites were the same people as the Judahites and Israelites.
What about those of us who regard supernatural beings as creations of human wishful thinking? That only leaves raw genocide as an explanation (assuming the events are historically accurate)
I belive Jerusalem before David was the Yebusites. I think their Priesthood was the Melchizadec the Royal Priesthood. Eventually absorbed into the Levite system after 1st Temple era.
Thank you for the content. I just wish your answer were more plainly stated. It seems like I'm having to sift through your long winded run on's to put together some kind of actual answer. I much more enjoyed the Q+A session in the later half of the video.
A friend of a friend of mine had a cousin who knew a man who was rumoured to have read a good chunk of the Bible while in prison. He said it was a bit too far-fetched for his tastes.
no they are not 2 totally different things at all. Saying much of it is allegory is a recent thing. Before science told you that those magical parts aren't real, people believed that those things really happened. And even today many people still believe in those literally. Nowadays, moderates love to call everything that is in conflict with what science tells them an allegory as a cop out. It's mental gymnastics to excuse it. It's funny that moderates don't think the Jesus God's son story, heaven, or God himself are allegories, just because science can't falsify non existent things. Even though those are the truly batshit crazy parts.
In my journey I see repeatedly how monotheism has caused great tyranny and brutality to women. Now Christian preachers are saying the return of the Goddess is responsible for evil in the world. Why would a female be given the power to literally create life if we are inherently so evil? I was raised in the church. In my 30s I started to question why I had to stay in an abusive relationship. I read the Bible cover to cover and I was sad, angry, depressed, heartbroken, and felt tricked. I was at a library book sale and "when God was a woman" literally fell of a shelf and hit me in the head. That was 25 years ago.
The Canaanite cities Byblos, Tyre , Sidon, Jericho, Megiddo, etc. were in constant commercial competition, but did not go to war with each other very often. They were more bound by language and custom than serving as a common political unit. It is a loose designation.
14:12 Just FYI,there was no year "zero." It goes right from 1 BCE to 1 CE. I have been repeatedly surprised that so many people don't seem to know this, even ancient historians.
As far as fluid ethnicity goes, many centuries after the assumed times of Exodus, Joshua, and Judges, the priest Ezra ordered Jews to put away their foreign wives. It seems that by that time, ethnicity had become sticky.
I do think that when the Israelites set themselves apart as such they probably did so without YHWH and only later did they adopt YHWH from the south. So basically varied Canaanites ----> Israelites -----> Israelites with YHWH and Judahites.
Most of us learn the Bible from only a theological perspective, and in many ways modern students see the ancient period as some different, magical ,fantasy type of different time and people. Think gods amd temples but we dont grasp the practical use of all this. And I'm 46 just now learning the Bible practically and what the authors was truly and practically trying to pass on. I've invested thousands of hours learning history esp biblical . Practical Genesis is literally telling us that all man knew one God to each own tribe but as they mixed mingled and traded they began to make gods in man's image ,obviously we trade for things therefore these neighbors tribes gods aren't ours but they offer selfish needs that man has. Instead of understanding them all as one they began adopting all these gods per needs ,rain,fertility, war etc etc etc. Well around 3,000 bc up christ the Levant starts becoming a refuge or the place exiles from the surrounding major powers would move to. The modern Lebanese is likley almost as original as you can get . When sea peoples or a more Greek peoples come in plus groups living in and out if Egypt like hykosos it became a mixed multitude. And as the Bible says before Moses and the covenant with God they where a mix multitude. This tells me every ethnic present ,nubian ,India, Greek, sumerian ,cannanite all become isrealites. The hittite controlled North becomes phoneciean. Judea the 3rd branch of cannanites i believe is off spring of Egyptian over lords who married cannon women and after the 1180 collapse this is the format. With isreal and Judea having phonecias flank protected and they allied as the Bible suggest that then allowed them to go into Mediterranean and found Carthage, Spain etc city states
I'm not sure why a Marxist would want to portray ancient Israelites as egalitarian. Maybe if they were trying to depict them as a pre-class society but it's not particularly Historical Materialist to ignore their connection with a regional network of class societies.
Semua persoalan hidup(personal,komunal,global),dapat dijawab oleh Alkitab - bahkan theologial sekalipun,sejauh tertulis di dalamnya(literal) - karena diilhami 'Roh Kudus'(Holy Spirit). Shalom.Gby all.HalleluJah.
Wow, glad you replaced your giant mute button. You guys have come a long way. Last time I watched people were diving under tables and ducking for cover every time you hit that mute button.
Considering the place was called Retenu and Pa Ka Na Na (Canaan) was an archaic word well passed its sell by date.by the time the backward hill tribes learnt how to write. The Amarna period is 7 centuries before the judahite tribal books of myths gets written.
The Israelites came from the Aegean but originally from Libya. The judeans came from Zargos and are linked to phoenecian semites and Aetiopia. Israelites are not semites! They didn’t worship Shem. They hated him. The black sheep. Israel worshiped El. Isra El. El Shaddai, Eloi, El-ohim🔯🔯🔯
I don't know why they didn't like the canaanites. After all, they were canaanites. Just because the canaanites got their butts kicked and those whom fled didn't want to be seen as canaanites doesn't change the fact that they were and always will be canaanites. Regardless of what they call themselves.
Foundation needs applied. Who is the god that commanded to perform genocide? It is a lesser god, a son of the Most High (El Elyon) whose inheritance was Yisra'el. This is found in the DSS that expresses this inheritance of the Yah god among the other lesser gods. Bibles change Deut. 32 to say "sons of Yisra'el," because the scribes believing the Yah is the real deal "God" could not have a god that was a lesser god among others of El Elyon, but the DSS reveals "sons of God (El Elyon)," not "sons of Yisra'el." With that as foundation revealed through the DSS and unaltered bibles, the bible reveals it is the Yah (YHWH) that wanted the peoples of Caana wiped away in order to fully become the Great God (usurped his father El Elyon) and make his inheritance (Yisra'el) "the Chosen" and justified to wipe away other peoples for superiority reasons, so the peoples of Caanan must, therefore, be declared evil, even though the Yisra'elites also sacrificed children. Finally Yisra'el accepted the Yah as to be their inherited god and went from being believers in multiple gods to believing their Yah is truly the only Great God. The ideology employed by the Yah god is that he made his people "set apart" and, this, created the Yah religion.😮
Just like in Palestine. The biblical Canaan is simply the constellation of the scorpion. The scorpion is cursed as it leads us into the most evil of evils aka the winter season aka Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius, and Pisces. This terribe five is the five months that can harm man, in the book of Revelation. This same five makes up the very big Goliath who young David kills every year. If David fails to slay this beast we will stay in winter and will not ruptured up into Heaven (spring equinox - fall equinox).
They were SO evil, that they had pacts with Abraham , and sold him a cave to bury his wife and allowed him to raise his sheep on the lands surrounding Hebron. They treated Abraham with kindness and respect, only for Abraham's descendants to return and murder them all. When you read the bible , the most evil people seemed to be God's chosen people.
A lot of the giant grandchildren left Jericho, which had been built to house the giants and their families; that is, the men who came to earth and bred earth women. They naturally started kingdoms around Jericho, so yeah, founded Phoenicia....
This is the best treatment of violence in the Hebrew I have ever come across!!!!
It’s almost like the Bible writers woke up one day and realized they where the bad guys who conquered this land and drove out the rightful owners then said maybe we should portray ourselves as innocent victims and everyone else is our unprovoked enemy
I think some of them were Canaanites themselves. It looks a lot like Jews originated as Canaanites. As far as rightful owners humanity prior to 100 years ago was just people conquering each other
Mitchell & Webb TV sketch: "Are we the baddies?"
There were no rightful owners. The idea of rules in war and invasion is a very recent one in human history: League of Nations then United Nations during 20th century. Before that, if you thought you could, you simple invaded and your gods supported you or were defeated by the local gods (of high ground or of the valleys). And the effectiveness of any rules of engagement is not simple (Vietnam, Ukraine, CIA and USSR equivalent during proxy wars post WW2)
@@DevonPhoenix Bible is very clear about that. Depending on how yo define 'Jew'. Judah had sex with Tamar who produced Perez and Zerah. Most of Jacob's sons paired up with local women who were not children of Jacob (Israel) so mitochondrial DNA and X chromosomes were not descended from Judah. If Jew means descended from post-exilic inhabitant of the area around jerusalem, they also had mixed family backgrounds. Bible very clear that no such thing as pure-bred Jew, however you define it
The princes of the nations must be considered, they knew scripture , they didn't know when the child king of Judea would come, the enemy gathered there. God's Supreme covert plan to ransom our souls
And so it was & has been ever since, showing it's self in palestine today
Found this channel not long ago and love it. I wish more believers would be like this, embracing critical scholarship not the ultra orthodox based type that passes for scholarship in many biblical theological institutions namely in the U.S. I never tried to destroy anyone's faith or make them agnostic like I am. I just want them to really understand the biblical authors context, their sources, the diverse views within it. I love mythology and history.
It's quite the breath of fresh air. I've always felt lile the biblical texts were corrupted by political agenda and was written by bias individuals.
@@JewessChrstnMystic
And if you hear preachers in evangelical churches telling you about how horrible democrats and libtards are, you will understand that orientation perfectly....😢
...but if Fundamentalists (of Any of the 3 major abrahamic religiions) were to learn the FACTS about their respective "Faith Traditions", they risk Offending/Treatening the gods by becoming "KNOW-ers" gaining the Status of gods by obtaining "the knowledge of Good and Evil" (Gen. 2:3--7).
I have issues with millions who could go to what we call hell. They could treat people much better than someone who is pious in a religion.
Who else is here in 2024? ❤
Present
Yee yee historyee
To Dr. Josh’s point about the defunct cities pointing towards “giants,” that matches up really well with the Classical Greek perception of the Cyclopean walls in Mycenean settlements.
The parallels with Greece are very interesting. The political organization itself looks like Greece. Scattered city states, some monarchic, some democratic, with a shared sense of culture.
"Our modern tendency to erase the violence in the biblical text... is problematic" so powerful. It echoes today in Israel so clearly.
Exactly.
The move to finally ban the bible in lower schools in the US is far too long overdue.
Some of the content found within it is just sickening to allow children access to however much you want to talk about freedom of expression.
There's literally a story about how god turns a mother into salt right before the father drags their daughters into a cave and rapes them - all without so much as a peep from god.
Some deity indeed - not one even remotely worthy of worship by any sane assessment.
42:38
What modern tendency to erase the violence in the biblical text? Maybe in your circles but not in mine in the UK, even in a evangelical Bible college in 1985-88 (but 'evangelical' in UK means something very different from how it has developed in the last 40 years in USA)
@@cuebj Dr. Josh did a video recently where a Christian woman with a Doctorate in theology asserted that Joshua's conquest of Canaan wasn't about violence, because God doesn't order violence like that... despite the piles of Biblical evidence to the contrary. There definitely is a tendency in the US for people to just recast all these stories as being about loving your enemies and symbolic, spiritual warfare waged through preaching and prayer and such. Here the story of Jericho is often taught as an act of nonviolent protest, fighting war by marching around and praising God instead of by killing... and then we leave out the part at the end where Joshua's army kills every man, woman, child, and animal in the city. These people (myself including) grow up thinking they worship the peace-loving God of Joshua, and don't see who the YHWH of Yehoshua is within that story.
You just have to read Joshua
I LOVE the conversation about Ethnicity, Polity, Culture, Religion, etc. These distinctions are almost NEVER discussed.
Maybe in your circles. Always been discussed in mine from 1960s onwards. But, in UK, and with my particular background, ethnicity, polity, culture, religions plus weather, climate, pressures to migrate have always been considerations.
A classic contemporary example is southern Sahara region around Lake Chad. Where it used to support huge numbers of people living around it, now it is just a large puddle. Hence the effects on people to move, often violently with a variety of up front motivations from Boko haram to simple money making kidnapping. The general pressure on more settled tribal groups from nomadic Fula people goes back hundreds of years with a long history of upsurges of extreme violence and then a drop in tensions.
Thank you for such a great interview! This very much helps with my own research, and I now have a number of new books to buy, including yours!
The continued reference to modern Professional Sports is perfect. Professional Sports is one of the new religions in the pantheon of modern gods.
People have commented on the quality of the information presented here, which I echo… However, I also wanted to acknowledge how great of an interview/conversation this was/is. I REALLY hope to see more of Dr. Benz in the near future.
Great job as always #DigitalHammurabi!
Thanks!
Just discovering this channel and enjoying it immensely. Thanks for the interviews. One tip, if I may, (as a scholar in another field who spends a lot of time communicating with the public): short sentences! Ask your guests very simple questions, not scholarly questions. We in the public don't know much about this subject anyway, so there's no problem starting of very simple. You can let your guest go into details of their research first (then add as much as you like). By keeping the dialog more succinct terse & tight, the length of the videos could be decreased about 30% without losing any content. Just a thought.
In any case, keep up the good work!
Thank you for the comment! A couple of rejoinders. This video is a few years old now. If you watch some of out more recent things, I hope you'll see that our interview techniques have come a long way. Josh (the interviewer) has MS, which affects his short-term memory, among other things. He will forget what he's saying halfway through saying it. Being short and succinct is simply not something his neurology allows him to do, so even with all the experience in the world he is not going to be able to give the style of interview you'd prefer.
completeness > brevity
I disagree with you. Not everything needs to be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. You could find that all over the 'net. Personally I like this more than a 4th grade summary.
@@gordonyork6638yes!!! Some of us are eagerly seeking that deeper message! Keep it up.
Another delightfully informative discussion :)
That was wonderfully informative and I truly appreciate your work.
The Israelites where the Canaanites and the scripture even explains how they're constantly trying to eliminate there Canaan roots
Amen amen just a small corrección they don't want to eliminate their Canaan roots just hide them from plain view they love their moon God sin they love their God shemes they love their godees ashera they love their God baal they love their God reshep they love their God moloch they love their god El saturn they love their god salim the God of darknees from whom the city is named acter they love setch the donkey God all in all they have many loves but they don't want you to know you have to find that information in your own.
Israelite are from Shem. Caananites are from Ham.
@@jwil2414that is a myth that part of the way that they try do distance themselves from their canaanite origins. 5:35
@@jwil2414 Do you have any evidence for that?
@@jwil2414
The story of Noah’s three children is a myth, because it has many scientific holes and because the flood story is an ancient polytheistic myth from Mesopotamia, rewritten in a monotheistic context…
READ, PEOPLE! READ!
The panel talks about child sacrifice was practiced by the Canaanites but what about the biblical patriarch Abraham was about to sacrifice his son Issac that was commanded by God to show his loyalty?
That was something God asked Abraham to do to demonstrate that what he required was different.
That was a test of faith by God. Read the Quran it tells you all about this story of Abraham.
@@inarizic4945 Why should he read the Quran. The Quran is bullshit. Muhammed got that story from the Christians, who got it from the Jews.
If anything, you should read the Torah.
All religious books are bullshit and I feel bad for you believing in such crap.
@@dud3man6969 Or the story was invented to pretend like they are different and the Canaanites are evil. You are blindly taking the word of some Israelites or demonized their neighboring tribes.
Or Jephtah...
I loved this interview. The concept of "The others" The ones who are not us is our enemy, is something that caused a lot of needless suffering. A group of people demonizing others because of where they lived. Good and evil doesn't have a nationality or a passport, it speaks in different, tongues, wears many skins, and exists every where... even in the same person.
Well said
Very well said.
@@JewessChrstnMystic Thank you
Agree with you.
While we can all agree that individuals can possess great virtue and great evil, I f you don’t think a society, “the others”, can have an evil civilizational consciousness, that it’s all relative, you need to go back and brush up on your Marxism and NAZIsm.
Historically, did Israel actually do the genocide that they claim in the Bible, or is it more of the fiction created in the Exodus story to help aid in the forming of a national identity and a god that can't be defeated?
No, it was a collection of stories and myths retold by the returning exiled priests in order to re-establish their authority.
Jericho wasn’t a city at the time of the supposed exodus invasion. The ‘invasion’ was just a peaceful migration into the lands left during the late Bronze Age collapse.
Nah the canaanites fell to the sea people
@@curbroadshowSo they made up false stories ..
@@DevastationMtrsports yes
The historical Israelite/Canaanite distinction reminds me of Northern Ireland in the 20th century. People there worship similarly, but for political reasons hit has in recent decades been important to distinguish oneself from between Protestant or Catholic..creating an "other". But if we just go back 1000 years or so, they would all have identified as "Irish" with the "other" being the Vikings. Go back another 700 years and the were Celts and the "other" was the Romans, etc.
After listening to this great interview I looked at the battle in 2 Kings Chapter 3 where it talks about the Moabite king sacrificing his eldest to his god, and the "wrath" that pushed Israel back.
What I find interesting about this passage is that the kings of Israel consulted the prophet Elisha. In verse 18 they are told that Jehovah will deliver Moab into their hands. Then they are told step by step how to destroy things once they are in the land. Israel does as they are commanded, but then they retreat from the "wrath" that burned against them. Leaving me to wonder what the hell happened. Is this another failed prophecy? Did Israel tuck tail and run from the intensity of battle? There comes a time when the bible doesn't make sense. Usually the pastor or teacher will point to the faithlessness of Israel and say Jehovah moved against them, but they did as they were told. So, what the hell?
I enjoy your channel even when it leaves me looking at the history with bewilderment.
Israel was already victorious so I would not say that they were running from the intensity of battle. The battle was over so they left. The wrath mentioned here might not actually be God's wrath against Israel because it's such a short sentence and doesn't even use the word God or Lord here so we don't completely know. It might actually be the wrath of the Moabites which means their anger for being completely destroyed. Nonetheless this is not a false prophecy because the Israelites destroyed the Moabites and then left because the war was complete.
God was pleased with the king's sacrifice of his firstborn and granted him victory.
Quite simple from the text as we have it. The Israelites were not fully committed monotheistic Yhwhists. If anything, they were barely Yhwhist at all and merely consulted Elisha as one option. When confronted with such a commitment by the king of Moab to sacrifice his son, that spoke deeper and harder to their core instincts and their prime belief system - like many animals pose, roar, stretch to look bigger that their rival so the rival runs, unless they think they have 'stronger magic / muscles / mass'
I've dug into this before and I usually see a few different answers. The one I think the author intended is that the child sacrifice to Chemosh (Moab's god) empowered Chemosh enough to temporarily overpower Yahweh on Chemosh's land. This would align with the idea that every country has their own gods who protect those areas alone, and the national gods can't stray far from their assigned/inherited portion. Another possible interpretation of the sacrifice story is that the Moabite prince was sacrificed to Yahweh, and this pleased Yahweh enough to turn him against the Israelite forces. Since both of those raise a ton of theological problems, modern believers I think prefer the most naturalistic explanation that the Israelite soldiers watching a king sacrifice his son on the wall during the siege was enough to make them afraid of that king, so they fled. Still... the interpretations where the "wrath" against the Israelites is from a god do have fascinating implications.
This interview format is great - fascinating interview! 👍
You know how we get upset today about "appropriation"? If you look at the Genesis, you find an appropriation of the traditions of Sumer, Akkad, Canaan to paper over basic differences of Anu, Enlil, Enki, Marduk, Inanna, Nebo, etc ... to pretend they had always had an exclusive relationship to one god. In the book of Exodus, you find them attempting to appropriate Egyptian history from the flip side like their new ownership of Osiris (though a careful reading of Manetho reveals to what extent they'd screwed up that nation's history).
The discussion starting around 35:34 through to about 52:00 or so is fantastic.
🙏
Great interview! Loving all of your content :)
Essential episode!
In regards to the setup of this monolith of "the Arabs," fully agree 100%. These are different ethnic groups with different histories and backgrounds, and their form of Arabic is different, Syrian, Palestinian, Lebanese, and Jordanian Arabic is Levantine (which is a form of Arabic that mixed with the various dialects of Aramaic), and are generally more diverse.
The owner of a Lebanese restaurant next door told me that Levantine Arabic speakers can hardly understand N. African Arabic speakers because their Arabic is mixed with local languages; Amazigh, Berber, etc.
Vey true! The term “Arab,” just like the term(s) “white/black/brown, etc.“ are frustratingly ambiguous blanket terms. And I know most Lebanese, although they speak a particular dialect of Arabic, no NOT ethnically identify as Arabs. Many look to a pre-Arab Phoenician/Canaanite identity.
I come back to this conversation often (and comment often 🤷🏻♂️), I really really hope to see more of these two in talks on this channel. I don’t even care what topic.
54:20 „Avi-melech“ is a „fatherly king“, metaphoric a moraly-good ruler (see Genesis, 20,1-18; Gen 21,22-34, Gen 26,1-17; Gen 26,26-31), contrasting to Israels idea of theophoric kingdom.
I paused at the question around the 26:00 mark, so maybe this gets answered, but is it possible the Canaanites were considered too diverse in their customs, too "metropolitan"?
I love when a Professor speaks deliberately and carefully because i can keep up with my note taking.
“What is this notion of a Canaanite and why is it such a negative thing?”
If Canaanite was those serving Egypt and the ancient Hebrews viewed Egypt as their oppressors, wouldn’t it be logical for them to them vilify the Canaanites?
“To be Israelite... you were anti Egypt and therefore not Canaanite.”
Ah Ha!
Israelites claimed descent from the Egyptian God Set (Seth) who was the god of storms and the desert just like YHWH (son of God), and became associated with foreigners after he was worshipped by the Hyksos. Basically a type of identity politics. In the original myth Seth killed Osiris. In the rebranded Israelite version, Seth was made as a gift from the Gods in recompense for the murder of Abel by Cain (=Egypt). I feel there is a link between Canaanite and Cainite. The name Cain comes from the Hebrew root qyn meaning smith. It is said Cain built a city in the land of nod (wandering). Well, in the land where the Israelites were exiled and made to wander (Sumer) one of the settlements was called Bad Tibi meaning House of the Smiths. So it seems their contemporary (at the time of the writing of the Hebrew scriptures in the Captivity) enemies the Sumerians were associated with their ancient enemies, the Cainites and the Egyptians. Now in Sumerian mythology the first 7 Antedeluvian Kings have an advisor who is one of the Gods who descended from Heaven. Adam is the first advisor and Apkallu (who was raised to heaven = Enoch) is the seventh. Clearly the Israelites identify themselves with the Sons of God, that is, the Sons of El (the Canaanite equivalent of the Sumerian Annunaki, the Divine Council). From this emerged a spirit-world dualism, where Sumer and Egypt were identified with the world, typed by Cain, and the Gods and spirit world were identified with Israel, typed by Seth (the foreigner, for they were *foreigners* in the land of Egypt, just as YHWH says!). Israel never migrated into Canaan, but the destruction of Pharaoh's army by the Sea is a reinterpretation of the Sumerian Chaoskampf myth, again with their enemies all sort of molded together, as divine justice, something seen again in the Flood story, as the sea represents Chaos. The Serpent, Leviathan, appears in Exodus as the assistant of YHWH just as Marduk had an assistant serpent that he won after his defeat of Tiamat; Egypt's Serpents are defeated by the superior Serpent of Yah. Intermarriage between the two-Sons of God and Sons of Men-was condemned, to set the Israelites apart as a nation, and this was portrayed in Genesis through the story of the Flood (in Jewish texts such as the Cave of Treasures, the Sons of God = Sethites and Daughters of Men = Cainites) and an anti Midianite polemic in Joshua in which the alleged seduction of an Israelite man by a Midianite woman precipitates the destruction of Midian by Joshua's army.
We can see remnants of this prophet-priest dualism with the number 7 in the Shia Imam scheme, where each of the 7 major Prophets is accompanied by an Imam who is an embodiment of the Divine Spirit (Adam-Seth, Abraham-Ishmael, Moses-Aaron, Jesus-Peter, Muhammad-Ali and the Second Coming of Jesus-Mahdi in the age to come, in an allegorical interpretation of Genesis 1).
moses comes from egypt...
Here is a little light for you Cannan was a región an in that particular región many tribes lived so Cannan was a topografical designation as for the tribes that inhabited that región each had their own little God as was the costom back them.
Hams lust of his father's wife. That child , Canaan was cursed, hence the will of canaan
@@ericthegreat7805Holy Moly!
Im loving this history lesson 😊
Would love to hear a more in depth discussion about colonial genocide, torture and destruction of artifacts through biblical justification
I think it is WAY more ingrained into cultures and “accepted”, even in modern times, even now, than people would like to believe
Why tf am I getting an ad about taking a 30 minute course for Christian women who are too self sufficient to find a good Christian man? Who is doing their marketing and why are they targeting Digital Hammurabi fans 😂
YT algorithm just matches ad with subject matter or key words etc.
Probably also due to a combination of videos you have watched.
I guess you have a job-undesirable 😅
I joined a prison gang when I went to prison for kids(C.Y.A).
Spending my adult life covering up stupid tattoos.i adapted to my environment.Now I have a lonely but peaceful life ✌🏻💜
Josh made me think of this with his high school analogy
Re 1:00:25, the distinction between "Israelite" and "Israeli" only exists in the English language. In Hebrew, Israeli is used in both cases.
Ummm, no.
Nice choice of music at the end, can be perfect for Digital Hammurabi intro music
Good chat!!
Great point about how one comes to the texts of Jewish and Christian Scripture. The text is what it is. Archeology and anthropology and etc. can illuminate the context and meaning of the words. In the end, what is accurate is what is accurate.
Would like to get my hands on the book by dr. Benz, but its hard to come by and retails at about a hundred dollars here in Norway (about the same with shipping from abroad). Any chance of getting it republished as a more market-friendly edition. Eisenbrauns' books are decidedly expensive.
Scholarly books are expensive: small market, deeply specialist and result of huge amounts of work both to do the research and to do the typesetting with languages, footnotes, unusual spelling, etc. Nobody expects individuals to buy them. Join a library, eg at a Theology institute, even if it means paying a membership fee
Really interesting information.
Great talk, loved it!
It's often difficult to keep your current cultural perspective from passing judgement on what happened elsewhere and at a different time.
I really love this channel.
The question in the title can be found here 37:00
Just a note on pronunciation:
Shechem is the King James transliteration of שְכֶם. Technically a two syllable word, the first is the very short shva which is never accented. It's not hard to understand why king James translators thought this is how it should be spelled, but we don't know in how they thought it would be pronounced.
Now, not SHEHchem, but ShCHEM.
If the Caanonites survived the flood - I Guess God wasn’t too upset with them. And they didn’t need Noah or a boat.
There were no Canaanites before the flood.
The Canaanites were the descendants of Canaan, a son of Ham who was a son of Noah.
yet another really interesting show. cheers.
@Lockes Logos
yeah - I spend far too much time on youtube, and have far too much to say for myself. I even watched the "red pill revisited" show with jean Baptiste, PP and Brass. Tell me you didn't actually anything they said.
@Lockes Logos
I saw your comment, so I'm guessing you watched their little chat on purple pill's channel.
Jean Baptiste talks absolute shite. He doesn't mean to - but he is easily led and has lapped up the rightwing propaganda. The worrying thing is that the stuff he says sounds plausible at first - but it's all based on misinformation and he has no intention of doubting "his side" is right.
The sad thing is, he's been exploited big time and utterly brainwashed. I don't know if he was like he is as a result of going to Iraq, or if he was always like that- but either way it doesn't present a pretty picture of US armed forces recruiting policy or care of their vets.
@Lockes Logos
I'll admit that the dems have failed to be much better than the republicans. They had a chance to make a real difference by backing Bernie - but they bottled it by sticking with the establishment. "at least we're not Trump" is not a particularly effective slogan to run on.
laters dude - I've got to see if there's still a queue at the supermarket.
@Lockes Logos
yeah - I've been keeping tabs. We're up to 40,000 here but everyone seems to have forgotten about how serious it is. Unfortunately, that's what happens - people just can't be arsed to isolate and social distance - these protests are a bit of an excuse to go out and mingle with people.
That's the trouble with all these issues - people get bored and forget about them after a while.
@Lockes Logos
It wouldn't surprise me at all. There'll be a spike in a couple of weeks , and hopefully people might remember again what's going on, and more importantly, hopefully hte government will not rush things this time. But somehow I doubt it. Best outcome is if the herd immunity thing kicks in, but until then, a lot more people are going to die.
Only on UA-cam will you find Patrick Bateman and Negan Smith having a thoughtful discussion on Canaanite history. Amazing! 👍👍👍
Impressive, very nice. Let’s see Paul Allen’s conversation on Canaanite history.
I'm trying my best with this, I really am, but, 26 mins in, not one straight answer ...
So, were the Canaanites as bad as the Bible and some apologists make out or not?
Were the Canaanites the same as Phoenicians in a genetic or cultural way? Who came first? Phoenicians or Canaanites?
الفينيقيون هم الكنعانيون - ولكن أُطلق اسم فينيقيون على سكان السواحل الكنعانية الفلسطينية.
Yeah they are the same. The name Phoenician was given to them by the Greeks.
So I have read. The Phoenicians do have a reputation for being a pretty evil bunch.
My understanding is that the whole area directly east of the Mediterranean was called Canaan, and Phoenicia was one particularly powerful coastal city of Canaan. So all Phoenicians would be Canaanites but not all Canaanites would be Phoenicians.
The first mention of Canaan in the Bible is in the post-Flood story about Noah not fulfilling God's commandment to "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth" [9:1] and, instead, becoming "the first tiller of the soil" and who "planted a vineyard . . . drank of the wine, and became drunk" [9:20-1]. Noah's son Ham then "saw the nakedness of his father" [9:22]. According to Leviticus [20:11], "The man who lies with his father's wife has uncovered his father's nakedness; both of them shall be put to death, their blood is upon them."
So, Ham had sex with his own mother (who is unnamed in the Bible), and "Ham was the father of Canaan" -- the implication being that Canaan was the result of the mother/son incest.
The similar story told in Genesis 19, about the post-Disaster father/daughters incest committed by Lot after his daughters got him drunk. Lot's wife having died -- the "pillar of salt" penalty for looking back at the destruction of Sodom -- these unnamed daughters thought it their duty to repopulate the world, so they got him drunk and committed incest with him, thus becoming the mothers of Moab and Ben-Ammi -- the eponymous ancestors of the Moabites and the Ammonites.
Noah -- rather than condemning his own wife and their son Ham -- instead curses the baby Canaan, as if that child had any say or responsibility in its own manner of conception! Noah curses Canaan -- and, by extension, all of his descendants, the Canaanite tribe -- calling upon him/them to be SLAVES of [the descendants of] Shem and Japheth.
The brutality meted out by the invading Israelites, following the Exodus and the 40-year wanderings, upon the people living in the land of Canaan is, thus, 'justified' as being the fulfillment of Noah's curse upon Canaan. Noah was, after all, a "righteous man" [6:9], so he must have been righteous when he condemned a baby its subsequent progeny to perpetual servitude -- nay, worse than that, since Joshua is commanded to commit genocide against the Canaanites -- excepting only Rahab the harlot and her family because she had aided Israelite spies sent into Jericho prior to its destruction.
Men and women. And children. The God of the Bible wanted Joshua and the Israelites to slaughter them all. Why? What was so evil about them that called for such cruelty?
Because of the manner in which their eponymous ancestor had been conceived, through mother/son incest. For a similar reason, the Moabites and Ammonites are mistreated by the Israelites: their eponymous ancestors were begotten via father/daughter incest.
In my view, the Israelites wanted ["coveted"] the land on which the native3 Canaanites happened to live, so they murderously stole it from them, committing genocide . . . and, later on, to retroactively justify their genocidal annexation of the territory, they invented a bogus story about how God promised to give the land to them, and the bogus stories of how the indigenous peoples already living there 'deserved' to be slaughtered -- because of the disgusting manner in which their distant eponymous ancestors had been begotten, through incest.
Anyone who calls it "the Good Book" is ethically no different than the Nazis who labelled Jews "untermenschen" -- subhumans who, like rats, must have deserved to suffer the Holocaust. I have yet to encounter an apologist who can justify this sordid 'scripture'. You can bet that neither the Canaanites nor the Moabites and Ammonites ever believed that they had been spawned through parent/child incest. Those stories in Genesis are base lies told at the expense of peoples who had the bad luck to be living on land coveted by the heartless, bloodthirsty Israelites who weren't above committing genocide and then making up a fake history to 'justify' their crimes against humanity.
What we call the "Bible" is a collection of texts stemming from authors with very different interests, worldviews and moralities.
The horrors described in the book of Joshua do not prevent me from loving the ancient wisdom found in the book of Ecclesiastes or in the sermon on the mount.
Perhaps those who wrote the 'good' or relatively better portions of 'scripture' were symbolically trying to plant beautiful flowers in a garden . . . but they kept the weeds already festering there. The trouble is that Believers take it all in, loving the "ancient wisdom" and accepting that the "horrors" must all be God's Will, not to b e questioned, let alone jettisoned as unworthy of being esteemed. It's like excusing Hitler because he didn't smoke cigarettes and loved his dog. An extreme example, yeah, I'll grant you, but when you consider the millennia of hard-hearted inhumanity committed by people who deem the entire Bible to be an exemplar of morality . . .
Slaughtering Canaan is how they devoted the land to God and cleansed it from corruption. It's the same as the water of the flood which cleanses the earth of sin. If you don't understand the spiritual symbolism of these writings then of course you're going to misunderstand the Bible. These Old Testament stories are shadows and the New Testament realities. For example the New Testament teaches that the flood of the Old Testament is a symbol for baptism.
I stand by my interpretation of those stories in Genesis. The Israelites wanted the land, so they stole it -- slaughtering the indigenous tribes mercilessly and then inventing a 'scripture' that justified their genocidal actions after-the-fact. The idea that the land had to be "cleansed" by murdering all the men, women, and CHILDREN is just disgusting.
If the 'God' of Israel wanted to give the land occupied by the Canaanites to the 12 tribes of Israel, He could have given an ultimatum and demanded that the Canaanites flee from their land or else face destruction. Scare the shit out of them with a Pillar of Fire and a loud thunderous Voice from Heaven. God could have accomplished this without needing to have the Israelites themselves put every living thing to the sword. Just as the denizens of the land of "Shinar" could be miraculously forced to give up building the Tower of Babel, so that God "scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth" [Gen. 11:8], so too could He have lit a fire under the asses of the Canaanites and compelled THEM, too, to scatter across the globe, where they could come into conflict with all those Babel-fleeing Shinarians.
It makes me sick to see how apologists -- be they Jews or Christians -- can be so inhuman as to sigh with resignation and accept such barbarous atrocities as "the will of God" -- which MUST be Good, cuz God can't be evil, can He? The people who invented these stories INVENTED THEIR 'GOD' as a literary character, using that invented 'god' to justify their own atrocities. You, as a Christian, have no problem believing that the gods in the pantheons of Israel's neighbors were all either invented by polytheistic priesthoods OR were actually Fallen Angels (i.e. 'demons') PRETENDING to be gods.
Humans have been inventing false religions for as long as people have been religious. Con artists have been around as long as human history has been happening. Religion is the oldest con there is. George Carlin's routine about 'God' being the greatest bullshit story is still spot-on.
"But He LOVES you!"
@@patricktilton5377 The fact that the angel of the Lord said to Joshua that he is neither for them nor against them shows that there's more going on with the narrative than just, "It is God's will to kill them all". You seem to be very unfamiliar with reading scripture as symbolic narrative. I would say that the genocide of the Canaanites when read in the context of the whole of the Torah, not even the whole Old Testament, and not even including the New Testament, but just the Torah alone reveals that the slaughter of the Canaanites is an undesirable thing. But if you want to take a negative interpretation of these things then I can't convince you unless we were to talk about this at length.
I would say the evidence would refute his claim of Canaanites not being an ethnicity like we see today. The evidence shows a common language, religious system, clothing and dietary practices. To me that says a common ethnicity.
Gerard Trigo I think his point was that many today think “race” when they hear “ethnicity.”
That’s cultural not genetic
@@cireyenned There are no significant genetic differences.
Gerard Trigo yes that’s right
"Ethnicity" is not a well defined idea, which is evidenced by how different people keep trying to apply that term to different ideas. At best, to categorize people (if that is really what we want to do), we have 1) culture, and 2) biological population (i.e., a set of humans that interbred freely and evidence some sort of isolation from other populations.)
From the discussion in this video, it appears that Canaanites and Israelites are differentiated by a subset of culture only, that subset initially being political (subservience to Egypt) in nature. In other aspects of culture the ancient Israelites appear to be just more Canaanites, and furthermore that the entire region was one population. So I think we can tell the story without even bothering with the troublesome term "ethnicity."
Well the Hebrews had no letters of their own the Canaanite letters are the base of of the Greek & Latin letters. Not to mention so many words used till now in Europe have these roots. The Canaanites i.e. the Phoenicians left incredible archeological remains enough is Byblos Baalbeck Ugarit.. the Hebrews left nothing since they were Nomads. Even the word Hebrew means people who move , infact much of the israelite tradition is similar to the bedouin. The whiskers that religious jews wear were bedouin ones slso the tabernacle till recently bedouin tribes carried wirh them this coffin that held in it their sacred objects. So israelites left nothing except a propaganda book called the OT which most of its material was stolen from other cultures . Starting with the sumerian myth of the flood..
Also the Babylonian influences from The Epic of Gilgamesh, Code of Hammurabi, Enuma elish.
What about the notion that Moses was a typical leftist revolutionary. So he was someone raised in the Egyptian court, who had ambitions of his own (or in collision with other conspirators), he likely reached his cieling in that court. Then he decides to kill a slave master to earn merit amongst the slaves, he wanted to be identified with the slave class so that he could gain their allegiance for his new project. How many imperial (communist) projects have leaders who use the lower classes for their own aims. He created this notion that the slaves were entitled to more. He made a covenant with the jealous wrathful sky God ywhw (a god of hunter/herdsman- as evidenced by his preference for Able's sacrifice and snubbing of Cain. Cain was a mama's boy, an agriculturalist with reverence for the way that a seed must be broken and placed in the mother for growth. Agricultural societies often sacrifice youth at the height of their vitality as enactment of this most sacred process of life and death. So did the canaanites, and this is one of the things they were villified for). The invasion of hunter/nomadic herdsman into agricultural societies was a commonality in ancient times, and with it comes the eradication of the earth/goddess/nature and the installment of patriarchy, force, machination. So what about the idea that Moses was enciting a group of slaves to do kin-slaying? Abrahamic people were all throughout so called Cannan...and these runaway slaves claimed Abrahamic ties. IMO Moses should be seen as the quitessential two-face soothsayer who plays games with the disenfranchised, claiming to be one of them but having personally experienced nothing of their lifestyle. Ever since Moses the 'notion' of "Israel" has been weaponized for covert colonizers who instill disdain for Sacred Mother God (nature itself)
Interesting interpretation. It's kind of like a reversal of the Cain and Abel story because Cain was the agriculturalist who killed the herdsman. This just shows the metaphorical power of the Biblical stories. Have your watched Jordan Peterson's series on Genesis?
How I see it is the Israelites were one of the Tribes that were part of the "Sea Peoples" invasion. A roving band of Pirates/Raiders who accrued wealth by theft and murder, invading and raiding camps, towns and cities they encountered in their travels. Once land became available they claimed it, any objections were silenced by death or enslavement. Such a Land was Canaan (Phoenicia), good land, great resources and apparently weak and defenseless People. So they invaded Canaan, killed anyone who would stand up against them, took females and children as slaves, moved in to its cities and established their kingdom. These cities were used as a base of operation to raid surrounding nations.
The Philistines were also one of the "Sea Peoples" who were in competition with Israel, they just wiped out their competitors.
There was Human Sacrifice in every Religion or Culture, both Child and Adult Sacrifice at some point of their History.
You right mostly about everything you stated just one more piece of information the Israelites werent a tribe they were a religious group of thiefs an criminals from allover sumeria akad an babilone who worshipeed el SATURN as the God EL hence the name ISRAEL WHICH MEANS EL PERCEVERES AN INDEED HE HAS PERCEVERE.
Ka in Egypt, they worship Khnum/Ares/Mars/Nergal/Shem the monotheistice spirit of violence. Celts and Goths have a similar culture. Also related to John the Baptist and the Templars. Sellers of redemption.
My take is that the priests, the kings and ruling class of this Israelite group would take credit for things like abundant harvests, defeating an enemy and so on to themselves and one way of doing this maintain priests as the intermediary between the people and God so priests could take credit for things that in truth they had nothing to do with but on the other side, when things go south, the crops don't grow, a plague kills of many of the people then the priests take another method. It is the people fault someone did not offer the best animal in the herd or people were worshiping the wrong way. So now the priests conclude we need a bigger temple, more sacrifice, more rituals to restore God's grace. So when God says take this city it is obviously a priest saying this for the sake of the priest for any number of reasons and likely for the king as well as these two classes are often as one. That is my mindset (right or wrong) to look at stories like the story of Canna how are these priests using this to keep them in power. That story puts the priests at the foundation, the literal land you live on because God working through us priests an kings took this land from people that their priests had them believing in the wrong God but thanks to we the priests who talk to the all powerful god our god we won the battle. Editorial comment, this seems to still be working today in religions.
LOL, "We succeeded due to our efforts, but your sinning made us fail"
These DH interviews are so consistently good that I am going to be forced to differentiate or catalogue them according to how many [and what] items are on the corner shelf behind Mr. Megan Bowen... 😎
HI Josh,
I enjoy your guests and the discussions you lead. Just a bit of hopefully constructive criticism. Perhaps you could try to limit the number and length of your asides. I think that sometimes the result is that not enough time is spent on the subject at hand. Thanks!
It is also funny to me that it seems like the Israelites really disliked the Egyptians but didn't mind the Mesopotamians too much.
Could the destruction of the Cananites cities/people means, remove their allegiances to foreign powers?
@DigitalHamurabi speaking of the giants in the land, given that Egypt had at this time fortifications in what is called the land of Canaan, could instead of the giants refering to the physical size of individuals, rather be an alagorical reference to those Egyptian fortificatuons and the power that they would project into the area?
The Israelites and Judahites were both Caninities, so on the question of evil, I think that is self evident. Yahweh was a Canaanite God and Asher was his consort, previously the Consort of Bal . There can't be any question I don't think that the Canaanites were the same people as the Judahites and Israelites.
Great interview. A lot to think about from this conversation. I am really enjoying this channel.
What about those of us who regard supernatural beings as creations of human wishful thinking? That only leaves raw genocide as an explanation (assuming the events are historically accurate)
They are the same people as the israelites.
I belive Jerusalem before David was the Yebusites. I think their Priesthood was the Melchizadec the Royal Priesthood. Eventually absorbed into the Levite system after 1st Temple era.
Frank Turek needs to start watching this video at the 37 min mark
The Hyksos were Canaanites and the Egyptians referred to them as “wicked of heart, vile Asiatics”.
The Hebrews were also Canaanites
Thank you for the content. I just wish your answer were more plainly stated. It seems like I'm having to sift through your long winded run on's to put together some kind of actual answer. I much more enjoyed the Q+A session in the later half of the video.
Perhaps its because this is not a yes or no question.
A friend of a friend of mine had a cousin who knew a man who was rumoured to have read a good chunk of the Bible while in prison. He said it was a bit too far-fetched for his tastes.
My brother in law is a baptist minister, he graduated with a doctorate in divinity, and he's never read the whole book.
Interesting also many forget that much is Allegory and the terms religion in the west and religion in the east are 2 totally different things.
no they are not 2 totally different things at all.
Saying much of it is allegory is a recent thing. Before science told you that those magical parts aren't real, people believed that those things really happened. And even today many people still believe in those literally.
Nowadays, moderates love to call everything that is in conflict with what science tells them an allegory as a cop out. It's mental gymnastics to excuse it.
It's funny that moderates don't think the Jesus God's son story, heaven, or God himself are allegories, just because science can't falsify non existent things. Even though those are the truly batshit crazy parts.
What does Marxism have to do with ancient Israel?
Anyone here after the WLC talk with Alex O’Conner?
In my journey I see repeatedly how monotheism has caused great tyranny and brutality to women. Now Christian preachers are saying the return of the Goddess is responsible for evil in the world. Why would a female be given the power to literally create life if we are inherently so evil? I was raised in the church. In my 30s I started to question why I had to stay in an abusive relationship. I read the Bible cover to cover and I was sad, angry, depressed, heartbroken, and felt tricked. I was at a library book sale and "when God was a woman" literally fell of a shelf and hit me in the head. That was 25 years ago.
😂 the goddess did it .
The Canaanite cities Byblos, Tyre , Sidon, Jericho, Megiddo, etc. were in constant commercial competition, but did not go to war with each other very often. They were more bound by language and custom than serving as a common political unit. It is a loose designation.
14:12 Just FYI,there was no year "zero." It goes right from 1 BCE to 1 CE. I have been repeatedly surprised that so many people don't seem to know this, even ancient historians.
That is why the 1st century is only 2 digits at its end 99 years and the second CENTURY begins with 1, not 2
A text of wisdom? Seriously!?
As far as fluid ethnicity goes, many centuries after the assumed times of Exodus, Joshua, and Judges, the priest Ezra ordered Jews to put away their foreign wives. It seems that by that time, ethnicity had become sticky.
I do think that when the Israelites set themselves apart as such they probably did so without YHWH and only later did they adopt YHWH from the south. So basically varied Canaanites ----> Israelites -----> Israelites with YHWH and Judahites.
He never directly answered the question
Most of us learn the Bible from only a theological perspective, and in many ways modern students see the ancient period as some different, magical ,fantasy type of different time and people. Think gods amd temples but we dont grasp the practical use of all this. And I'm 46 just now learning the Bible practically and what the authors was truly and practically trying to pass on. I've invested thousands of hours learning history esp biblical .
Practical Genesis is literally telling us that all man knew one God to each own tribe but as they mixed mingled and traded they began to make gods in man's image ,obviously we trade for things therefore these neighbors tribes gods aren't ours but they offer selfish needs that man has. Instead of understanding them all as one they began adopting all these gods per needs ,rain,fertility, war etc etc etc.
Well around 3,000 bc up christ the Levant starts becoming a refuge or the place exiles from the surrounding major powers would move to. The modern Lebanese is likley almost as original as you can get . When sea peoples or a more Greek peoples come in plus groups living in and out if Egypt like hykosos it became a mixed multitude.
And as the Bible says before Moses and the covenant with God they where a mix multitude. This tells me every ethnic present ,nubian ,India, Greek, sumerian ,cannanite all become isrealites. The hittite controlled North becomes phoneciean. Judea the 3rd branch of cannanites i believe is off spring of Egyptian over lords who married cannon women and after the 1180 collapse this is the format.
With isreal and Judea having phonecias flank protected and they allied as the Bible suggest that then allowed them to go into Mediterranean and found Carthage, Spain etc city states
The Problem of Evil doesn't seem to be a problem at all for fundamentalists if it's "DEUS VULT".
I'm not sure why a Marxist would want to portray ancient Israelites as egalitarian. Maybe if they were trying to depict them as a pre-class society but it's not particularly Historical Materialist to ignore their connection with a regional network of class societies.
Semua persoalan hidup(personal,komunal,global),dapat dijawab oleh Alkitab - bahkan theologial sekalipun,sejauh tertulis di dalamnya(literal) - karena diilhami 'Roh Kudus'(Holy Spirit). Shalom.Gby all.HalleluJah.
Wow, glad you replaced your giant mute button. You guys have come a long way. Last time I watched people were diving under tables and ducking for cover every time you hit that mute button.
Considering the place was called Retenu and Pa Ka Na Na (Canaan) was an archaic word well passed its sell by date.by the time the backward hill tribes learnt how to write.
The Amarna period is 7 centuries before the judahite tribal books of myths gets written.
Consider it for what purpose?
Try to put this factor into the equation: The monotheists were nomad Phrygians.
The Israelites came from the Aegean but originally from Libya. The judeans came from Zargos and are linked to phoenecian semites and Aetiopia. Israelites are not semites! They didn’t worship Shem. They hated him. The black sheep. Israel worshiped El. Isra El. El Shaddai, Eloi, El-ohim🔯🔯🔯
Who can listen with all the damn ads
I don't know why they didn't like the canaanites. After all, they were canaanites. Just because the canaanites got their butts kicked and those whom fled didn't want to be seen as canaanites doesn't change the fact that they were and always will be canaanites. Regardless of what they call themselves.
Uhhhhm, religion and politics trump ethnicity.
Foundation needs applied. Who is the god that commanded to perform genocide? It is a lesser god, a son of the Most High (El Elyon) whose inheritance was Yisra'el. This is found in the DSS that expresses this inheritance of the Yah god among the other lesser gods. Bibles change Deut. 32 to say "sons of Yisra'el," because the scribes believing the Yah is the real deal "God" could not have a god that was a lesser god among others of El Elyon, but the DSS reveals "sons of God (El Elyon)," not "sons of Yisra'el." With that as foundation revealed through the DSS and unaltered bibles, the bible reveals it is the Yah (YHWH) that wanted the peoples of Caana wiped away in order to fully become the Great God (usurped his father El Elyon) and make his inheritance (Yisra'el) "the Chosen" and justified to wipe away other peoples for superiority reasons, so the peoples of Caanan must, therefore, be declared evil, even though the Yisra'elites also sacrificed children. Finally Yisra'el accepted the Yah as to be their inherited god and went from being believers in multiple gods to believing their Yah is truly the only Great God. The ideology employed by the Yah god is that he made his people "set apart" and, this, created the Yah religion.😮
There is no Abaham, he is a myth
The Cananites were the thorn in the Isralites' side; the Isralites envied the Cananites culture wanted their land, so they demonized them!
Just like in Palestine.
The biblical Canaan is simply the constellation of the scorpion. The scorpion is cursed as it leads us into the most evil of evils aka the winter season aka Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius, and Pisces. This terribe five is the five months that can harm man, in the book of Revelation. This same five makes up the very big Goliath who young David kills every year. If David fails to slay this beast we will stay in winter and will not ruptured up into Heaven (spring equinox - fall equinox).
They were SO evil, that they had pacts with Abraham , and sold him a cave to bury his wife and allowed him to raise his sheep on the lands surrounding Hebron.
They treated Abraham with kindness and respect, only for Abraham's descendants to return and murder them all.
When you read the bible , the most evil people seemed to be God's chosen people.
Mystery of Canaanite city of GAZRU (1800 - 600 BCE) - Archaeological Virtual Tour at Tel Gezer
ua-cam.com/video/Yjv8N2ZB7F8/v-deo.html
A lot of the giant grandchildren left Jericho, which had been built to house the giants and their families; that is, the men who came to earth and bred earth women. They naturally started kingdoms around Jericho, so yeah, founded Phoenicia....
Unfortunately, the host spoke more than the guest.