Another interesting fact about #Israel ... There is no historical evidence that a kingdom of Israel in anctient times **ever** actually existed. In fact most non-religious scholars feel that it either didnt exist or at the very least the writings about it were first written long long after it may have existed. This is evident because of countless anachronisms that we know couldnt be historically accurate (as they didnt exist yet for the time period)... so scholars have been able to reasonably conclude the account in the bible was in all likelihood made up at a later time.
In short, #Israel 's entire claim of it being an "ancient ancestral land" is based entirely on the bible and not accepted as historical fact by historians...
Yet again people kill for their gods, gods who tell them the first rule is not to kill.
🇳🇱
@freemo@qoto.org
@freemo are you suggesting that Titus did not in fact destroy the second temple in 70AD and the Romans are just making it up?
@ned Please quote the part of what I said that you feel says that?
@freemo "There is no historical evidence that a kingdom of Israel in anctient times **ever** actually existed."
If it wasn't a Jewish Kingdom the Romans occupied, who's kingdom was it? Or are you referring to the 1st temple kings of Solomon, etc.?
@ned The word jew doesnt even show up in the quote you just made.. I said nothing about what race was in the area.
So feel free to try again. But you cant just quote something and make it sound like its saying something it isnt and think that will work with me.
@freemo Why don't you put your fedora down for a sec and clarify the distinction you are alluding to?
Israel was the name of a kingdom, and this mythical kindgom was founded by a specific Jewish person (saul/samuel), and was intrinsicly a jewish first kingdom.
That is quite different from saying some other kingdom existed with a different ruler, with a different name, at a different time and in a different place, that was a mix of arabic and jewish population.
The first invasion of Rome in regard to Judae was the sacking of jeurselem in 63 BC and the conquering of the surrounding area. Before Judae became the province of judae of rome it was actually called both palestine and judae by the people int he region since it was a mix of both and there was **not** a clear jewish rule there at the time.
This period is called by historians "hellenistic palestine", however the jews, called the same redion Judae and thus jewish scholars refer to it by that name. It was **not** a jewish kingdom , it was a kingdom of mixed heritage.
@freemo The only reason I brought up the Romans is because it's a historical touch point from an indisputable 3rd party. When you said "ancient times" in the OP, I didn't know you SPECIFCALLY meant 1070BC. You were being intentionally vague at that point.
As for what you would technically define as a "Kingdom", I don't care. I'm not going to argue that point. But surely we can agree there is evidence of a nation of Hebrews living in the region, under their own rule, not that of the Philistines.
I was specifically talking about a kingdom named Israel, largely because that is the point used to "certify" their choice.
While a "kingdom of hebrews" might not be the right wording I would say that it is abslutely true jewish people are native to the region. There is no evidence of them ever having an exclusive kingdom all to themselves.. there is however evidence of there being regions that were mixed with jews, arabics and others occupying the region together. So they do come from the region, but the debatable part is if they had their own kindgdom or not.
@freemo Oh so now you've set the bar at a pure ethnostate? That's absurd, and stupid.
No im not saying the state needs to be ethnically pure, only that its rule needs to be a jewish-prioritized rule (kinda like modern day israel is)... in other words, there is no evidence of a country that was jewish rules by right.. only countries of mixed ethnicity with no one ethnicity being the ruling ethnicity.
If we look at every time period there was either no clear side ruling and it was a mixed culture and mixed ethnicity (helenistic period) .. or it was ruled by someone that was of neither group (the romans).
@freemo This just feels like you are arguing over an unnecessary distinction. I don't believe anyone is suggesting ethnic supremacy is a requirement during the united kingdom period. Just political supremacy.
From a quick Wikipedia browsing... "From 850 BCE onwards a series of inscriptions are evidence of a kingdom which its neighbors refer to as the "House of David.""
@ned there was plenty of non-ethnical political supremacy (aka kingdoms that formed that were neither jewish nor arabic and contained both people)... sure.
Yes there was one tiny piece of rock found in some sand called the Tel Dan Stele which has the phrase "house of david" on it, which would be a reference to a lineage from king david.
That evidence is quite weak.. for one important reason...
The kingdom by which the house of david rules according to the bible was 1047 bc to 930 bc. However the Tel Dan Stele was created between 870 BV to 750 BC, which would place it 60 years after the **fall** of the kingdom at the soonest, or as late as 180 years after its fall.
This lines up more closely with the biblical scrolls than with history and is highly suggests this inscription was **not** an indication of such a kingdom at all (since it wouldnt have existed when created), and far more likely to be an inscription that was inspired by the scrolls and fictional stories of the time.
@freemo 930? That's stupid. Did the government of the united states cease to exist when the south revolted? No, it just had a smaller area of control. Just because Judah seperated does not mean the "House of David" no longer existed.
@ned We arent talking about "when the south revolted" we are talkign when the kingdom no longer existed.. the process started much sooner than that.
@freemo And the "kingdom" as you define it can only exist between 1047 bc to 930 bc? Well I think the only purpose for your definition is to win arguments, and provides no meaningful understanding.
Yes, the last king in the "house of david" (which refers to a lineage not a kindgdom) according to the bible was in 930... There was not "house of david" alive after 930 according to the bible ..
So yea what your saying makes no sense.. like if there was such a kingdom and the people and villages somehow still existed there was literally no "house of david" .
so no matter how you split it your theory makes no sense (not to mention is not supported by the historians and experts for many of these same reasons)
@freemo Your argument seems to be that evidence of a political unit that drawers it's lineage from someone called "David", can be ignored because at some point prior the extent of that political power changed. Even though by your own requirements there is LESS evidence that a united kingdom existed at all. Whether the kingdom was united, or divided into Israel and Judah is not my concern. I'm just merely trying to argue that a political unit derived from the lineage of David existed.
@ned No... thats not it.
Historians are split on if **any** kingdom existed, either a uniqued one or split.. There are two versions of the scrolls which were eventually the book of samual. You have teh monarchical version and the non-monarchial version.
In the non-monarchical version of the scroll (not the one that made it into the bible) Saul/Samual refused the call to become kind and no such kingdoms were every formed at all. In the monarchical version the kingdoms are part of the story and he accepts the call to become king and forms the kingdom.
The issue is that the monarchical is litered with enormous errors that many are anachronisms.. things that could only be known if the writer was writing many years AFTER the claimed existance of the kingdoms (things that didnt exist int he area yet were written as if they did). This lays pretty clear evidence that of the two the monarchial version is unlikely to be historic suggesting the other copy is more like to be fact.
The idea that the **only** piece of physical evidence is a stone sitting int he sand with the phrase "house of david on it" that is 60 to 180 years after the existence of such a mythical nation lends little if any evidence to the story and simply suggests someone who believed int he mythos wrote the phrase in a piece of stone at one point for some reason.
@freemo So your point is the structure of political control in the region. Not the ethnic origins of the political control in the region.
I'm happy to grant you that. As I explained earlier. I'm not interested in how you technically define "Kingdom".
No .. not even sure how you got that, imnot trying to define kingdom in any way other than the way it always is...
I am talking about the idea that the existance of a nation called israel, judae, or judah is thought by a great many historians never to have existed, and outside of the bible there is no credible or concrete evidence to suggest otherwise.
That point I thought was clear on the original post but if not hopefully now it is... no need to redefine or use any weird definitions of kingdom, im using the word int he usual sense here.
"Israel 's entire claim of it being an "ancient ancestral land" is based entirely on the bible and not accepted as historical fact by historians"
I'm no scholar, just a lowly keyboard warrior. But I feel like there is sufficient evidence that the land in question was occupied by the ancestors of someone called David during ancient times. That piece of stone says so. And I assume the next place to look would be Babylonian references.
Well i have already explained why me, and a large portion of historians thinks that is absurd.. dates dont line up, the evidence is filled with verifiable errors, the one piece of writing in stone can just as easily be explained as a believer in the myth that was the scrolls that later became the bible, and more important of the two versions of the text the one that said no such nations every existed is facually more accurate than the one that says one does.
You want to believe it, go for it. But the preponderance of evidence is against you from every direction.
@freemo you keep bringing up anachronisms, even though I have deliberately avoided biblical references as I know you have already dismissed them. You're arguing with yourself.
> you keep bringing up anachronisms, even though I have deliberately avoided biblical references as I know you have already dismissed them. You're arguing with yourself.
No I have dismissed them. In fact I specifically use them as historical evidence by looking throught he revisions and timeline of when they existed and comparing the evidence in the various versions to determine which versions are closest to fact and which versions are just the evolution of that fact over time.
We have two copies, of a book in the bible in particular, one lines up factually and explicitly states no such kingdoms existed, the other is factually inaccurate and determined to be written a long time after the time period and thus less likely historic.
Even then if we do as you say and forget about biblical source, then all your left with as your one piece of evidence is that someone at some point a person wrote "house of david" somewhere... which if totally divorced from the bible has no meaning. of any value and hardly as a sole piece of evidence suggests any sort of jewish kingdom existing.
Given its date I have already given a far more plausible reason, and that is someone who wrote or read an early version of the mythos that came to be the bible believed the mythos and for one reason or another wrote something they read in that scroll in some rock once. That makes a lot more sense to me given the preponderance of evidence.
@freemo No dude, I mean you keep bringing them up as a point of argument against my position. Even though I have never invoked the documents that contain those anachronisms as evidence.
At this point you have completely lost the plot and are just raging uncontrollably.
@freemo Just for kicks here's some further evidence for you.
"In the seventh year, in the month of Kislev, the king of Akkad mustered his troops, marched to the Hatti-land, and encamped against the City of Judah and on the ninth day of the month of Adar he seized the city and captured the king. He appointed there a king of his own choice and taking heavy tribute brought it back to Babylon."
So there was a king in Judah. It's possible they were not connected to David. But that doesn't matter.
Actually iw as just about to respond to let you know I was wrong.
I went back and reread the scholarly sources on it and they were not claiming it never existed... they were claiming that it was likely **much** smaller than claimed (some isolated villages) and didnt develop till much later in history than the bible suggests. Not that a jewish nation never existed.
My apologies I was wrong on that it seems.
@realcaseyrollins this is relevant to you too, i got my facts mixed up.
@freemo @realcaseyrollins I can agree with that for sure. If you wanted to keep arguing, you could dispute the existence of Solomons temple. But to be fair I got nothing to back that up.
As a general rule I expect there to be some truth in the bible, just distorted over long periods.. so can be hard to seperate the fact from fictions
