The Land Of Purple

Legend has a funny way of migrating from one culture to another, where each subsequent incarnation is passed off as the original.  After all, each culture prides itself on its most hallowed lore being ITS OWN…lest it concede that its most cherished tales may not be authentic.  And so it goes with the Hebrew tale of Exodus (from Goshen, Egypt into Canaan).  In the 16th century B.C., the Canaanite “Hyksos” people were driven out of Egypt into Canaan, likely leaving some lingering trauma that informed their lore thereafter.  In the 15th century B.C., the great battle at Megiddo occurred, in which the (now native) Canaanites (many of whom were descendants of the Hyksos) suffered a devastating loss against the invading Egyptian forces (under Pharaoh Thutmose III), likely further creating animus amongst Canaanites vis a vis Egyptians; and, in the process, creating a sense of apocalyptic doom around Megiddo.

As it happened, the Egyptians retained control over Canaan until the Bronze Age collapse (in the early 12th century); at which point the “P-L-S-T” sea-peoples arrived: progenitors of the Philistines.  So the stage was set for the earliest folktales about the Hebrews—from their travails (at the hands of the Egyptians, then Philistines) to their triumphs (with Joseph at the helm, carrying out a campaign of retributive justice).

Could the tale of “Exodus” have been inspired by all of this?  Of course.  Other than clear parallels, there are a few hints.  For example, Moses is not a Semitic name; its etymology is EGYPTIAN.  Granted, according to the story, he was a Hebrew boy brought up in an Egyptian court from infancy; so, naturally, he would have been named by Egyptians.  However, his biological father was “Am[a]-Ram”, an Aramaic name meaning “high people”. {36}

The Bible places the fabled exodus from Egypt in the mid-13th century; yet the Pentateuch was not compiled until the Exilic Period—seven centuries later.  In other words, the entire Iron Age had come and gone between the purported events and the occasion of Babylonian scribes composing the Torah.  As the story goes, the material was eventually compiled and disseminated by a scribe named Azar-yah(u) [“helped by god” or “helper of god”; typically rendered “Ezra” or “Esdras”] c. 458 B.C.  The collective “Ezra” (whoever the original scribes might have been in Babylon during the Exilic period) based their writings on antecedent material: the Deuteronomist, then Elohist and Yah-weh-ist, then Priestly texts.  THOSE texts are, of course, now long-lost.  But we can surmise that different parts of the Hebrew Bible came from various sources—each of which seems to have been working with slightly different lore, much of it appropriated from antecedent (pagan) traditions.

The lexeme “Israel” has become an extremely loaded term in the post-War era.  After having undergone an onomastic metamorphosis over time, it has become especially fraught with hermeneutic quandaries.  To what, exactly, does it refer?  As it turns out, the answer to this has changed from one epoch to the next. 

We might begin our inquiry, then, with a review of the tract of land with which the label is most associated: the Levant.  In archaic times, that region was variously referred to as:

• “Kinahhu” / “Kinahni” (Akkadian / Assyrian)
• “Ka-na-na[-um]” (Eblaite / Ugaritic)
• “K[a]na’an” (Phoenician)
• “Kn’n” (Old Aramaic)

The moniker meant “Land of Purple” in Hittite / Hurrian.

The term appears in Amorite inscriptions not only at Ebla and Ugarit, but at Mari in Mesopotamia as well.  Those attestations were from the early 2nd millennium B.C. {30}  Not coincidentally, this is also what “phoinike” meant in Ancient Greek–a lexeme that served as the basis for another familiar moniker: “Phoenicia”. (Note: “phoinike” was also the etymological source for “Phoenix”, brother of Europa: the Phoenician princess who hailed from Tyre.)  Note here that it is impossible to cultivate a thorough understanding of the region without understanding its Amorite history.  Even the Bible (spec. the Book Of Joshua) concedes that, in the 13th century B.C., Gibeon, Jerusalem, Hebron, Jarmuth, Lachish, and Eglon were all Amorite cities.  Jerusalem remained Amorite / Jebusite until the reign of King David—that is: just prior to c. 1000 B.C.

Throughout ancient times, this particular color was often correlated with sacredness; and would later be the basis for the Judaic use of “tekhelet” in religious garments (a color designation that was rendered “hyakinthos” in the Septuagint). The color “hyacinth” corresponded to the gem-stone as well as the flower by that name. In Mycenaean mythology, hyacinth was associated with the homosexual hero, Hyakinthos–who later played an integral role in both Estruscan and Spartan lore.

But why purple? This distinct color was also associated with the Phoenician city of “Sur[ru]” (later rendered “Tyre”) which was known for the dye of that distinct–and highly coveted–pigment. (Hence the renown of “Tyrian Purple”, which–like “tekhelet” for the Hebrews–was correlated with exalted status.) Tyre came to play a prominent role in Greek myths about Heracles. The city’s tutelary god was “Ba’al Sur” [god of Tyre] (a.k.a. “M-L-K Q-R-T”; meaning “king of the city”): a dying-then-rising deity who symbolized resurrection / re-birth.

Meanwhile, the archaic term for Phoenicia (“Lebanon”) came from another color: the Phoenician term for “white”: “L-B-N” (often rendered “labonah”; which eventually came to be used to refer to the coveted  spice, frankincense).  The Hebrew Bible regularly uses the moniker, “L-B-N-N”, presumably based on the Babylonian Aramaic (the script of which is a derivative of Phoenician).

Much of this monograph is about debunking widespread Revisionist Zionist myths regarding the Levant (replete with the misleading onomastics pertaining thereto).  Especially prevalent—and completely unfounded—is the contention that the land in question was never known as “Palestine”; and that those who resided there were never known as “Palestinians”.  In fact, prior to 1948, the STANDARD way to refer to the land in question was “Palestine”; and its indigenous population—whether Jew, Copt, Armenian, Assyrian, Frank, Arab, Kurd, or Turk—was known as “Palestinian”, irrespective of ethnicity or Faith.  To this day, there are Christian, Muslim, Baha’i, Druze, and—yes—Jewish Palestinians.

Moreover, it is important to quash—once and for all—the oft-touted (entirely spurious) claim that “Palestine” / “Palestinians” is a term invented for propagandistic purposes in the advent of the Nakba in 1948.  Such misconceptions are born of—and subsist on—perfidy…if not outright racism.  The Holy Land (for Jews and Christians) was ALWAYS referred to as “Palestine”, and almost nothing but “Palestine”.  This was the case during Late Antiquity (as attested by Roman historian, Eusebius of Caesarea Maritima in the 330’s); and it continue on through the Middle Ages.  We know this because of the various “itineraria” composed by pilgrims going the Holy Land, each of whom left detailed accounts.  Consider six of the most notable:

• An un-named pilgrim from Bordeaux, France c. 334
• The Dalmatian theologian, Jerome of Stridon in the 370’s
• A Gallic pilgrim named Egeria / Ætheria in the early 380’s
• An un-named pilgrim from Piacenza, Italy in the 570’s
• The Greek “Paschal Chronicle” composed by a pilgrim in the 630’s
• A Merovingian (Frankish) bishop named Arculf c. 680

All of them corroborate this labeling scheme.  Also worth noting is the labeling on the “Madaba map” from the 6th century.  The onomastic convention continued into the Late Middle Ages—as attested by, say, the writings of John of Würzburg in the 1160’s.

This is all consistent with the nomenclature used by Mizrachim and Sephardim during the same period.  Indeed, medieval Jewish writers from the Early Middle Ages through the “Haskalah” (Jewish Enlightenment) ALL referred to the Holy Land as “Palestine” or—when being more specific—Galilee (Greek: Itouraia; Roman: Iturea) in the north; Yehuda and Edom (Greek: Ioudaia and Idoumaia; Roman: Judaea and Idumaea) in the south.  This is a reminder that “Yehudim” (the toponym eventually adopted for Jews) simply meant “Judeans” (those who were associated with Judea, where the Kingdom of Judah was located)…which was NOT affiliated with Shomron / Shemer (Samaria), where the kingdom of Israel was located.

That it was common practice to refer to a PLACE—anywhere—as “Israel” (prior to the New Yishuv in the late 19th century) is also a myth.  Such a label would have not made any sense; as, until the modern Zionist movement, “Israel” referred to a group of people, not to tract of land.  Israel was the Jewish diaspora.  (It was a global brotherhood.  One might even say that it was a frame of mind.)  It was not until the 20th century that this onomastic took on a new meaning.  In 1934, the Judeo-fascist, Ze’ev Jabotinsky declared: “When will we be able to say that ‘Palestine’ has become ‘Eretz Yisrael’?  Only when more Jews than non-Jews live in the land” (ref. “The Idea of Betar”).  So the transition in nomenclature was a function of ethnic cleansing: a re-definition of what the Holy Land was, and to whom it (ostensibly) BELONGED.

When surveying the myths surrounding “Israel” qua modern nation-State, perhaps most risible is the claim that there was no ethnic cleansing perpetrated by Judeo-Supremacist settlers after the Second World War (the Nakba), sparking a protracted humanitarian atrocity that persists to the present day. {35}

Alas.  There’s no farce like self-serving farce.  Those smitten with national origin myths swim in an epistemic pool where “feels true” is misconstrued as “must be true”.  Fanciful tales soon become “history” when they are self-ingratiating.  As any forensic psychologist will attest, that’s how memory often works when staunch vested interests are afoot…and one is dealing with an emotionally charged subject.  Consequently, gross misconceptions about the Levant qua Palestine continue to proliferate in the Occident.  Hence the impetus to write the present monograph.

Throughout Classical Antiquity, Greek sources refer to ALL residents of the region-in-question as “Phoenicians”–that is: people of “Phoinike” (even as Phoenicians themselves simply referred to the region as “Kana’an”). That Phoenicians opted for the Canaanite moniker was taxonomically unproblematic, as–either way–its meaning was “Land of Purple”.

Note that Phoenicia was originally known as “Amurru”.  The moniker “Phoenicia” is a Romanization of the Greek moniker, “Phoinike”—which referred alternately to purple or crimson.  The purple dye for which the coastal Levant became renowned was primarily traded in the ancient (Phoenician) city of Sur, later known as Tyre (hence the term “Tyrian purple”): the color associated with royalty and sacred-ness.  Meanwhile, the territory in the south of Canaan was dubbed “Edom”, which was Old Semitic for “crimson” (based on the Akkadian / Assyrian “Udumu”).

Greeks alternately referred to the land as “Palaistine”–as with the era’s most renown historian, Herodotus (who referred to the region as such in his “Histories”). That was in the early 5th century B.C. (during the Exilic Period). THIS label continued to be used through Classical Antiquity–as demonstrated by the Athenian geographer, Polemon of Ilium AND by the Ptolemaic geographer, Agatharchides of Knidos–both of whom wrote in the latter half of the 2nd century B.C. (the time of the ascendency of the Hasmoneans). Herodotus would have likely derived that moniker from an alternate Assyrian term for the region, “Pala-ashtu”. For THAT had been the term used by Assyrian king Adad-nirari III–as attested by the Nimrod Slab and the Saba’a Stele c. 800 B.C. “Pala-ashtu” seems to have also been widely used throughout Classical Antiquity. But where did THAT come from?

Since at least as far back as the 12th century B.C., the Egyptians had referred to the PEOPLE who lived in the Levant as the “P-L-S-T”…even as they referred to the REGION as “Retjenu” (as attested by inscriptions on the temple at Madinet Habu). It is possible that the Egyptian references to “Peleset” may have pertained to the group that came to be called the “Philistines”–decendents of the aforementioned sea-peoples who arrived in the late Bronze Age. This would serve as the basis for the aforesaid moniker used by the Greeks (which was later Romanized to “Philisti[n]a” / “Palaestina[e]”).

The term “P-L-S-T” / “Peleset” continued to be used by the Egyptians into the 9th century B.C., when it appeared in an inscription on the statue of Pa-di-iset, son of Apy. Tellingly, ALSO used in that inscription was the moniker, “Canaan”…as everyone seemed to know the region-in-question as the Land of Purple.

It was during the 8th century B.C. that the Assyrian moniker seems to have been slightly modified. In 735 B.C., “Pala-ashtu” was still being used–as evidenced in a letter addressed to Tiglath-Pileser. Yet in 717 B.C. it occurred as “Palistu” on a tablet describing the military campaigns of Sargon II. And then (c. 700 B.C.) it occurred as “Pilista’a” on a tablet describing the military campaign of Sennacherib against Hezekiah. By the 7th century, the term had been rendered “Pilisti”–as it occurs in the treaty between Esarhaddon and a ruler known under the regnal name: Ba’al of Tyre (c. 675 B.C.) 

Those on the Italic peninsula (the Etruscans) were ALSO already using “Palestina” to refer to the Levant.  A gold pendant from the early 7th century B.C. boasts a Faliscan (proto-Latin) inscription referring to itself as a commemorative “Praeneste fibula” [“brooch of Palestine”].

Suffice to say: This moniker has a very, very long history.

“Palestinian” was used as a moniker for Levantine countrymen through the Middle Ages.  Consider the Frankish chronicler, Fulcher of Chartres, who wrote in 1124 that “he who was a Roman or Frank has—in this land—been made a Galilean or Palestinian” (ref. F.E. Peters’ “Jerusalem”; p. 309).  Residents of Palestine consisted of Latins (Franks), Greeks (Byzantines), Assyrians (Chaldeans and other Syriac Christians; notably Nestorians and Jacobites), Copts (Egyptians; mostly Christian), Armenians, Georgians, Saracens (Arab Muslims), Turks (Oghuz Muslims), Kurds (Kurdish Muslims), and Jews (Mizra[c]him and Sephardim).  All were considered “Palestinians”.

Medieval Jews thought of themselves alternately as “sons of Israel” / “sons of Jacob” (that is: the progeny of Jacob ben Isaac ben Abraham, who’d been christened “Yisra-El”).  Meanwhile, Muslims were thought of as sons of Ishmael ben Abraham (via Hagar); and Christians were often thought of as sons of Esau ben Isaac ben Abraham.  (For more on these genealogies, see my essay, “Genesis Of A People”.)

During the Middle Ages, Jews in Palestine lived in (secular) socialist communes, later known as “kibbutz-im”, on the Galilean countryside (specifically in cities like Sepphoris and Tiberias) and in the Jezreel Valley.  Others were located in Bilad al-Sham as well as in modest quarters in cities like As[h]kelon, Hebron, Safed, Akka (Acre), Lydda (Lod), Julia Neapolis (Nablus), and—yes—Jerusalem.  (They would establish a small community in the newly-founded Ramla starting in the 8th century.)  Some may have lived in port-cities like Haifa, Jaffa, and Gaza.  They lived peaceably amongst the various other ethnic groups of the Levant; and had no colonialist designs.

This point cannot be emphasized enough: There was nothing political about such communes; they were simply Jews living quiet, agrarian lives in harmony with their neighbors.  The communes were comprised of both Sephard-im (Andalusians and Maghrebis) and Musta-Arab-im (now referred to as “Mizra[c]h-im”, as they were initially associated with “M-S-R”: Egypt).  During the Late Middle Ages, Palestinian Jews eventually came to be known as the “Old Yishuv”.

There would be no Ashkenazim in the Levant until the 18th century.  (Food for thought: Had the ancestry of the Ashkenazim predated their emergence with the [k]Hazarian diaspora, then why this oddly-late appearance in what they would have considered their “homeland”?  This is no quandary, as explained in my monograph on “The Forgotten Diaspora”.)

But prior to the Greco-Roman influence in the Levant, the land-in-question was referred to by its ancient Semitic toponyms: the ancient precursors to “Canaan” and “Palestine”.  It should come as no surprise, then, that the Torah repeatedly refers to the tract of land west of the Jordan river as “Kena’an” (the term is used 57 times), most famously in Genesis 17:8 and Deuteronomy 32:47. It was originally the land of Amorites and Phoenicians–boasting archaic Semitic city-States like Ugarit and Ebla (wherein the earliest Semitic scripts are attested).

The land to the EAST of the Jordan river was “Aram” in the north; the rest was comprised of “Ammon” and “Moab”. That region was alternately dubbed “Karkor” in Biblical Hebrew (depending on the context / writer). The Greco-Roman terms for that area included Hauran, Per[a]ia, and Batan[a]ia (which constitute present-day Jordan). Medieval Talmudic writers referred to it vaguely as “Gilead”. It was originally the land of the Aramaeans–who were effectively Syro-Hittites.

Meanwhile: Phoenicia (present-day Lebanon) was called “Amurru” by the Amorites, “Aram Zoba” in the Hebrew Bible, and “Itur[a]ia” by the Greco-Romans. The southern Levant was variously referred to as “Idum[a]ea” (a variant on “Edom”), “Arabia Petr[a]ea”, and “Pal[a]estinae Salutaris”. {30}

In sum: Throughout ancient times, the term “Israel” is never used to refer to a tract of land (i.e. in the manner we find in the reified catch-phrase “eretz [y]Israel”).  Everywhere the moniker is used, it is not a place, it is a people. In terms of a territorial designation, “Israel” is only used (11 times) to reference the pagan kingdom located in “Shomron” (Samaria). In THOSE cases, the appellation it was used disparagingly, as THAT kingdom was not Jewish. It clearly was NOT being used in the same way that it was used to reference (the seed of) Jacob: “Yisra-El”.

Prior to the Exilic Period (when the earliest elements of Judaic lore were first being formulated), the pagan kingdom in northern Canaan (that is: the Kingdom of “Israel”) was referred to as the “Bit Humri[a]” [House of Omri]–as attested by the Black Obelisk of Assyrian King Shalmaneser III (at Kalhu) from the 9th century B.C. {1} We might also note the commemoration of the victory of Pharaoh Shoshenq [rendered “Shishak” in Hebrew] over King Rehoboam c. 925 on the Bubastite Portal gate at Karnak, which employs the same semiotic scheme.

So yes, at one point there was, indeed, a (misleadingly named) KINGDOM OF “Israel”. Ask most people today whether that kingdom was pagan or Jewish, and most will answer (incorrectly) “Jewish”. The Jewish kingdom was the Kingdom of Judah to the south (in Judea). This is why the original symbol of the Jewish people was known as the “Lion of Judah”, not as the “Lion of Israel”. {2}

Alas, the fabled Davidic / Solomonic epoch (of a unified Abrahamic kingdom) is likely more farce than history–a “just so story” that would serve as a national founding myth. But, for the sake of argument, let’s assume it existed EXACTLY as it did in the Hebrew Bible. EVEN THEN, we read that King Solomon honored pagan gods–including Ashtoreth, Shamash, and Molech (ref. First Kings 11).

By the time the last king of the northern kingdom (Hoshea) usurped the throne (as a vassal to Assyria) in 732 B.C., the Assyrian king at the time (Tiglath-Pileser III) gloated about that king’s submission–STILL referring to the kingdom as “Bit Humri[a]”. This would have all been rather strange had the established moniker been “Israel”.

Thereafter, the Assyrian kings referred to northern Canaan as “Shomron” [Romanized to “Samaria]” and sometimes as the House / Land of Omri; not as “Israel”. Why? Because “Israel” referred to the diaspora of the sons of Isaac (spec. of Jacob); i.e. the Jewish people, who happened to be scattered across the Middle East. Meanwhile, “Shomron” was the accepted name of northern Canaan in Judaic lore–as attested in, say, First Kings 20:34. (We continue to find it in Christian lore–as in Luke 17:11-20 and Acts 8:2.) Indeed, the Judaic off-shoot sect known as the “Shomronim” [Romanized to “Samaritans”] were named after this land from which they hailed. It was THERE that the (pagan) Kingdom of Israel was located–most notably under Omri, then Ahab, then Ahaziah. (Note the tales of the prophet, Elijah.)

And so it went: When it came to labeling the pagan kingdom in Samaria, “Israel” seems to have been a post-hoc convention. The archeological record bears this out. When it WAS used, it referred to the non-Jewish kingdom (which was in the north), not to the Jewish kingdom (which was in the south). 

Note that there are indications that the northern (pagan) kingdom of Israel and the southern (Jewish) kingdom of Judah were—at least intermittently—on good terms, even during the reign of the notorious king, Ahab ben Omri.  After all, the Dividic king, Jeho-ram wed Ahab’s daughter (via Jezebel): At[h]al-i-[y]ah…who then reigned as queen regnant of Judah from 841 to 835 B.C.

Throughout Classical Antiquity, the Greeks continued to refer to the northern part of the region (present-day Lebanon and Syria) as “Phoinike” (i.e. Phoenicia). The northeastern part of the region was sometimes referred to as “Aram[ea]” (i.e. Land of the Aramaeans) due to its inhabitants at the time (essentially a band of Syro-Hittites).

The Land of Purple was under the rule of the Assyrians (operating out of Nineveh) between the late 8th century B.C. and the late 7th century B.C…at which time it fell under the control of the Babylonians (c. 612 B.C.) {3} It was in the 6th century, during their time in Babylon, that the Jewish scribes composed the earliest sacred texts (in Babylonian Aramaic). Again, the Aramaic moniker for the land was “Canaan”.

The Exilic Period was a propitious period for precisely this reason: It was at THAT juncture that Judaic doctrine was formally codified. (Psalm 137 begins: “By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down and wept.” Obviously, that was written by Babylonian scribes during the Exilic Period, NOT by King David four centuries earlier.) However, the canonical texts would not be finalized until the Council of Jamnia in the late 1st century A.D.; and the Mishnah not until almost c. 200 A.D.

Those who make spurious claims about Judaism (and/or the Jewish people) being anything more that 26 centuries old mistake a timeline specified IN JUDAIC LORE with the timing of JUDAISM ITSELF. In other words, the etiological myth was made official at one time (the 6th century B.C.) even as it REFERS TO events that occurred in the 2nd millennium B.C. (from Abraham…through Exodus…all the way to King David). {19}  Note that if we were to use the same cockamamie heuristic for Jainism, we could say that that Faith was TRILLIONS of years old. {31}

Originally, “Israel” (as used in the moniker “Beit Yisra-El”; alt. “Beth Israel”) was an ethnonym, not the name of a land. That is to say: It was simply the moniker for a group of people–wherever they happened to be located. Specifically, “Israel” referred to those who, in one way or another, affiliated themselves with the Mosaic creed. It encompassed all of those who associated themselves in some pertinent way with Judaic lore (namely: the Hebrews). Hence the moniker was not the name for a particular piece of real estate; it was the name for a diaspora. {4}

This is illustrated in Deuteronomy 6:4-9, 20:3, and 27:9, in which Yahweh addresses his tribe thus: “Sh’ma Yisra-El” [Hear, O Israel]. Needless to say, the Abrahamic deity was not addressing a tract of land. According to the Biblical narrative, the “seed of Israel” (i.e. the progeny of Abraham’s son, Isaac, via Jacob) existed wherever Hebrews happened to be–even in distant lands (most notably, in Egypt and Mesopotamia). {7} This is in keeping with Exodus 4:22-23, wherein the Abrahamic deity declared that “Israel” is “my son, my first-born” (that is: “my progeny”).  This was clearly not referring to a tract of land.  This is also in keeping with Hosea 11:1, where “Israel” is equated with the anointed “son” (i.e. progeny of Jacob). When Moses was addressing his fellow Hebrews at Sinai (ref. Genesis 10:16), he referred to “your brethren” as “the whole of Israel”.

The fact that not all of Abraham’s descendants were “Israel” (only the descendants of Isaac qualified as such) would be emphasized later in Paul’s letter to the Romans (9:6-7). This cadre of people could be even more narrowly defined as the people of Judah–a qualification that referred more to subjects of a certain (Judaic) kingdom than to progeny of a particular person.

And that was nomenclature used for much Classical Antiquity….and on through Late Antiquity. “Israel” referred to a people, not a place. {6} Such terminology was standard. As Shlomo Sand put it: “In the uprising of the Jewish communities [against the Romans, during the Kitos War c. 115-117], which Zionist historiography refers to as ‘the revolt of the diaspora’ in order to emphasize its imagined ‘national’ focus, we find no longing for a return to an ancestral land, no trace of loyalty or connection to a faraway land of origin.” As we shall see, this continued to be the case throughout the Middle Ages.

Tellingly, the “House of Israel” was used in the same manner as the House of Isaac (as in Amos 7:16)…or more specifically as the “House of Jacob” (as in Isaiah 2:5-6)…or even more specifically as the “House of David” (as in Isaiah, chapter 9). That is: It was used as a way of addressing the Jewish people of the world, regardless of where they were located.

When the intent was to reference a PLACE the terminology was always different. In the event that the people-in-question lived in Canaan, the term “Canaan” was used (as in Genesis 17:7-8). When referring to the pagan (northern) portion of Canaan, it was “Shomron” (alt. “Samaria”). When referring to the Judaic (southern) portion of Canaan, it was “Yehud[ah]” (alt. “Jud[a]ea”). {9} This was the case long before there was a united KINGDOM OF “Israel”. Note that yet another term used for the region-in-question was “Abar-Nahara” (Aramaic)…based on the Akkadian / Assyrian “Ebir-Nari”. (Later, that would be rendered “Aber-Nahra” in Syriac.)

Meanwhile, “Beth-El” [House of God] referred to an actual structure–first a tent (“tabernacle”), and then a small temple–in which it was believed the Abrahamic deity LITERALLY DWELLED. As it happened, “Beth-El” corresponded to a certain location: Luz…which was the place where the Canaanites worshipped their godhead, “El”. That explains why it is referenced at the beginning of the 35th chapter of Genesis. According to the tale, the Abrahamic deity instructed Abraham’s grandson, Jacob ben Isaac (a.k.a. “Yisra-El”) to settle at “Beth-El” and erect an altar. This “Beth-El” eventually came to be associated with the city of David (Jerusalem); yet it was not necessarily INITIALLY located there (a matter I explore in my essay on Jerusalem).

Note that the focus was initially on Isaac’s son, Jacob; and by implication: on Jacob’s (patriarchal) lineage. In Genesis 32:25-33, Jacob was re-named “Yisra-El” (as the patriarch of the chosen people) during an encounter with the Abrahamic deity–or an emissary thereof–on the banks of the river Jabbok. This moniker was taken to mean “one who strives / struggles with god”. {10} In other words, “Israel” was the euphemism for Jacob; and, by implication, for Jacob’s bloodline via Leah and Rachel (but NOT his bloodline via Zilpah or Bilah). This bloodline is also dubbed “B’nei Yisra-El” (sons / children of the one who struggles with god). Such nomenclature is found in Genesis 22:18 and 48:18-19, when Joseph explains that Jacob’s seed shall become a people. The same nomenclature is employed when Joshua juxtaposes the Amorites with “the children of Yisra-El” (10:12).

That nomenclature persisted for the remainder of the Torah. In Numbers 23, Jacob’s descendants are equated with “the seed of Israel” (that is: the progeny of Jacob). In Numbers 24, “Israel” is “encamped, tribe by tribe” in the Judean countryside. Numbers 15:38 makes clear that the Jewish people are the ancestors of “Yisra-El” (Jacob ben Isaac ben Abraham). Clearly, “Israel” had nothing to do with a particular location. It was a bloodline. (Note that another appellation for “Israel” included the poetic “Jeshurun”, as in Deuteronomy 32:15.)

Throughout the Torah, after the scene where Jacob is re-anointed after having wrestled with god (or with an angelic proxy thereof), “Israel” is synonymous with “Jacob” (i.e. Jacob’s seed). So when Gideon speaks with the Abrahamic deity about his people (who were being starved because the Midianites were stealing their grain), the term is used thus:

God: “Save Israel from the Midianites; am I not the one who is sending you?”

Gideon: “How shall I be the one to save Israel?” (Judges 6:12-15)

Such usage is in keeping with passages like, say, Micah 1:5.

In passages like Micah 5:3, it is said that those who have strayed from the Faith will return to THE PEOPLE OF “Israel”–that is: return to the fold of Abrahamic monotheism. The same locution is used in Second Chronicles 6:6. This was not about returning to a particular tract of land. For if that had been the case, it would have read: return to the “Land of Promise” (as in Genesis 32:1-2) or return to the “land of Canaan” (as in Genesis 17:7-8 and Exodus 15:15).

When the phrase “eretz Israel” was eventually used (in the Book of Ezekiel), it simply meant a place that has been bequeathed to an anointed people (ref. 18:2 and 37:12); and could have been ANYWHERE. It could just has well have been referred to as “eretz Jacob” [i.e. the land belonging to (the seed of) Jacob]. In other words, it pertained to the land that god “gave to Jacob” [alt. to “Israel”] (ref. 37:25)…wherever that might have been. The key to understanding this phraseology is the Biblical use of “eretz”. Normally interpreted as “land”, its original meaning was WORLD (alt. EARTH). In a sense, the Abrahamic deity sought to give the known world to his chosen people; and–pursuant to the Flood–sought to make ALL MANKIND “Beth Israel”. It makes sense, then, that in the Hebrew Bible, the promised land was often simply referred to as “THE LAND”–as in Exodus 32:13, Deuteronomy 17:14, and Psalm 37:29.

And so it went: The land itself was not called “Israel”; it was–purportedly–GIVEN TO “Israel”. It is Israel’s land insofar as one believes that it was bequeathed to Abraham and his seed through Isaac, then through Jacob (thus: to the progeny of “Yisra-El”). So to come back to “Israel” is to become JEWISH. To “RETURN” to “Israel” is to revitalize one’s commitment to Mosaic Law, and thereby fulfill a covenant with the Abrahamic deity (rather than to physically migrate). It was a spiritual transition, not a geographical one.

Thus we are given “Yisra-El” as the exalted moniker for the Jewish people. In recognizing this nomenclature, we might recall that Jacob seized the mantle of patriarch via trickery. His name is derived from the Semitic term for “uprooting” (to seize / supplant). Thus “Yakub” means “he who supplants” (with the connotation: “he who deceives”). The appellation was based on the fact that this duplicitous son of Isaac (grandson of Abraham) usurped the exalted station from his favored brother, Esau (Genesis, chapt. 27). He hoodwinked his dying father, Isaac, so as to receive the requisite blessing for securing the mantle of patriarch of the lineage. Consequently the legacy of the seed of “Yisra-El” is predicated on this act of deception. (Also bear in mind that, according to Genesis 20:12, Isaac was conceived via incest; as Sarah was Abraham’s half-sister via their shared father.)

Hence the very existence of Beth Israel was based on trickery. Ironically, the exalted bloodline (Jacob’s progeny) could be read as illegitimate according to its own lore. Note that the deception didn’t end there. Leah secretly impersonated her sister, Rachel, Jacob’s preferred bride, to ensure that SHE would bear him the anointed progeny. Splendid.