Jump to content

Talk:Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anachronisms

[edit]

@Joseph Imperial: I don't know why Yiddish and Israelis would belong in the 10th century BCE. "Israeli" means a citizen of the modern state of Israel (i.e. 1948 or later). Yiddish originated in the 9th century CE, and it is a Germanic language. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yiddish is practically Hebrew, the language of the Jews, with Germanic influences. Thus it is a dialect of Hebrew. Bernard Stoltz (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yiddish is really the reverse of that. It's High German with Hebrew influences. Thus, Yiddish is a dialect of German. — Red XIV (talk) 09:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to what I have discovered linguistically, you make a fair point. Thank you for correcting me. On your concern with why Yiddish and Israelis are mentioned in the 10th century BC, I certainly agree with you. Somebody needs to correct that error. Bernard Stoltz (talk) 11:03, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

... and there was no Judaism there. Maybe there was polytheistic Yahwism, but Judaism appeared centuries later. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that Yahwism wasn't polytheistic in of itself. In its earliest form, and the form that we find it to be returned to from time to time by Israelite Judges, it was monotheistic, serve the great God Yahweh, and had its base of operations, its HQ if you will, in Shiloh. It was corrupted from time to time by the Israelites, taking influences from the Canaanite religions, particularly the cult of Baal and Astarte, but at its basis it was monotheistic.  Bernard Stoltz (talk) 11:07, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Israelites were Canaanites themselves. Per the main article: "In addition, it is unlikely that the Israelites overtook the southern Levant by force, according to archaeological evidence. Instead, they branched out of indigenous Canaanite peoples that long inhabited the region, which included Syria, ancient Israel, and the Transjordan region.[1][2][3] ... The Israelites used the Canaanite script and communicated in a Canaanite language known as Biblical Hebrew. The language's modern descendant is today the only surviving dialect of the Canaanite languages.[4][5]" Dimadick (talk) 12:17, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Wikipedia article, Yahvism was basically polytheistic, with monotheism being a later development. 177.42.193.169 (talk) 12:33, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Tubb 1998, pp. 13–14.
  2. ^ McNutt 1999, p. 47.
  3. ^ K. L. Noll (2001). Canaan and Israel in Antiquity: An Introduction. Archived 1 July 2023 at the Wayback Machine A&C Black. p. 164: "It would seem that, in the eyes of Merneptah's artisans, Israel was a Canaanite group indistinguishable from all other Canaanite groups." "It is likely that Merneptah's Israel was a group of Canaanites located in the Jezreel Valley."
  4. ^ Moore Cross, Frank (1997). Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in History of the Religion of Israel. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. p. 62. ISBN 0-674-09176-0.
  5. ^ Kuzar, Ron (2001). Hebrew and Zionism: a discourse analytic cultural study. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. p. 235. ISBN 3-11-016993-2.

Why has the picture been changed? Without changing the caption or any discussion?

[edit]

Looks like vandalism Nohorizonss (talk) 08:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This picture is just a kingdom juxtaposed over the twelve tribes . If we were to go by the primary biblical sources that it would extended from Syria to the brook of egypt. I would like the older artistic picture to be restored. Nohorizonss (talk) 08:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you completely, Nohorizonss. In fact, may I add that I would like to see a map where the map of the 12 tribes of Israel in the time of the Judges, in the time of King Saul, and in the time of David and Solomon, with Moab, Edom, and Ammon shown as the vassals that they were, and the tributary territories that King David had installed shown as separate territories. Bernard Stoltz (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article Intro

[edit]

The article description correctly notes the state as a hypothetical one, but the article intro speaks as if the state definitively existed. The intro needs to be tweaked to read "proposed/hypothetical state," or something similar MS1745 (talk) 08:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It states "Whether the United Monarchy existed—and, if so, to what extent—is a matter of ongoing academic debate." I think this is enough for showing it's contested. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why the definitive language in the introduction? MS1745 (talk) 10:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only people who try to make the spineless argument for Palestine's existence would agree to these lies. It is sad to see just how anti-Semitic some editors here on Wikipedia, a site that promises to be neutral and unbiased as it gives information, really is. Despite the large amounts of archaeological proof of the United Monarchy's existence, people these days are willing to deliberately twist truth and history in order to be politically correct. I pray and hope that one day Wikipedia would get a CEO who will root out this anti-Semitic, anti-truth and biased-centred plague that infects this website. Bernard Stoltz (talk) 11:00, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no definitive archaeological evidence of the existence of a United Monarchy. There is evidence of the lack of such a polity (lack of documentation supporting it from the surrounding cultures). It is not antisemitic to challenge religious myth on scientific grounds. MS1745 (talk) 04:39, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Antisemitic" is WP:PA.
The Bible is a book of mythology rather than objective historiography. A lot of mainstream Israeli archaeologists agree with this, there is nothing antisemitic about it. See e.g. https://www.salon.com/2001/02/07/solomon/ and https://web.archive.org/web/20210811064225/http://websites.umich.edu/~proflame/neh/arch.htm
The maximum extent of 10th century BCE Jerusalem is described at Regev, Johanna; Gadot, Yuval; Uziel, Joe; Chalaf, Ortal; Shalev, Yiftah; Roth, Helena; Shalom, Nitsan; Szanton, Nahshon; Bocher, Efrat; Pearson, Charlotte L.; Brown, David M.; Mintz, Eugenia; Regev, Lior; Boaretto, Elisabetta (7 May 2024). "Radiocarbon chronology of Iron Age Jerusalem reveals calibration offsets and architectural developments". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 121 (19). doi:10.1073/pnas.2321024121. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 11087761. PMID 38683984.
The source says the archaeologically-proven Jerusalem was larger than Israel Finkelstein and Amihai Mazar contended, but the way it was occupied cannot be determined. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:26, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tgeorgescu: This source states that the Bible's depiction of the United Monarchy is history rather than mythology. Potatín5 (talk) 09:46, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The major Israeli universities are not married to a fundamentalist understanding of the Bible, so they actually teach the views I mentioned above, even if with some disagreements here and there. Tobolowsky, Andrew (2018). "Israelite and Judahite History in Contemporary Theoretical Approaches". Currents in Biblical Research. 17 (1): 33–58. doi:10.1177/1476993X18765117. ISSN 1476-993X. Second, Mazar and Finkelstein frequently agree, at least broadly speaking, on the hard facts, but disagree about their subjective interpretation.
And even if it is not WP:THETRUTH, it suffices to say that "the United Monarchy did not exist" is a mainstream academic POV. So, I don't have to plead it's the unvarnished truth. I just have to plead it is a major view in WP:SCHOLARSHIP.
See also David, Ariel (29 April 2024). "Archaeology". Haaretz.com. Retrieved 14 September 2024. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Potatín5 can you please quote the source to show evidence for your argument please?
I am honestly not anyone’s side here. I am here as an outside party.CycoMa2 (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CycoMa2: This link provides a useful summary of the book's argument. Basically, Faust & Farber argue that the United Monarchy was a historical entity and that Saul, David and Solomon were rulers of consequence. Of course, neither of them are biblical literalist, but they still think the Bible's depiction of the United Monarchy as a real (mini-)empire is historical. Potatín5 (talk) 09:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but they're clearly writing from a revisionist perspective (ie. they themselves frame their book as response to a prevailing view that the United Monarchy never existed.) Their position isn't WP:FRINGE, no - but it's not mainstream, either. They themselves acknowledge this when they say that skeptical approaches are dominant today among biblical scholars. They disagree with those skeptical approaches, but recognize that they're the mainstream view. That reflects what the article currently says, ie. that the historicity of the United Monarchy is widely-questioned but not unambiguously settled - whether the United Monarchy existed—and, if so, to what extent—is a matter of ongoing academic debate. You can't just cite one book weighing in on that debate (whose authors word it in a way that makes it clear that they understand their view is the minority one), and treat that as if it renders the debate settled. --Aquillion (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Tgeorgescu, The Salon isn’t an ideal source.CycoMa2 (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But it is good enough for showing that giving the lie to biblicism isn't antisemitism. I'm not even saying that Finkelstein is right. I'm just saying that many Israeli archaeologists agree with him, and many others don't. I'm afraid that for the coming several decades we won't know who is right in this dispute.
The claims made by Bernard Stoltz can be safely rejected according to the website guideline WP:FRINGE: biblicism is academically WP:FRINGE. Being against the fringe does not mean being anti-truth. It's not written in the stars that the Bible is true. Mainstream archaeology gave the lie to big chunks of the Bible. Not being aware that biblicism is the laughing stock of WP:CHOPSY is ignorance. I didn't read the book by Faust and Farber, but my two cents are that they don't endorse biblicism, either. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter 3 turns from the Bible to archaeology and can itself be subdivided into two parts. In the first part, after briefly summarizing what had been the scholarly consensus until some thirty years ago, we will explain why this consensus has faded away, taking with it much of the glory of David and Solomon, and why much more skeptical approaches are dominant today among biblical scholars. [...] the skeptical approach did not stand the test of time and most of the problems raised in the past have been disproved.

— Faust and Farber, p. 2
Faust and Farber say that today Bible scholars embrace this skepticism, but archaeologists don't. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that Dever and Mazar are much closer to Finkelstein's position than to Faust's and Farber's. Dever and Mazar quarrel with Finkelstein about the subjective labeling of the United Monarchy. They do not quarrel about the hard facts. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly true. Dever and Mazar disagree with Finkelstein's Low Chronology theory and support the conventional dating of key strata at Hazor, Gezer, Megiddo and other sites to the 10th century BC. Faust and Farber agree with Dever and Mazar in rejecting the Low Chronology, but also discuss more recent archaeological discoveries from the last decades that strengthen the case for the United Monarchy. There have been in recent years numerous advances in the archaeology of ancient Israel during the 10th century BC; Faust and Farber are simply bringing them to the table. Potatín5 (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, from "early inchoate state" (Dever 2021) to "mini-empire" (Faust and Farber 2025) there are only 4 years. What changed so much in the actual evidence? tgeorgescu (talk) 15:42, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 February 2025

[edit]

Please change the following hatnote: "For other uses, see Kingdom of Israel." to "For the modern state, see Israel. For other uses, see Kingdom of Israel." Quinnly9 (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Warriorglance(talk to me) 03:03, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This wasn't correct to do, fwiw. Per WP:NOHAT, there's no need to add hatnotes to destinations if it is improbable readers got to this article while looking for that one. Remsense ‥ 论 03:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies..I never knew about that. Warriorglance(talk to me) 04:38, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, we all have to learn these things before we know them! Remsense ‥ 论 04:38, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mesha stele

[edit]

Why is the mesha stele not mentioned here? It is an outer source that contains the words "the house of david". i think its a crucial to this topic. 2A00:A041:30E0:B000:A58D:9FA1:EBF4:2269 (talk) 05:29, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David quite probably existed. But we don't have evidence that his kingdom did. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kingdom_of_Israel_(united_monarchy)&oldid=1279283493"