Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:03, 7 November 2008

Religion: Interfaith Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

Christianity B‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Judaism B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Jewish history B‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Werdnabot

Flagged religious, not historical

User:Cush flagged the article as non-historical. He is partially right but, frankly, I do not like people telling other what to do. Cush, be bold, edit the article yourself. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Being bold on certain issues gets one bashed. Cush (talk) 14:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Cush, I created a new section about archeology, almost entirely composed of text from two other Misplaced Pages articles. Since this new section brings some balance and objectivity to the article (as did my previous section on genetics, which you ignored when you flagged the article), I removed your flag. I do not mind being bashed, but please do so constructively, following the various guidelines. For a start, this section is in need of sources. Emmanuelm (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I see what you have done. :-) However, the problem is inherent in the issue. There is one occurrence of the name "Israel" on one Egyptian stela. But there is no record of some offspring of Jacob/Israel in Egypt and no confirmation of the entire Sojourn/Exodus/Conquest/Judges/Monarchy story of the bible, and also no confirmation of the biblical events surrounding Abraham and his journey from Haran into Egypt (it would have been nice having the bible giving the names of the involved Egyptian kings). The archeological and independent historical record there is exactly zero (which you call just a 'discrepancy'), and there are major problems with chronology also. As it stands right now, the biblical account of the Israelites is pure fiction. Even more so when it comes to the beliefs allegedly held by the ancient entity named Israel. After all, the biblical history of Israel comes with a deity attached to it, which makes the evaluation of the historicity even worse. There are so many articles on Misplaced Pages that render Judeochristian doctrine as fact (in-universe) that it seems insufficient to just add the sentence "according to the bible" to them. Cush (talk) 19:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

If you think its fiction you clearly don't know what fiction means. The majority view is that the Biblical account is history, albeit told through the eyes of people who are superstitious by modern standards. The so called "Biblical minimalist" view that the Bible is fiction is at best described as maverick or fringe (= polite term for crank). Misplaced Pages should reflect majority view not push minority views as fact. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm reverting back to before the insertion of information discussing minimalism etc which is already covered in The Bible and history and Biblical Minimalism and others. We don't need to polute every Jewish history related artice with long rejected views of early 20th century modernist pseudo-scholars even when given a fresh coat of paint by a handful of anti-Israel humanities "scholars" from Copenhagen. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 00:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW what archaelogical evidence do you have of the 9/11 attack? Zero (video doesn't count as it can be faked) so should we flag that as non-historical too? ;) Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 00:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That is not even worth commenting. There are many sources for the occurrence of the 9/11 attacks, but there is still but one source for the existence of ancient Israelites as the Tanakh/Bible describes them: the Tanakh/Bible itself. It is somewhat strange that in 2500 years no non-biblical source has emerged to confirm any of the claims made by the Bible and its authors. There is no confirmation of the Israelites' existence and none of their alleged beliefs and none that the biblical god had been worshiped in ancient times at all. And I do not really care what the majority view is as long as that majority cannot come up with any real evidence. The factuality of something does not depend on the number of people believing in it. Cush (talk) 12:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

There is continous evidence of Israelites from the 13th century BCE onwards, so I am afraid you are very mistaken. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Most of human history lacks archaeological evidence and it is not logical to expect archaeological evidence to exist for every detail of history. To treat Israelite history differently to the history of say ancient Greece, China, Britain, pre-colonial southern Africa (all oral tradition) or Denmark, simply because it is related to religions which you don't happen to follow, is a form of unjustified bias and intellectual dishonesty. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 14:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no such continuous evidence. All there is is the biblical account. Otherwise, show me. Cush (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Read On the Reliability of the Old Testament by Kitchen for a start, as well as The Archaeology of Ancient Israel by Ben-Tor. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I see that you are a fan of Rohl. Rohl's views are also fringe he promotes the claim that there is "no evidence of Israelites" to advance the idea that a radical redating of history is needed that suddenly makes evidence appear. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 15:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You have no clue what Rohl claims or not, as he actually adheres to the biblical account. But that is of no relevance here, because the issue at hand is the clutter-up of articles with biblical doctrine instead of solid facts. The facts are that there is no other source than the bible that informs us about the alleged history of the ancient Israelites. Neither about who they really were nor what their setup of state was nor what their customs were. All we have is later writings of people who had an ideological (and political?) interest in historizing their own current beliefs. The assumed history of the Israelites spans at least 600 years and all there is is the word "Israel" for a geographic location on one Egyptian stele?? The connection between archeological findings and the biblical account has not been made yet, and wiki articles should reflect that. Cush (talk) 11:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

And my point is that the same can be said about the history of any nation known from written or oral accounts as opposed to being merely guessed at from scraps of archaeological evidence. Why treat Israelite history differently to British or French history? Most history like Israelite history is unconfirmed by archaeology and indeed archaeology is completely incapable of either confirming or contradicting most history - provide me with a piece of archaeological evidence say that a meeting was held to decide whether Harold of England should be the next king? Provide me with evidance that Harold of England actually existed - no one has found his grave. Applying ridiculuous standards to Israelite history which no one applies to any other history is irrational and intellectually dishonest. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 13:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I tell you why: because the only source for the Israelites is a religious work, the purpose of which is different from other sources describing historical events. The Tanakh was written to boast an ancient history, so you may understand why I would require independent confirmation for the claims made there. That's why the "Flagged religious, not historical" is justified. Cush (talk) 13:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Virtually all ancient accounts make reference to gods etc, take Egyptian monument texta and Roman accounts for example, modern academic standards for presenting history with separation of religious or other interpretations from objective events didn't exist before the 20th century - duh. If you think the OT was written to boast about anything you probably haven't sat down and read it! One of its key features is that it does not glorify or glamorize the past but shows the good the bad and the ugly. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Cush & Ghost, you bias is showing. I like how the chapter has been shortened by Ghost. As it stands, it is enough to prevent further flagging, which was my aim.

As for the core of the debate, I know nothing about it, but a search for "archeology israelites" in Amazon returned several recent books on the subject. Without having read them, it seems to me that Cush's assertion that independent historical record there is exactly zero is exagerated. Certainly, there are experts that are willing to debate this, as stated in the synopsis to this book. Emmanuelm (talk) 12:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, if there were real archeological confirmation of the biblical tale, why is it not already referenced in the article? Where are the artifacts from the Exodus, Conquest, Judges-era, Kingdom-era, bearing the names of Israel, Yhvh, Solomon, or any other that would establish a real connection between the core of the biblical narrative and actual history? Of all the alleged splendor of the Solomonic court nothing has remained in stone, wood or papyrus? Where are the Phoenician trade records refering to Israel or its inhabitants? Where are the Egyptian records? After 200 years of thoroughly reviewing all material dug up in Palestine/Israel and surrounding countries all that "biblical archeologists" (which is already a funny term) have to show is vague, dubious, circumstantial at best. The complete lack of substantial evidence makes it hard to believe in the biblical narrative. So wikipedia has to decide whether this article is supposed to be one about a religious tale, or one about reality. And my position is that as it stands right now the entire thing is a wishful historization of later Jewish (and subsequently Christian) beliefs. We just don't know who the real "Israelites", "Proto-Israelites", or whatever one may call them, were, what they did and especially what they believed in, and that is why the article is rather speculation than encyclopedic knowledge. Cush (talk) 07:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Cush, I removed your second flagging of the article. This article already had a section on Genetics (did you read it?). I added last week a section on Archeology and removed your flag. I & Ghost did our part to please you, now do you part and leave this article alone. Emmanuelm (talk) 12:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Save your threats. You have provided nothing that confirms the biblical account and makes it factual history. Genetics don't tell anything about the existence of Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Deborah & Barak, Gideon, David, Solomon, etc, do they? Or about actual worship practices in the respective timeframe, or the deities worshiped, do they? This article remains a religious statement, and it far from reflecting a neutral view on the archeology and history of the southern Levant in the respective period. The Bible is POV. Cush (talk) 13:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Cush, let me rephrase my comment. Ghost & I added a section on Archeology to satisfy the WP:NPOV guidelines, not you. As clearly stated, there are several main articles where these issues are debated.

As for genetics, the answer is Yes, the discovery of the Cohen modal haplotype is undeniable proof of a common paternal descent of 85% of currently living Cohens, confirming their historical claim of descent from Aaron. Believe me, a PhD in Genetics and an avid reader of archeology magazines, this proof is much more solid than any archeological find. Of course, it is only a partial confirmation of written history, but it is rock solid. Emmanuelm (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The existence of a real person named Aaron is not even proven, so how can one claim descent from that person? There were no large numbers of Hebrews in Egypt at the time that the Exodus is currently placed at (18th/19th Dyn), there is no trace of an exodus, no trace of a conquest of Canaan, no trace of the Judges or Monarchy periods. That is what "Israelites" means: a group of people that did and were what the Bible claims. But without evidence that is just fake religious historization of later beliefs, but not history. And if this article is supposed to be about a real group of ancient people it better have reliable evidence, not religiously motivated speculations (=POV). Cush (talk) 09:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Cush, genetics provides an objective proof of common paternal descent. Of course, it does not provide the name of that ancestor; the Bible does. If you are not satisfied with this proof of the existence of Aaron, you will never be satisfied with anything.

This being said, it is true that the body of non-Biblical evidences of the Israelites is thin. But why do you insist on excluding the Bible? What is the non-Biblical evidence of the existence of Jesus? Emmanuelm (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

How does common paternal descent confirm the Biblical narrative about the Exodus, Conquest, Judges and Monarchy periods?? I just do not get what the point of this genetic stuff is. "Israelites" is a term that derives entirely from the Biblical story of a number of Hebrews (apparently orignating somewhere in Upper Mesopotamia) in Egypt and their subsequent fate in the Sinai and Canaan. It spans a period of at least 600 years, and it renders a pretty specific "history" for the Israelites. Yet all details of the story are unconfirmed by excavations or textual sources from the respective time frame. The Biblical texts were all written many centuries after the events they describe and they were written by people who were religiously interpreting and amending history according to their own beliefs. Excuse me, but that is not a reliable source when it comes to history. It may be used for describing the Biblical story as mythology, but not as an accurate historical account where it is the only source. Btw I find the different standard on Misplaced Pages to tag ancient religions as myth (cf. Set, Mars, Venus) while not applying the same to Yhvh-worshiping questionable. Cush (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Israelites are a group defined by genetic lineage. Genetics is central here. As I suspected, you will not be satisfied by scientific facts. I'm done arguing. Emmanuelm (talk) 01:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Israelites are NOT a group defined by genetic lineage. And you seem to confuse Israelites with later or even modern Jews. There are no genetic samples available from people who lived in the southern Levant between, say, 1400 and 700 BCE, so stop telling me about genetic evidence. And if you cannot show me buildings, artifacts, or texts from that period that confirm the biblical narrative, I have no reason nor intention to believe any of the claims made in the Bible. I want to see the remains of Solomon's temple and palace, or his correspondence on paper or clay with other rulers in the region. Anything. I want to see the destruction layers in the stratigraphy of the cities attacked by Joshua that fit the chronological framework. If that cannot be shown the Bible will remain myth and religion and has subsequently no place in Misplaced Pages articles about (f)actual history. Cush (talk) 11:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Cush, give it a rest, the claim that something is not historical unless confirmed by archaeology is crank and not how history works nor what archaeology is about. There have been zero archaeological investigations of 9/11 and zero published findings in archaeology journals on the World Trade Center, that doesn't make 9/11 non-historical. Archaeology can tell us nothing about events that either leave no physical evidence or for which evidence has been removed, destroyed, not found yet or inaccessible. Thats the way all history works, again why single out Israelite history and apply absurd standards to it that are not applied to any other history. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 12:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

For 9/11 confirmation exists. Non-religious confirmation, I should add. There are millions of artifacts and writings for the ancient history of Egypt, Mesopotamia, Anatolia, etc. But all we have for the "history" of the southern Levant is the writing of religiously motivated persons who projected their own beliefs into the past many centuries after the events they describe. That's not reliable. For every other historical claim independent confirmation is required to accept it as factual (to a degree), but why single out Israelite history and leave it to the religionists to create history as they wish it to be? Cush (talk) 15:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hebrews ≠ Israelites

I have just removed the sentence "The term Hebrews, derived from Eber, is used in the Bible and elsewhere as a synonym for Israelites, but also occasionally to designate the descendants of Abraham." from the lead. In the Bible there is a pretty clear distinction between Hebrews and Israelites. In the Bible Israelites are exclusively those Hebrews who are descended from Jacob and his sons, and who shared a common "history" in Egypt, while other Hebrews remained in Canaan. And after the Exodus the Bible only uses the term Hebrews when Israelites themselves refer to those who are not Israelites (e.g David's marauding Hebrew mercenaries) or when foreigners use the term and do not care to make the distinction. Israelites ⊊ Hebrews. Cush (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Cush, WP is about verifiability, not truth. The Encyclopedia Britannica starts its entry with : any member of an ancient northern Semitic people that were the ancestors of the Jews. Historians use the term Hebrews to designate the descendants of the patriarchs of the Old Testament (i.e., Abraham, Isaac, and so on) from that period until their conquest of Canaan (Palestine) in the late 2nd millennium bc. Thenceforth these people are referred to as Israelites until their return from the Babylonian Exile in the late 6th century bc, from which time on they became known as Jews. The Jewish Encyclopedia starts its Hebrews entry with : In the Bible "Israel" is the national name of the people who are known racially as "Hebrews." I understand from this that they consider Hebrews and Israelites to be two names for the same people.

Again, I am not saying you are untrue. I'm saying you have to find sources, ideally secondary sources, to support your text. I did. Please expand the section with additional sources and add a sentence in the lead to replace the one you deleted. Emmanuelm (talk) 02:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Children of Israel deleted, redirected here

I salvage what I thought was useful from the Children of Israel article, dumped it in one section. Please help me clean up. Emmanuelm (talk) 02:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Cohen gene -- revisited

(cut& pasted from above) How is it possible to attach a biblical figure to the possible "common descent"? All that the "Cohen gene" seems to confirm is a geographical origin, but there is certainly no hard evidence to link any culture, faith or even single named persons to this blurry lineage. Israelites are virtually absent in the historical and archeological record of the period in question, how can someone seriously pinpoint one Aaron without reverting to religious doctrine? Cush (talk) 21:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Very true, Cush. All the genetic data is saying is that 65% of Cohens share a common paternal ancestor. Everything else is extrapolation. Do not, however, underestimate the importance of this scientific observation. It proved that Ashkenazi Cohens were as "kosher" as Sephardi Cohens. It proved that the Lemba were right. But, most importantly, it showed that they carry a rather rare variant of the Y-chromosome that allowed for all these conclusions. This scenario is improbable enough to force the most atheist geneticist to think. Emmanuelm (talk) 02:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

How is the scenario improbable? It only says that the caste system in classical Jewish society works (i.e. since the Babylonian episode). However, there is still no connection to the biblical characters in Exodus and the Israelites as such. Cush (talk) 06:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Cush, I was talking about genetics, not history. Given the very low rate of Y-chromosome mutation, it is very improbable that a given patriarchal group would enjoy its own gene variant. For example, I've never heard of a royal family claiming its own "blue" gene. The narrow distribution of the Cohen Modal Haplotype is unique so far. And, again, no, there is no gene spelled A-a-r-o-n. Emmanuelm (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Then what does this have to do with the Israelites? What does it have to do with the Jewish (and subsequently Christian) claim that Israelites had existed as the Tanakh narrates? And is this an article about a religious issue or about real history? Cush (talk) 17:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Cush, I see you are very persistent. This article is about the patriarchal clan called the Israelites. It covers all aspects, Biblical or not. You may think that non-biblical evidences are non-existent but others will disagree. You may think that genetics provides a very narrow type of evidence, but it is no less informative than pottery chards.

Cush, I note that the Jesus and Muhammad article are not flagged, yet fail to provide non-religious evidences for the existence of these guys. Why do you care so much about proving the existence of Israelites? Emmanuelm (talk) 20:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this article is about the patriarchal clan called the Israelites. That is, what later Jews have claimed past existence for. But that is all. The name Israel appears a few times on ancient artifacts or in texts, but there is NOTHING that confirms the biblical tale that comes with that name. And your genetic evidence is irreleavnt to the veracity of the biblical tale as well. It simply does not prove an Exodus, a Conquest, a Judges or Monarchy period, and definitely not the existence of single biblical characters such as Aaron. It just narrows the region, but not the ancient ethnic group. And if ever a people named Israel existed it is definitely nothing like the Israelites of the Bible. Everything that has ever been written about the history of ancient Israel, in connection with surrounding nations, fails to add up to a coherent historical panaomrama, and you know that pretty well. Egyptians, Mesopotamians, Anatolians, and even other Levantine states were excellent record keepers and yet NO sources match what the Tanakh renders as history. Bits and pieces may fit somehow, but there is no overall picture. The range of theorized Exodus dates spans almost 400 years (from the Hyksos to poor Ramesses2, in other words unknown)!!! And why? Because none of the dates really fits into Egyptian and Levantine chronology without negating subsequent biblical tales. And because no Hebrews were present in Egypt in any of the dates proposed for the Exodus in the currently held chronology (great numbers of Aamu were only present in Egypt prior to the Hyksos). The only logical conclusion out of this mess is that it is all just religious wishful historization by later adherents of Judaism (and then Christianity and Islam). Or the currently held chronology is fundametally flawed (being based on the Shoshenq-Shishak identification). Cush (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Cush, I'm curious if you have a source for this line of reasoning, or if it is just wp:SYN. I also would like to know your thoughts about Jesus and Muhammad. NJGW (talk) 03:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

From the latest issue of Biblical Archeology Review (Sept/Oct 2008)p.18 : How many kings of ancient Israel and Judah have been securely identified in sources outside the Bible? Answer : 16. They mention royal cuneiform inscriptions of the neo-Assyrian empire, a Babylonian ration text, the Moabite stone of Mesha and the Aramean Tel Dan stela.

Cush, we are not knowledgeable enough (nor interested enough?) to follow your argument. Like most people, we believe that the Hebrew Bible is, at least in part, a reliable historical source. Please argue your point at Archaeology of Israel, Biblical archaeology or The Bible and history. Emmanuelm (talk) 20:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with Cush entirely, but I wouldn't take BAR at face value either as you probably know that not every archaeologist in the subject takes BAR's line. I'm puzzled by this fron the article The discovery of the Cohen Modal Haplotype gives more weight to the Biblical and priestly claim of descent from a unique ancestor, namely Aaron, and also provides an objective test of claims of Israelite origin, as for example with the Lemba people. I presume it is a paraphrase of some scientific article and not WP:SYN? And I'm also puzzled by the emphasis on genetics and yet no archaeology. The article seems unbalanced. Doug Weller (talk) 20:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Doug, I agree, the archeology vs genetics is unbalanced. I shortened the genetics section and added more sources to support my text. For the archeology, I am still waiting for someone to be bold and write instead of flagging. Will it be you? Emmanuelm (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Waiting. Emmanuelm (talk) 03:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you expect anyone to pull archeology to support the biblical claims out of a hat? As far as serious archeology goes, biblical Israelites did not exist. Of course, one could put a list here with digs that have disproved the biblical tales about the history of Canaan and its alleged invaders (e.g. Kenyon, Bietak, Petrie, Finkelstein). Cush (talk) 05:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

From you we're waiting on sources claiming what you keep saying. NJGW (talk) 05:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Meieimatai's edits

Man, Cush is going to have a field day with this... Meieimatai, maybe you should come discuss why you think all this is necessary, especially in the lead. NJGW (talk) 03:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there a problem?--Meieimatai 04:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meieimatai (talk • contribs)

Well, seeing as there are several sections immediately preceding this one which discuss ways to make this article more archeologically accurate, it seems a bit strange that you are making such a huge push to fill in details which are only referencable from the Book. You should probably read through what's been going on here over the past couple of months and see how you can work your changes in with the issues raised above. NJGW (talk) 05:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not making a push for anything. If something is stated, it may as well have a citation, even if from the Bible. Considering Cush says that archaeologically Israelites may as well have not existed, maybe we should delete the entire article and everything connected with the subject....that's Israel, Bible, etc.?--Meieimatai 05:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meieimatai (talk • contribs)

It's not so much what Cush says (he's got his POV agenda of course, which you seem to have a good idea of), but the points others are making about the wording. Also, your changes add up to more than a few citations... please don't be obtuse on that point. NJGW (talk) 05:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you see as a problem specifically? I have barely begun to read the article--Meieimatai? 05:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Better you should start with the talk page, and comment where you see fit. Then you can read the article (as you probably have a very good idea of what the article could/would/should say anyway). NJGW (talk) 05:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hm. That's quite the response. Care to elaborate? NJGW (talk) 05:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything controversial with that. The entire tribe of Levi is in many ways set apart, as are the Kohanim, but all are included in the term Israelites by the virtue of being part of the descendants of Israel, and after the union of tribes, members of the kingdom. Only for ritual identified in the text are they considered not Israelites, in fact to this day--Meieimatai? 06:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality and differing points of view

As it stands, the article reads as though the Bible is literally true. A lot of people hold this viewpoint, but most people who know anything about the subject realise that there are other significant views. The archaeology 'section' in particular is pathetic at the moment (and has a weird non-archaeological sentence about certain Jews in south Asia. Until the article properly reflects other significant points of view, it should be tagged as I've tagged it. Doug Weller (talk) 17:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, agreed, but I have only just started.

However, you own sense of neutrality is showing. Archaeology as we well know can not and never will disprove the Bible, nor does the Bible need substantiation from physical evidence, it being more than a few stories to some. The two are, so far as cultural histories are concerned, mutually exclusive. :This is supposed to be an article about Israelites, not archaeology of Ancient Israel. It seems to me that as yet the article doesn't even properly define Israelites--Meieimatai? 03:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The bible DOES need substantiation from physical evidence when it comes to claims about the alleged history of peoples described in the bible. Or are you distinguishing between fictional biblical Israelites and actual whoever-lived-in-Canaan-Israelites?? After all, there is evidence for the existence of something called Israel, just nothing to confirm what Jewish lore makes of it. If this article is only about fictional biblical Israelites then all dates for any events that would connect the biblical tale with actual history of the Levant MUST be removed from the article (dates for the Exodus, the Conquest, the Kingdoms). In fact, I somewhat agree with you, as I maintain the position the the bible is no more actual history than the Silmarillion, at least not in the conventionally held chronology for ancient Egypt and the Levant. Cush (talk) 03:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Our policy on neutrality requires that articles represent "significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias". Please read WP:NPOV. The article clearly doesn't do this. Doug Weller (talk) 06:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Short of finding tablets etched in stone with "Israelites were here", archaeologists only make statements tantamount to best guess as to who was where.

Given that we are looking for a group of Semitic peoples in a Semitic region, who tended to borrow and who were borrowed from others widely, any "proof" is at best subjective. Whatever you or other academics may say, fictional or not, the Israelites did manage to document their history better than some, and preserve it and their religion, so they are pretty much reality.

If we are going to discuss NPOV, than dates used in the Jewish sources have as much right to be in the article as any other dates given they are a part of their cultural history, written and oral. Do you think that any written or oral cultural histories should be removed from Misplaced Pages until they are confirmed by academics? I think that is a fairly unscientific approach to take given if the records did not exist, archaeologists would not have the many ideas as to where to conduct research i.e. dig, or to correlate their findings in the first place. In many ways modern archaeology was born of the Bible, so lets not get overly judgemental on the merits of other people's culture, ok?

I'm happy to hear where you think the article is biased. Please be specific. If citations are required, I will try to obtain them for the university library as best as it allows me if I can't find something online. If you disagree on the wording, that too can be discussed.

I think in the first place the article lacked structure, defined parameters and a defined historical process all of which led to significant amounts of irrelevant content included. I think the best policy is to stick to evidential approach where statements can be substantiated with explicit rather than implied evidence.

I would prefer if the "spiritual" claims were kept to other more "spiritually" focused articles. I'm happy to collaborate and learn from others, but what I do not appreciate is when as soon as someone starts improving an article when all of a sudden critics jump out of nowhere that had not done any substantial contributing, but are all to eager to put down the contributing editor. This is not a "critics anonymous". If someone has ideas for improving an article, voice them and provide cited references, or go and contribute to articles that correspond to abilities. Just because anyone can edit, doesn't mean anyone should

I'm not going to work in a sandbox on this, but edit to content as I go, so it will be a work in progress--Meieimatai? 10:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

This article is biased in so far that it treats the biblical account as accurate history, just because it is old and because it is the foundation of religion and weltanschauung. But the fact of the matter is that there is no evidence that the bible is any different than, say, the Book of Mormon, which creates an alternative history. Any article about ancient history that starts with "according to the bible" is worthless, as the "source" might as well be entirely fictional, and most likely is. Religious sources are dangerous, because their purpose never was to render accurate descriptions of what happened, but of what the faithful (often fanatically) would like to have happened. That is far far away from a neutral presentation, and if you just copy what the Tanakh says, there will never be a neutral article on the matter. Oh, and claiming oral traditions as source is just a convenient way to say that faith overrides facts. Cush (talk) 15:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I am addressing this article as having a textual history, that is, the narrative, whatever the source, seeks to portray events that span a historical period as a process, regardless of availability of external proof. Given that academic proof did not become a requirement until the Industrial Revolution, you can hardly fault them for being short-sighted in omitting it for your convenience.

But this is not "accurate history"...if there ever was such a thing. This article is named "Israelites". As such they are mostly documented in the Tanach. I am trying to put order to the treatment of this documentation in the article so the subject can be expanded and treated in an encyclopaedic way.

What do you have a problem with, my methodology? My references (I have yet to start citing sources though)?

Religious sources are not "dangerous" since I have never seen one used as a weapon. They are just sources. The degree to which the Bible is verifiable is not the subject of this article; "Israelites" is.

Do you have any other contemporary sources about Israelites? Saying there are no appreciable physical evidence as you see it does not eliminate the notability of the subject. That is not "representing significant views fairly" because you are simply denying the other point of view!

I'm claiming that oral tradition as a source is a valid method of research in anthropology. It says nothing about facts, but only about cultural memories.

It seems to me based on your comments that your problem with this article and my edits is not based in any suggestions of me being neutral, but rather with your own attitude to religion. This is not an article about religion, but about a people who source their cultural knowledge from a religious text. I hope you can see the difference--Meieimatai? 23:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits to be mass-reverted

I'll soon revert this page to version 17:46, October 9, 2008 by Ewawer. Here is your chance to explain & justify your recent changes. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a problem with anything? If you do, please address them specifically here first rather than starting edit conflicts. Threats of reversions are probably not the most civil approach to editing, right?--Meieimatai? 23:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit ironic Meieimatai that you say such things given the extent of discussion already ignored by you above. Perhaps you'd like to join the group instead of taking ownership of the article and completely changing its direction. Before you began editing the article was on the way to becoming a verifiable exploration of all groups who identify with the religion of Israel, but you are changing it to an overview of the bible's 12/13 tribes. NJGW (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

And here-in lies the problem. The article is about "Israelites". As such they are defined by the sources in which they are mentioned, which is primarily the Tanach. An encyclopaedic article is not about cramming all possible issues and points of view into a single text, but focusing on the subject.

All groups who might self-identify as Israelites in the modern world, or with the Jewish religion, which is arguably all monotheists, are not by definition Israelites because they want to be, though I note that there are various claims to this end. There is an article Groups claiming an affiliation with the ancient Israelites. These claims represents, for the most part, highly original (not in the Misplaced Pages sense) research which is usually not accepted by either the major Jewish communities or academic communities, or both in many cases.

Your claims of me taking ownership are unwarranted. However, I note that the group as you call it is mostly you (now by self-identification), Cush and Emmanuelm, with Cush being primarily anti-textual. Cush contributed by pasting from other articles and mostly arguing with Emmanuelm, while Ewawer also contributed to editing without participating in the discussion.

As I see there is a group of people in the Tanach called Israelites in English. Tanach happens to be their cultural history record. At several stages in their history, which is uniquely recorded both in the oral and written tradition, the people fracture and some loose their identity. This is not unprecedented in history, even European history. In fact it was Cush who added the "According to the Tanakh" to the introduction.

The article made several mistakes:

1. Not clearly defining the subject fo the article
2. Not having a clear article structure
3. Changing editing focus from the subject to editors' editorial preferences
4. Lacking reliable and verifiable sources and not using citations
5. Letting editorial passions get in the way of editing

I'd be happy to discuss anything you have a problem with in my editing, but do not fling general accusations at me such as taking ownership or ignoring prior discussion. Just because I have not mentioned every previously discussed subject or mentioned everyone by name does not mean I have not read Talk (the first thing I did) or ignored others.--Meieimatai? 00:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The biggest problem is your translation. Ebri/Evri/etc... is not 'Israelite' but 'Hebrew'. Nowhere in the bible does the word 'Israelim' come up. It's a modern word with a modern context. Why should this article and Hebrews be the same topic anyway? Actually it looks like Hebrews is becoming Jew. I think that all the stuff you're pushing here should be moved to Hebrews, this page should be restored to what it was before you started editing it (an exploration of the modern groups associated with Israel as a concept--whether culturally, archialogically, genetically, or by choice), with the change that a seperate article take up the Tribes of Israel. NJGW (talk) 01:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the Biblical Bnei Israel, the Hellenic and Roman period Hebrews and the modern Jews are not one and the same? As I understand it the three categorisations of individuals that could be admitted to the Temple, and these days to the Torah reading in a synagogue, are Kohen, Levi and Israel (Yisrael), not Israelite, so shall we just AfD the whole article?

"Israelim" is not even in the article.

There are theories that suggest Biblical Israel and Hebrews are not one and the same, and I will deal with this, but don't expect an instant FA article.

I strongly object to your use of "pushing", and in fact I find it insulting.

"Israelites" is not a modern concept, but only a modern English rendering of Bnei Israel, at once inhabitants of ancient Israel and the people of the same name; modern groups that claim association, do so to as claimants to populations which have lost this identity during a historical process.

Claim to modern association are invariably based in religious practice of some sort, or oral memory.

Archaeological links between modern populations and ancient populations are at best academic.

Genetic affiliation is only a testament to intermarriage, and does not define someone as Jewish by default. There are for example members of Orthodox priestly families with very long recorded traditions that do not have the genetic marker which identifies them as such.

Identification by choice is altogether unacceptable for inclusion here. Consider for example adding section in the article USA such as Groups that consider themselves American. I think the range of articles on Europeans reflect this:

• Citizen of the European Union
• Demography of Europe
• European culture
• Genetic history of Europe
• Indo-European
• European ethnic groups

With "Israelites" we do not have this problem. We have a text which clearly identifies them. We have records of their history, evolution of their society and culture, and we have some substantiation of this from archaeological evidence. As any other demographic groups, they have standards and parameters of self-identity and inclusion. Many groups did and still do.

While I can self-identify as a Roman, and trust me, I have a good justification for doing so, group inclusion does not work "by Misplaced Pages". See for example the Enlargement of the European Union.

As it happens, Israelites are synonymous with the Tribes of Israel by virtue of the Ephod on which the names were inscribed

It seems to me that you are pursuing an agenda altogether different from editing an encyclopaedic article, and accuse me of doing same with no evidence so far. Please stop. If you are unwilling to cooperate, or to contribute without slinging empty accusations and criticism based on a semi-finished article because I have not accepted your point of view on the subject, it is because it is not commonly accepted across a range of cultures and groups, and I see no reason why Jews should be made exceptions to the rule--Meieimatai? 04:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Them's some loaded terms... but moving past your rhetoric, would you care to explain how you will prove that the sources you mention are NPOV and V? NJGW (talk) 04:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You think its rhetoric? And what you said is what?

I don't understand your question--Meieimatai? 09:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You rely heavily in your initial analysis on sources such as Seder Olam, Genesis, and apparently the Ephod. What makes you believe that these sources are any more wp:NPOV and wp:V than the Book of Mormon? I think you would be better off starting an article entitled Children of Israel, as that is the main nomenclature of your sources, and frame that article as a brief overview of a history built upon religious and semi-religios texts. NJGW (talk) 10:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is disputed.

As of 13 October 2008
Would someone care to say what is the subject of dispute that prompted this template?--Meieimatai? 09:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The examples and perspective in this article or section may not include all significant viewpoints.

As of 13 October 2008
Would someone like to say what this template is aimed at?--Meieimatai? 09:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

There's a discussion just above that you've participated in that should deal with this, but for starters, how about the viewpoint that Israelites are basically Canaanites? Doug Weller (talk) 10:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to find out what prompted the template

I think firstly this contradicts the primary source that is the Tanach, basically. If not for that, Canaan would not be identified at all until deciphering of the Egyptian sources

Do you mean in the same way that current residents of US states of Georgia and South Carolina are basically San Miguel de Guadalupeans?

The statement that they are Canaanites is of course correct if one considers that they conquered Canaan, or that Abraham clearly at various stages of his life processed land in the area. Mind you we are talking in therms of hundreds of years in demographic change. Similarly, in reference to later periods we can say that Israelites are basically Babylonians, East Europeans, and indeed, Americans

However, are you suggesting I need to represent the point of view of the ancient Canaanites other than Israelites, or the theories that Israelites are just rebranded Canaanites?--Meieimatai? 09:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I am suggesting that the article needs to represent other significant views, including the view that the Israelites (or at least most of them) are Canaanites whose religion changed over time. Doug Weller (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Using the Bible as a primary source, without referring to secondary sources that critically analyze the biblical texts

As of 13 October 2008
What sort of critical analysis is expected?--Meieimatai? 09:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? We don't do critical analysis here. Doug Weller (talk) 10:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The template says, "referring to secondary sources that critically analyze the biblical texts". So we don't do critical analysis here, but we do cite sources that do so? That mean we do indeed reflect critical analysis here, so exactly what is it that you want to see voiced?--Meieimatai? 22:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No, we report the critical analysis of others in a neutral way. Doug Weller (talk) 05:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Lead -- quite funny now really, but I think the Bible was written before there was an English language

I just read the revised lead. . Somehow I don't think that the Bible says that 'Israelites' is an English language name. In fact, it was my impression that all the books of the Bible were written before English even existed. I haven't kept up with all of these rapid edits, but if this is typical, a mass revert is desperately required. Doug Weller (talk) 10:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I was just going to make the same point about the lead sentence. But given how controversial this article probably is, I'm not going to be bold about changing it right now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The article has now been turned into a dog's breakfast - with apologies to dogs.Ewawer (talk) 09:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Israelites is an English word. Some people are not aware that this is only the English term for referring to a people about whom most of the Bible is written. Do you not think this should be clarified?--Meieimatai? 22:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what your dog eats, but my dog prefers dog food served on her plate--Meieimatai? 22:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

What's the verse in the Bible where it says that Israelites is an English language name? The Bible doesn't say that. Doug Weller (talk) 05:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The Bible doesn't say that Egypt is an English language name either, and yet it is. What's your point? Cush (talk) 07:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Mass revertion and Request for protection

I reverted the article to its Oct 9th version, and posted a Request for full protection on WP:RFPP. We all need to calm down and ponder what Misplaced Pages is and is not. Emmanuelm (talk) 12:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Protected

Due to the recent edit warring this page has been protected for 1 week. Please use the time to discuss the matter here and come to a consensus on what should and shouldn't be included on the page. If an urgent edit needs to be made during the protection, please place the template {{editprotected}} here with details of the edit that needs to be made and justification for the edit, and an administrator will come by to make the edit. If you have agreed and resolved the dispute before the expiry of the protection, please make a listing at requests for unprotection. While it is also possible to make such requests on my talk page, it would be quicker for you to use those previous methods. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, lets ponder what Misplaced Pages is. Its a reference work. It consists of articles. Each article is about a specific subject. The content of the article reflects the subject. Does the current content of this article reflect its subject?

Most articles start with an introduction that defines the subject for the reader, and then summarises the content. So what do we have here?

According to the Bible, the Israelites were the dominant group living in the Land of Israel from the time of the conquest of the territory by Joshua until they were conquered by the Babylonians in c.586 BCE and taken into exile. They were divided in twelve tribes, each claiming descent from one of twelve sons and grandsons of Jacob.

In fact this is not true. Israelites are so known from the name change by Jacob to Israel, and he lived in Canaan BEFORE it was conquered by the tribes under Joshua's leadership.

The term Israelite derives from Israel (Hebrew: ישראל (Standard Yisraʾel Tiberian Yiśrāʾēl)), the name given to the biblical patriarch Jacob after he struggled with an angel ( Genesis 32:28-29). His descendants are called the House of Jacob, the Children of Israel, the People of Israel, or the Israelites.

Of course this ignores the Jewish texts that say the name Israel was also accorded to Abraham and Isaac because that would be recognising the right of the Jews to actually interpret their cultural texts. However, what is the point of retelling the whole "struggle with the angel" story in the intro here? Is this not about the Israelites? Is it not enough to just hyperlink the Jacob article?

The Hebrew Bible is mainly concerned with the Israelites. According to it, the Land of Israel (previously called Canaan) was promised to them by their god. Jerusalem was their capital and the site of the temple at the center of their faith.

Hey, where did the Hebrew Bible come from? How is it relevant to the Israelites? Oh wait, its their main religious text and the basis of their religion! And here is an interesting thing, a bit of modern politics thrown in:

• a) religious politics by saying "Land of Israel (previously called Canaan) was promised to them by their god" although "God is the principal or sole deity in religions and other belief systems that worship one deity. The singular, capitalized God of monotheistic religions is commonly contrasted with the gods of polytheistic religions."
• b) conflict in Israel by saying "Jerusalem was their capital" although the article on Jerusalem says "Jerusalem (Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם‎, Yerushaláyim; Arabic: القُدس, al-Quds) is the capital of Israel and its largest city"
• c) a bit more religious bias "the site of the temple at the center of their faith" although being the only such structure, it has a proper name the Temple in Jerusalem or Holy Temple in that article, and not any temple.
• And of course it Hebrew because they are Hebrews "an ancient people defined as descendants of biblical Patriarch Eber (Hebrew עברי (ʿIḇrî) "traverse or pass over"), a great-grandson of Noah."! That must be the Eber that is mentioned what 2-3 times in the "Ebrew Bible", right?

I beg for some logic and inter-article continuity as a start

The Israelites became a major political power with the United Monarchy of Kings Saul, David and Solomon, from c. 1025 BCE. Zedekiah, king of Judah (597-586 BCE), is considered the last king from the house of David.

And for the rest of the article, this statement which at once misinforms, and fails utterly to inform. Political power is what one calls garnering domestic popular support in a democracy. A United Monarchy was clearly not that since Saul was anointed by a prophet. A regional power is another thing, but that would be embarrassing, right?

And of course the Israelites who have a calendar of their own (the Eber calendar?!), which figures importantly in their system of dating is replaced with another calendar system.

Nothing is said about their historical process as Israelites, and how their descendants see it, at all. What is ensured though, is that an attempt is made to disassociate modern Jews from the Israelites by stating that "Zedekiah, king of Judah (597-586 BCE), is considered the last king from the house of David.", which is of course not true in terms of Jewish messianic tradition and eschatology, where the term came to refer to a future Jewish King from the Davidic line which is also at at the center of their faith.

Instead, the article has a curious structure "deliberated" on by editors who think they know what an article should look like

1. 1 Terminology

This short quip does more to confuse, and in fact misinforms. Curiously although I was asked to prove that Egyptians had a name for Israelites, in this section this is taken as a given.

1. 2 The Twelve Tribes

Here few citations are given, Jacob suddenly has 4 wives instead of two, the changes to the order of the tribes in the Bible are not elaborated on at all, and the opening sentence to division of land is pure fiction "The tribes were assigned territories following the conquests of land under Moses and Joshua." since Moses is well known not to have participated in the conquests.

• 2.1 Jacob's sons
• 2.2 Camps following the exodus
• 2.3 The division of the land

1. 3 Israelite kingdoms

Starts with the divided kingdoms, and adds a line pasted from the introduction. The section is entirely lacking in citations.

Apparently at this stage the reader is meant to make the independent cognitive leap from 586 BC? (not even BCE) to 1960s when genetic testing became available. The entire continuity of Jewish history is completely ignored. In all the discussions, someone forgot 2500 years I guess. It happens.

1. 4 Genetic evidence of common descent

Yet more religious politics. No mention is made that the Israelites had a non-genetic determinants of inclusion. Is that reflecting editor's ideology on Who is a Jew?

1. 5 Archeology of Israelites

This little section does not even deserve to be here because it simply fails to inform!

1. 6 Other groups claiming descent

There is of course an article Groups claiming an affiliation with the ancient Israelites, but even if there wasn't, the most obvious question is, what is the criteria for making these claims? There ought to be an introduction to a section lest one think that all these groups are making the claims based on genetic testing, or documented lineage to the tribes, or sharing of religion, or something

• 6.1 Samaritans
• 6.2 Karaites
• 6.3 Beta Israel
• 6.4 Bnei Menashe
• 6.5 Hebrew Israelites
• 6.6 Rastafari
• 6.7 Messianic Judaism
• 6.8 Latter-day Saints
• 6.9 Christian Identity

1. 7 Children of Israel

This is entirely out of the subject focus. "Bnei Israel" is an expression used in the Bible. What any one group believes about their claims on the subject says nothing about Israelites, or Jews. What Christians believe is already covered in many Christian articles. The section on Islam simply confirms that Islam is aware of the expression. How unreferenced claims by the Pashtun are related is a mystery to me. However, had the previous editors actually made a serious effort at dealing with this, they would have at least bothered to link the exposition to the relevant article in Misplaced Pages. Of course theories are grand, but how about some theories about Israelites? The Ten Lost Tribes, a consistently important subject throughout Jewish history, is a brief mention in a sentence!

• 7.1 In Christianity
• 7.2 In Islam
• 7.3 Others

However, consider for example that Jewish religion is mentioned but once, in the Karaite section, although the article is a subject of THREE religion-based WikiProjects; faith is mentioned twice.

The above is just some of the reasons I started editing here. I simply could not reconcile the lack of continuity and contradiction within the Misplaced Pages articles, never mind between Misplaced Pages and common, very common, basic awareness one would gain from reading even general works on Israelite/Jewish history. Having read the discussion in the article Talk page, and compared it with the existing version, I simply decided that editors were pursuing own agendas, are lacking in commitment to cite authoritative sources and, based on previous comments, would not be very interested in a discussion. This action of reversion and protection by User:Emmanuelm just proved me right! User:Emmanuelm completely failed to participate in ANY discussion, but seems to think that Misplaced Pages works by ultimatums. Given he was allowed to both revert and slap a protection on, it seems others share this belief.

If one reads the Hebrews article, one would think it should be removed from the Jewish History Project and moved to Eberites History Project!

Now, someone wants to discuss what Whikipedia is and is not?--Meieimatai? 00:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'll discuss it with you.

In the first place "Israelite" refers to a historic people, a group or a nation. If you want to discuss religion, and whether something was promised and by whom, that is a matter for religion - to be discussed under "Judaism" or "The Promised Land".

It is fair for groups who claim descent from the "Israelites" to get a mention, though their religious beliefs can be left to their own articles.

To throw everything into the one article makes it lose any relevance to a property understanding of the subject matter.

On the other hand, no claim is made that the reinstated article is 100% accurate, which I know it's not, and still needs work to be done to it, but not to extent of transforming it into an analysis of religious claims to the land, etc. On the other hand, turning it into a history of the ancient Kingdom of Israel is also a waste of an effort.

In short, the Israelite period of Jewish history is the period between the conquest of Canaan and the Babylonian Exile. And, the Israelites were the Jews (in a general sense) who lived in that period. The name was not used in any other period.Ewawer (talk) 02:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Revert the title to "Children of Israel", which is definable in terms of its usage in the Bible. "Israelite" isn't really definable - the Israelites were not, for example, a historic people (the old kingdom of Israel didn't actually call itself by that name - it was Samaria or Beit Omri), and the use of "Israel" to refer to the peoples of Judah and Israel together dates from the post-Exilic period. PiCo (talk) 02:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest a split into at least two articles: Children of Israel (defined in biblical terms, would include the 12 tribes as well as the POV fork Meimeitai cut out of this article), Israelites (perhaps not an historical term, but is the common phrase used now to describe a historic people... an anthropological/genetic/etc. article). NJGW (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Defining "Israelites"

Well, actually I would like to hear for the individual who thinks in terms of ultimatums.

If he wants to contribute to an article, any article, it is best to start by defining the subject.

So, define "Israelites"--Meieimatai? 09:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ultimatum - noun, a final demand or statement of terms, the rejection of which will result in retaliation or a breakdown in relations. So you want some specific person to put their foot down, and demand something of you, otherwise they'll throw a hissy-fit? Weird. Who is this person you're referring to? By the way, if you read the previous sections instead of just starting new ones every few hours you'll see that this question has come up before several times... just to be ignored by you. Propose this section be removed per wp:TALK ("Deleting material not relevant to improving the article (per the above subsection #How to use article talk pages)" is permitted). Stop creating new discussion sections with new topics as soon as someone replies to you. NJGW (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

NJGW, please be respectful. Mei, why are you asking? Don't you have a Torah at home? Look for "House of Jacob", "House of Israel", "People of Israel", "Children of Israel", "Sons of Israel", "Daughters of Israel". Israelites is the English word most often used to designate these people, but the other names are mentioned in the introduction. Additionally, here is a list of Encyclopedia definitions, none of them clear :

• People of Israel entry in the Jewish Encyclopedia.
• Israelite entry in the Enclopedia Britannica.
• Israel in the Bible entry in the Columbia Encyclopedia.

This Misplaced Pages article attempts to unify these definitions with the Bible and to clarify the whole thing. It was rather good... until you started undoing it. Emmanuelm (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

NJGW - what I read, and what I found in the article did not correspond to what article standards in Misplaced Pages suggest it should be.

This "I'll soon revert this page to version 17:46, October 9, 2008 by Ewawer. Here is your chance to explain & justify your recent changes. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)" was an ultimatum

Given someone didn't like my editing of the introduction, and this included definition, and there was not another section in talk dedicated to the defining of the article subject, I started it.

I started the previous sections because others who attached the template's did not. The accepted practice in Misplaced Pages is to start a discussion if a template is attached, explaining what the issue is. I waited, and these did not appear, so I started them

How is this "Israelites is the English word most often used to designate these people" different from my introduction sentence that was removed?

Here is my idea on Misplaced Pages - it does not regurgitate other encyclopaedias. However, if you are so limited in sources at to only use online sources, why pick those that date from the 19th century?

In reply to the issue of religion here, the answer is rather obvious to me. The Israelites are the source of the first enduring monotheistic religion in the the world, and the primary written text is also the source of everything that others claim affiliation through. To write an article without going into the subject of Israelite religion what defines who is an Israelite, is like describing a car without mentioning that it's primary design purpose is for transportation, and that things which need rails or wings need not apply. Sort of like "Well, its this mechanical design with wheels and engine, and you pour petrol here, oh and by the way, some suggest that the Boeing 747 is also a descendant of the car via this thing called a bus."

What I am also suggesting is that the "Israelites", known in post-Renaissance English as Hebrews, and in modern English as Jews have a cultural heritage. This includes texts and text analysis as sources. On the other hand there are academics who think they have the right to reinterpret these because they are academics, and discard completely. So, there is this sort of "discard anything we don't like" attitude. However, this is a really bias (speaking of neutrality) point of view. The approach that logic suggests is

• Say what the original sources of identity are
• Say what the Israelites think about themselves and their history
• Say where the questions about Israelite identity originate

The above is the approach taken in anthropology with other populations groups, but seemingly Jews are up for academic "target practice" because there are so many people who have so many problems with them, and mostly with their religion because it is the antithesis of science (supposedly) and therefore a threat to academia(?)

In any case, as it happens a project came up at work, and another in my personal life. I will have no time to spend on this article until March next year at the earliest unfortunately, but I will be back, and look in from time to time.I will also bring this article and Hebrews (which is utter OR) to the notice of Judaism Project, and will return next year--Meieimatai? 01:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Meieimatai?, you asked for a definition of Israelite, which I think is a very good idea. I said above that I have a concern about this article precisely because the word is so difficult to define. Therefore, thanks for poitning us to the Encyclopedia Britannica and others. I looked up the EB and this is what it gives for its definition of Israelite (I'm summarising):

• A Jew, a descendant of the Biblical Patriarch Jacob/Israel
• Originally, all members of the 12 tribes; later, peoples of the northern kingdom of Israel; and after 721, peoples of the kingdom of Judah;
• liturgically, a Jew who is neither a cohen nor a levite.

The EB expresses my concerns perfectly, although I'm sure the authors never had such an outcome in mind. The problem is that it takes the Biblical narrative at face value - it accepts the historical existence of Jacob/Israel and the 12 tribes and the history outlined in Samuel/Kings. It also describes the peoples of Iron Age Israel/Judah as Jews, and their religion, by implication, as Judaism, which is not the usual scholarly language. In short, the EB isn't up to date with the scholarly consensus.

My point is that Israel is a meaningful term in the context of the Bible, but Israelite is too diffuse. For Israel, you can talk about such things as the emergence of the two kingdoms and their ongoing cultural differentiation from the surrounding kingdoms (in the case of Israel, very little - Israel's culture was entirely Canaanite, even to the worship of the god El in his guise as a bull), the emergence of Yahwistic monolatry and eventual monotheism in Judah and the Exile, and the post-Exilic tension between narratives of ethnic inclusion and exclusion in which the term "Israel" was used to create a national and religious identity. PiCo (talk) 07:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

And Mei's approach seems essentially an OR one, using logic to construct an argument. Doug Weller (talk) 09:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Mei, your version was mass-reverted because you blurred the distinction between Israelite and Jew. An Israelite is not a Jew. Genetically, less than 20% of modern Jews descend from an Israelite male. The current Jewish religion is different from the religion of Israelites; it evolved in exile. This distinction is one of the main goal of this article. Therefore, your edits were perceived as biased and, therefore, unacceptable. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Given all of the excellent points made above, what's to be done with the article? I think we're agreed that it needs to be completely overhauled, and that it should not be, as it is at present, an attempt to prove that modern Israel is the direct descendant of its ancient namesake. I would suggest that we begin with a new set of section heads, which would need to include at least the following:

• Biblical Israel: A discussion of what the name Israel means in the Tanakh. It actually means quite a number of things: the patriarch Jacob/Israel, a people (usual meaning of the word in the Torah), a kingdom, an ethnicity, and a few more as well.
• The 12 tribes of Israel: There was once a whole article on this subject, and it was quite a good one, discussing such things as the way the make-up of the list changed over time, the question of whether it was always fictive, the question of whether an amphytiony ever actually existed (Noth's idea), and so on.
• Israel and ethnicity: At some point the article needs to discuss the was the concept of Israel was used in the Second Temple period to construct the Jewish identity, and this sems as good a place as any.

PiCo (talk) 03:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Pico, as it stands now, the article does a rather good job of discussing your first two points. Can it be improved? Yes!, but by incremental changes, respecting the chapter headings and all the WP policies. The 12 tribes article was redirected to this one because... it is the same thing. The missing content you mention was not deleted; it was transferred to the articles about individual tribes -- yes, there are 14 separate articles! The third topic belongs to Jew, Jewish history and Who is a Jew? because, again, an Israelite is not a Jew. This clarification is, in my mind, the most important goal of this article. Once this is clarified, the scope of this article become very narrow.

Looking forward to unlocking the article so that you and all respectful editors can continue to improve this article, which has taken years to write. Emmanuelm (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Dougweller, you are aware that the Encyclopedia Britannica and others represent 19th century points of view given it is from the 1911 version?

Consider this statement "liturgically, a Jew who is neither a cohen nor a levite". In order to make the distinction, one has to realise that liturgy is a part of religious practice. However, that statement is completely wrong, because a Jew is not defined in terms of citizenship anywhere! If the Kingdom of Judah had existed today, all its citizens would be Judahites, and some would be Cohanim and Levites because those at the same time denote tribal affiliation and special social position, not a claim to separate citizenship identity. Hence all citizens of Israel today are Israeli, no matter the tribal claims, although some claim descent from tribes other than the Judah or Levi

The problem that I took the Biblical narrative at face value is yours, not mine. This is how modern descendants of Israelites take it. You can posit questions as to the reliability or verifiability of these claims, but you can hardly ignore several million representatives of this thinking. Many millions of British citizens for example believe themselves to be British although the large proportion probably has no claim to the Iron Age Celtic populations. So what?

Which excellent points are they?

I can see some other irrelevant points.

An Israelite is not a Jew (an Israelite is not a Jew. This clarification is, in my mind, the most important goal of this article - User:Emmanuelm) - as it happens an Israelite is an English term that refers to those descended from Jacob who's name was changed to Israel. During the history of his descendants, one part of the territory that remained independent was used by outsiders to refer to all those living there, i.e. Judah -> Juden (German) -> Jews. This rather presupposed that all those found living there were exclusively from the tribe of Judah, which is as much an assumption as to say that all those living in the US state of Alaska were born there, i.e. that the population of Judah was monolithic and immobile!

Even if that is not a consideration, in linguistics there is an agreement on the etymology from c.1175 (in plural, giwis), from Anglo-Fr. iuw, from O.Fr. giu, from L. Judaeum (nom. Judaeus), from Gk. Ioudaios, from Aramaic jehudhai (Heb. y'hudi "Jew," from Y'hudah "Judah," lit. "celebrated," name of Jacob's fourth son and of the tribe descended from him. Replaced O.E. Iudeas "the Jews." Originally, "Hebrew of the kingdom of Judah."

However, exactly what makes User:Emmanuelm's opinion the defining one? Moreover, the article was not about how to define what an Israelite is not!

Genetically, less than 20% of modern Jews descend from an Israelite male - and? Did I see this definition of an Israelite anywhere in the Hebrew Bible? Please don't confuse Genesis with genetics.

The current Jewish religion is different from the religion of Israelites; it evolved in exile - and? Is there a law imposed by User:Emmanuelm that says no religion shall evolve beyond its literal initial interpretation? However, it seem that the parts which identify someone as Jewish have not changed all that much, and are derived from and based on the original text.

" This distinction is one of the main goal of this article." What distinction is that? That I accept dynamics of cultural and social development as part of a historical process and User:Emmanuelm doesn't? That's bias and grounds for reversion? Where in Misplaced Pages is personal attitudes to historiographic methodology a cause for reversion of editing?--Meieimatai? 10:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Meimatai, one of the main goal of this article is to clarify the distinction between Jew and Israelite. Please read Who is a Jew? for details.

I'll discuss only one point: Please don't confuse Genesis with genetics. You must know that many scholars, especially archeologists, are openly doubting the very existence of Israelites, calling the Torah a fiction. We discussed this with Cush earlier in this page. Genetics brings a non-Biblical evidence that Jews -- actually, Cohanim -- indeed descend from a single man (see Y-chromosomal Aaron). Hence, genetics is very relevant in this article about a patriarchal clan.

Meimatai, Misplaced Pages is not Kosher. It covers all relevant sources about a subject, including secular or scientific sources. Please stop trying to "clean up" WP. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Archeology of Israelites

Hey hey hey, Y-chromosomal-Aaron ≠ biblical-Aaron. There is still no connection established between possible historical/archeological Israelites and biblical Israelites, and definitely none with Jews of later times. The entire problem with this article comes down to the question, whether it is about the biblical Israelites (where no vain attempt to link them to actual history should be made in the article), or about a people or tribe called Israel that inhabited Canaan once and that left almost no traces of its existence and completely no traces of being in any way similar or even identical to the biblical Israelites as described in later Jewish legends. Cush (talk) 15:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello Cush, how have you been? Anyhoo, is this article about the Bible or Archeology? It is about both, and everything else called Israelites. That's the whole idea behind WP:NPOV. Admittedly, the archeology section is lame -- I am still waiting for you to expand it. Emmanuelm (talk) 22:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem really is that Israelites are absent from the archeological record. As I have said, countless digs in Egypt and the Levant have produced nothing that would solidify the stories told by Jews of later ages. But I will see what I can do once I find motivation. Cush (talk) 06:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

"The archeology section is lame" (Emmanuelm). You're not joking! "The problem really is that Israelites are absent from the archeological record" (Cush). In the interests of advancing our discussion, here is the very basic evidence of Israel from the archaeological record:

• The very first appearance of the name is from one of the Ebla tablets, c.1500 BC - the name of a chariot warrior. (Note that I'm just listing facts, not interpreting them).
• Next is the Merneptah stele, c.1200 BC, listing Israel as a people (I think that's agreed in the literature) in north-inland Palestine (the future area of the kingdom of Israel, but I'm drawing no conclusions).
• Finally, a set of Assyrian, Moabite and related inscriptions from the 9th and 8th centuries mentioning a political entity sometimes identified explicitly as Israel, sometimes under other names:
  • The Khurk stele, c.853 BC, referring to king Ahab of "sir-il-la-a-a", presumed to be Israel;
  • The Black Obelisk, only slightly later, mentioning Jehu of the House of Omri;
  • The Tel Dan inscription, mentioning a king of Israel and of the House of Omri (the same individual);
  • The Mesha Stele, which I think also explicitly mentions Israel as a kingdom;
  • The Nimrud Slab, mentioning the Land of Omri;
  • The Rimah stele, mentioning Joash of Samaria;
  • An inscription of Tiglath-pileser III listing King Menahem of Samaria;
  • Sargon II's record of his conquest of Samaria and the House of Omri, c.722 BC.

And that concludes explicit mentions of Israel in the archaeological record. Note that there are no mentions of Israelites, only of Israel, meaning a man (our Eblite warrior), a people (the Merneptah stele), and a kingdom that existed in the 9th and 8th centuries - tho far more commonly it's called Omri or Samaria. So if you want a paragraph on Israelites and archaeology, that's the very minimum.PiCo (talk) 06:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

What about archeological digs at sites that are biblically connected to the Israelites? E.g. Kenyon digging up Jericho/Tell-es-Sultan and dating its destruction to a time shortly after the Asiatic pharaoh Maaibre Sheshi? Cush (talk) 10:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello Pico, this looks like the info mention in the latest issue of BAR (Sept/Oct 2008 p.18). Please summarize it in the "Archeology" section of the article. Cush, do the same. We might end up with a stub of a stub! (finally). Emmanuelm (talk) 02:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Cush, I wasn't proposing that this list of inscriptions shld be the entire section on archaeology, just that it's the irreducible minimum. Emmanuelm, that's a very good article in BAR and we shld use it, but it also seems to be only one pov in a rather contentious field - we need to find the range of views and identify the majority/minority positions so that we can give due weight. I'm not sure how we can do that. Anyway, I've written a paragraph in the Archaeology section setting out the inscriptions which mention Israel and its variants. The basic point, although I don't make it explicit, is that the word Israel is seldom used in inscriptions from the 9th-8th centuries, and always refers to a kingdom rather than a people - in contrast to the 13th century Merneptah stele, where it refers to a people, and the Ebla example, where it's a personal name. Somehow we have to get that into the paragraph as well. And then another paragraph on the aspects Cush mentions his post in this thread. PiCo (talk) 07:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

There are already several full blown articles that cover the subject, we don't need all of them repeated in this article, especially not the overstuffed sections pushing the minority Biblical Minimalist POV or cranky old Finkelstein with his non-sequiteur conclusions. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 01:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like you want to stop a significant POV from being represented in the article, I hope I'm wrong. Doug Weller (talk) 06:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in the edit I made is pov, it's a simple tour of the epigraphic occurrences of the words Israelite (zero, but worth mentioning) and Israel (a total of ten, with three different meanings). So far as I know it's complete, but if anyone knows of other instances we should be open to mentioning them. Kuratowski's Ghost has a good point, that we shouldn't be rehashing information that's already in other articles - but we should have brief overview with hyperlinks to those articles. Doug Weller is also correct to note that we shouldn't be suppressing notable povs - Finkelstein is certainly notable. At this stage I'd like to expand the section a little further with an overview of attempts to identify "Israelite" material culture - this relates to the argument of the origins of biblical Israel, which is certainly germane to our article. PiCo (talk) 07:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Israelite concept irrelevant today?

I created a new subsection called "dispersal of Israelites" because the article lacked an ending. I then spent an hour looking for a source stating that the concept of patriarchal descent from Jacob is irrelevant (or relevant) today but found nothing, aside from a speech by Sarah Palin referring to current US Christians as "Israelites". Your opinion? Emmanuelm (talk) 03:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin? US Christians?? That was a joke, right? Cush (talk) 04:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. It was not Palin, it was her preacher, and he probably meant the Jews. Here is a clearer story with video. Back to the question, are there people who claim descent from Jacob? And do they matter? Emmanuelm (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Since all Jews (bar converts?) are supposedly descended from Jacob/Israel, I guess the answer is yes. Then there are groups like the British Israelites, who (I think) claim that the Jews have got it all wrong, and they (the BI) are the true children if Israel. And finally, getting a bit off-topic, have you ever come across that strange factoid to the effect that if you count back the generations - you know, 2 parents, 4 g/parents, 8 gg/parents, etc - then by the time of William the Conquerer, let alone Jacob, you have far more putative contemporaneous ancestors than the entire population of the globe? The arithmetic works, it's obviously wrong somehow, but I don't know how. PiCo (talk) 08:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Genetically, less than 20% of current Jews descend from a Middle Eastern male, and this male could also be a convert. Except for carriers of the Cohen modal haplotype, there is no one who can prove descent from Jacob. And the Cohanim do not use this evidence to claim sole ownership of the Land of Israel -- for now. Current Jewish authorities state, without much Biblical backing, that the promises to the sons of Jacob apply to all Jews. As for British Israelites, Black Hebrew Israelites, Rastafari and other crazy claims, are they relevant? If not, can someone find a source saying "the Israelite nation is extinct"? Emmanuelm (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Extra-biblical mentions of Israel

A-ha-ab-bu KUR sir-'a-la-a-a (Ahab the Israelite) is mentioned in an inscription of Shalmaneser III as having had the largest presence at the Battle of Qarqar (). -LisaLiel (talk) 16:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Some sources for 'Israel' . However, I don't think the text should have been reverted, only amended.

The effort is being made to create a meaningful archeology section in the article. The contentless section that you restored is to be removed. Cush (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The section seems to be solely about the occurence of the name "Israel" in the archaological record which is hardly the same as archaeology of the Israelites which includes pages and pages of artifacts recognized by mainstream archaeologists as being Israelite. I don't want to see nonsense POV pushing that they weren't Israelites because only a dozen or so artifacts mention the name. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The section is to be expanded. And there is simply no such thing as Israelites (as the Bible describes them) in the archeological information available. Existing artifacts all date to the late Divided Monarchy period (e.g. Jeroboam 2). In the entire time span from the Exodus through the Judges and United Monarchy periods the "Israelites" apparently left no traces of their existence, that includes all the magnificent architecture attributed to such fantastic figures as kings David and Solomon. There exist no sources that confirm a culture of Israel as described in the Tanakh/Bible, including the whole Yhvh stuff. Cush (talk) 21:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

People like you simply shouldn't be editing this article. You're clearly uninformed on the subject. As a primer, you could try reading the following:

• 'What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?: What Archaeology Can Tell Us About the Reality of Ancient Israel', William Dever (2001)
• 'Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?', William Dever (2006)
• 'Did God Have a Wife?: Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel', William Dever (2008)
• 'A History of Ancient Israel and Judah', James Miller and John Hayes (2006)
• 'The Social History of Ancient Israel: An Introduction', Rainer Kessler (2008)
• 'Life in Biblical Israel', Philip King and Lawrence Stager (2002)
• 'On the Reliability of the Old Testament', Kenneth Kitchen (2006)
• 'Ancient Israel: From Abraham to the Roman Destruction of the Temple', Hershel Shanks (1999)
• 'Texts and Archaeology: Weighing the Evidence. The Case for King Solomon', Alan Millard, (1991)

I could double this list in another 10 minutes. Just how familiar are you with the relevant scholarly literature? --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

This simply is not the case. There are artifacts dating back to the period you describe, no they don't have "Made in Israel" written on them but they belong to the people known as Israelites. Who do you think the people of that era were? And obviously buildings which have been destroyed and the remains cleared cannot be found. One only finds archaeological evidence of buildings when those buildings have been abandoned or partially destroyed and remains never cleared - duh. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 00:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not the way it works. If the artifacts do not have "Made in Israel" written on them, or anything that would establish the connection to the biblical myths, then they cannot be used as evidence for the existence of Israelites in any form. To maintain the position that the Israelites existed and subsequently the artifacts must be assigned to them, means to start out with what you want to prove. There were quite a number of people who lived in the southern Levant, Amalekites, Amorites, Hurrites, Canaanites, Hebrews. There is no need for biblical Israelites to explain the artifacts. Cush (talk) 07:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Would you like to address the scholarly literature I have cited? The fact is that there is a great deal of evidence which establishes a connection to the Biblical records. It is not a matter of assuming that the Israelites existed and therefore the artifacts must be attributed to them. If you believe that 'There is no need for biblical Israelites to explain the artifacts', please explain your reasons for disagreeing with the relevant scholarly literature. --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Archaeology section

I reverted to the version of the Archaeology section that existed yesterday. Please, can everyone calm down - if we all make rapid-fire edits like this we'll be in a mess again. Discuss suggestions here first, please. Now, regarding various edits made yesterday:

• Ahab of Israel or Ahab the Israelite: I've seen both. If Lisa can point me to an authoritative source for Israelite as against Israel, I'm happy to put it in.

Ok Lisa, I've only now read the links you provided in the thread above this one, and it seems there's sufficient support for "Ahab the Israelite" - I'll change the section accordingly. PiCo (talk) 08:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted again because that version comes across as weaseling aimed at trivializing the evidence that the name Israel is indeed found in the archaeological record. I'll put back Ahab and the mention of the use as a name. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Israel from Ebla: It's relevant because it establishes "Israel" as a personal name within the Northwest Semitic language family. No, he's not the biblical Israel, but it means that the biblical Israel is plausible as an individual - a point made rather forcefully by Albright.
• Roman-era Israelite(s): Are you sure? Surely the Romans would have called the people of the province Judeans (or the Latin equivalent). What's the exact context for this occurrence of the word?

I repeat, let's all calm down and discuss things here - I'm open to all proposals, as we all should be. 08:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

A Roman era reference to Israelite may refer to the Samaritans. They chose for a time to call themselves that. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh please these are recognized as coins minted by Bar Kochba, "Shim'on nasi Yisrael", "l'cherut Yisrael". Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Also from the first revolt, "shekel Yisrael" Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I put the Eblaite Israel back as it's the first use of the name - and it's important, as it establishes Israel as a personal name from the 2nd millenium, about the time of the Patriarch. It's unreasonable to expect to find any trace of the biblical Israel, but this is close. I'm happy to have the mention of coin in. Can we agree to this now?PiCo (talk) 07:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I gather we're all happy with that first paragraph, or at least can live with it. It establishes the existence of the name Israel in the epigraphic record, and therefore of the derived name Israelite (even though that word occurs only once). I've now added the stub for a second paragraph, which seeks to establish the link between "Israelites" and material culture. I'm aware of only two such markers, the collar-rimmed jars identified by Albright as a marker for the Israelites, and the house-type identified more recently (I'm not sure by whom). Do you like this approach? Are there more markers to be added? PiCo (talk) 08:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Dever ('Who Were The Early Israelites And Where Did They Come From?', 2003), identifies several:

• Absence of pig bones: unique to Israelite culture, and the complete opposite of Canaanite culture, in which pigs were common ('A number of scholars who are otherwise skeptical about determining ethnic identity from material culture remans in this case acknowledge the obvious: that here we seem to have at least one ethnic trait of later, biblical Israel that can safely be projected back to its earliest days', page 108)
• Destruction of religious artifacts: Dever makes the point 'The temples and their elaborate paraphernalia that are so typical of Late Bronze Age Canaanite society simply disappear by the end of the 13th century' (page 126), and that at Hazor there were 'six or seven Egyptian statues that must have been deliberately mutilated. Heads and arms were chopped off, the chisel marks still visible on the torsos. Everywhere in the debris there are signs of what Ben-Tor describes as rage' (page 67), adding that Ben-Tor suggests the Israelites were responsible, and that 'there are currently no better candidates' (page 67)
• The four room house with distinctive characteristics: these include an unusually large number of water cisterns surrounding the house, and evidence of multi-generational use. On the houses, Dever says 'Many scholars have considered them to be "type-fossils" of ancient Israel - that is, uniquely characteristic and thus a reliable ethnic indicator' (page 103), and of the cisterns 'It is only in the Iron Age, when the dense settlement of the hill country began, that we encounter the first large-scale intensive use of cisterns' (page 117).

He also identifies evidence in the ceramic assemblage, and I can post that up later if necessary. --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

TB, you might like to expand the stub to take these in. I'd leave out the damaged Egyptian statues tho - the point of the paragraph is to identify cultural markers within the archaeological record, and the destruction of the statues isn't such a marker. (I have no idea what the "Earliest Hebrew Text" thread below this one has to do with Israelites - perhaps the person who added it could tell us why he thinks it's relevant). PiCo (talk) 06:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Destruction of Canaanite and Egyptian cult images is a cultural marker within the archaeological record. Ben-Tor has written on this extensively. See for example 'The Sad Fate of Statues and the Mutilated Statues of Hazor', in 'Confronting the Past' (1997), pages 3-16:

• 'Such acts in the Armana period were clearly religiously motivated, and, as such, are an isolated phenomenon in the Bronze Age. They are exceptional in terms of this early date, since they reflect a monotheistic concept of only one God, to the exclusion of all others. As a rule, religiously motivated iconoclasm makes its appearance only with the establishment of nation-states in the first millennium BCE and the introduction of monotheism, whose adherents believe that there is only one "true" God. (page 13)
• 'This practice brings to mind the description of the fate of the statue of Dagon in his Temple at Ashdod in 1 Samuel 5:4: "Dagon's head and both his hands were broken off upon the threshold; only his trunk was left intact." This account of the struggle between the god of Israel and the god of the Philistines was composed much later than the period of the Hazor statues, and was religiously motivated. It does, however, echo practices common in much earlier times.' (page 14)

See also Ben-Tor's article 'Excavating Hazor, Part Two: Did the Israelites Destroy the Canaanite City?', BAR, May/Jun 1999:

• 'Only four groups active at the time could have destroyed Hazor: (1) one of the Sea Peoples, such as the Philistines, (2) a rival Canaanite city, (3) the Egyptians or (4) the early Israelites. As noted above, the mutilated statues were Egyptian and Canaanite. It is extremely unlikely that Egyptian and Caananite marauders would have detroyed staturary depicting their own gods and kings. In addition, as to another Canaanite city, the Bible tells us Hazor "was the head of all those kingdoms," and archaeology corroborates that the city was simply too wealthy and powerful to have fallen to a minor Canaanite rival city. So the Egyptians and the Canaanites are eliminated. As far as the Sea Peoples are concerned, Hazor is located too far inland to be of any interest to those maritime traders. Further, among the hundreds of potsherds recoverd at Hazor, not a single one can be attributed to the well-known repertory of the Sea Peoples. That leaves us with the Israelites.' --Taiwan boi (talk) 13:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not a marker in the same sense that an archaeologist digging a site can hold up a potsherd or look at a four-chambered house and say, "Aha! This site is Israelite!" PiCo (talk) 06:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is. That's Ben-Tor's entire point. How many monotheistic ethnic groups were destroying Canaanite statuary in the Bronze Age? --Taiwan boi (talk) 09:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

None, as there were no monotheistic ethnic groups in Canaan in the Bronze Age. The conclusion that Israelites must have existed because some statues were mutilated is pure speculation based solely on the biblical narrative . Cush (talk) 17:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

On the one hand we have professional archaeologists such as Dever and Ben-Tor. On the other hand we have Cush, random Internet guy. Who to believe? It's not a difficult choice. Elsewhere on Misplaced Pages you've said 'The Bible can indeed be a valuable historical document. But only if the claims made in the Bible can be verified by other historical sources and archeological findings'. Yet when such archaeological findings are discovered, you dismiss them out of hand.

Please list the archeological findings right here. And establish why they require Israelites to have existed as the Bible describes their history. Right here. I foretell you that the only way to achieve this is to simply believe what the Bible says, which means you will end up with circular reasoning. Academia has been doing that that for the past 150 years or so without producing anything solid. If there were anything reliable, there would be no positions like that of Finkelstein who has access to all excavation results (and no, he is not fringe). No thanks. Cush (talk) 07:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

To say that if there were anything reliable there would be no positions like that of Finkelstein is a logical fallacy. Others, such as Dever, have demonstrated that despite having access to all excavation results Finkelstein does not take them all into account. Finkelstein himself acknowledges that his model doesn't account for all available data. And although Finkelstein's views on Israel are not fringe insofar as he identifies them as Canaanite in origin, his 'new chronology' certainly is fringe and so are some of his other views on Israelite origins. I'm not even sure why you're appealing to Finkelstein anyway, given that you claim 'In the entire time span from the Exodus through the Judges and United Monarchy periods the "Israelites" apparently left no traces of their existence', whereas Finkelstein does not agree with this in the least. It's another example of you simply believing your own opinion and rejecting the professional scholarship. --Taiwan boi (talk) 06:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, in case you need to know, I don't feel any need to prove 'Israelites to have existed as the Bible describes their history'. That is not the subject of this article. Please read the actual article so you understand what its subject is. --Taiwan boi (talk) 06:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I have already listed the archaeological findings here, right here. Twice now. Predictably, you have ignored them (you're not alone, PiCO also has no time for professional archaeologists, arguing that Biblical scholars such as Thompson and Lemche are to be preferred). This is not a matter of circular reasoning. As I have said, elsewhere on Misplaced Pages you've said 'The Bible can indeed be a valuable historical document. But only if the claims made in the Bible can be verified by other historical sources and archeological findings'. Yet when such archaeological findings are discovered, you dismiss them out of hand. This is not what professional archaeologists do. Professional archaeologists consider convergences between archaeological evidence and Biblical texts to be evidence substantiating the account in the Biblical text. This is exactly how they treat other ancient texts. You don't do this. You claim a priori that the Biblical texts are completely non-factual, and that therefore any apparent convergence between archaeological evidence and the Biblical text must necessarily be false. --Taiwan boi (talk) 06:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

You've already demonstrated your complete ignorance of the archaeology of Israel and your intention to carry out agenda motivated edits, so what are you still doing in this article? You have nothing to contribute, please leave. --Taiwan boi (talk) 06:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Jew-ish monotheism came into existence in the 7th and 6th centuries BCE, during and after the period of the so called "Babylonian Captivity". Before that Yah was still worshiped along with a wife and son, so save your conclusions that are rather based on modern beliefs than on knowledge about the Bronze Age. Cush (talk) 07:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I note once more a complete lack of any reference to the relevant scholarly literature. Jewish monotheism did not emerge in the 7th and 6th centuries. Do you want quotes from the relevant literature? --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) TB - Curious why you don't quote Ben-Tor himself - he edited a standard introduction to the subject in 1994. Anyway, you seem to misunderstand Dever. When he talks about the end of LB Canaanite culture he's simply refering to a well-known fact - the Canaanite city=based culture collapsed at about the end of the 12th century. That's not a marker of Israelites or anyone else. As for the destruction of Egyptian (not Canaanite) statues at Hazoe, that's again impossible to trace to any particular group - and especially impossible to trace to the "rage" of monotheists. (The destruction of Egyptian cult statues is probably - in fact just about definitely - a product of someone's desire to destroy the divine power they represent. It's interesting that we see the same thing here in Cambodia - the Thais, who were Buddhists, destroyed the Buddha images of the kings of Angkor, who were also Buddhists - they hadn't suddenly turned apostate, they were simply destroying the Angkorian kings' connections to divine favour). And of course, Cush is quite right in saying that monotheism doesn't appear in Palestine/Israel until the post-Exilic period - as I'm sure you know, having read your Dever. PiCo (talk) 10:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

PiCo, why didn't you read what I wrote. I did quote Ben-Tor himself. See above, where I quoted Ben-Tor's 'The Sad Fate of Statues and the Mutilated Statues of Hazor', in 'Confronting the Past' (1997), pages 3-16:

• 'Such acts in the Armana period were clearly religiously motivated, and, as such, are an isolated phenomenon in the Bronze Age. They are exceptional in terms of this early date, since they reflect a monotheistic concept of only one God, to the exclusion of all others. As a rule, religiously motivated iconoclasm makes its appearance only with the establishment of nation-states in the first millennium BCE and the introduction of monotheism, whose adherents believe that there is only one "true" God. (page 13)
• 'This practice brings to mind the description of the fate of the statue of Dagon in his Temple at Ashdod in 1 Samuel 5:4: "Dagon's head and both his hands were broken off upon the threshold; only his trunk was left intact." This account of the struggle between the god of Israel and the god of the Philistines was composed much later than the period of the Hazor statues, and was religiously motivated. It does, however, echo practices common in much earlier times.' (page 14)

See above, where I also quoted Ben-Tor's article 'Excavating Hazor, Part Two: Did the Israelites Destroy the Canaanite City?', BAR, May/Jun 1999:

• 'Only four groups active at the time could have destroyed Hazor: (1) one of the Sea Peoples, such as the Philistines, (2) a rival Canaanite city, (3) the Egyptians or (4) the early Israelites. As noted above, the mutilated statues were Egyptian and Canaanite. It is extremely unlikely that Egyptian and Caananite marauders would have destroyed staturary depicting their own gods and kings. In addition, as to another Canaanite city, the Bible tells us Hazor "was the head of all those kingdoms," and archaeology corroborates that the city was simply too wealthy and powerful to have fallen to a minor Canaanite rival city. So the Egyptians and the Canaanites are eliminated. As far as the Sea Peoples are concerned, Hazor is located too far inland to be of any interest to those maritime traders. Further, among the hundreds of potsherds recoverd at Hazor, not a single one can be attributed to the well-known repertory of the Sea Peoples. That leaves us with the Israelites.'

And yes I have read my Dever, and he makes a distinction between 'folk' and 'elite' religion, arguing that Jewish religion was 'not strictly monotheistic' at this stage on account of the differences in belief which prevailed among the common people and the higher classes. Having said which, Dever's is not the only viewpoint out there. The Migdol Temple is understood to be the earliest archaeological evidence of Jewish monotheism, in Iron I, and Hosea is understood to be the absolute monotheistic Hebrew text (dated without dispute to around 750 BC). As noted, Ben-Tor places Jewish monotheism in the Bronze Age, Morton-Smith identifies absolute monotheism in Israel in the pre-exilic era, and even Mark Smith dates Jewish absolute monotheism to the 9th century (Tigay and Fowler similarly early, 9th-8th centuries). None of these can be dismissed as Christian apologists, or 'conservative' scholars. Indeed, the view that Jewish monotheism emerged only in the exilic or post-exilic era remains the minority view, held typically by the well known 'Minimalists' (such as Lemche, Thompson, Niehr, and Davies), almost none of whom are even archaeologists. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hosea, monotheistic? It hardly seems worth arguing with someone who misunderstands his books so completely. Anyway, you're welcome to add the pig-bones to the paragrpah, but leave the stateues out, they're not part of any ässemblage". PiCo (talk) 07:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

PiCo, your posts are just too predictable. Once more you offer one line rhetoric and a complete lack of any reference to the relevant scholarly literature. You need to explain why Dever, Ben-Tor and others include the Hazor statuary in their assessment of what constitutes the assemblage. I am going to write up all this material and include it. Neither you nor Cush ever make any reference to the relevant scholarly literature, you both just dispute its value whenever it disagrees with your personal views. I can see that I'm going to have to be the one to clean up this article. --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I know nothing about archeology but I think that Jerusalem is where one should look for Israelites, no? Emmanuelm (talk) 20:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It depends. An Israelite can be one of the descendants of the patriarch srael, in which case you might look for sign of them in Egypt and the Sinai (the story of Moses and the wanderings in the wilderness); or it might be one of the people of Merneptah's "Israel" and the "Israel" of the Assyrian and Moabite and suchlike inscriptions (i.e, the Israel of the archaeologists), in which case you look in the northern highlands rather than in the south; or it might be the Israel of the Deuteronomistic History, in which case you look both north and south of the border between the two kingdoms; or if you want to be really cheeky, it might be the Israelites of biblical scholars, in which case you look in books, because that's the only place these Israelites exist. I fear thart in this article, we're in the hands of sel-educated zealots, and no real Israelites will be found. PiCo (talk) 10:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The only 'self educated zealots' I see here are you and Cush. I've been quoting the standard academic literature without fear or favour, right across the entire spectrum of views. That's what needs to be in this article, and that's what will be in this article. The simple fact is that neither you nor Cush are familiar with the relevant literature, and you're both in disagreement with the conclusions of most scholars. --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to be ashamed about being self-educated - I'm sure there were good reasons that prevented your getting a degree. PiCo (talk) 08:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Earliest Hebrew text

"The chronology and geography of Khirbet Qeiyafa create a unique meeting point between the mythology, history, historiography and archaeology of King David," This quote is from a news story I came across the other day that I thought might point in the direction of useful information for this article. I may be wrong but the earliest Hebrew writing seems important to the Israelite archeological record, as it shows that the culture was stable and established enough 3000 years ago to have developed it's own written language. The quote seems to express very well the goal of this article, as discussed above. Of course the source below isn't on par with those in the article, but I'm sure those of you with closer connections to the literature can find something that is. NJGW (talk) 07:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

"So far, just four percent of the site has been excavated". I think it says it all. Emmanuelm (talk) 20:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

What do you think that says? --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• Unassessed Religion articles
• Unknown-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• B-Class Christianity articles
• Low-importance Christianity articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• B-Class Judaism articles
• High-importance Judaism articles
• B-Class Jewish history-related articles
• Top-importance Jewish history-related articles
• WikiProject Jewish history articles