Misplaced Pages

Talk:History of ancient Israel and Judah: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:33, 27 September 2010 editJohn J. Bulten (talk | contribs)12,763 edits →The emergence of Israel← Previous edit Revision as of 23:43, 27 September 2010 edit undoPiCo (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers44,429 edits →The emergence of IsraelNext edit →
Line 142: Line 142:
:I first learned this "misinterpretation" from . You have Lemche as source for the line, "This Israel, identified as a people, were probably located in the northern part of the central highlands." And now you've just discovered it's a nonmainstream view, one which he repudiates? And you're acting like I'm the one late to the party? :I first learned this "misinterpretation" from . You have Lemche as source for the line, "This Israel, identified as a people, were probably located in the northern part of the central highlands." And now you've just discovered it's a nonmainstream view, one which he repudiates? And you're acting like I'm the one late to the party?
:Fact is, I documented several flaws in the text you reverted to in the edit history of Joshua. OTOH, I am seeing that when you claim generic flaws you revert, and when you claim specific flaws you list and wait for the other party to guess what you want, and here you do both. Since your text has all the flaws I documented, and since I've kept my text adjusted whenever you've claimed a flaw (which will include this latest claim), I think we'll go with the corrected text rather than the one you've neglected to correct. :Fact is, I documented several flaws in the text you reverted to in the edit history of Joshua. OTOH, I am seeing that when you claim generic flaws you revert, and when you claim specific flaws you list and wait for the other party to guess what you want, and here you do both. Since your text has all the flaws I documented, and since I've kept my text adjusted whenever you've claimed a flaw (which will include this latest claim), I think we'll go with the corrected text rather than the one you've neglected to correct.
:BTW, for the record, I will repeat some specific flaws in your text that a mostly-reversion will correct: Ann Killebrew pp. 10-6 does not say Israelites were indigenous (and Ann was misspelled); Thompson p. 413 does not say Canaanite dialects are an indicator of the indigenousness of Israelites; Smith p. 27 does not say it is "impossible" (a strong word) to distinguish the subject inscriptions; Golden pp. 155-60 does not say Phoenicians continued uninterrupted from the Bronze Age; Stager p. 91 does not speak of the first record but the first non-Biblical record; McNutt pp. 69-70 does not say the highlands were unpopulated before Iron I but refers to older settlements; Killebrew p. 176 does not say it is "impossible" to distinguish Israelite from Canaanite except for pig bones (and, in fact, you just jumped on me for perpetuating the notion, inserted and reinserted by yourself, that Killebrew was talking about distinguishing Israelite ethnicity at all), but rather p. 176 as well as p. 13 give ethnic distinctions; Killebrew p. 176 does not mention a Canaanite god El; Miller pp. 97-104 does not say writing was known but uncommon (he says writing was available even in small sites); and so on. These are all "your" sources, in that you cut and pasted them; I merely, ahem, read them. If I have simply missed a reference to whatever the original Wikipedians meant, whom you were cribbing (i.e., cutting and pasting), it's not for lack of looking for it. Now then, can we stop the wholesale reversions to unvetted text? ] 07:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC) :BTW, for the record, I will repeat some specific flaws in your text that a mostly-reversion will correct: Ann Killebrew pp. 10-6 does not say Israelites were indigenous (and Ann was misspelled); '''"Recent research on the emergence of Israel points unequivocally to the conclusion that biblical Israel's roots lie in the final century of Bronze Age Canaan." (Killebrew, p.149)''' Thompson p. 413 does not say Canaanite dialects are an indicator of the indigenousness of Israelites '''"The various dialects of Canaanite...West Canaanite (Phoenician, two or more dialects of Israelite and Judean)...Core Canaanite (Israelite and Phoenician) can be distinguished from Fringe Canaanite ((Judean, Amonite, Moabite and Edomite) (Thompson, p.413)'''; Smith p. 27 does not say it is "impossible" (a strong word) to distinguish the subject inscriptions '''Can someone please check what the page says?'''; Golden pp. 155-60 does not say Phoenicians continued uninterrupted from the Bronze Age '''He does - the Phoenicians in fact continued uninterrupted right down to Roman times'''; Stager p. 91 does not speak of the first record but the first non-Biblical record '''The first non-biblical record IS the first record: see McNutt, p.41, and also p.46: "The most recent models of Israel's origins tend either to subordinate the biblical material to archaeological evidence or to exclude it almost completely from consideration." This article follows "most recent models"'''; McNutt pp. 69-70 does not say the highlands were unpopulated before Iron I but refers to older settlements '''She does. She refers to 300 new settlements in the highlands in Iron I, "some of (which) had been occupied in previous periods" - but which, obviously, were not occupied at this period (McNutt, p.69)'''; Killebrew p. 176 does not say it is "impossible" to distinguish Israelite from Canaanite except for pig bones (and, in fact, you just jumped on me for perpetuating the notion, inserted and reinserted by yourself, that Killebrew was talking about distinguishing Israelite ethnicity at all) , but rather p. 176 as well as p. 13 give ethnic distinctions. '''Not quite. Read the section "Diet: Animal Bones" again, but carefully - she says that the reasons for the l;ack of pigs is open to various interpretations, which is what our article says (Killebrew, pp.13,176)'''; Killebrew p. 176 does not mention a Canaanite god El '''Try a little higher up - a few pages back'''; Miller pp. 97-104 does not say writing was known but uncommon (he says writing was available even in small sites); and so on '''Read the chapter again, more carefully.'''. These are all "your" sources, in that you cut and pasted them; I merely, ahem, read them. If I have simply missed a reference to whatever the original Wikipedians meant, whom you were cribbing (i.e., cutting and pasting), it's not for lack of looking for it. Now then, can we stop the wholesale reversions to unvetted text? ] 07:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

:John, you obviously come from a very conservative Christian background and hold the Bible to be true as a historical record. This is where you come from and you can't help that. However, current scholarship holds views very different from yours. I think you need to relax your prejudices and read more deeply into the sources. All the books you see above are reliable sources. I suggest you go into them in some depth - don't skim, and don't read with the intention of scoring points against perceived enemies of the faith. Read to learn. And above all: there's no kudos for being right on the Internet.] (]) 23:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


===Dylan=== ===Dylan===

Revision as of 23:43, 27 September 2010

Tip: #section links are case-sensitive on most browsers

Links from this article with broken #section links :
], ], ]

You can remove this template after fixing the problems | FAQ | Report a problem
Links from this article which need disambiguation (check | fix): ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], (2x) ], ]

For help fixing these links, see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Disambiguation/Fixing a page.

Added by WildBot | Tags to be removed | FAQ | Report a problem
The contents of the Pre-Roman history of ancient Israel and Judah page were merged into History of ancient Israel and Judah. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconJudaism High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconIsrael
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel 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.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconJewish history
WikiProject iconThis 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
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAncient Near East
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ancient Near East–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.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

To-do list for History of ancient Israel and Judah: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2010-12-06


There are no active tasks for this page
Archive

Archives

*Archive 1
 *Archive 2

Ancient Egyptian domination

The section titled Ancient Egyptian domination is very confusing. It starts out as if it is going to be an attempt to reconcile the Bible with secular history, a very interesting topic on which many people have written many volumes, but today (11/06/2008) it is just a list of events in secular Egyptian history with no explanation how this might fit into the Biblical account or how it might relate to the ancient Hebrews. It might as well stay on the pages about Egypt, no reason to copy it to the pages about Israel. -ErinHowarth (talk) 05:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The Ethiopian source mentioned

I have deleted the mention of the Ethiopian source as it is supposed by most scholars to have been medieval in composition (between 1225 and 1322), not classical (the period of ancient Greece and Rome). John D. Croft (talk) 06:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Implications of the newly discovered ostracon

Under the section entitled #Non-Biblical confirmation there is a discussion of minimalism and the following sentence:

"For example, Philip Davies shows how the canonical biblical account can only have been composed for a people with a long literate tradition such as found only in Late Persian or early Hellenistic times, and argues that accounts of earlier periods are largely reconstructions based mainly upon oral and other traditions."

If it is true, as I added a bit further up, that: "Recently, however, (November 2008), archaeologists from Hebrew University have discovered a 3000 year old ostracon with five lines of Hebrew text written in Proto-Canaanite script at the Elah Fortress at Khirbet Qeiyafa. Carbon-14 dating puts this ostracon at the time of King David and the United Kingdom, and the location is in the area where, according to the Bible, David slew Goliath." wouldn't Davies argument be thrown out of the window in respect to the Bible? If the ostracon is 3000 years old, it would demonstrate that the Biblical Jews did not have to rely on oral traditions but in fact were writing from 1000BC on.... --Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The ostracon certainly weakens the theory that ancient Judah had no literate class until the 7th century, but... . Davies is actually referring to, and attacking, the thesis that the J document of the bible was composed in Judah in the time of Solomon, as a result (or product) of a hypothetical Solomonic Golden Age. I can't recall offhand who put this idea forward, but it was popular around the middle of the 20th century. Then in the 1970s scholars pointed out that there was no actual evidence of this Golden Age. Davies is saying that there's not even evidence of literacy - a pretty standard line, and well within the archaeological evidence - it's a fact that there's no evidence of literacy for Judah in the 10th century or for a few hundred years thereafter. The ostracon is therefore in the position of a single swallow in relation to summer (as in "one swallow does not make a summer") - it's intriguing, but won't be enough to establish that literacy was widespread or that the Solomonic Golden Age was a reality. PiCo (talk) 14:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
PiCo, thanks for your thoughtful reply. It strikes me though, that one can no longer say as you do "it's a fact there's no evidence of literacy for Judah in the 10th century..." when the ostracon is from that time and place & contains 5 lines of text including the roots of the words "judge", "slave" and "king"? It doesn't really matter if literacy was widespread or not, since the issue is whether the history was written or orally handed down. Often in the past it was only the elite who were literate. However, it does speak to whether there was possibly a written record upon which the Bible is based or an oral tradition only, as a written record is much less likely to morph. If you will pardon the pun, the swallow analogy doesn't fly for a couple of reasons. First, the birds were clearly there from the start ...ie the ostracon was found in place... & second, one bird is all that is necessary for proof. Literacy is rather like pregnancy. Either you are or you ain't. ;) Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the evidence is slowly accumulating that there was a literate society in the southern Judean hill country in the 10th century, and possibly a little earlier (I think the Tel Zayit stone or whatever it's called qualifies). If someone wrote that ostracon, then someone else was intended to read it (a difference from the Tel Zayit inscription, which may never have been intended for reading). Still, I'd like to see some considered analysis by the experts, and I don't expect that in the immediate future. Lots of digging and studying still to do :). PiCo (talk) 06:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I will have plenty to say on this article in the near future, as a cursory read reveals a mess of minimalist POV-pushing. Quite frankly this article has made me extremely angry (more details to follow). I just wanted to add this point: how the hell can anyone claim a lack of literature in this region around the 10th C when just up the road in Ebla they find thousands of tablets dated to half a millenia before?--FimusTauri (talk) 13:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It may someday be an important find but it's too early to tell. The newspaper article says no translation yet and nothing about any specific words. The second reference is no longer active so I can't tell what it says. At this time a pot shard proves nothing much about a literate society. Nitpyck (talk) 07:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry that you have such difficulty Nitpyck. Regarding the loss of literacy, you may be aware that during the Bronze Age crisis there was a general retreat of standards of literacy across the entire middle East. Anatolia lost its literacy, as did Greece, and when literacy was restored centuries later it was not based on Hittite cuneiform or Linear B which had disappeared. In the late Bronze Age literacy was largely through Canaanite cuneiform (as the Amarna tablets show). When literacy recovered in was in the alphabetic script developed by the Phoenicians out of the earlier Sinaitic inscriptions. Hope this helps. John D. Croft (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Was that ostrocon for sure Hebrew? Phoenician and Hebrew are incredibly similar as far as known.

The Hebrew group is known for taking the opposite position of Finkelstein. --Periergeia (talk) 00:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Chronological precision

I have a few problems with the line

From then on, the chronology can only roughly be given in approximate dates for most events, until about the 9th century BCE.

This is in the "Egyptian expreience" section. It seems to suggest that all of the dates given before are "firm", when in fact they are disputed in so many different ways. Could someone re-write this, either taking out the implication of the certainty of the earlier dates, or specifying which chronology is being cited.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Archeologist claims proof of Israelites leaving Egypt and entering Canaan

Something interesting that I just found. Today, archeologist Prof' Adam Zertal revealed what he thinks could be proof that the ancient Israelis left Egypt and entered Canaan around the 13th century BCE. Basically in the last 20 years he found 5 huge foot-shaped sites that had been erected in the around -1200 and lasted 400 years and were used as religious places. This is supposed to corroborate details of the Biblical account. See here:Article in Hebrew from YnetBenjil (talk) 15:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Further reading

The suggestion for further reading attached to this article is a joke, and directly misleading.

NPLemche —Preceding unsigned comment added by NPlemche (talk • contribs) 17:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

And they're gone. We should have a handful of recent books giving different perspectives, what do you suggest? I also zapped 3 of the links, but there must be a couple that we can add. Dougweller (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Judah and Palestine

how did judah come to be called Palestines? Well i dont really know cause it doesnt tell me in this paragraph! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.30.148.120 (talk) 02:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

A good question. I'm not sure how far this article wants to go, but it could possibly be covered. (The answer is: (a) the kingdom of of King David was called Judah, probably pronounced Yudah; (b) when the Babylonians and then the Persians conquered it they called it Yehud; the next to conquer it were the Greeks under Alexander - they took over the Persian name, and the Romans then took over from the Greeks; (c) then in the 1st century AD the Jews rebelled against the Romans and were expelled from their homeland, and the Romans re-named the province as Palestine, although the original Philistines had disappeared at the time of the Babylonian conquest many centuries earlier.PiCo (talk) 02:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Reorganisation

I've reorganised the sections to give a more logical structure. Very little has been deleted. PiCo (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Finkelstein?

Finkelstein who, missing reference. --FinnWiki (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Good question. John Hyams (talk) 10:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
FinnWiki, where in the article are you referring to? Are you looking for a reference there as to who Israel Finkelstein is, or, are you looking for a more specific/solid reference where it only says something like "According to Finkelstein..."? Many thanks for any clarification. — al-Shimoni (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
"According to Finkelstein..." is not clear, and there is no introduction of this Finkelstein person in the article. I have placed the proper tags where attention is required. John Hyams (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Added very brief inline explain of who Fink is (including using his first name on first mention) as well as wiki-link to his wikipedia article. Was this sufficient in explaining who he is? That section is still in need of references to what it is saying about the topic. — al-Shimoni (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, it's now clear who he is (thanks for adding!), but still citations are missing in that section, which is full of details, figures, and claims. Once the proper citations are there, I can help in adding the internal links where needed. John Hyams (talk) 02:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I might try looking some of them up. PiCo may have the details on hand, but he's absent for a month or so. Anyone who knows the refs for any of these details should add them, or else, at least mention them here so one of us can insert them. :) — al-Shimoni (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
No problem, just a note regarding Finkelstein, since he is controversial (as mentioned in his article), other views should also be mentioned, and anything that relies only on his view should be written: "According to Finkelstein,....". John Hyams (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The Levant term

The Levant term is from the much later Ottoman empire period, and it was coined for political and economic reasons of the Ottoman period. It cannot be used as a reference/link in sentences/sections of this article, which covers ancient times. I have posted this topic on the talk page because it's much easier explaining it here than in each edit summary (in which I will remove/replace the term). John Hyams (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have mentioned in the article that the Levant is today's term for the region. John Hyams (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge Pre Roman into this article

The Pre-Roman history of ancient Israel and Judah article should be merged into this one since this one already includes the pre-Roman history, and there is not reason to have a separate article about a pre-Roman period since—by defition—Israel and Judah are pre-Roman. John Hyams (talk) 20:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Merge

Support merge of the other into this one. Your explanation seems to outline reason enough. — al-Shimoni (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Support merge. They overlap. Nitpyck (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Support merge, for all the reasons already given. Drchrisheard (talk) 07:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed Referenced Statements

User with IP 68.92.247.157 removed a couple referenced sentences from the Origins (1200-1000 BCE) section. Although I think these two sentences should be reworded, I am not sure what reason there was to remove them. My suggested slight rewording (using the original 2 refs) would be something like

Natural increase may not account for such rapid growth, which may imply in-migration. Therefore, Israel may have originated through a complex process involving mainly native pastoralist groups in Canaan, with some infiltration from outside groups.

Any objections why this or the original should not be included in the article? — al-Shimoni (talk) 20:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Just that this version is better and it should be attributed to Dever explicitly. Dougweller (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
"This version is better" as in the version of the current article, or the above proposed rewording of the sentences removed? Agree, attributing it directly to Dever explicitly would be good. — al-Shimoni (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
The proposed rewording. Sorry. Dougweller (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
The idea that natural growth can't account for the rate of increase is Devers' - he advances it in order to make room for some migrants from Egypt. Others disagree - rapid growth can be explained by in-migration from anywhere. There's some discussion in some of the books in the Further Reading section. PiCo (talk) 09:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

PiCo's edits

Pico could you explain the reason for your last edits to this page. You seem to have deleted facts that have been confirmed out of a particular POV. John D. Croft (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Apologies to you for not getting back sooner - I haven't been internet-accessible. What facts exactly are you bothered about?PiCo (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Merging with article Pre-Roman history of ancient Israel and Judah

The article "Pre-Roman history of ancient Israel and Judah" has been more or less dormant for a long time, largely because it covers the same ground as this one. There's been a suggestion there that the two articles be merged, but with the small number of editors looking at the page nothing has been done. So I'm taking the initiative and doing the merge. I've copy-pasted the contents of the article, and puttiong the entire contents of the Talk page here. Anyone who disagrees can, of course, undo the merge. PiCo (talk) 07:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Title change - "Pre-Roman history of ancient Israel and Judah"? FT2 (Talk | email) 10:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge this article

    • This article should be merged with History of ancient Israel and Judah since that article already includes the pre-Roman history of the same reagion, and there is not reason to have a separate article about a pre-Roman era. John Hyams (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Or alternatively, this article may be simply renamed to Political history of ancient Israel and Judah. John Hyams (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Historical Data
    • This article is a biblical view of the history of ancient Israel and Judah. The bible, Jesus and other religious books are cited more often than historian and archaeologist sources. The bible is not a legit historical source! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.153.99 (talk) 23:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The emergence of Israel

I've reverted recent edits by John J. Bulten because, to put it unkindly, they're sloppy. I don't have time to go through every one of the changes, but there's this example:

Israel, identified as a people, tribe, coalition, or territory, was located in the northern part of the central highlands by Gösta Ahlström, and alternatively in their western border by Niels Lemche.Niels Peter Lemche, "The Israelites in History and Tradition" (Westminster John Knox, 1998) pp. 37–8.

Now, what's wrong with that? Just that when we check the referenced book, we find that Lemche says explicitly that Ahlstrom's suggestion has not been taken up. So it's not mainstream scholarship. We try to represent what's mainstream, not what anyone and everyone might say. And then he misinterprets Lemche's own ideas about where this Israel was: not the western border of the highlands, as John would haveit, but the highlands themselves. (Lemche is saying, in the para that runs over pp.37-38, that the list of places on the Merneptah Stele points to the Egyptian expedition terminating at the western edge of the central highlands - he does not say that Israel was somehow squeezed into this linear border). The entire set of edits is faulty like this, so I'm reverting to the better text. PiCo (talk) 06:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I first learned this "misinterpretation" from your own uncritical edit. You have Lemche as source for the line, "This Israel, identified as a people, were probably located in the northern part of the central highlands." And now you've just discovered it's a nonmainstream view, one which he repudiates? And you're acting like I'm the one late to the party?
Fact is, I documented several flaws in the text you reverted to in the edit history of Joshua. OTOH, I am seeing that when you claim generic flaws you revert, and when you claim specific flaws you list and wait for the other party to guess what you want, and here you do both. Since your text has all the flaws I documented, and since I've kept my text adjusted whenever you've claimed a flaw (which will include this latest claim), I think we'll go with the corrected text rather than the one you've neglected to correct.
BTW, for the record, I will repeat some specific flaws in your text that a mostly-reversion will correct: Ann Killebrew pp. 10-6 does not say Israelites were indigenous (and Ann was misspelled); "Recent research on the emergence of Israel points unequivocally to the conclusion that biblical Israel's roots lie in the final century of Bronze Age Canaan." (Killebrew, p.149) Thompson p. 413 does not say Canaanite dialects are an indicator of the indigenousness of Israelites "The various dialects of Canaanite...West Canaanite (Phoenician, two or more dialects of Israelite and Judean)...Core Canaanite (Israelite and Phoenician) can be distinguished from Fringe Canaanite ((Judean, Amonite, Moabite and Edomite) (Thompson, p.413); Smith p. 27 does not say it is "impossible" (a strong word) to distinguish the subject inscriptions Can someone please check what the page says?; Golden pp. 155-60 does not say Phoenicians continued uninterrupted from the Bronze Age He does - the Phoenicians in fact continued uninterrupted right down to Roman times; Stager p. 91 does not speak of the first record but the first non-Biblical record The first non-biblical record IS the first record: see McNutt, p.41, and also p.46: "The most recent models of Israel's origins tend either to subordinate the biblical material to archaeological evidence or to exclude it almost completely from consideration." This article follows "most recent models"; McNutt pp. 69-70 does not say the highlands were unpopulated before Iron I but refers to older settlements She does. She refers to 300 new settlements in the highlands in Iron I, "some of (which) had been occupied in previous periods" - but which, obviously, were not occupied at this period (McNutt, p.69); Killebrew p. 176 does not say it is "impossible" to distinguish Israelite from Canaanite except for pig bones (and, in fact, you just jumped on me for perpetuating the notion, inserted and reinserted by yourself, that Killebrew was talking about distinguishing Israelite ethnicity at all) , but rather p. 176 as well as p. 13 give ethnic distinctions. Not quite. Read the section "Diet: Animal Bones" again, but carefully - she says that the reasons for the l;ack of pigs is open to various interpretations, which is what our article says (Killebrew, pp.13,176); Killebrew p. 176 does not mention a Canaanite god El Try a little higher up - a few pages back; Miller pp. 97-104 does not say writing was known but uncommon (he says writing was available even in small sites); and so on Read the chapter again, more carefully.. These are all "your" sources, in that you cut and pasted them; I merely, ahem, read them. If I have simply missed a reference to whatever the original Wikipedians meant, whom you were cribbing (i.e., cutting and pasting), it's not for lack of looking for it. Now then, can we stop the wholesale reversions to unvetted text? JJB 07:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
John, you obviously come from a very conservative Christian background and hold the Bible to be true as a historical record. This is where you come from and you can't help that. However, current scholarship holds views very different from yours. I think you need to relax your prejudices and read more deeply into the sources. All the books you see above are reliable sources. I suggest you go into them in some depth - don't skim, and don't read with the intention of scoring points against perceived enemies of the faith. Read to learn. And above all: there's no kudos for being right on the Internet.PiCo (talk) 23:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Dylan

Dylan Flaherty has just reverted to the version that contains all these flaws listed in this previous talk section, while nuking a version that contains no flaw mentioned in recent talk. He may not recognize that, as he asked, I did seek consensus before editing: I negotiated a several-days stable text with PiCo and had stated that I would bring it to this article when it was stable. Now I agree that each article stands on its own merits, so I will hold off on Dylan's reversion for a day or two under WP:BRD; but if discussion and cited flaws in my version do not materialize, then I must remove the egregious violations of source conformity, in that WP:CON is not really the issue if one does not want to discuss it. JJB 17:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Categories: