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 editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:43, 27 September 2010 editPiCo (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers44,429 edits →The emergence of Israel← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:56, 3 September 2024 edit undoIskandar323 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers47,160 edits →Why do we need this article? or: critical review of the article: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit Reply 
(716 intermediate revisions by 75 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1=
{{User:WildBot/m04|sect={{User:WildBot/m03|1|Archaeology of Israel#archaeological periods|Iron Age}}, {{User:WildBot/m03|1|Kingdom of Judah#The Kings of Judah|List of the Kings of Judah}}, {{User:WildBot/m03|1|Syria (Roman province)#Syria in antiquity|Syria}}|m04}}
{{WikiProject Military history |class=C |Ancient-Near-East-task-force=yes |B-Class-1=no |B-Class-2=no |B-Class-3=no |B-Class-4=no |B-Class-5=no}}
{{User:WildBot/m01|dabs={{User:WildBot/m03|1|Aram}}, {{User:WildBot/m03|1|Asaph}}, {{User:WildBot/m03|1|Book of Kings}}, {{User:WildBot/m03|1|El}}, {{User:WildBot/m03|1|Heman}}, {{User:WildBot/m03|1|Jehoram}}, {{User:WildBot/m03|1|King of the Jews|king}}, {{User:WildBot/m03|1|Mizpah}}, {{User:WildBot/m03|2|Zadok}}, {{User:WildBot/m03|1|divine right}}|m01}}
{{WikiProject Former countries }}
{{merged-from|Pre-Roman history of ancient Israel and Judah}}
{{WikiProject Judaism |importance=High}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Judaism|class=C|importance=High}} {{WikiProject Israel |importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Israel|class=C}} {{WikiProject Palestine |importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Jewish history}} {{WikiProject Jewish history |importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Ancient Near East|class=|importance=}} {{WikiProject Ancient Near East |importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject History |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Assyria |importance=Low}}
}} }}
{{merged-from|Pre-Roman history of ancient Israel and Judah|31 May 2010}}{{Merged-from|Ancient Israelite History|6 March 2006|target=History of ancient Israel and Judah|talk=no}}
{{to do #History of Judah needs expansion
#Rewrite as a history article, not a Biblical apologestics article
#Creates separate "Timeline article for Holy Land"}}
{| class="infobox" width="150"
|-
!align="center"|]
]
|-
|!align="left"|*]<br>
|!align="left"|*]
|
|}
==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. -] (]) 05:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


<!--{{to do}}-->
==The Ethiopian source mentioned==
{{archives |auto=long |search=yes |bot=MiszaBot I |age=3|units=months |index=Talk:History of ancient Israel and Judah/Archive index}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config
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). ] (]) 06:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
|archiveheader = {{aan}}

|maxarchivesize = 200K
== Implications of the newly discovered ostracon ==
|counter = 5

|minthreadsleft = 6
Under the section entitled '''#Non-Biblical confirmation''' there is a discussion of minimalism and the following sentence:
|algo = old(90d)

|archive = Talk:History of ancient Israel and Judah/Archive %(counter)d
''"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."''
}}

{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
If it is true, as I added a bit further up, that:
|target=Talk:History of ancient Israel and Judah/Archive index
''"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.... --] (]) 00:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
|mask=Talk:History of ancient Israel and Judah/Archive <#>

|leading_zeros=0
: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. ] (]) 14:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
|indexhere=yes}}

:: 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. ;) ] (]) 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 ] 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 :). ] (]) 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?--] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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.
--] (]) 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.--] (]) 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:] (]) 15:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

==Further reading==

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

NPLemche <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

: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. ] (]) 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! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

: 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.] (]) 02:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

== Reorganisation ==

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


== "]" listed at ] ==
== Finkelstein? ==
]
Finkelstein who, missing reference. --] (]) 17:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 15#Ancient Israel}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 09:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
: Good question. ] (]) 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. — <span style="text-shadow:3px 4px 2px #aaa;">] (])</span> 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. ] (]) 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. — <span style="text-shadow:3px 4px 2px #aaa;">] (])</span> 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. ] (]) 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. :) — <span style="text-shadow:3px 4px 2px #aaa;">] (])</span> 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,....". ] (]) 21:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


== The Levant term == == Scope of this article ==
In academic literature, the term "Ancient Israel" generally refers to the pre-exilic period of Israelite and Jewish history, from the earliest emergence of the ] around the 12th century BCE through the fall of Judah and the ] in Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 587/6 BCE. Two other terms common in literature are the ] in archaeological context and also the "First Temple period", but the latter does not apply to earlier pre-10th century Israelite history.


] term is from the '''much later''' ] 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). ] (]) 15:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC) This page also covers parts of the Second Temple period, which lasted from the late 6th century through 70 CE. In order to follow the periodization used in the research and avoid content duplication, I suggest that we cut the scope of this article just before the ] and the subsequent ], and relocate all later history and related periodical aspects (religion, society, literature, etc.) to the ] article. Thoughts? ] (]) 08:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
: OK, I have mentioned in the article that the Levant is today's term for the region. ] (]) 20:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


:That broadly speaking makes sense, though it is a little more natural to keep the Babylonian period with the Persian one. The title should probably also move back to just ], as it was once in the past, as pointed out at the redirect discussion. That would make more sense. The "History of X" format here is meaningless, since there is no "X" article for it to be the history of. Subjects that are fully encapsulated by the historical, e.g. ], do not need to clarify that they are about history. ] (]) 17:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
== Merge Pre Roman into this article ==
::I agree, we should drop the "History of". However, it would be better to keep the Babylonian period in this article, since the Second Temple period begins with the Persian period and the Edict of Cyrus; events of the Babylonian period would be out of place there. ] (]) 19:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
:::Although I notice that not many editors have expressed an interest in this topic, given the common periodization in Jewish historiography, I suppose that this is not a very contentious re-scoping to make. I've just deleted the sections that relate to the Second Temple period and are covered in the relevant article. Since it already contains all of the material we have here about this time period, I haven't copied anything much there. Only the sections that shortly summarize later but related processes remain, such as the brief section touching on the transition to ]. I have also added a new "About" section to make it easier for readers to grasp where one era begins and where it finishes. Any other suggestion are, of course, welcome. ] (]) 18:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)


== Frevel’s new SBL textbook “History of Ancient Israel” ==
The ] 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'''. ] (]) 20:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
* '''Merge'''


Would be worth updating and refining things with material from Frevel’s new SBL Press textbook:
'''Support''' merge of the other into this one. Your explanation seems to outline reason enough. — <span style="text-shadow:3px 4px 2px #aaa;">] (])</span> 22:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Support merge. They overlap. ] (]) 02:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


https://cart.sbl-site.org/books/061737C ] (]) 11:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Support merge, for all the reasons already given. ] (]) 07:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


== Removed Referenced Statements == == Somewhat confusing title ==


Should be kept for brevity, but it should be quickly clarified in the lead that the article deals with the TERRITORIES of J & I, NOT THE KINGDOMS. The kingdoms appear in Iron Age II (when exactly it's still debated, especially re. Judah), whereas the Israelites in their clusters of hill country villages appear in Iron Age I, two essential centuries earlier. Proposals? ] (]) 10:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
User with IP 68.92.247.157 removed a 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
:<span style="color:#430;text-shadow:1px 1px 2px #777;">Natural increase may not account for such rapid growth, which may imply in-migration.<sup style="color:#000;"><nowiki></nowiki></sup> Therefore, Israel may have originated through a complex process involving mainly native pastoralist groups in Canaan, with some infiltration from outside groups.<sup style="color:#000;"><nowiki></nowiki></sup></span>
Any objections why this or the original should not be included in the article? — <span style="text-shadow:3px 4px 2px #aaa;">] (])</span> 20:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
:Just that this version is better and it should be attributed to Dever explicitly. ] (]) 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. — <span style="text-shadow:3px 4px 2px #aaa;">] (])</span> 21:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
:::The proposed rewording. Sorry. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 09:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


:I support Tombah's " ancient Israel" as the well-established term from academia. What we have now is misleading (suggests just kingdoms). This "History of ancient Israel and Judah" concoction was either intended to specify the 2 separate realms, N and S, or to push against confusion between modern (Zionist) term and ancient realities. Neither strong enough reasons to go against well-established terminology. Keep & create redirects, define very clearly scope of article, but don't try to reinvent the wheel - not for reasons of perceived accuracy, and even less so out of anti-Zionist activism. Israel as a historical term is fundamentally understood as relating to the Israelites, via biblical etymology: Jacob/Israel - 12 tribes - Israelites. NB: etymology is not a propaganda weapon, but a linguistic fact reflecting long-gone historical perception (apart from phonetic shifts etc.). ] (]) 12:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
==PiCo's edits==


== Define the period ==
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. ] (]) 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?] (]) 09:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


I removed the ] from the definition in the lead, as it contradicts the article text, based on McNutt.
== Merging with article Pre-Roman history of ancient Israel and Judah ==
#Why only on him though?
#What do others, like I. Finkelstein say?
#Is there a consensus for date of emergence of the almost 300 new Israelite villages in the hill country?
The Israelites of the Mernephtah Stele are not directly relevant, as they might have been a) unrelated or at least not identical w the eventual settled Israelites, or b) a group of nomadic tribes somewhere outside the eventual (main) settlement area of the Israelites, for instance in S Transjordan. The article deals with a certain POPULATION, within the specific PERIOD when it lived in a certain TERRITORY, so only for the timespan when population and territory are overlapping, or the intersection of those two sets in set theory terms. This with the additional condition of autonomy or own sovereignty, so ending in 720 in Israel and 586 in Judah.


'''We need a CLEAR DEFINITION for this article: whose history, and when (from-till)'''. Background section for precursor, aftermath section for time after 586, but not the mishmash we had until now. ] (]) 11:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
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. ] (]) 07:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


:I see Tombah and {{u|Iskandar323}} have started the discussion last year. Shame that Tombah has been blocked, he offered good arguments (the legalistic issues don't impress me, the quality of an editor's contribution does). I don't agree though with his suggestion to keep here the Babylonian period. It makes no sense for Misplaced Pages to introduce new categories beyond what's common practice in archaeological and historical periodisation, and Iron Age I and II with emergence of Israelites and lifespan of the 2 kingdoms are a clearly defined period. Besides, we would again leave adide the short but not irrelevant Assyrian period between the fall of Israel and Babylon taking over Mesopotamia. ] (]) 11:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
*Title change - "Pre-Roman history of ancient Israel and Judah"? FT2 (Talk | email) 10:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Merge this article


== Late Bronze and Iron I: years ==
**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)


The definition evolves. We should for instance clarify why we use 1150 and not 1200 BCE as transitional year between Late Bronze and Iron Age. 586 is also a bit shaky, but only by 1 or 2 years. A "circa" is always advisable for such remote times, see how interpretations and even absolute dates have been shifting. ] (]) 11:40, 17 March 2024 (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)


== Why do we need this article? or: critical review of the article ==
*Historical Data


An honest question. What is the scope of this article, that isn't covered by other articles?
**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)


We have a "periods" section, which lays out archaeological (not historical) periods of the Southern Levant. Now, while the biblical historiography of the kingdoms start with the creation of the world, scholarly reconstructed history begins in the 10th century, with one ambiguous mention to Israel in the Merneptah stele in late 13th century BC.
== The emergence of Israel ==


An important note: Israel's history ends with Assyrian conquest in the late 8th century, while Judah's history continue until Roman times. These are two separate histories. Most of the article does not really deal with history, but with scholarly debates, centered mostly around ancient society and ethnogenesis, based on critical reading of archaeological material and biblical accounts. There is a large section about religion, whose scope to history is secondary. Most of the actual history - the chronicles of Israelite and Judahite kings, their wars with their neighbors etc. are mostly absent. But they belong to two parallel histories, of Israel and of Judah.
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.


I have read here that some people said that the article deals with the lands and not the kingdoms, but the kingdom's lands changed through time. If it is about land, it would better to have an article or a section about the Iron Age in the ]. The Hebrew Bible is a crucial source for that matter, but seemingly its natural emphasis on Israel and esepcially Judah, has created a bias to believe there is a need for an article like that. This belief can be satisfied with the article about ], as well as ]. I am concerned that some modern political consideration lurk in maintenance the article. I would be happy to address them and find a better solution.
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. ] (]) 06:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
: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.
: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)


If the scope of the article cannot be adequately determined, its contents can definitely be distributed in already existing articles: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] etc. ] <small>''(])''</small> 08:36, 8 August 2024 (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)


:More over, the fact that "Israel" is a national-religious terms that refers from the Iron Age to both Israel and Judah, this aspect is definately adequate to the ] article, as well as to ]. I'll {{ping|Arminden}} here. ] <small>''(])''</small> 18:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
===Dylan===
::If discarding every bit of traditional, preferably Western thinking (deconstruction?) of the time between French Revolution and some moment after WWII, and fragmenting everything to bits is the right way, fine. But why should it be?
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 ]; but if discussion and cited flaws in my version do not materialize, then I must remove the egregious violations of source conformity, in that ] is not really the issue if one does not want to discuss it. ] 17:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
::If everybody is an individual atom or molecule with equally strong tentacles stretched out in every direction, fine. But are we?
::There are real affinities, and perceived ones, and obtained ones. Relativising them seems out of place and intrusive, yes even aggressive.
::Here? Two countries who at times became one, deeply interwoven, who exchanged populations, shared deep cultural elements, more than with the other closely related Moabites and Edomites, let alone the Phoenicians and Philistines. Not everything modern-day fanatics hold dear and holy must be dismissed. There is normalcy, an organically grown behavioural vocabulary, healthy cohesion, mutual support and a certain balance in social and cultural structures too easily dismissed by overzelous skeptics. Not everything has to be smashed; most things disintegrate when their time is up. Not everything has to be rebuilt; many things ain't all that broken, and don't need radical fixing. ] (]) 22:57, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
:I agree that this page reads mostly like a highly complex Venn diagram of all of those topics, and especially the first three. Also agree with the problems arising from the overlapping yet distinct timelines. It's muddled. ] (]) 13:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:56, 3 September 2024

This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Middle East Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion not met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met
  3. Structure: criterion not met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion not met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion not met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Middle Eastern military history task force
WikiProject iconFormer countries
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country
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.
WikiProject iconIsrael Mid‑importance
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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconPalestine Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconJewish history High‑importance
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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAncient Near East Mid‑importance
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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconHistory Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAssyria Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the WikiProject Assyria, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Assyrian-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.AssyriaWikipedia:WikiProject AssyriaTemplate:WikiProject AssyriaAssyrian
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The contents of the Pre-Roman history of ancient Israel and Judah page were merged into History of ancient Israel and Judah on 31 May 2010. 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.
The contents of the Ancient Israelite History page were merged into History of ancient Israel and Judah on 6 March 2006. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history.

Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present.


"Ancient Israel" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Ancient Israel has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 15 § Ancient Israel until a consensus is reached. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Scope of this article

In academic literature, the term "Ancient Israel" generally refers to the pre-exilic period of Israelite and Jewish history, from the earliest emergence of the Israelites around the 12th century BCE through the fall of Judah and the destruction of the First Temple in Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 587/6 BCE. Two other terms common in literature are the Iron Age in archaeological context and also the "First Temple period", but the latter does not apply to earlier pre-10th century Israelite history.

This page also covers parts of the Second Temple period, which lasted from the late 6th century through 70 CE. In order to follow the periodization used in the research and avoid content duplication, I suggest that we cut the scope of this article just before the Edict of Cyrus and the subsequent Return to Zion, and relocate all later history and related periodical aspects (religion, society, literature, etc.) to the Second Temple period article. Thoughts? Tombah (talk) 08:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

That broadly speaking makes sense, though it is a little more natural to keep the Babylonian period with the Persian one. The title should probably also move back to just Ancient Israel and Judah, as it was once in the past, as pointed out at the redirect discussion. That would make more sense. The "History of X" format here is meaningless, since there is no "X" article for it to be the history of. Subjects that are fully encapsulated by the historical, e.g. Achaemenid Empire, do not need to clarify that they are about history. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree, we should drop the "History of". However, it would be better to keep the Babylonian period in this article, since the Second Temple period begins with the Persian period and the Edict of Cyrus; events of the Babylonian period would be out of place there. Tombah (talk) 19:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Although I notice that not many editors have expressed an interest in this topic, given the common periodization in Jewish historiography, I suppose that this is not a very contentious re-scoping to make. I've just deleted the sections that relate to the Second Temple period and are covered in the relevant article. Since it already contains all of the material we have here about this time period, I haven't copied anything much there. Only the sections that shortly summarize later but related processes remain, such as the brief section touching on the transition to Second Temple Judaism. I have also added a new "About" section to make it easier for readers to grasp where one era begins and where it finishes. Any other suggestion are, of course, welcome. Tombah (talk) 18:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Frevel’s new SBL textbook “History of Ancient Israel”

Would be worth updating and refining things with material from Frevel’s new SBL Press textbook:

https://cart.sbl-site.org/books/061737C 2600:100C:B037:E65A:91AE:73D2:ED60:173E (talk) 11:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Somewhat confusing title

Should be kept for brevity, but it should be quickly clarified in the lead that the article deals with the TERRITORIES of J & I, NOT THE KINGDOMS. The kingdoms appear in Iron Age II (when exactly it's still debated, especially re. Judah), whereas the Israelites in their clusters of hill country villages appear in Iron Age I, two essential centuries earlier. Proposals? Arminden (talk) 10:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I support Tombah's " ancient Israel" as the well-established term from academia. What we have now is misleading (suggests just kingdoms). This "History of ancient Israel and Judah" concoction was either intended to specify the 2 separate realms, N and S, or to push against confusion between modern (Zionist) term and ancient realities. Neither strong enough reasons to go against well-established terminology. Keep & create redirects, define very clearly scope of article, but don't try to reinvent the wheel - not for reasons of perceived accuracy, and even less so out of anti-Zionist activism. Israel as a historical term is fundamentally understood as relating to the Israelites, via biblical etymology: Jacob/Israel - 12 tribes - Israelites. NB: etymology is not a propaganda weapon, but a linguistic fact reflecting long-gone historical perception (apart from phonetic shifts etc.). Arminden (talk) 12:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Define the period

I removed the Late Bronze Age from the definition in the lead, as it contradicts the article text, based on McNutt.

  1. Why only on him though?
  2. What do others, like I. Finkelstein say?
  3. Is there a consensus for date of emergence of the almost 300 new Israelite villages in the hill country?

The Israelites of the Mernephtah Stele are not directly relevant, as they might have been a) unrelated or at least not identical w the eventual settled Israelites, or b) a group of nomadic tribes somewhere outside the eventual (main) settlement area of the Israelites, for instance in S Transjordan. The article deals with a certain POPULATION, within the specific PERIOD when it lived in a certain TERRITORY, so only for the timespan when population and territory are overlapping, or the intersection of those two sets in set theory terms. This with the additional condition of autonomy or own sovereignty, so ending in 720 in Israel and 586 in Judah.

We need a CLEAR DEFINITION for this article: whose history, and when (from-till). Background section for precursor, aftermath section for time after 586, but not the mishmash we had until now. Arminden (talk) 11:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I see Tombah and Iskandar323 have started the discussion last year. Shame that Tombah has been blocked, he offered good arguments (the legalistic issues don't impress me, the quality of an editor's contribution does). I don't agree though with his suggestion to keep here the Babylonian period. It makes no sense for Misplaced Pages to introduce new categories beyond what's common practice in archaeological and historical periodisation, and Iron Age I and II with emergence of Israelites and lifespan of the 2 kingdoms are a clearly defined period. Besides, we would again leave adide the short but not irrelevant Assyrian period between the fall of Israel and Babylon taking over Mesopotamia. Arminden (talk) 11:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Late Bronze and Iron I: years

The definition evolves. We should for instance clarify why we use 1150 and not 1200 BCE as transitional year between Late Bronze and Iron Age. 586 is also a bit shaky, but only by 1 or 2 years. A "circa" is always advisable for such remote times, see how interpretations and even absolute dates have been shifting. Arminden (talk) 11:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Why do we need this article? or: critical review of the article

An honest question. What is the scope of this article, that isn't covered by other articles?

We have a "periods" section, which lays out archaeological (not historical) periods of the Southern Levant. Now, while the biblical historiography of the kingdoms start with the creation of the world, scholarly reconstructed history begins in the 10th century, with one ambiguous mention to Israel in the Merneptah stele in late 13th century BC.

An important note: Israel's history ends with Assyrian conquest in the late 8th century, while Judah's history continue until Roman times. These are two separate histories. Most of the article does not really deal with history, but with scholarly debates, centered mostly around ancient society and ethnogenesis, based on critical reading of archaeological material and biblical accounts. There is a large section about religion, whose scope to history is secondary. Most of the actual history - the chronicles of Israelite and Judahite kings, their wars with their neighbors etc. are mostly absent. But they belong to two parallel histories, of Israel and of Judah.

I have read here that some people said that the article deals with the lands and not the kingdoms, but the kingdom's lands changed through time. If it is about land, it would better to have an article or a section about the Iron Age in the Southern Levant. The Hebrew Bible is a crucial source for that matter, but seemingly its natural emphasis on Israel and esepcially Judah, has created a bias to believe there is a need for an article like that. This belief can be satisfied with the article about Biblical archaeology, as well as Historicity of the Bible. I am concerned that some modern political consideration lurk in maintenance the article. I would be happy to address them and find a better solution.

If the scope of the article cannot be adequately determined, its contents can definitely be distributed in already existing articles: Kingdom of Israel (United Monarchy), Kingdom of Israel (Samaria), Kingdom of Judah, Samerina, Yehud Medinata, Samaritans, Canaan, Canaanite religion, Yahwism, Southern Levant etc. Bolter21 (talk to me) 08:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

More over, the fact that "Israel" is a national-religious terms that refers from the Iron Age to both Israel and Judah, this aspect is definately adequate to the Israelites article, as well as to Jewish history. I'll @Arminden: here. Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
If discarding every bit of traditional, preferably Western thinking (deconstruction?) of the time between French Revolution and some moment after WWII, and fragmenting everything to bits is the right way, fine. But why should it be?
If everybody is an individual atom or molecule with equally strong tentacles stretched out in every direction, fine. But are we?
There are real affinities, and perceived ones, and obtained ones. Relativising them seems out of place and intrusive, yes even aggressive.
Here? Two countries who at times became one, deeply interwoven, who exchanged populations, shared deep cultural elements, more than with the other closely related Moabites and Edomites, let alone the Phoenicians and Philistines. Not everything modern-day fanatics hold dear and holy must be dismissed. There is normalcy, an organically grown behavioural vocabulary, healthy cohesion, mutual support and a certain balance in social and cultural structures too easily dismissed by overzelous skeptics. Not everything has to be smashed; most things disintegrate when their time is up. Not everything has to be rebuilt; many things ain't all that broken, and don't need radical fixing. Arminden (talk) 22:57, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree that this page reads mostly like a highly complex Venn diagram of all of those topics, and especially the first three. Also agree with the problems arising from the overlapping yet distinct timelines. It's muddled. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Categories: