Talk:History of ancient Israel and Judah

Accuracy of religion section

Under the "Second Temple" heading, the article notes: "It was at this time that the Torah was written, circumcision and Sabbath-observance became symbols of Jewish identity, and the institution of the synagogue became increasingly important." This doesn't seem to jive with the fact that diaspora Jewish communities dating from the first exile (in Babylonia/Iraq, Yemen, etc.) kept the same commandments and traditions, and had the same Biblical text, as other Jews in spite of being exiled prior to the period in question. Is this just a POV attempt to discredit Jews, or is there some explanation missing? 192.197.178.2 (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There was no "Biblical text" prior to the Septuagint, there were only vaguely related narratives at best. And what would "diaspora Jewish communities dating from the first exile" be? There was no Judaism proper before the exile. ♆ CUSH ♆ 18:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

removals of valid facts

Considering the site "History_of_ancient_Israel_and_Judah Iron Age I" The Khirbet Qeiyafa inscription seems to be the most important archeological finding from Iron Age I, regarding the history(and historicity) of ancient Israel and Judah. Therefore, I find important to mention it, in the section regarding that particular archeological period. Considering Iron Age II This is the ONLY site on Wikipedia where we can show what has been archeologically verified from ancient Israel, and what is not.There are no places at Wiki (and shouldn't be other places) to give the summary of archeological facts, ESPECIALLY if we are speaking about strictly archeological sections like Iron Age sections. We are speaking about the The History of Ancient Israel and Judah and we are speaking about IRON AGE=ARCHEOLOGY Definition of Iron age: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Age The Iron Age is the archaeological period generally occurring after the Bronze Age, marked by the prevalent use of iron. The early period of the age is characterized by the widespread use of iron or steel. The adoption of such material coincided with other changes in society, including differing agricultural practices, religious beliefs and artistic styles. The Iron Age as an archaeological term indicates the condition as to civilization and culture of a people using iron as the material for their cutting tools and weapons.[1] The Iron Age is the 3rd principal period of the three-age system created by Christian Jürgensen Thomsen for classifying ancient societies and prehistoric stages of progress

As you see, if we are speaking about Iron age, the definition of Iron age is SOLELY archeological. Therefore our arguments can be based primarily on archeological findings. That is the reason why it is NECESSARY to adhere to this fact. YHVH I agree that Wikipedia shouldn't be used to reflect any religious rhetoric. My addition is again based on valid archeological findings and has fundamental importance in understanding of the process of transformation of Canaanite-Israelite society from polytheism to monotheism.This addition is not supposed to give credibility to any religious arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tritomex (talk • contribs) 23:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing your concerns to the Talk page - this is the proper way to resolve disputes over editing, especially when editors are in good faith, as I'm sure you are.

I'll take your points one by one:

• The Khirbet Qeiyafa inscription seems to be the most important archeological finding from Iron Age I, regarding the history(and historicity) of ancient Israel and Judah. Therefore, I find important to mention it... But the article does not cast any doubt on the historicity of ancient Israel and Judah - it treats these kingdoms as real ones, and traces their history. Therefore there's no need for a mention of this inscription, if the sole reason is to demonstrate that the kingdoms existed.
• As you see, if we are speaking about Iron age, the definition of Iron age is SOLELY archeological. Therefore our arguments can be based primarily on archeological findings. The term Iron Age is defines a period of time, nothing more - in the case of the Levant, it's the period from about 1250 to 586 BCE. It doesn't follow that we can't use any evidence from the bible when we talk about the history of ancient Israel and Judah during the Iron Age. In fact our article does use evidence from the bible for this period - it mentions how both the bible and the Assyrian records agree about the destruction of Israel and the deportations that followed. This article uses both the bible AND archaeology.
• YHVH I agree that Wikipedia shouldn't be used to reflect any religious rhetoric. My addition is again based on valid archeological findings and has fundamental importance in understanding of the process of transformation of Canaanite-Israelite society from polytheism to monotheism. This addition is not supposed to give credibility to any religious arguments. I'm afraid I wasn't able to follow this - what addition are you talking about?

PiCo (talk) 07:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing this. And I don't think I have a bias for one argument or the other. The article currently does question whether Canaanite artifacts can be separated out from Israelite ones "for the earliest period". Does the new material help that argument? And while this argument may treat ancient Israeli kingdoms as "real", other "allied" articles do not, at least prior to certain kings. And let's face it. Nobody would be studying this stuff in meticulous detail if it weren't for the bible. Other ancient tiny kingdoms (that were often defeated due to size and located in somebody's way) don't get this kind of archeological attention or quantity of articles. Student7 (talk) 13:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

My post was for Tritomex - he's concerned that we should be mentioning far more archaeological detail than I think is necessary. Your own concerns are slightly different - I gather you want to include a general note to the effect that there's not much archaeological material available relating to Israel/Judah. I don't think this is actually true. For Iron I there's a fair amount in the form of surface surveys that have been used to chart changing demography and settlement patterns, and the material increases as we get closer to the end of Iron II. The statement that we wouldn't know that Judah existed if not for the bible is of course true (in that the only non-biblical mention of this name is in a Babylonian record telling about rations for the exiled king of Judah), but there are shelves of books by Dever, Finkelstein and others on Palestinian archaeology. I think we have about 50 titles at the bottom of the page, which makes it look strange to say that there's little evidence. PiCo (talk) 21:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

We had this discussion regarding this subject and our edits were examined by administrator who removed my contribution regarding Elah fortress, while the section regarding Iron Age II was left. I consider that arbitration as fair and I adhered to this suggestion. However, you further removed some basic facts reflecting the history of ancient Judah and Israel from iron age II, which were left standing after the arbitration. Removing whole section is not the way, we can find compromise fairly on this issue. If you think that any posts are problematic, reflect on that particular detail and do not remove the whole sections — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tritomex (talk • contribs) 21:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

21:06, 5 November 2011‎ PiCo (talk | contribs)‎ (60,122 bytes) (Undid revision 459109804 by Tritomex (talk)Noone doubts the accuracy of this, just the importance.) (undo) I think that this revision is problematic, as the site "History of ancient Israel and Judah" was already examined by User:Dougweller, and my contribution regarding the Elah fortress was removed,maybe some sections written by you too. Yet my edition in the section Iron age II was left to stand. I consider this arbitration a fair solution and a compromise. The archeological facts mentioned by me in this particular sections do not constitute involvement in too much details, as I mentioned only basic findings of fundamental importance. If you have any suggestion about any particular archeological findings regarding this section, than write me, and do not remove them altogether --Tritomex (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tritomex (talk • contribs)

I'll leave it to you to edit the article as you wish. Just a few points to bear in mind:

• Don't include every single fact just ebcause it's a fact - there has to be a reason for mentioning it.
• Try to create a narrative - meaning a story-line. History is story.
• Don't try to prove anything - you don't need to. Just reflect the broad understanding of scholars.

Good luck :) PiCo (talk) 01:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

What? No. Please do NOT create a narrative. This is an encyclopedia and we do not reproduce stories but present facts and interpretations. If a reader wants stories, he is free to read the Bible himself.

And Tritomex, please learn how to indent and sign your contributions to talk pages. ♆ CUSH ♆ 01:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

severe lack of photos and illustrations in the article

if someone could add, please do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.64.4.118 (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Reliability of claim on biblical historicity

Apologies if this is not the appropriate format in which to make such a claim, but in line with Wikipedia's policy on burden of proof and verifiability, I am removing the section that states that the biblical accounts are inaccurate as they were written after the fact. The given source (Golden, 2004b) makes said statement in passing and provides no backing evidence or research. Given that, it does not appear to meet the criteria of "reliable" or "burden of proof".

If I am mistaken in any way, please let me know, but the given source is weak and only seems to meet the criteria of being published, nothing more.--Ronin2040 (talk) 01:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm missing context here. I'm following the edits a bit distantly. The reference above seems to look okay. It does mention that bible chronology does not match archaeology very well.

Of course, biblical accounts (history) was written "after the fact." I agree that this, per se, does not make them inaccurate. They tend to be (in Wikipedia-ese) pov, though. I happen to believe that they are "inspired" as a personal belief. But constructing a history from them has sometimes proved "problematical".

If I followed the reference correctly, it seems to say that a Jewish Samaria (and therefore United Kingdom) existed. Student7 (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not someone believes the history to have been written after the fact or not doesnt seem relevant; it was stated in the article as if it were a point of contention that were being settled by a reliable source, but the source in question does not appear to fit the criteria in any way. If there is a source that backs up such a claim better, it should be used. If it IS supported in the source, the correct page numbers should be used.--98.218.151.42 (talk) 09:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I've put it back. The statement is from a reliable source, and therefore reliable. PiCo (talk) 15:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Reference to two steles deleted

Pico: A line read "except for the Mesha Stele and the Tel Dan Stele" can't show that David, etc. existed. Why did you delete those articles? It seems to me that they tend to refute the idea that the "House of David" never existed. Perhaps not indisputably and forever, but still...Student7 (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The two steles can't prove that David existed, just that the royal dynasty in about 850 had this name. The sections "Iron Age II" and "Babylonian Period" do assume that the royal house of Judah did call itself the House of David - I count three mentions. PiCo (talk) 10:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's say that 3,000 years from now, a book claims that, under the kingship of Millard Fillmore, the country built skyscrapers and ships to the moon. Later, someone digs up something, several somethings in fact, that indicates that someone named Millard Fillmore actually did run the country or area or tribe, as the case may be. Granted, this proves nothing about skyscrapers and moon ships, but it tends to indicate something IMO. Student7 (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)