Talk:Merneptah Stele

in the paragraph about israel it is said that the next non - biblical evidance about israel is the meisha stele but there is another stele found in "tel-dan" talking about hazael ben hadad and how he won over an israeli king from the "house of david". i think that one is a bit older, allthough they are very close —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.130.217.64 (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Initial Comments

I'm aware that this Stele is widely known as "The Israel Stele", but, considering its content, it is more accurate to call it "The Merneptah Stele". Thus, the revision. -RomeW

Fair enough. While personally I believe most users will come to Wiki and search for "Israel Stela" (right or wrong), you are correct. However, there are also lots of other stelae of Merenptah, but only one Victory Stela. —Nefertum17 09:26, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe Merneptah 'had' a lot of stelae- he was ill for most of his life, and really went on just one campaign (the Libyan campaign depicted here) as a Pharaoh (the other known Stela from him is a direct copy of this Stela at Karnak). Having looked at the text further (in Miriam Lichtheim's book), it should probably be more correctly called the "Victory Hymn of Merneptah" because that's what it is- a hymn. I believe that's what the title *should* be, but I'm not sure if we absolutely *need* to be that accurate. -RomeW

Name

I have moved the article to "Merneptah Stele" as Wikipedia official naming policy is that articles have the "most common name" rather than any technical definition - see Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use common names of persons and things.

Also note that it requests the titles be simple (in the "specifics" of that part of the policy). ~~~~ 18:59, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Propaganda?

Ancient propaganda? Israel's seed could definitely not of been laid to waste. It still exists today. Possible motives? Maybe a connection to the legend that Israelite women were giving birth to 7 babies at once.

It was mentioned in the article that "seed laid waste" meant that they destroyed their store of grain. (not everything in the bible has to do with sex)--Jake4d (talk) 03:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

And in this case, nothing to do with the Bible. It just means as the fellow above said, they messed up their land. The think about this stele is that what happened is irrelevant to archaeologists, it the name Israel appearing so early in an extrabiblical source that matters. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

"The stela does make clear that "Israel" at this stage, refers to a people or tribal confederation" Makes it clear to who? It isn't clear to me. What is clear is that the mention of 'Israel' is absolutely meaningless and has no connection with Israelites, Judaism, Torah, old testament, Dead Sea scrolls, modern day Jews, modern day Israel, etc. To say it does is propaganda and wishful thinking. We've obviously all seen this behavior all over Wikipedia by a certain group of people so it comes as no surprise, but come on..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.225.34 (talk) 04:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, well you see the reason for that is because you probably cannot read it in the original Ancient Egyptian (nor can I), because the way it is written shows it was regarded as a people rather than a kingdom, etc. Think of how in some names you have something that looks like a wall surrounding the name and meaning that it is a city. Nope, that is not clear. It means that by 1207 you had a people known as Israel that had established themselves in the area. Now I don't mean this to sound rude, but don't you think that after one hundred years of examination and discussion by hundreds of archaeologists we could have determined whether it was meaninglingness reference? We do re-examine the things we can look at physically and so if after all this time the concensus is that Petrie's assessment was correct, it has to say something. Philip R. Davies btw is a terrible historian with a very clear political agenda just like his other minimalist colleagues. Well I subscribe to Israel Finkelstein's interpretations of the Bible for the most part btw. If my wording is crummy, it's because I just got up. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Michael G. Hasel's theory

The article contains this paragraph about a theory of Michael G. Hasel of Southern Adventist University:

Another explanation offered by Michael G. Hasel, director of the Institute of Archaeology at Southern Adventist University, is that Israel was already a well established political force in Canaan in the late 13th century BCE: "Israel functioned as an agriculturally based or sedentary socioethnic entity in the late 13th century BCE one that is significant enough to be included in the military campaign against political powers in Canaan. While the Merneptah stela does not give any indication of the actual social structure of the people of Israel, it does indicate that Israel was a significant socioethnic entity that needed to be reckoned with."[7]

I have no idea who Michael G. Hasel is, or how much authority he cqarries in Egyptological circles, I'm inclined to suspect any church-based US university, as many of them are quite mediocre. On the other hand, I don't want to make judgements when I really know nothing of the subject. But my problem with Hasel's theory is this: the line about Israel in the stele, as quoted in this article, gives no indication that Israel was agriculturally based or sedentary, yet here Hasel says that what it was - his conclusion is not supported by the evidence. So I'd be strongly inclined to delete But I leave it to others to decide. PiCo 06:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I am inclined to believe that possibly they mistranslated or are attempting to make it into something it's not. Another possible meaning is that Israel was barren of seed. It's fields wasted. If they are not listed as a country it's possible that it's referring to the status of the land. If they were nomadic the Egyptians may have chosen to destroy the fields of the Israelites in order to get them to move or as a punishment for the alliances.71.62.197.151 (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The determinative at the end of Isreal indicates 'people' not land or fields.

Herzog is trying to claim archaeologist have proven a negative? LOL. Fallacious arguments are irrelevant. Did he publish before the reference to Bit David was discovered on the Mesha Stele and the Tel Dan Stele? Then he's behind the times.

4.249.3.47 (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Picture label incorrect?

Is it just me, or does the picture of the stele mentioning Israel only say "Isreal" and just the fragment of the word/concept "waste"? The label under the picture reads "Israel is wasted, its seed is no longer." Maybe the label needs to be changed to reflect this? Possibly change it to "Segment of the Merneptah Stele mentioning Israel"..? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.168.100.252 (talk) 23:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion regarding the state of Israel

Is all of this really appropriate for this article? Shouldn't this be in an article about Israel?

A theory by Donald Redford states that "Israel" was a band of Bedouin-like wanderers known to Egyptians as "Shasu". Redford notes that among the Shasu in a 15th century BC list at the Soleb temple of Amenhotep III is one labelled "Yhw- in the land of the Shasu", which has been considered an early form of tetragrammaton, thus providing a possible explanation for the origin of Israel. The proposed link between the Israelites and the Shasu is undermined, however, by the fact that in the Merneptah stela, the Israelites are not depicted as Shasu, but wear the same clothing and have the same hairstyles as the Canaanites, who are shown defending the fortified cities of Ashkelon, Gezer, and Yanoam. As far as what "Israel" became after that, there are few conclusions that can be drawn. The next non-Biblical source about Israel, detailing a campaign against Moab by Omri, appears some 300 years later in the Mesha Stele. The 200 years between the Merneptah Stele and the foundation of the Kingdom of Israel by Saul in c.1000 BC are treated by the Bible in a rather cursory manner, leaving much to speculation about how Israel became a kingdom. Regardless, the stele is an important source for Israelite history simply because it is the first official record in history of an "Israel", even if this record does not explain much. Another explanation offered by Michael G. Hasel, director of the Institute of Archaeology at Southern Adventist University, is that Israel was already a well established political force in Canaan in the late 13th century BCE:

"Israel functioned as an agriculturally based or sedentary socioethnic entity in the late 13th century BCE one that is significant enough to be included in the military campaign against political powers in Canaan. While the Merneptah stela does not give any indication of the actual social structure of the people of Israel, it does indicate that Israel was a significant socioethnic entity that needed to be reckoned with."

If there are no objections I am going to remove it and try to find another article for it. Sweetmoose6 (talk) 22:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Well, the Merneptah Stele is one datum of evidence relevant to the complicated question of the origins of the Israelites, but perhaps much of that material should be on an article dealing mainly with the topic of the origins of the Israelites... AnonMoos (talk) 02:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe if the discussion were summarized we could leave the key points and move the rest to another article on the subject in question. Sweetmoose6 (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The main article appears to be Israelites, but there's very little discussion of the subject there now... AnonMoos (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

article scope

The discussion of the "Israel" mention is rather overblown in this article. The main significance of the stele is the campaign in Libya. I also don't see the reason for three h3 subsections to the "Israel" point. As far as I can see, it is undisputed that the demonym "Israel" is mentioned among a bunch of defeated nations in Canaan. Period. This is rather notable, seeing that an identifiable state called "Israel" emerges only 300 years later, but it is also very simple and can be stated in a single brief paragraph. --dab (𒁳) 11:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Like it or not, this would be an obscure inscription of very little interest to anyone other than a few professional Egyptologists, if Israel were not mentioned. It owes almost all its general notability to the mention of Israel... AnonMoos (talk) 11:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The article mentions that the inscription "appears on the reverse side of a granite stele erected by the king Amenhotep III." Does anyone know what (if anything) was on the other side and could they perhaps write (at least briefly) what it was, for the sake of completeness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.52.149 (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Assyria?

The transliteration: y-z-y-r-j-A-r is given at:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:YsyriAr.gif

Is it possible that this could refer to Assyria? Does Assyria appear in the Egyptian records, and how is it written? Italus (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Doubt it; the original form of this word was like "Aššur". Where does the second "r" come from under your reading? Anyway, "Assyria" doesn't make too much sense geographically in the context of Ascalon and Gezer... AnonMoos (talk) 03:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Not a political force?

"However, Prof. Ze'ev Herzog of the Archaeology Faculty at the University of Tel Aviv, asserts that there is no evidence in the archaeological record that Israel was ever a political force, whether at the time of the stele's creation or at any other time during that general period." Huh? So if Israel didn't exist at that period, then who did Merneptah fight? I don't understand what the article is saying Herzog believes: that Israel was politically insignificant? that it didn't exist yet (and if so, is he saying the stele is mistranslated? or that Israel doesn't mean the same thing? or what?) And is this position (whatever it is) notable/non-fringe enough to include anyway? Vultur (talk) 11:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Herzog is notable, and the position that the 'Israel' mentioned on the stele is not a state or polity, but a 'people' or tribe', is held by a number of historians and archaeologists. Dougweller (talk) 13:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

However, the wording "political force" is somewhat vague and unfortunate; probably the basic idea could be expressed in a clearer way... AnonMoos (talk) 14:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, Israel being a tribe at the time makes sense; I thought the implication was that it was nonexistent. (That's why I questioned if it was a fringe idea, as it sounded nonsensical.) And yeah, a better wording is needed here. Vultur (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

And we don't know where these people were. Only that Merneptah fought them. Dougweller (talk) 20:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Ze'ev Herzog is a fine scholar, but the use made of his article here is inappropriate. I would go as far as to say that the last paragraph is WP:Synth, if not WP:OR. Herzog's article, available online in both English and the original Hebrew, has very little to do with the Merneptah Stele and anyone's use of the term "Israel" in the 13th century BC. Herzog's article is about contesting the Biblical account of the origins of the Israelites and the united Monarchy of David and Solomon (10th centry BC). He dismisses the Biblical account, but certainly does not dismiss the possibity that there were people calling themselves "Israel" in Canaan at an earlier date. Juxtapositioning Herzog next to the claim that an entity/group called Israel existed in the 13th century BC, as if to imply that Herzog disagrees, is just plain wrong. Herzog doesn't even touch on that point. I'm sure sources can be found to dismiss Israel as a political force in the 13th century BC, but Herzog's article is not it. Poliocretes (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyone? A few more days and I'm removing the reference to Herzog. Poliocretes (talk) 09:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

He does have a paragraph on the stele, and I've added a bit from that, and changed 'political' to 'powerful'. I can't see a reason to remove it. If he didn't mention the stele, maybe, but he does. Dougweller (talk) 10:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You're quite right, I missed that. Your addition is great, but then why keep the other quote lifted off the article which says "Following 70 years of intensive excavations in the Land of Israel, archaeologists have found out: The patriarchs' acts are legendary, the Israelites did not sojourn in Egypt or make an exodus, they did not conquer the land. Neither is there any mention of the empire of David and Solomon, nor of the source of belief in the God of Israel. These facts have been known for years, but Israel is a stubborn people and nobody wants to hear about it."? Neither the stele nor the wiki article are about the patriarchs, Egypt, exodus or empire. The quote is simply irrelevant to the subject at hand. Poliocretes (talk) 13:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I certainly think the last sentence can be cut, but doesn't the first bit speak to the significance of the mention of Israel and whether or not it was a powerful force then? Dougweller (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Does it? Let's look at what the paragraph says : no patriarchs, no bondage, no exodus, no settlement and no empire. Notice that the only time this paragraph attributes the Hebrews with power is the empire of David and Solomon, an entity of the 10 century BC. That's the powerful "Israel" dismissed here.

Right now the quote is used in a context ("However ... no evidence ... powerful force") that implies that because we can dismiss the Biblical naarative, there is no way that "Israel" (whatever they were) could have been an influencial entity in the 13th century. That's a fallacy, Herzog doesn't say that. All we have is what you added recently. We may agree what did not happen, we may agree that the authors of the Bible dreamt up some glorious past, but we certainly don't know what did take place. The point is not that I think that "Israel" was powerful at the time, and I'm sure Herzog doesn't either. The point is that the paragraph quoted here is entirely out of context. None of the Biblical episodes the paragraph cancels are relevant to the Stele. Herzog uses archaeology to dismiss the Bible, not to comment about the Stele, though the juxtaposition gives an entirely different impression. That's pure and simple WP:Synth Poliocretes (talk) 22:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Travelling and no time, do as you will. Dougweller (talk) 05:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

A new thought?

I am always a little sceptical about translations based upon one known example as almost inevitably there will be genuine differences of opinion. So perhaps my own thoughts may help muddy the waters a little more.

The Pharoah of Exodus was named Shishak and seems to have looted the Temple of Soloman and removed "twelve gold shields". The biblical account seems clear enough that the temple was looted and not destroyed. Trying to put the assumed details into context it may be possible to come up with another version of Merneptahs stele that satisfy others.

Ramesses II was also apparently named Sesotris and led at least one military campaign deep into the Middle East. After passing through Aramaic/Greek translation etc the change from Sesotris to Shishak seems possible.

If it was Ramesses army that looted the Temple of Soloman, the equivalent of emptying the Bank of England or Fort Knox, then the economy of Israel must have then collapsed completely, similar to the Great Depression perhaps?

If this can be assumed then a possible translation of this stele becomes,

"Israel remains (econonomically)prostrate". The reference to seed may mean that the population have reverted to their ancestral ways of herding being no longer settled enough to grow crops.

AT Kunene (talk) 10:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Would you lease read WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY - our speculations don't belong here or in the article. Dougweller (talk) 12:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Kunene -- There was no temple in Jerusalem until Solomon's reign, and the Israelites didn't control Jerusalem until David conquered it from the Jebusites... AnonMoos (talk) 12:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

We don't know that David did conquer it, just that there was most likely a David who had a royal house named after him. The biblical record at that time is spotty. Of course it's the only recording of that period we have to go on (even if it was written about 300 years later, which makes it dubious at best). We also have no proof for Solomon (as Yadin's chronology is incorrect) and nothing definite for a first Temple... yet anyway. Maybe if the Waft weren't given free reign over the Temple Mount to toss out everything, we could find something. Thank God for that project excavating the rubble from their last little 'renovation'. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Alternative Translations

I have added in text about alternative readings based on a variety of WP:RS - these have been widely debated amongst historians and are therefore worthy of inclusion. I note that an attempt at adding such information was previously added in to this article but subsequently deleted in this edit[1] by User:AnonMoos. If User:AnonMoos's point about the `Ayin phayrngeal consonant can be sourced, it would be helpful to add in to the article as part of this section. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm looking at my Biblical lexicon right now and seeing that Jezreel/Esdraelon is יזרעאל with a voiced pharyngeal ע `ayin consonant, and wondering extremely why this consonant wouldn't have been transcribed into ancient Egyptian as such, since Egyptian also possessed this same sound. Such glottal stops and pharyngeals etc. can look unimpressive in Latin-alphabet transcription, where they often become little apostrophe symbols -- but within the grammar of Semitic languages and ancient Egyptian, a voiced pharyngeal is a consonant which functions like any other consonant in the language. Furthermore, Jezreel is a geographical term for a valley which might be suitable as a site for a battlefield, but it is not particularly attested as the name of a people (as is already made clear in the quote you added). And also, your main sources (other than the cautionary quote) include two indeterminate websites, concerning whose scholarly reliability you have presented no evidence. AnonMoos (talk) 05:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Anonmoos, happy to discuss but please do not revert the text again. Not only did your revert breach guidelines, it breached a fundamental principle of wikipedia which requires articles which are "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources".

Your lexicographical analysis above is interesting - please find a WP:RS to support it and add it in to the article. However, whether you are correct or not does not change the validity of the "alternative translations" text.

The text is well sourced, and contains information which is widely available:

• Out of the seven sources provided, you challenged two, agreed with one and stayed conspicuously silent on the other four. All seven sources record the same alternative translations.
• There are innumerable alternative sources for exactly the same information[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] - these 8 new sources are just from a quick google search.

In the face of this mountain of WP:RS (15 sources and counting), it is impossible not to conclude that the alternative translations are notable views which require a mention in this article.

And frankly, continued attempts to keep these scholars' views out of this encyclopedia are publicly embarrassing for the wikipedia project (see comments here[10]). We are better than this.

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a number of your "reliable sources" seem to be semi-random links turned up through personal Google searches, for which you have presented no specific evidence of their reliability -- and the fact that you have not pointed towards any specific source which discusses one particularly glaringly problematic issue (which would occur almost immediately to anybody who was actually directly familiar with the linguistic scholarship concerning these languages) doesn't inspire very great confidence in some of your alleged sources, either... For instance, Egyptian `ayin in *par-ʕoʔ became Hebrew `ayin in פרעה "Pharoah", so why on earth wouldn't the reverse happen with Yizrəʕel??? Unfortunately, you have written your addition to the article as if Jezreel were a viable (though less accepted) alternative, but until you find something which deals directly with the elephant in the room, you really only have support for Jezreel being an idea which various people have idly considered for time to time. It's really up to you to add material in an acceptable state for Wikipedia, not for me to try to dig up things which will save your edits. AnonMoos (talk) 00:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos, you are going about this the wrong way - phrases such as "semi-random" and "alleged sources" are frankly childish in light of the quality and quantity of scholarly sources provided - each of which speak for themselves from a quick comparison versus WP:RS. This really should be a collaborative effort, not a fight. In that spirit, I have sucked up my pride, despite your behaviour, and done the research you requested to back up your statement. It has now been added in. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Can we see what these two sources actually say please? I presume you have them to hand and can quote from them.

O. Margalith, "On the Origin and Antiquity of the Name 'Israel,' " ZAW 102 [1990}

A. Nibbi, Canaan and Canaanite in Ancient Egypt Hawskworth, Becardo, 1989

Thanks. Your citations need to be fixed so that they are in line with our MOS, by the way. Dougweller (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure - you are welcome to download them from here[11] (click request) and here[12], but I'm not sure they are available free. The Nibbi paper is worth a read, but the Margalith paper doesn't give much more insight than in the Hasel quote shown in the article (and to be clear the Jezreel idea was not Marglith's - it had been first proposed in 1896 when the stele was first found). I'll fix the sources. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Modification

Anonmoos, I'll concede that the Temple of Soloman was indeed built in stone by Soloman but there must have been some sort of structure before Soloman. Possibly there was an original more modest stone structure which was rebuilt on a much larger scale by Soloman.

If the biblical record is accepted, there had been three generations settled in Israel before we hear of Solomans Temple and I find it difficult to believe that some temple structure wouldn't have been built as the centre of the new city soon after settlement.

Ramesses II may have used his army to loot most of the Middle East but equally must have spent vast sums on his grandiose building schemes. By the time Merneptah became Pharaoh there may well have been almost empty coffers,which possibly explains why Merneptah recycled a modest stone stela from the earlier dynasty rather than having a much larger inscription on a temple.

Working from fragments I don't suppose that there will ever be an explanation that will satisfy everybody.AT Kunene (talk) 10:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Except we have nothing from that Temple to prove its existence yet (keyword being yet of course). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Kunene -- If you wanted to reply to my message of "12:15, 19 December 2010", then it would have been better to do so in the original thread. And according to the Bible, before the time of David the site of the later Temple was the "threshing floor of Araunah" in a non-Israelite (Jebusite) city. In the immediate pre-monarchy period, the main Israelite site of worship (again according to the Bible) was Eli's and Samuel's headquarters at Shiloh... AnonMoos (talk) 09:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bible is talking about something from over 400 years before the earliest known written instance of a biblical passage (the Silver Scroll amulet from 586 that was a portion of Deuteronomy). It isn't proof there was anything there at that time. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 09:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure too exactly what you're trying to say -- according to the Bible, the later temple mount site was sanctified by associations with Abraham etc., but it wasn't under the control of Israelites until the time of David, and there was no Israelite temple there until the time of Solomon. This is a few centuries after the time of the Merneptah Stele... AnonMoos (talk) 13:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, well I'm saying that the Bible just isn't a good source of info for what happened in the time of David (over 400 years before the earliest known written down passage of the Bible and 200 years after the Stele), and that we don't even have proof of the First Temple (which I said in the comment before). We don't know that Israelites didn't actually control Jerusalem (and yonder Mount Moriah) till the time of David. Of course the Bible is our only source of information even if it is most probably incorrect. I do also understand you're just saying what the Bible is saying and don't think you actually believe it. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 16:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Depictions at the Stela?

in the Merneptah Stele the Israelites are not depicted as Shasu, but wear the same clothing and have the same hairstyles as the Canaanites, who are shown defending the fortified cities of Ashkelon, Gezer, and Yanoam.

Which can be found in:

Stager, Lawrence E., "Forging an Identity: The Emergence of Ancient Israel" in Michael Coogan ed. The Oxford History of the Biblical World, Oxford University Press, 2001. p.92

Look at the stela, apart from the figures at the top there ARE NO DEPICTIONS at the stela. No Canaanites defending fortified cities. I have been looking for that book "Forging an Identity" and I can't find it. This is not as it should be, sources should be easy to find.

I have googled some time, and my best guess at this moment is that the battle pictures of Ashkelon etc. are at the Karnak reliefs. So I changed it. But still we need better sources, we also need high quality pictures of ALL markings on the Stela and at Karnak.Mismeret (talk) 10:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Israelite Israel

"It is also, by far, the earliest known attestation of the demonym Israel." Wouldn't it be more accurate if this said  "It is also, by far, the earliest known attestation of the demonym Israelite." Because of the meaning of demonym this seems the appropriate word. Nitpyck (talk) 16:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Mistake or Forgery (with close-up photos from the Stele)

http://www.davidovits.info/496/error-or-forgery-on-the-stele-of-merneptah-known-as-israel-stele

I don't know much about Joseph Davidovits or whether or not he can be considered a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. His website says he is a scientist, archaeologist, and Egyptologist and I know he was previously criticized for a theory that blocks used to build the pyramids were not carved but poured as cement. They recently discovered air bubbles in the casing stones, so he isn't exactly fringe. If I understand correctly, part of the information presented in the linked article was omitted from a book he wrote. He doesn't say why, but my guess is to not to generate controversy.

Unless the photo has been tampered with, one of the hieroglyph's chalk tracing extends beyond the engraving which gives it a completely different meaning. The difference, claims Davidovits , changes the meaning to be the opposite. He claims it really reads "existing are ii-s-ii-r-iar the people, devastated with no seeds is Kharu." The photos look real, although I don't know if his conclusion is. It would be nice to have more photos and alternative investigations, but I can almost guarantee the odds of that are slim. Nobody cares enough and to be quite frank a lot of it is because this object continues to serve an agenda. If the inscription was a hoax (and it's either a hoax or a mistake if the above is true) I would call into question this alleged reference to Israel.

Now the following may be my opinion, but I guarantee others share it and few are admitting it because it is taboo. I agree that it is phonetically similar to Israel. I agree that it could very well be referring to Israel. I'm also aware that Ethiopia and part of Somalia call themselves Israel. I'm also aware that it makes sense in the context, but so does Ethiopia. This speculation became consensus over 100 years ago. What if they were wrong? 100 years is a long time. It's very odd that something like this is embraced (which is fine because it is phonetically similar) but What I'm saying is double standards are applied for phonetically similar words with multiple parallels whenever is appeases an agenda. The same standards are not applied to the Shasu Yhw worshipers even though there is a burning bush involved. And that's also why you don't see very many people pointing out the obvious characteristics between Gudea and Judea for example or asking if Germany's Jews could be related to the Jutes. All you see is the parallels being rejected for political or ideological purposes in favor of a literal definition (as in Jutland 'sticks out' because it's a peninsula and that's what the word means) and the few people calling a spade a spade getting smeared because of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.223.171 (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Like a lot of users unfamiliar with Wikipedia, you understandably misunderstand the purpose of this page. Suggesting a source is great - the page is to discuss the article. But the rest of your post is discussing not the article but either the subject of the article or something only tangentially related, and this is not a forum for such discussions, all of which must focus on the article's content, format, etc.

One of our polices concerning article content is WP:NPOV, neutral point of view. From memory it says we include in a proportional matter all significant views, with significance derived from discussion in reliable sources (see WP:VERIFY and WP:RS to see what that means!). I don't recall this idea of his being discussed in such sources, or even on sources that don't meet those criteria, eg the maina academic mailing list dealing with the Ancient Near East.

So, I'm not going to reply to most or your post (and may in fact remove it later), but the answer to your question about the suggested source is for me at the moment no, for the reasons I've given. Dougweller (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)