Talk:Israelites

Bible says Jacob was named "Israel" after wrestled and defeated Yhwh

NO word מלאך or word בני אלוהים in the text that indicate for an Angel

It says Jacob Struggle with god "שָׂריתָ עִם אֱלהים Gen 32:28.And Jacob Would NOT release this DEFEATED god till this DEFEATED god surrender by blessing Jacob Gen 32:27.

Next Verse Gen 32:31 state :- that Jacob called the name of the place Peniel פְּנִיאֵל : FOR I HAVE SEEN GOD FACE TO FACE, כִּי-רָאִיתִי אֱלֹהִים פָּנִים אֶל-פָּנִים, וַתִּנָּצֵל נַפְשִׁיmeaning That jacob Indeed wrestled &shaft biblical god.

And what about this

יְהוָה, אִישׁ מִלְחָמָה {YHWH is a MAN of war } Exodus 15:3 ????

How come you worship a CRIMINAL man אִישׁ name yhwh"יְהוה?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.211.184.161 (talk) 15:32 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Cush, this is a place for discussing the article, not for answering challenges in general, especially mean-spirited ones. If you don't think "There never were Jewish people." or "How come you worship a CRIMINAL man אִישׁ name yhwh"יְהוה?" are defamatory, you are encouraging vandalism. Thanks for your "help". Hertz1888 (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

For the record, my statement above was in response to Cush's reinstating an IP post I had deleted, telling me I'd "better answer the challenge". An admin. then blocked the IP with the comment, "IP's edits basically just rants attacking various religions on talk pages, no attempt to build the encyclopedia". Hertz1888 (talk) 07:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, Yhwh indeed is an extremely violent and "criminal" concept of god. And "Jewish people" is a highly problematic designation as it is based on some weird religio-racist concept. Defamatory means to be spreading rumors (from Latin fama: talk, report, rumor, tradition), but if you say something true, you don't necessarily defame anyone. Those who claim Jews are somehow connected to Israelites are committing the real vandalism, as they wreak havoc in young minds who believe such misinformation. · CUSH · 19:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Then, if he was the real victor, and the opponent not just faked the loss, they should exchange roles so that YHWH became the earth based forefather of a people, and Israel ascended to be the new YHWH. If everything went fair, that is... Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 14:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is disputed.

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

This article is based entirely on religious POV. Cush (talk) 11:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with having articles describing religious beliefs. The problem with Wikipedia is that it is a confusing jumble of religious beliefs with a few bits of actual history thrown in. In the middle east religious beliefs are used to justify ethnic cleansing and confiscation of property. I think Wikipedia is being used by (you know who) as a propaganda tool to justify these atrocities. Fourtildas (talk) 04:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's see. The article is disputed by one anti-religious bigot and one anti-semite. This is ironic, since the very concept of a separate article (Jew vs. Israelite) would be improper from a Jewish religious point of view. If you look at rabbinic literature of the last thousand years, you will almost always see "Israel" and hardly ever see "Jew". 84.228.25.197 (talk) 18:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

And? Since when are Jewish sources reliable when it comes to Jewishness or the alleged history of Jews? That's like asking the Vatican for reliable material on the historicity of Jesus. You will get an abundance of void 'evidence' in favor of the respective issue. Only a non-religious view from outside can possibly be objective enough to render reliable information. Rabbinic literature will of course not discard Jewish claims of Israelitism, because that would render its own existence pointless. See the conflict of interests? Either you are a believer or you are accurate, there is no middle way.

This article is devoid of extrabiblical or non-judeochristian sources. Simply because Israelite history is at least 80% faked. If it were otherwise I could surely find the artifacts and texts referring to Israel (in the relavant time period from 1500 to 1000 BCE) listed in the article. Cush (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The relevant time period described here is not 1500 to 1000 BCE, but rather 1000 BCE to 500 BCE, for which there is no shortage of artifacts or texts. The earliest mention of Israelites however, is from around 1200 BC, in Merneptah Stele , that describes military campaigns of pharaoh Merneptah. Igorb2008 (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no whatsoever connection between the occurrence of the word Israel on the Merenptah stele with the biblical tale. And further there is no whatsoever evidence for the biblical tale that has allegedly played out way before the name Israel could appear on Merenptah's stele. If Isarel was a place name used by Egyptians then it must have existed for some time and the whole Exodus story was already in the past. But there is simply nothing to even hint at this event which would be the creation moment for a group called Israelites. So without that the biblical Israel with its fancy kings may have sprung from anywhere, but just not from a huge number of Aamu travelling out of Egypt. So we have a single occurrence of the word Israel as a place name on the one hand, and a doctrine-soaked grand tale of Israelites in the bible on the other hand. Well, it is not hard to follow Mr Finkelstein und just dismiss the entire biblical myth of the divinely guided emergence of Israel and go for a far less spectacular development. What this wiki may need is one article about biblical Israelites and one about historical Israelites. And they are not necessarily related at all. Cush (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be better to incorporate Finkelstein research in this article,so it will cover all POVs, because, from "united monarchy" an on,historical account mostly confirms with biblical.The existence of David and Solomon,for example is generally accepted by critical historians, such us Finkelstein. On the other hand, it should be noted in the article that Exodus story is purely biblical account, and many archaeologists regard the Exodus as non-historical.Igorb2008 (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

What? No. The existence of David and Solomon is exactly not accepted by critical historians and certainly not archaeologists (including Finkelstein), because there is no single piece of evidence to confirm the biblical tale. Many (if not all) archaeologists regard the United Monarchy period as non-historical. And it is even worse with the periods before such as Judges, Conquest, Exodus, and Sojourn in Egypt. Not a single piece of solid evidence in favor of the biblical narrative in 150 years of thorough search. All that there is is circumstantial and speculative, the facts just do not add up to the scenario that the bible renders. The only ones who seek to construe history to fit the bible are weird evangelicals like Kitchen. In the conventional chronological framework the entire story of the Israelites as narrated in the bible just did not happen at all. That is also the reason why basically all Wikipedia articles related to that are of such a ridiculously poor quality and just reflect and are dominated by judeochristian doctrine. Cush (talk) 11:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Finklestein accepts the existence of kings Saul,David and Solomon, but doubts their chronology, significance and influence as described in the Bible. You can see his book "David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible's Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition", 2006 Igorb2008 (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Chronology, significance and influence is all that matters when it comes to biblical figures that are not identifiable in the historical and archaeological record. If ever such kings existed (with different names) they are not the individuals the bible refers to. So the existence of these figures as rendered in the bible is in fact rejected by Finkelstein. The point is that the bible is pretty precise in narrating the stories of these characters and until now there has been nothing to find these persons in any other sources, or to find persons on which the biblical tales may be based. Zero. The same applies to any biblical figures before that. Hell, if there were any evidence then the entire issue would not be of such a highly speculative nature. What it comes down to is that the existence of biblical Israelites is doubtful at best, but more likely it is just a later invention. This article dwells on Jewish doctrine and a singular occurrence of the word Israel in a singular Egyptian source. That is a little insufficient for the reconstruction of the whole epic tale of the biblical Israelites as real history. Cush (talk) 22:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Existence of Israelites is mentioned in many ancient sources and no serious historian or archaeologist, that I know of, deny their existence, or existence of kingdom of Israel or kingdom of Judah. Finkelstein for example argues that earliest Israelite settlements belong to 1200BC. If however you know of any academic work that dispute this,or anything else written in the article, then of course you should add it to the article, all POVs must be presented.Igorb2008 (talk) 18:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Excuse my ignorance, but which extrabiblical material has ever been unearthed that confirms the existence of a United-Monarchy-period Israel? Or any material of the periods prior to that? If you know of any academic work that is not of a speculative nature but refers to solid evidence, I'd be glad to revise my position. I so far have not seen any Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Anatolian source that mentions dealings with an entity called Israel in the, say, 1100 BCE to 920 BCE timeframe, nor anything dug up in the Levant itself to confirm the existence of such a country ruled by the famous kings named Shaul, Dud, Jedidiyah in the Tanakh/Bible. Iirr Finkelstein maintains the position that "Israelites" as a real people in the southern Levant have nothing whatsoever to do with the "Israelites" described in the biblical text. Cush (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Cush, read about the City of David. The digs are very difficult, around Arab houses, but they are bringing to light a rather large palace. It is exactly where the Bible said David's palace was, but for now it is called the Large Stone Structure to satisfy skeptics like you. What is this structure, who ordered it built and, most important, how powerful was this man? Emmanuelm (talk) 03:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I know about that. And until the three questions are answered definitively there is yet no connection between the LSS and any tale that the Tanakh/Bible may narrate in all details. It may just as well be a structure built by the Hyksos who according to Josephus built/rebuilt Jerusalem. Or it may be a structure built by the Jebusites, who even according to the Tanakh/Bible dwelled in Jerusalem all through the Judges period and prior. BTW there have been concerns about the interpretations made of the findings because of the ideological aims of the organization that conducted the excavation. As I said, any evidence is still missing. Cush (talk) 05:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

No, Cush, there's plenty of great evidence. I love how you can just jump on here and say that there's "no evidence," and that automatically makes it true. Do we need to delve into this? I'd be more than happy to. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 03:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you just produce that "great evidence"? Asserting its existence without giving any further explanation is unlikely to convince anyone, except possibly yourself. _R_ (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair question, but my point is that people have been bringing up evidence and Cush just keeps coming on here and saying there is still no evidence, as if it automatically trumps any argument. There are biblical sites in Israel and many other places around the world, artifacts like the Dead Sea scrolls, and the Dead Sea itself, for that matter. You could spend the rest of your life researching it. At the end of the day anything historical can be challenged in one way or another, particularly when it dates back to 2000 years ago or longer. I just have a problem with somebody responding "there is still no evidence" when you can tour biblical sites around the globe and see evidence. Maybe there's never going to be a smoking gun but that is history.

It's also pretty disrespectful to archeologists, of all different backgrounds, who make careful excavation their life's work to dismiss their findings on the basis of "ideological aims." So any time anyone finds something tangible that may correspond to validating a story in the bible, it's because they are intent on perpetuating a vast conspiracy theory. I've got a problem with that logic. That's all I'm trying to say. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

If there were evidence you could surely show it, couldn't you? Or anyone of the multitude of archaeologists you refer to.

Where are the numerous artifacts that link archaeology to the biblical story? Like name seals or architecture that fits the story and the chronology? As I have said, prior to the so-called Divided Monarchy period the archaeological and historical record is devoid of anything that confirms or even matches the biblical story.

And Dead Sea Scrolls? Are you kidding me? They are not even necessarily pre-Christian.

Btw, you don't need a conspiracy to get to the current state of "biblical archaeology", all you need is the attitude of academia in the 19th century and of course religion. It makes people see things that are not there. Heck, the initial purpose of archaeology in the Levant and Egypt was to prove the Bible at all cost. But after over 150 years nothing remains once the forced and obviously flawed identifications of excavated findings with the Bible are trimmed away. CUSH 13:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

With the way you "argue," this is completely pointless conversation. Any evidence that somebody brings up you dismiss it as "flawed" and that 100% of the archeologists that trace it are "blinded by religion." It sounds like you are admitting that that is your approach. So I guess it's pointless to answer your question with things like Solomon's Fortresses in Megiddo, the Machpelah Cave in Hebron, El Birith Temple in Shechem, or King David's Tomb in Jerusalem, not to mention other things people have brought up earlier in the thread. I'd recommend actually reading the bible and then taking a tour of Israel to put your theory of the archeological and historical record being devoid to the test. Oh but then again it's a biased source. Very convenient that anything that's going to prove you wrong happens to be located in the exact place where any excavation is going to be done by people with the wrong "ideological aims."

I bring up the Dead Sea Scrolls because it makes your claim that Jewish history is "80% faked" pretty hard to justify.

What's interesting is that you have denied every single point someone has made on any of these threads except for two. You didn't deny that you are saying that anyone Jewish is a wanton murderer, and you did not deny that you hate Jews. Care to address? Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You don't even get what I am saying. Many identifications have been made based solely on the bibical story. E.g. you mention Solomon's Fortresses in Megiddo, but what evidence actually connects the Megiddo findings to the biblical king? Were artifacts found bearing his name? You know very well that Solomon/Jedidiyah is absent from the archaeological and non-biblical historical record. There is also no correspondence with other rulers available, nothing to indicate a real person. So how on earth could anyone create the connection if not by using biblical doctrine? The observable, verifiable facts surely imply no such connection. If there were no bible nobody would assign the Megiddo ruins to a king named Solomon simply based on the excavation. As it stands right now King Solomon is just the King Arthur of Judaism, a pleasant myth.

Same goes for all of the examples you pointed out. Once you really look at the available material you will recognize that all is just the result of using the bible to explain the findings instead of the findings actually independently confirming the bible.

The conclusion is that the bible does not accurately render history, but rather was made up much later to create a somewhat glorious past for Jews. That wouldn't be so bad if this weren't the basis of the abrahamic religions and all the ignorance and bloodshed that they cause until this very day.

So if you cannot come up with solid evidence that would allow you to reconstruct history from scratch without using the bible but so that the same story as in the bible would emerge, you have nothing at all.

As for the anti-semitism, you can put labels on me all you want. I don't care. Not only is Yhvh a fabrication, it is also a jealous, vile, and violent deity. I consider adherence to such a deity a severe flaw of character. If you call that anti-semitic, fine. But that does not make this religious concept any more true or acceptable. I do not think that Christianity or Islam are really any better, but Judaism is the source of this unenlightened and dangerous ideology. CUSH 17:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Cush, I've had enough with you. Your contributions are not helpful. As a first step, I will ask you to please refrain voluntarily from editing this article and its talk page. Emmanuelm (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

"Emmanuelm, I've had enough with you. Your contributions are not helpful. As a first step, I will ask you to please refrain voluntarily from editing this article and its talk page." would be about as justified as your intervention. From the outside, it really seems as if you're trying to silence someone (with what authority, BTW ??) merely for disagreeing with you. _R_ (talk) 01:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

From the outside of the KKK compound? Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 03:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

if you pl really are jewish, u wouldnt have a quistion at all... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.99.169.227 (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It's really saddens me that you people going all the way to discarding facts as false just for your hate based purposes. if you want ancient relics that clearly points that facts that israelites in the bible did existed, you have the Mesha Stele, an ancient monument by a moabi king that describes his victory over omri king of israel. this artifact presented in the louvre museum by the way, or maybe they don't know what they talk about to? you have Kurkh Monolith too, which describes an Assyrian king wars with nations around, and it states israelites too, and if thats not enough for you, he states ahab too, a well known israeli king. you have the black obelisk too, an obelisk that describes another known israeli king yahu going to Assyria to pay tributes to their king. and yet another one! Tel Dan Stele, an ancient stele that describes an aramice king victory over yet another known israelite king Ahaziahu. all of those are just small part of a wide varaiety of known archialogical findings, that no one disputes their authenticity, or the fact they are clearly point out that the israelites in the bible existed, and that by adding them together with newer findings in greece and roman reign in the middle east, they clearly shows that they are the ancestors of the modern jews and israelites. if you want to see all of those relics for yourself your more then welcom to google for them or any other israeli artifacts, go to one of the famous museums like the louvre or The British Museum, or come to the magnificent land of israel to see many more of those artifacts, and to learn more about the ancient israelis, assyrians, aramits, and many more. and for the love of god, the next time you decide to dispute an entire culture(and an ancient one none of the less), research and study carefully before you offend an entire nation!

More than 12 tribes

In 7 different places in the Old Testament, Levi is specically called a "tribe". The fact that they were not assigne any specific territory or that they were the priests and the levites, does not make them less than a "tribe". The truth is that they were 12 tribes with Joseph counted in. When he was removed and histwo sons became fully fledged "Tribes", the number of tribes became 13. It is thus a myth to say that there were 12 tribes and count Ephrain and Menashe in but exclude Levi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.111.8 (talk • contribs)

In one section in Chronicles we even have "Aaron" i.e the priests mentioned equally with the other tribes and of course Manasseh was divided in two so one can get up to 15 "tribes".

Wrong. Aaron is from the tribe of Levi, the priest class, which is not factored in as one of the 12 tribes. As it mentions multiple times in the bible, the Levites are not given an inheritance in Israel, but are given cities in which to dwell. You have 12 sons of Jacob (Israel), minus one for the tribe of Levi (down to 11), plus two as Joseph is split into two tribes for his sons (i.e. Manasseh and Ephraim), putting the total back up to 12. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 07:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

There were 12 tribes of Israel: Tribe of Reuben, Tribe of Simeon, Tribe of Levi, Tribe of Judah, Tribe of Dan, Tribe of Naphtali, Tribe of Gad, Tribe of Asher, Tribe of Issachar, Tribe of Zebulun, Tribe of Joseph (who split into the Tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim), and the Tribe of Benjamin. Making it 12 Tribes at total (while there were actually 13 Tribes due to the split of the Tribe of Jospeh).--DXRD (talk) 11:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I've done some considerable research since my post above ten months ago. To truly understand the reason behind this seeming paradox requires a basic understanding of the Torah. When I say basic, I am still talking about a great degree of study. And when I say Torah, I am not only including the Books of Moses but also the rest of the Tanakh, the Talmud, the Zohar, and accompanying writings.

It's tricky to wrap your mind around the solution to this seeming paradox, but I'll do my best to explain. The ultimate fact is that there are 12 tribes of Israel. What you've listed here are essentially the 12 root tribes, literally the 12 sons of Israel. However, many times in Hebrew scripture the tribe of Levi is omitted and the tribe of Joseph is split into two. The generic reason for this is that the tribe of Levi has no land inheritance in the land of Israel, while the two sons of Joseph each have their own inheritance. However, Torah goes infinitely deeper than just simple explanations, and all of the stories can complex codes that touch on every aspect of life. The Kabbalah, broken down in its most complex and explicit form in the Zohar, gets into the "science" of these codes. However, one can get much more general and simple explanations by reading the writings of the Talmud and many more recent sages, such as Rashi, the Rambam (aka Maimonides) and the Ramban.

So which is the correct listing of the 12 tribes? The answer is they are both correct. Judaism often works in a dualistic fashion to express deeper points. An example would be the 10 Sephirot. Usually Keter is listed as one of the 10. But sometimes, Keter is replace by Daat. You never see the two together, because you must always have exactly 10 Sephirot. Confusing, I'm sure. But the higher concepts of Torah cannot be explained simply through the language of words. The language of numbers is also a crucial aspect. You can check out Gematria to get an idea of the depth of the numerical/linguistic relationship in Judaic texts. So like the 10 Sephirot, you must always have 12 tribes of Israel. A Torah scholar will never talk about "13 tribes." But he will interchange the two tribes of Joseph and the tribe of Levi.

(There are people that study Torah full time, 40+ hours a week, for decades on end. Hopefully this can shed some light as to why. I recommend the writings of Aryeh Kaplan for anyone that wants a readable understanding of these types of concepts.) Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The ignorance here is disturbing. Ephraim was rejected and Dan was lost, thus the 14 became 12. Yes there are 12 sons of Jacob, but it isn't so much that they were children of Jacob, but children of Abraham, since Manasseh is treated as an Israelite tribe. --207.191.211.248 (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Israelites are not Muslims, just as they are not Jews

The agenda-pushing statements that Isrealites were Muslims, or anything of that sort, are unacceptable. The projection of later belief systems into the past, as conducted by Jews, Muslims, and Christians, is merely the expression of modern fundamentalism. All semitic peoples of the period in question (circa 1500-700 BCE) were polytheists. They did not have the same concept of deity as later Muslims, or even Jews. To claim that Israelites were adherents of Islam or Judaism is an outright lie and a willful distortion of history, only to pursue modern religious ends. I don't think such an approach is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Cush (talk) 09:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

From what I understand, even through it is suggested that strict monotheism developed during the Babylonian Exile, perhaps in reaction to Zoroastrian dualism, it is still believed that Judaism originated in earlier times amongst the Israelites, maybe with roots in Canaanite religion. So from that views, both Judaism and Islam can trace its roots to Israelites, in the period mentioned.Igorb2008 (talk) 13:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Tracing ones "roots" to something does not equal being that thing. The entire theology of Judaism and Islam has nothing whatsoever to do with any Israelites. That's like Protestants claiming that the first Christians were in fact Protestants. Just illogical and ideologically charged rubbish. Cush (talk) 17:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Except that Israelites did have the same religion as modern Jews, because modern Jews are the direct continuation of the Israelites. -LisaLiel (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

That is an outright lie. Jews just hold that ideology because of their "Chosen People" doctrine, but that is not even superficially historically accurate. Cush (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You're being extremely uncivil. Curb yourself, or I'll report you. It's not a lie. You have an ideological reason for wanting it to be untrue, but that doesn't make it untrue. -LisaLiel (talk) 12:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

By definition of Judaism, it is the religion of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, even of individuals such as Adam, Noah, Shem and Eber before them and of Moses and the OT prophets. Israelites who followed this religion were thus "Jews". This is something true by definition of "Jew" and "Judaism". By definition Christianity starts with Jesus and the Apostles, and Islam (as the term is understood in English) starts with Mohammed and so the Israelites by definition were neither Christians nor Muslims.

In the Arabic of the Koran "muslim" does not refer to the organized Islamic religion but corresponds more or less to English "God fearing person" so if one were speaking Koranic Arabic one could call Israelites who remained faithful to Judaism "muslims" but it would be wrong to translate that into English as "Muslim". Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The roots of Jewish religion as well as ancestry is traced back to Israelites, and this is accepted by both traditional and critical historical views on Jewish history. As for Islam, Muslims believe that Islam existed long before Muhammad and that the religion had evolved from the time of Adam until the time of Muhammad, so, from this point, translation "Muslim" can be right, see article Muslim, for example.Igorb2008 (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

WRONG Igorb

1. Islam was well before Muhammad,Even before Abraham "When his Lord said to him: "Become a Muslim," he [Abraham] said: "I am a Muslim who has submitted to the Lord of all the worlds." (Qur'an, 2:131)

2. Jews are NOT Israelites. Israelites are defined to be the branch of the Arabs (A.K.A Hebrews) tribes whom are the biological blood descendants of man name Jacob Gen 35:11-12, while Jew is anyone whom adhere to the FALSE faith of Judaism( aka jewishness) regardless of his or her race.

3. Plus Do U know that there is NO word Jew היהודיin the Pentateuch... WHO IS A JEW?When and How Was the Jewish People Invented?מתי ואיך הומצא העם היהודיIt is an invention Called 'The Jewish People....There never were Jewish people.

That is an example of playing with words its deliberately confusing Islam as the name of the religion started by Mohammed with the earlier meaning of submission to God as a general concept applicable to Adam, Abaraham etc. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 20:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

A Muslim is someone who follows the religion founded by Muhammad. Period. The word means exactly that, no matter what the literal meaning of it may be. There are no Muslims predating Muhammad. A Jew is someone who follows the religion that was created by uncertain originators in the Persian/Achaemenid era. Period. There are no Jews proper predating the so called Babylonian Captivity, neither religiously nor ethnically nor otherwise. Israelites are quite distinct from Jews in religion, culture, ethnicity, even though Jews may in a small part be descended from Israelites. Cush (talk) 05:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. Judaism was created at Sinai. Not in the Persian period. -LisaLiel (talk) 12:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. Only the bible/tanakh claims that Judaism was created at Sinai, but this is an encyclopedia and not an evangelical or jew-ish platform. We want facts, not doctrine. Or at least I want that. The real history of Judaism is a lot different from what you may have heard at sunday school. Cush (talk) 12:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

What??? The "bible/tanakh is an encyclopedia?" Cush, I'm answering your posts out of order. It's abundantly clear at this point that you don't even know what the Tanakh is. Feel free to prove me wrong. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

A large set of commandments were introduced during the Sinai period, but standard view is that this was not suddenly a new religion but a continuation of the religion of Adam, Noah, Abraham etc. Standard Jewish view is that initially there was one righteous individual in each generation true to the religion and beginning with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob this becomes a people instead of a single line of individuals. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are viewed as forefathers of the Jews as a people, but are not seen as founders of a new religion different to that of Adam, Noah, Shem and Eber. Moses coming even later is also not viewed as a founder of a new religion. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 13:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The passage deleted says that Quran implies that Israelites were first Muslims and provides a citation from Quran. So if "Muslim" is indeed a correct translation, why it should not be mentioned in the article? As for Judaism, according to critical historical analysis, even though Torah was compiled during Babylonian captivity, most of it texts come from period before the captivity(Jahwist, Elohist and Deuteronomist sources). I also don`t think that there are many, if any, notable historians, that dispute that Jews descended from Israelite population of destroyed Kingdom of Judah. Igorb2008 (talk) 06:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Jews are descended from the remnant Israelites and everybody else who lived there after the Babylonian Captivity. Other populations have and were settled there and the returning Israelites mingled with them and subsequently became what could be called Judeans, which in turn gave rise to later Jews. There is no "pure" Jewish lineage tracing back to the Israelites, certainly none conforming to the "Chosen People" ideology. Cush (talk) 11:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You're mistaken. And this is an encyclopedia, Cush. Not a forum for your anti-Jewish rants. -LisaLiel (talk) 12:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The Israelites were a mix to start with, all Jacobs sons except Joseph married Canaanite women. Joseph married an Egyptian - later fable makes her the daughter of Dinah but even this then makes her half Canaanite in that case. It was never about racial purity. As the article explains there were both Jewish and apostate Israelites. Obviously Israelites who worshipped Baal are not Jews but those who remained faithful to the religion of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses etc are Jews by the very definition of the term Jew and the concept of Judaism. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 13:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

"Chosen People" is not an ideology,and has nothing to do with "pure linage". It is religious belief of Judaism, according to which, God choose the Jews to be in covenant with him. There is no "pure" Jewish lineage tracing back to the Israelites, but mostly, Jewish lineage are traced back to the Israelites. I don`t think that there are even biblical minimalists who claim otherwise. Igorb2008 (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

"Chosen People" is doctrine and thus very much an ideology, and it has the same quality as the Nazi Herrenrasse ideology. Any group that thinks to be elevated above the rest of humanity is inherently insane. And the claim that mostly Jewish lineage are traced back to the Israelites lacks all evidence. There were many other peoples living in the southern Levant with whom the returning Israelites (of the Yehud tribe) mingled. Later Jews descend more from those other peoples than from Israelites. The claim to be almost exclusively descended from Israelites is only made for religious purposes. So while this article may reflect Jewish doctrine/ideology it must also say that the doctrine does not hold up against the historical and archeological record.

And the stuff about Israelites being Muslims needs to be dumped altogether. Cush (talk) 16:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I never heard or seen any Jewish group, that say that they are elevated above the rest of humanity. And according to what historian, you claim that Jews descend more from those other peoples than from Israelites?. Also ,article did not said that Israelites were Muslims, it said that Quran mentioned them as Muslim. If it is indeed a correct translation, why should it not be mentioned in the article?Igorb2008 (talk) 17:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, heated debate here. My two cents:

• Regardless of your personal opinion, WP:NPOV dictates that every significant aspect of the Israelite concept should be included in this article. If we agree that the Qur'an is significant, and if it says that Banu Israil are Muslims, this belongs in the article as long as one clarifies that, currently, "muslim" designates followers of Muhammad. I just added this.
• The discussion about the differences between the religion of Israelites and contemporary Judaism can fill volumes. There are obvious differences -- e.g. animal sacrifices -- and obvious similarities. Bottom line is that the cult of Jehovah has undergone a long evolution to give numerous variants. Even the name -- Judaism, derived from the Judah tribe -- is a hint that there is a lot going on. How did King David call his religion?
• Genetic evidence shows that only about 15% of current Jews descend from a levantine male ancestor, possibly an Israelite. Geneticists did, however, made the stunning discovery of the Cohen Modal Haplotype. This rare DNA pattern proves that most Cohanim are descendants of Aaron and, therefore, are true Israelites (sorry IgorB).
• From the above, it is clear that, before claiming to be part of the chosen people, one must define who that people is.
• Finally, Wikipedia belongs to all. Being respectful is not an option. Emmanuelm (talk) 03:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

From what I understand, more than 40% of current Jews have Haplogroup J Y-chromosome, and so descend from a levantine male ancestor,possibly an Israelite.Igorb2008 (talk) 03:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"This rare DNA pattern proves that most Cohanim are descendants of Aaron" that claim is obviously made by one without any understanding of genetics. Nobody has ever taken a DNA sample of the biblical Aaron. All that this DNA pattern shows is a common descent from some levantine person or group of persons. There is NO automatic connection with the biblical myth. When it is spoken of the Mitochondrial Eve then this is no reference to the biblical character. The same concept applies to the Cohanim Aaron. It is just a name used to refer to a common ancestor, but not to a specifically identifyable one. Cush (talk) 12:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Cush, you are right. As always. Emmanuelm (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Then subsequently the section on genetic "evidence" should be removed from the article. Simply because the genetic information does in fact NOT establish a link from modern Jews to biblical Israelites whose whole existence is doubtful anyways. Cush (talk) 21:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Besides for the fact that your discussion threads show that you are obviously not neutral on this subject, if you test 10,000 people who have a common background, and find a common genetic code amongst all of them, it is not such a stretch of the imagination to say that this shared code probably goes back pretty far. Besides for that, the Jewish lineage is one of the most pure in the history of the world, because of the prohibitions on intermarriage. This is the same technology used to trace genetic lineage in African tribes, but Jews have spread over the entire world, and they still have major commonalities. Cush should stay out of commenting on facts that he wishes to twist to suit his own unpopular and unconsenutal beliefs. Boomerblau (talk) 05:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Boomerblau writes the Jewish lineage is one of the most pure in the history of the world, because of the prohibitions on intermarriage. Totally wrong. A 10 min walk on the street of Tel Aviv will show you that the Jewish people is probably the most genetically diverse group in the world. This prohibition does not seem to work very well and that's a very good thing. For your very first lesson on genetics, I suggest you look up Heterosis. Emmanuelm (talk) 16:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I was happy to look up heterosis but I'd also refer you to Amazon.com and the over 300 texts written on Jewish genetics. There are many titles to choose from. I believe that you are confusing genetic markers and race. Jews come in many shapes, colors, and sizes, but if you were looking at old-world communities within the pale of settlement, you'd find very little mixing with indiginous populations. Same will go for Yeminite communities, North African communities, etc. It is only in the past 75 years that we find a congregation of all of these spearate communities in Israel. Prior to the Zionist movement, most Ashkenaz,Sephardi, and other communities remained separate. When refering to heterosis, I'd also remind you of the many genetic diseases that you can find at http://www.mazornet.com/genetics/ which plague Jews, mostly because of their long history of genetic homogony. Boomerblau (talk) 03:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Judaism: The Religion of The Israelites

Apparently there are some people here that want to turn Judaism into some sort of "racist ideology." The fact of the matter is that Judaism is the religion of the ancient Israelites. If you feel that it's a "racist ideology," it's actually a religion that anybody is capable of converting to as long as they are willing to adhere to the laws of the Torah. The Jews today are mixed blood of the original sons and daughter of Jacob and those that have converted to the faith over the years. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 07:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• How can Judaism be the religion of the ancient Israelites when the latter were polytheists and Judaism as such came only into existence in and after the period named Babylonian Captivity?
• The whole concept of Chosen People in fact is a racist ideology.
• And Jews descending from Jacob is only fundamentalist doctrine but not necessarily to be taken seriously. CUSH 11:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Whoa. Something is wrong with this picture! Um, Mr. Cush, Judaism is based on a document called the Torah which tells the story of the Isrealites. The document contains a list of 613 commandments which they accepted as a covenant from G-d. The followers of these commandments are currently known as "Jews." Read the Torah and it is self-explanatory. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, and I can't believe I'm actually dignifying your comments with a response, but you just made three completely unsubstantiated statements. The "Isrealites" were not polytheists. Let me explain something here. "Israel" is the name given to the Jacob after wrestling with Esau's angel, a main story in the Torah (the books of Moses in the old testament). Jacob was the son of Isaac and the grandson of Abraham. Abraham was a monotheistic man in an age of polytheists. His son Isaac followed Abraham's monotheistic teachings and passed them on to his son, Jacob. Jacob later gained the name "Israel." Jacob's children, i.e. Israel's children, took the moniker of B'nei Israel (Hebrew), which literally means "children of Israel." In predominant modern English translations of the bible, this was shortened to "Israelites." Always montheists.

As far as Judaism coming into "existence" after the Babylonian Captivity, you might want to research what you are talking about here. The Babylonian Captivity preceded the era of the SECOND temple. Hence, there was a FIRST temple prior to the exile. Already in existence.

Now your comment about "Chosen People is in fact a racist ideology," it's a little difficult for me to address since you did not present the fact. What's the fact to which you refer that says this is a racist ideology? As I mentioned in my post (which was the point of it), if somebody feels as though they want to follow Torah and become a Jew they are welcome to convert, as it is also a religion. No race is barred from this.

I'm not sure about this last comment about "Jews descending from Jacob is a only a fundamentalist doctrine." What? Can you qualify that comment with something, anything?

Let me explain something to you, and please read this so you understand it. "Jew" was initially a nickname given to the Israelites in reference to Judah. Judah is one of Jacob's sons, the one who gained Jacob's birthright after it was taken from Rueven, the eldest son. So no, it's not a "fundamentalist doctrine," it's the evolution of language referring to the descendants of Jacob.

It seems to me that your posts lie in emotion, as opposed to research. There are plenty of other forums on the internet where people vent their hatred of different ethnic groups. I would recommend one of those sites. Making blanket statements when it's clear you have not fully researched the topics is not going to hold up on a Wiki page with a vast number of contributors. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh please, we have been through this so many times. The Tanakh is NOT a history book. It is the projection of much later beliefs into the past. According to historical and archaeological research there was no Sojourn in Egypt, no Exodus, no Conquest of Canaan, no Judges era and above all no United Monarchy era. There is no trace of Saul, David, and Solomon in the archaeological record, and of course none of Jacob/Israel either (which renders the whole "Children of Israel" idea pointless). It is just Jewish (and subsequently Christian and Muslim) doctrine, but not history. Historical Israel has nothing to do with biblical Israel. And of course the social structure and religion in that time frame is different from what the Bible claims. Everybody with a little understanding of the Ancient Near East knows that polytheism was ubiquitous and that the exception of Judaism is a gradual development and relatively late phenomenon (not prior to the 9th century BCE and only being completed after the Babylonian Captivity, likely through the contact with Zoroastrianism).

In the Tanakh the value of a human is measured by descent and membership in the "Chosen People", that is inherently racist. Other humans have no worth in the Tanakh and are constantly killed by the deity and its "people". Reminds me of the Herrenrasse concept of a more recent ideology. E.g. even if the Conquest of Canaan is not likely historical, the attitude behind the slaughter story is indicative of the character of the Jewish deity and those who adhere to it. CUSH 12:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, there is glaring whole in your logic. You seem to be saying that there is no historical evidence of Israel prior to the 9th century B.C.E., and yet "Jews are not the ancient Israelites." So which is it? What is this "historical Israel" of which you speak?

I hate to use the term ignorant, but that's the best word to use for your "description" of the "Tanakh." Actually, in the Tanakh, the righteous person who is responsible for saving the human race from destruction is Noah. As the last man standing, the entire human race as we know it, once again, according to the Tanakh (aka the Old Testament of the Bible), descends from Noah. That means that, according to the Tanakh, the entire human race descends from a righteous person. Noah is mention even before Abraham. Just because YOU say that "other humans have no value in the Tanakh," does not mean it is remotely true. I could give about 10,000 other examples contradicting this statement.

Now I'd like to address your accusation of racism. Here is what you just said: "The attitude behind the slaughter story is indicative of the character of the Jewish deity and those who adhere to it." In other words, anyone who is Jewish is a wanton murderer. THAT is racist. Just admit it--you hate Jews. As I said, there are plenty of other forums on the internet where you can indulge in this sort of rhetoric. I don't think you are going to get satisfaction here. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Jews do not equal Israelites, they may not even overlap. There is no indication who returned from the Babylonian Captivity and mingled with the population that had been re-settled in the area.

The whole yarn is patently ridiculous; nobody would give it a moment's credence were it not for the subsequent religious triumph of Judaism via Christianity and Islam. Best guess is the whole thing was made up out of whole cloth when the Persians imported a new priest class under Ezra to administrate the new temple state based in Jerusalem as a cult centre for the satrapy of Trans-Jordan (Eber Nari). Whoever the "returners" were, it's very unlikely they were the descendents of whoever had been deported half a century before, let alone that the religion they brought with them- monotheistic worship of the local god Yoohoo as a proxy for Ahuramazda- bore much relation to any previous worship in the area.82.71.30.178 (talk) 09:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Only after the Babylonian Captivity can one speak of Jews, while prior the term Israelites applies, and the two are not interchangeable. Maybe you should conduct some reading outside the covers of your bible. The Tanakh is wishful historization of later Jewish doctrine. An alternative history especially when it comes to religion, but nothing to take too serious. CUSH 15:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm really confused as to the basis of your argument. Who are these Israelites you are referencing if you are not talking about the biblical Israelites? Be specific for once. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 16:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, let me amend my initial post. I stated that apparently there are "some people here" that want to turn Judaism into a "racist ideology." Upon thoroughly reading the preceding section, I'd like to re-state that as being "one" person that is looking to do this. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 03:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Dates for Northern Kingdom invasions

Does anyone have the dates of the two separate Assyrian invasions mentioned. SelectSplat (talk) 07:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

According to Biblical scholars, the first invasion of Asssyria into the Northern Kingdom of Israel is dated to 733 BC, while the second one is dated to 722/1 BC (the Bible mention that there was a siege over 3 years on Samaria, and that the population of the kingdom - a.k.a. Ten Tribes of Israel - were exiled to Assyria on 722/1 BC).--DXRD (talk) 11:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Errm, where does the bible give this date? Can you give chapter and verse? I have never seen such dates in the bible. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Here we go again

Kuratowski's Ghost is again trying to insert his religionist POV into the article by deciding who has "won" in the discussion on historical accuracy of the Bible between "minimalism" and "maximalism". Right now the article only mentions the controversy but remains neutral on its outcome, and that's how it should remain. But Kuratowski's Ghost wants to introduce judgment that minimalism were fringe, which it is certainly not. In the past 20 years no archeologist or historian has seriously showed up in favor of biblical history. The entire story from the Creation all the way down to at least the end of the United Monarchy period is now considered mythical, legendary, and plain ahistorical. Not only has there never been any evidence to confirm the fancy story from Adam to Abraham, or Israelites in Egypt, an Exodus, a Conquest of Canaan, a Judges period, a United Monarchy period, there has been evidence unearthed that draws a very different picture about what happened in the Levant and adjacent areas in the time from 2000 BCE to 700 BCE. There is simply no room in the archaeological and historical record for any of the biblical stories to be real. Cush (talk) 16:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Cush, from the above paragraph you sound just as POV as Ghost. I support your reversion to a neutral paragraph but not more. This debate belongs at The Bible and history, not here. Emmanuelm (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm an atheist. Reality check please, mainstream texts on Jewish history follow Biblical history, for the past 100 years evidence has been continually growing in support of the Biblical account. Almost every location mentioned has been found to be real. Almost every ethnic group mentioned has been found to be real. All important kings of empires are all confirmed. Numerous minor kings have been confirmed. No you aren't going to find archaeological evidence that Jacob cooked lentil soup for Esau or that Saul has a temper, archaeology can't provide that sort of evidence which is why we have such a thing called history. Neutrality doesn't mean giving equal voice to every view, because not all views have equal standing. Minimalism is a minority view and shouldn't be given the same weight as the mainstream view. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Moreover Cush statements are just plain wrong, we've all recommended stuff for him to read, but he keeps repeating the same nonsense. If you check his user page you'll see that he is a fan of Rohl who pushes the view the archaeological evidence doesn't support the Bible for the sake of promoting the idea that ancient history must be radically redated so that things come into synch with the Bible, this is just as fringe as minimalism if not more so. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It may be true that mainstream texts on Jewish history follow Biblical history. But that means what exactly? It only means that they make the vague assumption that the biblical story is somehow true. But it is just not true that excavations or historic records from the time periods in question would confirm anything that the Bible narrates. If there were material to support the biblical story, then there would be no debate about the dating. Currently the date of the Exodus is placed somewhere from the 12th Dynasty to the 20th Dynasty of Egypt, that is a range of 600 years in any chronology. And why? Because there is no single piece of evidence that anchors the event to a definitive point in time. The same goes for every other story in the bible before the rise of Irano-Mesopotamian empires (Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians). It is just laughable. No Exodus, no Israelites. It is as simple as that. And if Israelites have developed as Finkelstein would see it, i.e. from a Canaanite tribe, then these Israelites are not the biblical Israelites. Cush (talk) 12:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Cush, I love you. You always give me something so easy to refute! You just said "if the Israelites have developed. . . as a Canaanite tribe, then these Israelites are not the biblical Israelites." How do you figure? In the bible, Jacob/Israel and his sons live in the land of Canaan. Example: Genesis 42:5. "So the sons of Israel came to buy provisions among the arrivals, for the famine was in the land of Canaan." Another example, a few verses later: Genesis 42:13. "We, your servants, are 12 brothers, the sons of one man in the land of Canaan." It doesn't get any clearer than that. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Please save us your religionist propaganda. The bible is no history book and it is no reliable source for anything. Cut it out. Btw biblical Jacob/Israel is not a Canaanite but descends from immigrants out of northern Mesopotamia. CUSH 15:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Cush, just admit it, you are beat. You're trying to tell me what the bible says, then when I actually quote something from the bible, it's "religious propaganda." Think about if for a second. If you want to try to tell me what the bible says, and I cite something from it to contradict you, that's called proving you wrong.

Now let me address your comment that "biblical Jacob/Israel is not a Canaanite. . . ." That's a nice attempt at changing what my point was. You said that if the Israelites have developed "as Finkelstein would see it, i.e. from a Canaanite tribe, then these Israelites are not the biblical Israelites." In rebuttal, I cited exact verses from the bible which place Israel and his sons in Canaan. I'm not saying that Jacob/Israel is a "Canaanite." Rather, I am just pointing out how the statements you are making are unfounded, and you don't discredit Finkelstein with what you said.

Here's the deal--if you want to discuss the "biblical Israelites," you are bringing the bible into the conversation. If it's not a "reliable source," then don't bring it up. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Then there is no proper article. There are only the biblical Israelites as a fictitious people out of the bible. Otherwise there are only two instances that mention Israel as a geographic name. Real-world Israelites are nowhere to be found. No artifacts, no architecture, no writings. Nothing. Israelites go in the same category as the Noldor. ≡ CUSH ≡ 23:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Biblical maximalism vs minimalism paragraph reverted

I reverted this short paragraph to an earlier version. Firstly, WP has rules: its strives for neutrality, not truth. Hertz1888's version might be true but was too POV. Secondly, the paragraph is in a section about archaeology, not about the Bible. The Bible is central to Israelites and, therefore, to this article. For the sake of NPOV, you may want to create a section called "Historical record" where non-biblical texts would be discussed. Thirdly, this debate does not belong here; it has an article all to itself, The Bible and History, where readers should be directed. Emmanuelm (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

[Israel is] the name given to Jacob after the death of Isaac

The name Israel was given to Jacob after he wrestled with Yhwh in Genesis 32:22-31. There is no mention that the new name has anything to do with Isaac. · CUSH · 06:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Very good, almost. Yes, you are correct the name is not from the death of Isaac, but from wrestling with an angel when he crossed back over the river to fetch some small jars on his way to meet Esau. I'm too tired to do it now but I'll gladly update that once I have some time to do it in a thorough fashion. Good job. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2010

i am not a participant in the Jesus cult, but to be fair to Cush, it seems that he is only asking for the same standard of physical-evidence-based historical inference, to be applied to the "Israelite cult", as Jews use in rejecting claims that Jesus was the son of God. Jews aren't ready to accept assertions drawn from New Testament testimony; why are Jews shocked when Cush feels the same about the Old Testament?(UTC)

Because archaeological and historical research are highly destructive to Judaism. · CUSH · 15:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

well, to claims of origin preceding the Babylonian return, yes. That's still a long time ago. But you know Cush, you're wasting your rationality and intellectal rigor, to argue with Rabbinists. You'd be better off spending your time debating the Karaites and the Samaritans. They really do have the only plausible claims on being a religion that goes back farther than the Babylonians. Which is perhaps why, that the Rabbinists got to foaming-at-the-mouth to keep those two groups from getting their hands on any of the political-spoils/pork-barrel fiesta which Rabbinic Judaism has transformed itself into - and you'd have to read the Israeli newspapers every day to know how bad that situation is. Please note Cush, i'm not saying that the K's and the S's are who they say they are; i'm saying they have the only claim worth paying attention to.

Serious "Origin"

On my wish list: a seriously written section Origin of the Israelites. Using the bible as a source is just an elaborate way of posing the question: how did they emerge? The bible is a huge mythos from God, not a factual scientific teaching book. A list of possible sources: Hapiru, Hebrews, Shasu, Midian, Kanaan, Israel Finkelstein, The Bible Unearthed, etc. etc.. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 14:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the entire section is based solely based on religious doctrine. I have placed the bible-primary tag into the section a while a ago, and I plan to soon remove the section unless someone comes up with valid reliable archaeological sources to corroborate the biblical stuff. ≡ CUSH ≡ 08:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Finkelstein's views are fringe, mainstream historians accept the Biblical account to be accurate within reason. And if Cush blanks mainstream views he will be reverted. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 23:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Mainstream views are religionist views. Such views have no place in a section about actual history. If you cannot come up with excavation reports and independent (i.e. non-jewish) historical writings to confirm the biblical doctrine, then I will remove the present highly non-scientific stuff. The bible-primary tag has been there for a while, and now it is time to remove what does not belong in a serious article: the fabricated biblical "history" of the Israelites. ≡ CUSH ≡ 09:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

No, Finkelstein, his co-author Neil Asher Silberman, Eric Cline, etc. are not fringe (are you really going to go edit their articles to call them fringe?) They are part of a dispute within mainstream historians (and I note that you just blanked a section calling it unreferenced despite it having a reference from Thompson - it needed more references, but it wasn't actually unreferenced). Dougweller (talk) 05:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Finkelstein is mainstream as an archaeologist, but his views on history are revisionist and fringe, this is something people seem to misunderstand. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 13:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the entire History section is solely based on the biblical tale. There is no historical accuracy to that whatsoever. The word "History" is a mislabeling, because there is neither historical research (i.e. review of texts from the time frame in question that would confirm the biblical tale, that means tell about the same events, locations, circumstances) nor archeological research (i.e. digging up artifacts, architecture, etc) that justifies calling the biblical tale "history". I say it for the 1000th time: there is no extrabiblical confirmation for the biblical tale from the Creation down to the first decades of the Divided Monarchy period. There is a very small number of occurrences of the word Yisrael but that is insufficient to establish that the biblical tale has any historical value (for everything prior to 900 BCE). Ok, there are of course findings about the material culture of Canaan, but there is nothing at all that would link these findings to anything in the bible. The Israelites as the bible describes them are inexistent in the historical and archaeological record. How can you possibly justify that an encyclopedia creates the impression that the History section in this article conveys accuracy to any degree?? This section needs scientifically reliable sources (i.e. writings by authors who can provide tangible, verifiable evidence), just writing a synopsis of the Tanakh is definitely not enough. ≡ CUSH ≡ 22:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Cush give it a rest, the mainstream view of Israelite history follows the Bible and related works which are considered to be no worse than any other ancient historical sources. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 13:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The rewritten article has resulted in a lot of sourced information being blanked, especially material that addressed typical misconceptions that people have around the the division of the kingdom, Babylonian exile, ten tribes etc. There is no justification for this blanking. 13:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Origin section

This now reads, in part, " The religio-historical narratives of the books of the Hebrew Bible, ancient chronicles such as the Book of Jubilees and the classical historians such as Eupolemus, Artapanus and Josephus all trace the Israelites back to a single family," I don't know what 'religio-historical' means when it's at home, but it looks like a word we could do without. In fact, this whole bit seems pov as all of these other documents come after the Hebrew Bible. And what makes the Book of Jubilees 'ancient'? Is it that much older (or any older) than any of the 'classical historians'. Dougweller (talk) 05:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Jubilees and the others are all Hellenistic/Roman, and all based on the Septuagint - there are no independent traditions. Actually about 90% of the article is unsourced or badly sourced - I wonder if we should give this a top to bottom review? Start with the definition - what exactly is an Israelite? PiCo (talk) 00:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I've tagged it with the NPOV tag, see below.

I've redone the archaeology section to focus more on Israelites rather than Israel - i.e., on ethnicity and religious particularity. But the big weakness is that I rely on only two sources, and mostly on only one. I'll see what else I can find. PiCo (talk) 04:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Neutral point of view issues

Basically, this article is about the Biblical version of the history of Israel and the Israelites, and treats the biblical story as history. Clearly we should not be doing that, we need to clearly distinguish between what is only sourced to the Bible (and the disputes about that), and that which can be treated as historical. Dougweller (talk) 08:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Everything is sourced only to the bible! Just about the only non-biblical use of the term Israelite is in an 8th century BC Assyrian reference to one of the kings of Israel (he's called "Ahab the Israelite"). The term Israel is a little more common, but not much. The really interesting question is how the term for the northern kingdom Israel (historically attested) came to be used for the inhabitants of the southern kingdom of Judah. It seems to have happened only in the post-Exilic period. Also very interesting are the various meanings of the word - a nation, a people, a religious community. At the moment the article is little more than a re-hash of the political history from the Torah and Prophets - not very interesting, not very informative. Might I suggest as a first step gathering some useful reference works into a References section? PiCo (talk) 12:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi guys i added "Factual accuracy" as that seems more accurate to the dispute rather than POVWeaponbb7 (talk) 12:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, you can have a factually accurate description of what the Bible says, the NPOV comes in because that's the only view given. Dougweller (talk) 13:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there absolutely has to be a review of the biblical version of Israel, simply because that's the only source of information. Even if you decide that it's not a true history (no Abraham, no Jacob, no Exodus, no kingdom of David), it doesn't end there, because you have to ask why it was written. This is where so much interesting scholarly work is being done these days. PiCo (talk) 00:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Following this discussion, I've rewritten the article to get away from the main pov issues. The biblical history is now identified as a biblical history, and I've put back into it the theological issues which in fact are central to it - the bible is the story of God and Israel, not just Israel. I've also re-written the lead to make it more netral. The pov there wasn't perhaps so obvious, but it was written from a very specific pov, namely that Jews are an exclusive ethnicity. This is far from being the universal opinion of modern Judaism, who are far more inclusive and tolerant than this pov implies. If you asked a modern Jewish scholar what Israel is, he'd reply that it's the holy community of God, and does not depend on descent. (By the way, in case you're wondering, I'm neither a Jew nor a Christian). PiCo (talk) 01:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hasmonean conversions

There are no information or sources to prove or to support the claims that Philistins people, Moabite, Ammonites nor Zabadeans had converted into Judaism during the Hasmonean peroid, the only known cases are of the remaining Edomites (most of them) and the Itureans who converted into Judaism after their lands had been conquered, or after they had been defeated by the Israelite Hasmoneans.--DXRD (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC) And by the way, Ammonites and Moabites are forbidden to live within the Israelites or to convert into Judaism, as stated in the Torah, so this really lows the odds that any of these two people were converted into Judaism or joined the Israelites, and as the Hasmonean rulers were ultra religious they should know and be aware of that rule and must have not converted any Moabite or Ammonite into Judaism.--DXRD (talk) 07:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The information comes from Macabees, the Talmud and Josephus, where it is made clear that the people conquered by the Hasmoneans were forced to convert to Judaism. The Talmud also covers the fact that the ban on the Ammonites and Moabites was considered to be non-applicable going back to the Assyrian conquest. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Josephus never said anything about the Nabateans, nor the Philistine civilians nor any of those groups, so please add sources to support your claims, he did mention the Edomites (converted by John Hyrcanus) and Itureans/the people of the Upper Galile convertion to Judaism (by Aristobulus I) but not the Nabatean groups, non the Ammonite, nor the Moabites. Many citizens were also exiled after they refused to convert into Judaism, like the ones of Beit Shean, and some Helenistic Edomites escape to the Talmi era-Egypt in order to practice their Helenistic way of life.--DXRD (talk) 12:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Lead

Can someone please point out where in the Bible the term "Israelite" is used for an adherent of Yhwh but who is not somehow descended from Jacob? The term "Israelite" is a tribal designation in the Bible, not a religious one. Can someone establish factual accuracy in this point please? ≡ CUSH ≡ 10:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

If you follow the little number at the end of that first sentence, and click on it, it will take you to a footnote, which contains a clickable link to a book which will answer your question. (The bible isn't the only source for the use of the word - in modern Judaism it means a member of the community who follow the laws of God). PiCo (talk) 04:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

In this case, there must be a section "modern usage of the term" and all such interpretations must go in that section. Everything else would be confusing and misleading. Modern Judaism claims a lot of things that the basis of their religion, the Tanakh, does not contain. ≡ CUSH ≡ 10:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

That's great news about the link, PiCo. To clarify what the bible actually says, the Israelites included the "mixed multitudes" that followed the Jews out of Egypt, as well as various Canaanites who joined up with the group during the 40 years in the desert. This is why the Torah speaks of "the convert within your gates." So while it is a tribal designation leading back to a specific patriarch, the Israelites were not limited to blood descendants of Jacob. I do see how this is a little misleading, however, from the intro. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 04:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

What happened to the "mixed multitudes" in the judges and united monarchy periods? An can you give text references for what you wrote? ≡ CUSH ≡ 10:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Cush, look at the source cited at the end of the first sentence of the lead. For text, you need to take into account books like Ruth - and, incidentally, to avoid historicising the Exodus.PiCo (talk) 11:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The source says "the term appears to have been used for the people who worshiped the God of Israel." without giving textual references. That is far away from the certainty expressed in the intro of this article. What other sources are there to corroborate the claim? ≡ CUSH ≡ 13:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Cush, you're misrepresenting the source by taking a partial quotation out of context. Are you saying you regard the Mercer Dictionary of the Bible as an unreliable source? And have you read the Book of Ruth? PiCo (talk) 01:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Cush, while I appreciate your diligence in making sure that this is a quality article, I think it behooves you to read the books of Moses at least two or three times before coming on so strongly with your challenges. Clearly, you are not familiar with the story or sequence of events. The mixed multitudes are part of the story. They are Egyptians who sided with the family of Jacob during the 10 plagues, and henceforth came out of Egypt with them. At Sinai, all present, including Jacob's descendants, the mixed multitudes, and other Canaanites that joined up with the Israelites entered a covenant with YHVH and henceforth became the Jewish people, or "children of Israel." The mixed multitudes come up again in the story of the Golden Calf. The Egyptians that took necromancy out of Egypt were among the 3,000 people killed by the Levites after the Golden Calf incident. Seeing that the remaining members would have been merged into the tribes and intermarried, there's no reason why they would come up in later texts.

There are literally thousands of texts that explain this, but the one I know of that gives the most detail is Me'am Lo'ez. There is a flowing English translation by Aryeh Kaplan that I would recommend for anyone looking to understand the Old Testament beyond the loose English translations commonly used. Kaplan also has a translation of the Torah (Books of Moses) that's updated well beyond the King James' version that I would also recommend.

I only have so much time to commit to this page, but I will work on locating the biblical verses that support everything that's being discussed here. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 17:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Would User:DXRD Please discuss issues with the article here before making changes

Calling people Racist in the Edit summary does not help either.Weaponbb7 (talk 19:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Once again, Please discuss changes you have made Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the original version from before you changes please discuss here as there looks like there is usable material in there Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Content duplication

Right now there is a huge amount of content duplication between this article, Groups claiming an affiliation with the ancient Israelites, and Ten Lost Tribes. In 2009 someone suggested on the talk page of the second article that it be merged/redirected here, that would probably be a good idea.Prezbo (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Pure knowledge is a right to every one

and you can not simply delete entries that you disagree with?
please give you feedback or critique and let every one read both sides of the issue. Thanks
--Nizarsh (talk) 11:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC).
So please keep the entries on Israelites in Islam and Qur'an.
I will be puting it again very soon. This is a knowledge that every one should know. --Nizarsh (talk) 11:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It was not deleted, it was moved to the "See also" section. Disagreement was not the reason this was done, but, as stated in the edit summary, because a separate section is not needed (and inappropriate) solely to convey a single wikilink. Hertz1888 (talk) 14:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

First king of Israel

The Israelites asked for a king, but it was not David that they were given, it was Saul.

"So all the people went to Gilgal, and there they made Saul king before the LORD in Gilgal There they also offered sacrifices of peace offerings before the LORD; and there Saul and all the men of Israel rejoiced greatly. - 1 Samuel 11:15

When king Saul found out that David had been anointed as the next king he became jealous of David and tried to have him killed. David fled to the wilderness and it wasn't till after Saul had died in battle that he became the second king of Israel.

````Darkranger85 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkranger85 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Over reliance on a single source

This entire paragraph contains only one recycled reference.

But the archaeological evidence contains no evidence of the ethnic make-up of the two states of Israel and Judah, and is no mention of anything like the biblical "Children of Israel," nor does the designation "Israelites" appear in the record.[13] The archaeology does indicate that Judah's chief god was Yahweh from the 7th century BCE down to the fall of the state, but this cannot be taken as indicating ethnicity – it was the common practice of the time and region for each state to have its own chief god. Such differentiation of gods may be a source of ethnic differentiation, but it is impossible on the current evidence to tell whether this had occurred in the first half of the first millennium BCE.[13] In any case, the god Yahweh at this time had characteristics lacking from the biblical Yahweh, notably the presence of a consort-goddess.[13] Evidence from Israel is more complicated, but does not support the biblical picture of Israelite religion.[13] Nevertheless, while the archaeological evidence does not support the existence of a specific Israelite ethnicity separate from those of neighbouring kingdoms, it is too meagre and too scattered to be called conclusive.[13]

Since there is only one reference supplied in support of all these claims, since none of these claims support the scholarly consensus, and since Lemche's views are non-representative of the broader scholarship, this entire section needs to be rewritten with proper references reflecting the full spectrum of views. A paragraph written with such references would look something like this.

The archaeological evidence is widely understood as distinctively identifying the Israelites through a combination of foodways, architecture, cultic practices, and material culture such as ceramics and large water pithoi.--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Other Israelite gods besides YHWH

This article gives a biased view of the religion of the Israelites, as being exclusively the worship of YHWH. Even the Tanakh says this is not true. The Israelites worshiped other gods, and the Israelite exclusivist monotheism evolved over time. There is not enough focus on this article on the other gods the Israelites worshiped and how the modern religions we now associate with the Israelites came to be monotheistic. Religion of Ancient Israel is a new article that also has this problem. --La comadreja <sub>formerly AFriedman</sub> RESEARCH (talk) 21:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe you are confused. When the Tanakh talks about Israelites worshiping anything other than Hashem, its considered to be the religion of other nations that have infiltrated Israel. This is different than other "gods" being part of the Israelite tradition. Israelites in Egypt worshiping an Egyptian god are worshiping an Egyptian god, not following an Israelite tradition. Putting this in the article makes no sense. And what is the bias? Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

What about Asherah? Also, YHWH was originally a composite of 2 gods, El and Yahweh. --La comadreja <sub>formerly AFriedman</sub> RESEARCH (talk) 01:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Just read the article on Asherah. I understand the suggestion, but at best you are still talking about idolatry that came into the Israelite tradition from the outside. As far as The Name is concerned, you are not talking about a concept that is the result of archeological digging. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 00:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Monotheism had to come from somewhere. The ancestors of the Israelites were almost certainly idolatrous and there would presumably have been a transitional period. I am not an expert on archaeology, but would think there is evidence of this. Also, if Israelites are worshiping other people's gods and dedicating shrines to them in Israel, presumably some would have thought they are Israelite gods as well. --La comadreja <sub>formerly AFriedman</sub> RESEARCH (talk) 01:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding the meaning of "Israelite." The ancestors of the Israelites were not Israelites. It started with Yaakov. I'm carrying this over to our talk pages to avoid another one of these endless threads. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 01:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed the problem, I can't agree with the lead and definition there. Dougweller (talk) 06:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

While the term "Israelite" has been used historically as a synonym for "Jew", the primary usage is clearly to the "twelve tribes of israel" who occupied the Levant before the Assyrians and Babylonians carved up their territory. That these people sometimes worshipped gods other than El or YHWH is certainly attested in the Tanakh. That the gods in question were identified as foreign does not alter the fact that they were worshiped. What exactly is the dispute? Paul B (talk) 09:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Your comment here is quite a bit different than the original question. The original question had to do with the derivation of Israelite worship. As I've stated, I'm carrying that discussion over to our respective talk pages as to avoid an endless thread that just gets more confusing as people interject halfway through without following the conversation, which invariably happens (especially on this page). Please feel free to follow the conversation and post to my talk page if you would like. I'd be happy to respond to anything, I just don't want to sit here and see this particular thread go in a million different directions. All the best. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I read the thread. The problem is that specifi aspects of the text need to be identified for discussion to be useful. Paul B (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Religion of Ancient Israel now has a new redirect to an article I hadn't known about when I started this thread. That redirect contains the materials I had in mind, which IMO also belong to this article. IMO The missing aspect, even there, is which gods were worshiped concurrently by some people after monotheism became established. --La comadreja <sub>formerly AFriedman</sub> RESEARCH (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Changing "Elohim" in the Intro

While I like the ambition of referencing the original Hebrew terminology, clicking on the link to "Elohim" makes the story of the name derivation very confusing. The simplest way to explain this incident is that Jacob wrestled with an angel of the divine. Read it this way, it makes coherent sense. Read it as Elohim from the perspective of one who doesn't know what Elohim refers to, who then clicks on the link. The confused reader is now even more confused.

What the original Hebrew states is that Jacob wrestles with a man on the shores of a river. Then when Jacob summarizes the incident and names the location "Peniel," he mentions "Elohim." We then understand that the man is an agent of the divine. (I do not see "Elohim" written in the original Hebrew anywhere else in these passages. If there's an "Elohim" I've missed, let me know.)

Considering that commentaries on this incident talk about an angel, I don't see why we have to get so incredibly technical, especially when the "Elohim" page seems to be referring to a vast range of different terminology. I would really like to change this back. Please contribute to this discussion if you do not want to see it changed. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

DNA, "ancestors of the Jews"

Besides the fact that not all Jews have a Middle Eastern ancestry, the two references don't mention pre-Exile Israelites. so how can the lead make this claim? Dougweller (talk) 06:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Over 90% of modern day Jews have Middle Eastern ancestry, many genetic tests that had been published over the years had proven this claim. Just read this article: Genetic studies on Jews and judge it for yourself.--DXRD (talk) 14:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I have and it does not support how it was written, or how it is currently written. The written record of the Hebrew Bible suggests this ancestry and a couple of contemporary genetic studies suggest that it is likely but it by no means a fact and should not be presented as such. It needs to rewritten which is why I deleted it at first.Griswaldo (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Middle Eastern ancestry for most Jews, ok, but that doesn't equate to Israelite. The Genetic studies on Jews article doesn't make the claim of Israelite ancestry either. We can say Middle Eastern and most Jews, but I don't see the point of doing that in this article. Dougweller (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

So, what you are saying is that the Jews are "not Israelites", so explain what are they? because from what you're saying it's look like the Jews claiming something they're not, which is not true, Jews alongside Greeks, Armenians and Persians are probably the oldest people in the world who carry the traditions and posess the knowledge of who were their ancient ancestors. Unlike other nations who can't trace their ancestry before they converted into Christianity (European nations, that are mostly descendants of Germanic peoples) or Islam (many nations from multiple origins, including ancient Arab tribes), Jews carry their history of being descended from the ancient people of the Kingdom of Judah and of the Northern Kingdom of Israel through the Hebrew Bible for over 3,000 years and with this fact, ladies and gentlemen, you can not argue (even genetic sciene supports that).--DXRD (talk) 10:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the Nature.com reference that was removed from the beginning of the article, with the message "Your sources do not say the Israelites are the genetic origin of the Jews, that is your interpretation." The source does in fact say just that. In the full study (which unfortunately is not free, not sure if that affects wikipedia policy or not) The source (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7303/full/nature09103.html) states "The most parsimonious explanation for these observations is a common genetic origin, which is consistent with an historical formulation of the Jewish people as descending from ancient Hebrew and Israelite residents of the Levant." http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7303/full/nature09103.html, the scholarly link has been re-added.

First, one paper is not enough for an article to assert something as fact. Secondly, the way you have written it changes what they actually said in the paper. They say their studies reveal " a close relationship between most contemporary Jews and non-Jewish populations from the Levant." and go on to say that this is consistent with 'an historical formulation'. Your edit portrays that 'historical formulation' as fact, which the paper doesn't do. There are also some criticisms of the conclusion of the paper at [1] which might interest people. One point made there responds to DXRD's question about what the Jews are - "Jews appear to be variable mixtures of three components (in the regional figure): pink, which is shared by them and Arab speakers; very light blue, which is shared by them and non-Arab West Asians and south Europeans; medium blue, which is centered on southern Europe.". But the bottom line is that you haven't represented the paper correctly and that it is just one paper, not a factual statement of anything. Dougweller (talk) 06:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

While I disagree with your assertion that one scientifically accurate paper is insufficient, there are in fact multiple.

"Recent reports have reaffirmed that the AJ[Ashkenazi Jewish] population has a common Middle Eastern origin with other Jewish Diaspora populations, but also suggest that the AJ population, compared with other Jews, has had the most European admixture." "Taken as a whole, our results, along with those from previous studies, support the model of a Middle Eastern origin of the AJ population followed by subsequent admixture with host Europeans or populations more similar to Europeans." http://www.pnas.org/content/107/37/16222.full

"Jewish communities from Europe, the Middle East and the Caucasus all have substantial genetic ancestry that traces back to the Levant;"

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/science/10jews.html

"Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes" " The results support the hypothesis that the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population, and suggest that most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non-Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC18733/?tool=pmcentrez

"The Y Chromosome Pool of Jews as Part of the Genetic Landscape of the Middle East" "Thus, the common genetic Middle Eastern background predates the ethnogenesis in the region. The study demonstrates that the Y chromosome pool of Jews is an integral part of the genetic landscape of the region and, in particular, that Jews exhibit a high degree of genetic affinity to populations living in the north of the Fertile Crescent." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1274378/ The full paper is not available for free, however the title is "The common, Near-Eastern origin of Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews supported by Y-chromosome similarity" an excerpt ( as cited in the Genetic Studies on Jews article) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-1809.1993.tb00886.x/abstract;jsessionid=486464CA8E85A5734DC95479B92BE270.d01t01 Drsmoo (talk) 03:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I've got no problems with statements such as the quote "Jewish communities from Europe, the Middle East and the Caucasus all have substantial genetic ancestry that traces back to the Levant;". That seems to be the common theme. But that isn't what you are trying to add, is it? Dougweller (talk) 06:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The Lemba and Samaritans are also traced back to the Israelites, as are Palestinians and Pashtuns. Drsmoo (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Part of the Palestinians are descended of both Jews and Samaritans that were forced to convert into Islam during the Muslim conquest of the Land of Israel, they were probably assimilated into the occupying Arabs' population due to intermarriages which caused their so called Palestinan ethnos, probably that's how some of them are related to the Israelites. And about the Pashtuns, there is yet no clear evidence for their claims of being of an Israelite origin, there is a research that is going to be publish (if it wasn't published already?).--DXRD (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Where's the documentation that the Palestinians are related to the Jews? Just because people are living in the same geographical region 2000 years later does not mean they are related. If they were, I doubt you would see the tensions you see today. Please explain. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 20:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It's known that many Jews and Samaritans (which are both originated from the ancient Israelites) were forced to convert to Islam when the Arab Muslims invaders conquered the Land of Israel. Those Jews and Samaritans intermarried with the conquering Arabs and were absorbed into this invading community, their genetic material passed to their modern-day descendants who claim to be "Palastinians". But please take NOTE that not all of the Arabs/"Palastinians" who now lives in the Land of Israel are related to the Israelites, only those who descended from the forced-to-convert people (Jews & Samaritans) I had spoke of earlier are related to the Israelites and to the Land of Israel, the rest are descended of the invading Arabs who conquered the Levant region and people from other Muslim nations who immagrant into the Land of Israel during the centuries.

Studies show that Jews and Arabs are closely related to each other relative to other groups, NOT that Arab and Jewish groups are commonly descended from Israelites. Archaelogical and linguistic evidence suggest that Israelites and Arabs share a common proto-Semitic origin. Furthermore, the genetic similarity between Jews and Arabs is not limited to Palestinians, but also Syrians, other Arab groups, and some Turkic groups. Kxcd (talk) 04:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

All of you might want to read more about this subject here: [2] which contains many articles about genetic studies on Jews which strengh the Israelite ancestry of the Jews.--DXRD (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The Lemba have some genetic ancestry from the Levant, the studies I've read don't say Israelites. Dougweller (talk) 21:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Roots

This important map http://restorationlibrary.org/library_restoration/AOBH/AOBH_016_A.jpg can explain where the descendants of Israelites came from and this map http://www.jesus-kashmir-tomb.com/sitebuilder/images/Map_to_Graves-691x418.jpg also support the future research. Long times ago before Ramayana, Yayati's sons Anu and Turvasu migrated from east to the west, from whom arose the Yavana and Turvk. After the Mahabharata Yadava and Abhira also migrated there from India. The word Yadava became Yada, while Abhira became Habhir (Eber) (Latin: Hebrew). Bocah anon (talk) 10:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The maps don't meet our criteria as sources, see WP:RS.You other comments appear to be your own views, see WP:NOR. Dougweller (talk) 13:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any peer-reviewed material by modern, accredited scientists who actually have kept track of the past century of anthropological and genetic studies, and who have given up on nationalistic biases? Because the material you're presenting doesn't look like that. You have a map from a Sunday school in 1880 (before any real study of genetics had begun, and at a time when all anthropological study had nationalistic, even racist, biases), and a map from a tourist trap. Those don't amount to any sort of evidence. You also don't have any hard evidence for your attempted etymologies, there's nothing to show they aren't false cognates. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Origins of the Israelites

I've made some large deletions from this subject-area and an editor has asked me to justify them, which is fair enough.

I deleted material stating that the existence of a distinctive ethnic group (Israelites) is supported by distinctive archaeological evidence. A great many books were cited in support of this, and I haven't the time to go through all of them. Nevertheless, the fact is that it's generally agreed today that there's no such evidence.

The first group of material evidence was advanced by Albright and his colleagues in the decades around the middle of the 20th century. There were two major candidates: collar-rimmed pithoi (a type of jar used for storing water, oil, grain etc), and a particular house-plan (4 chambered houses). The reasoning was that these were found in the Israelite highlands, and must therefore mark Israelite settlements. However, it is now known that both the jars and the houses are found outside the highlands, and have their origins in Canaanite culture from the Late Bronze period. (Similar claims were made with regard to agricultural terracing and the construction of waterproof cisterns, but are not so crucial).

Much more recently, in the 1990s, Israel Finkelstein, on the basis of exhaustive surface surveys of the highlands, advanced the thesis that two things marked the highland settlements: an absence of pig bones, and the presence of a specific circular settlement pattern (the houses are constructed more or less in a circle, with an open area in the middle, and presenting an unbroken outer wall to the outside). Again, these have been challenged: both the absence of pigs and the use of this settlement plan, it's argued, represent adaptations to the highland environment (pigs are difficult to raise there, and the circular villages are a low-cost way of self-defense that could have adopted by anyone - both are therefore best seen as responses to the environment rather than as markers of ethnicity).

A good place to start is Diane Edelman's book, which has a section that goes through all the markers one by one.

As for the three theories of Medenhall et al, these are now outdated. The usual thinking today is that we can say with some confidence that the Israelites were originally Canaanites, that they probably had some herders mixed up with them, and that the causes for the settlement of the highlands are connected with climate change, changing trade patterns, and political events. I'm not sure what books to refer you to for that, but if you want I'll look some up. PiCo (talk) 02:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I've re-written the origins section to make it more succinct and up to date. We need to make sure we reflect current thinking - there's not much point describing Mendenhall as if his theories are still current.

Also, the article needs to distinguish between two distinct usages of the term "Isrealite". The first is archaeological, and means that which pertains to the Iron Age kingdom of Israel. In this sense it's often used as if the people of that kingdom called themselves Israelites, but in fact there's no evidence that they did - in fact there's very little archaeological evidence as to how this kingdom regarded itself, the only epigraphy being from foreigners. Then there's the second usage, the biblical one, which is very complex in its meanings and needs far more treatment than it gets here.

Also worth mentioning is the way Israel (the kingdom) came to its ethnic identity. Archaeologists and historians speak of the whole group of Iron Age kingdoms in the region - Isreal, Judah, but also Ammon, the Philistine cities, etc - as "ethnic states", and distinguish them by this term from the Bronze Age city-states that preceded them. In a nutshell, the idea is that the tiny city-states of the bronze age were replaced in Iron I by far larger units which constituted themselves around a fictive ethnicity, based on a national god (Yahweh for Israel and Judah); tribes were developed to serve this ethnicity, focusing national identity on an equally fictive ancestor-figure. All this is not even touched on in the article. PiCo (talk) 11:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Removing references

User Koakhtzvigad put this on my personal talk page, but it relates entirely to the editing of this article and so I'm moving it here.PiCo (talk) 12:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC) I have reviewed your editing history, and I'd like to inform you that:

a) age of reference is irrelevant as long as it is relevant to the article. In fact, old reference are quite useful to show the context and transition of understanding the subject of the article over time if they conflict with newer sources. Removal of such references is therefore highly unencyclopaedic.

b) I noted this recent edit summary Israelites‎; 01:50 PiCo (talk | contribs) (→Historical Israelites: The Coogan book isn't online, so replaced with Grabbe and rewrote to reflect this source.)
Contrary to your belief, just because the reference is not online, it should not be deleted and replaced with something that is. Most printed books are not available online even in part. If Wikipedia was to adopt your POV, the vast majority of its articles could not be referenced for technical reasons, and not just those of laziness as is the situation now.

I'd like to also ask where you get your knowledge of the Jewish texts. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 11:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

In reply:

a) Age of texts is extremely relevant. Scholarship continually advances, new findings become available, theories are disproved, new explanations become current. The use of sources a century old and older is simply not scholarly.

b) One of the major policies of Wikipedia is verifiability, meaning that readers must be able to verify material. If the same point is made by Coogan and by Grabbe, and Grabbe is online and Coogan isn't, then it's preferable to use Grabbe.

c) I don't know the background to your question about my knowledge of Jewish texts - in fact I don't know what Jewish texts you're referring to. Perhaps you could explain. PiCo (talk) 12:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Not to poke my nose in here, but I thought I'd offer my opinion on these matters. If for no other reason, just because I can. :)

a) I fully agree that ages of texts are very relevant. This should be obvious and I'm very surprised that anyone would disagree.

b) I've seen many that reference both. Is that not a better option? This way those who happen to have access to Coogan can find the information and those who do not, can still view it online. If I'm not mistaken, sound journalism requires at least two sources to be truly verifiable.

c) I find this completely irrelevant to the subject at hand, so long as sources back up claims.

No, my input was not solicited, but I'm an opinionated person so there it is anyway. ;) Cheers! MagnoliaSouth <sup>(talk)</sup> 18:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Information overload

This article stinks. I don't mean to sound rude, but there it is. I don't believe there is enough room for me to list all the things wrong with it, but it needs an entire rewrite in my opinion. I will list the top most important issues that are glaringly obvious. I say this because this is what I came here for and was amazed at the confusing jumble of information. I also will say that though my words sound brutal, I am not a very good writer and certainly not an authority on the subject. I often hear myself saying, "If you can do it better, then have at it." lol! I am contradicting my own principle here. However that said, I am good at critiquing. So here I am, with my suggestions, if I may...

1. Length - The length of this article is too long. I recommend that sections be condensed and further details should be linked as a new entirely separate article.
2. Flow - There is no flow whatsoever in this article that I can tell, which is understandable. I am no scholar in religious studies, but I feel that the term "Israelites" should be a simple thing to explain. The whole summary of Wylen's whatever needs to be scrapped.
3. Twelve Tribes - The Twelve Tribes of Israel needs its own section and description. The infobox, in my opinion is a good one, but is small and not at all as prominent as it needs to be.
4. Modern groups - I do feel that since modern groups are the descendants of Israel, obviously and because of that, they deserve mention. However the entire section looks to be more like a vocabulary section, rather than "... and so they spread throughout the world becoming Ashkenazi (German), Sephardic (Spain and Portugal), etc., ... Jews." Any further background on those groups really deserves another article since it is more regionally based rather than descendant based.
5. Christianity - It should be noted that Christians also highly revere Jacob and the Twelve Tribes. Many Christian sects claim to be descendants as well. There is a popular Christian children's hymn titled Father Abraham. Though it speaks of Israel's grandfather instead, it clearly states Christians are children of Abraham. "Father Abraham, had many sons, and many sons had father Abraham. I am one of them, and so are you, so let's all praise the Lord!" Examples. It is often one of the first hymns children learn. I only mention this to convey the importance of Abraham's children, to include Israel, to Christians. Because of this the Israelites are not only related to the Jewish faith, as the article strongly implies, but is also linked to other beliefs as well.

I'm sure plenty will disagree with my suggestions and that is fine. I by no means feel that anyone should HAVE to do it my way, but hopefully my suggestions will at least spawn further discussion on a better flow of information in the article. MagnoliaSouth <sup>(talk)</sup> 18:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Synthesis: Biblical Israelites

The Biblical Israelites section is very messed up. It does not seem to follow the alleged source. It needs a serious rewrite or maybe even scrapped. Wylen is not a good source, especially since it is a book about the times of Jesus, not ancient Israelites, and it is very not NPOV.

Anyone want to try to salvage anything in the section? 172.129.202.168 (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

should the palestinians be mentioned on this page too

the link below is about research finding that the palestinians are very genetically related to the modern jews, indicating that they are both descendants of the ancient jews. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/05/000509003653.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crossovershipper (talk • contribs) 03:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

also i'm a christian zionist who believes that that the majority of palestinians are also descendants of the ancient israelites like modern day jews are.{unsigned}

Clearifying Judaism Vs Israelites Vs jews

There is a lot of mixup and wrong definitions about jews and israelites. 1. first thing to understand is that while judaism is a religion, jews are also an ethnic group, so even if a jew doesn't belive in god, he is still a jew. 2. jews as an ethnic group are direct decandents of the Israelite tribe Juda, Benyamin, and part of levi. this is the reason they are called jews, because they decand from juda tribe. 3. the concept of the word judaism and its terminology is basicly wrong and misleading. while the religion is called judaism, its origins are not from jews. the israelites, which the tribe of juda and their decandent jews, are the one who practiced this religion first, only it wasn't called judaism, it was called in free translation from ancient hebrew, Moses and israelites religion. after the first return of israelites to israel, the other 10 tribes were lost, and only the juda, benyamin tribes returned, and thus they were called jews, and their religion was called judaism. 4. the israelites are called hebrews also, which translate from hebrew to english as beyond the river bank, a referance from other old nations who lived in israel, to the fact that the israelites came to israel from the other bank of jorden river. 5. those mixups and wrong terminology are the result of foreign conquerers, much like the naming of the arabs who set in israel as phalisitnes, which is in fact another ancient nation that set in israel, again, by foreign conquerers.

hopes it helps the confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.38.153 (talk) 11:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)