Talk:Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy)

this is completely biased article and untrue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abohassanein (talk • contribs) 22:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, - - Just submitted a basic outline for the United Monarchy.

Merged

I have just merged this with Kingdom of Israel - Nik42 05:35, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

This page was nominated for deletion and was kept as a result. For the archived discussion see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/United Monarchy -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

This article is problematic, given that most scholars don't seem to believe that the United Monarchy period actually happened (personally, I find this at least somewhat questionable, but it is nevertheless the view of an increasing number of scholars). john k 19:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Are you suggesting that there was never a united Israel, please clarify- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 22:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

It's called Biblical minimalism, and remains a rather debated and contentious view. AnonMoos 02:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

In order to end the ongoing neutrality dispute I did add the opinion of these Biblical minimalists. I hope this is OK with you all? --84.26.109.69

Given that the opinion of minimalists was added, I today removed the NPOV banner.--201.79.112.192 16:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the minimalist view needs to be looked upon in serious detail, but comparisons of the three (conservative, mainstream, and minimalist) should be shown. In general Biblical Archaeology(or Near Eastern archaeology) tends to be one of the more divided areas of archaeology. Falphin 22:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

This artical still has serious NPOV issues as well as verifiability problems. It is clearly written from a religious rather than scholastic POV. Accept for the extreme Biblical maximalists, few scholars accept proof of the united monarchy outside of the Tel Dan Stele, which in itself is controversial. And certainly, the Tel Dan stele doesn't give us specifics as the author here does. I've added the appropriate tags. EllenS 00:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the Tel Dan Stele says anything other than the fact there was an early group calling themselves "the house of David". As far as I know, most archaeologists accept that there is no evidence of a large settlement in Jerusalem during the period when it was supposedly ruling over the large settlements that are clearly evident in the north. This is the basis of arguments against the united monarchy. For the maximalists and the pro-monarchy mainstream, this is not enough to abandon the united monarchy. However, it is also consistent with the possibility that David was a local warlord - capable of destroying cities in Israel, but not of founding them. I think if the argument could be delineated along these lines it would help a lot with NPOV 124.190.6.202 01:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)snaxalotl

Addition

Since Saul is described (accurately) as of the Tribe of Benjamin, I'm adding Tribe of Judah to David's description. Rationale: keeps things parallel. Besides, for those who take this subject seriously the words about "the scepter shall not depart from Judah" indicate that the then-popular movement to have a king picked one from the wrong tribe. Reluctant Pilgrim 08:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Minority presented as majority

I don't know how many articles were damaged like this one in mis-interpretation but it's very unfortunate. All through the article weasel words are used and without any justification. I'm working from the hebrew wikipedia and what we have here is some extreme bias and utter sillyness. Finkelstein is almost entirely on his own and it's a very minority view. The majority of archeologists don't think along this line as well. The article is extremely biased. It takes a minority view and tries to represent it as fact. It's wrong, it in fact probably needs an entire re-write by someone not biased. Yes, the majority of archelogists used the bible as reference largely, but it's still the majority view. Amoruso 19:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a spectrum here. The notion that there was never a united monarchy of any form is at one end of it. The notion that there was a united monarchy *exactly as described in the Bible* is at the other end of it. There is plenty of space in between. This article makes it look as if the only options are to believe the entire Bible account of David, solomon etc. word-for-word or else reject everything. Needs rewriting to explain some of these problems.

In particular it needs to explain exaclty *how much* of what we know about Israel pre. 900BC is known only from the Bible and *how much* can be confirmed from other sources. 82.33.152.5 04:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ishbaal/Ishboseth

Ishbaal was never a legitimate moshiach, as he was never properly anointed. The three anointed kings over the United Israel were Saul, David, and Solomon. This needs to be fixed. For the record, if ya'll want to debate the legitimacy of Tanach feel free to create one specifically for such a thing, but we don't come here for your biased opinion. Too often "one guy challenging the status quo, whose opinions the majority of his contemporary reject" becomes "most experts believe . . ." We understand, you don't believe it, however what the literature says and what some dissenter believes are two completely different things, and have no place side by side.

Hebrew Translation

I think we need a Hebrew translation of "United Kingdom of Israel and Judah". --Horses In The Sky 12:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Any non-scriptural evidence

Any non-scriptural evidence for this "United Monarch" that conquered almost all of the Levant? Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 21:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

No. That's why I now tagged the article as Bible primary, although the wording of the template does not exactly reflect the deficiency of the article. This article is biblical POV and lacks references to secondary sources that check the veracity of the biblical claims. (Un)fortunately all of Israelite history from the Exodus to Solomon lacks extra-biblical confirmation and thus should be considered some kind of historizing fiction. Cush (talk) 12:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Judea bias

There seems to be a lot of bias against Judea, calling it backwater etc several times. Maybe it was, but it's not a very professional term to use and it looks like somebody had a bit of a vendetta against Judea for some reason... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Czar Kirk (talk • contribs) 03:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

lol. I noticed that too ;) and hope I have fixed it. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Several confusing sentences

The second sentence here is confusing. I left the first sentence in for context.

A number of scholars have concluded that despite the appearance of a biblical account of a united monarchy with a number of rebellions, the biblical account actually describes two distinct kingdoms - Israel and Judah - rather than a united entity. According to this view, the Bible portrays Judah led, or symbolized, by David entering into a politically motivated alliance with a band of outlaws led, or symbolized, by Jonathan, and sometimes with the Philistines, in order to rebel against Israel, led by Saul.

A reference is given to Finkelstein's book, but no page number.

In fact the article has numerous references to Finkelstein's book and almost no others. None of the references includes page numbers. The sentence previously had "anthropomorphised" for what is now "symbolized." Either way, I cannot make heads nor tails of the sentence. I have deleted it a second time, but if someone would like to return it to the article, I hope they can write it in such a way as to be clear to the average reader what is meant, and to add page numbers to the reference so we can check the meaning ourselves. In fact the whole article puts far too much emphasis on the interpretation given by one book. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't find it extremely confusing, though a slight rewrite could perhaps clear up things. I reverted your elision because of your stated (and mistaken) assumption that "anthropomorphism has to do with animals". You may be correct that the article puts too much emphasis on one book however. I have not been able to find a page number or a cite for this in "Bible Unearthed" (no preview on Google Books), so perhaps we should let it go (but please leave the cite in rather than fact-tagging what's left). MeteorMaker (talk) 09:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Great! then perhaps you would explain it to me. Anthropomorphism is the act of providing inanimate objects or animals with human characteristics. Thus human "outlaws" (as in the above sentence) cannot be anthropomorphed to Philistines, without somehow suggesting that "outlaws" are "animals"...but that's a stretch. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent move/merge of article

"United Monarchy" vs "united monarchy"

Kuratowski's Ghost has moved the United Monarchy article to "Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy)". My point about it would be that "United Monarchy" in the context of the history of the Levant is more or less a proper name for a certain period. Subsequently it should be written with capital letters. Just my two cents. Cush (talk) 14:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, the kingdom in question is called the "Kingdom of Israel" (in Hebrew Mamlekhet Yisrael) in primary sources, "United Monarchy" is a strange neologism and not at all the term one would think of searching on when desiring information on the subject. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

However, historians and archeologists distinguish between the Kingdom of Israel in the United Monarchy period and the Kingdom of Israel in the Divided Monarchy period. Speaking of the "United Monarchy" in the context of Levantine history means precisely the Kingdom of Israel under Saul, David, and Solomon. There is no other entity that could or would be mistakenly referred to by this term. This is not a neologism but a scientific term, and whether there are any primary Hebrew sources is completely irrelevant. Oh, and was there any discussion/consensus/agreement to move the article ??? Or any need ? Cush (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Cush on this. Any Google search (which is not case-sensitive) will demonstrate that the majority of uses is with capital letters and used as a proper noun. It is also true that it is fairly often not capitalised, but since the "United Monarchy" is indeed another name for the "Kingdom of Israel," it should be caps when it is so used, as here. In fact I would ask if there was a consensus to move/merge the article at all or did I miss the discussion? Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The article was moved, not sure what merge you are referring to. Googling United Monarchy produces lots of mirrors of wikipedia or articles derived from wikipedia and only a handful from archaeological articles. In the latter it is sometimes capitalized and sometimes not but always refers to a time period and is not claimed to be the name of the kingdom. What motivated me to move the article the fact that the article refers primarily to the kingdom not to the period and seemed to create a false impression that "United Monarchy" was the actual name used for the kingdom when it certainly wasn't. Moreover the average reader is more likely to search for terms like "Kingdom of Israel" (the actual name of the kingdom), "Biblical Kingdom of Israel" or similar and not the term "United Monarchy". So to me it makes sense that "United Monarchy" is a redirect not the primary name of the article. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

We really need a disambiguation page for "Kingdom of Israel" as the name refers to four distinct kingdoms:

• The original Kingdom of Israel under Saul, David and Solomon.
• The northern successor state after the split.
• The kingdom of the Hasmoneans.
• The kingdom of Herod the Great.

Currently Kingdom of Israel is the primary name of the article on the northern successor state. My feeling is that this should also be renamed to something like "Kingdom of Israel (Samaria)" and "Kingdom of Israel" should be a redirect to this article on the original kingdom, with all relevant articles pointing to the disambiguation page. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk)

Actually, the United Monarchy is the name of the time when the Kingdom of Israel was united with what was later called the Kingdom of Judah. If this article is to be about the Kingdom of Israel, then it makes sense to talk of its history on this article, before, during, and after the split. The United Monarchy period should have its own article. Definitely disagree with your contention that the United Monarchy isn't a name in its own right. There are many scholarly books and archeological journals that use it as a name. Just a few so you know I am not talking through my hat:

• "1000 BC -- In about 1000 BCE David ascended the throne, and he soon managed to unify all twelve tribes into a single nation, called the United Monarchy ... search.barnesandnoble.com
• The United Monarchy Under David and Solomon : Bib Arch Seminary "This challenge to the historicity of the United Monarchy culminated in the 2000 publication of The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision ...biblicalarcheology.net/?p=69 -

• this book Giving the Sense:Understanding and Using Old Testament Historical Texts

• This articleBiblical Archaeology Review The United Monarchy: Saul, David and Solomon Written and revised by André Lemaire

• This map [1]

• This book pg 7 Jewish History and Thought by Menahem MansoorTundrabuggy (talk) 05:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No if this was the original United Monarchy article, it should remain so and not become the Kingdom of Israel(united monarchy). It is not correct as it stands. There is already a Kingdom of Israel article. We do not need one for merely this period. I urge you to move it back. Or perhaps we could put a query up at Wiki Project Jewish History and get their view. What do you say? Shall we seek outside input? Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Israel article is about the northern successor kingdom not the original Kingdom of Israel, so there was a disparity - the divided monarcy period has articles named after the kingdoms (Kingdom of Israel, Kingdom of Judah) but the united monarchy period had an article named after the period not the name of the actual kingdom which strikes me as odd. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 10:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I certainly did notice that there are lots of articles. It is more than a little confusing. Perhaps what we need to do is to merge the information regarding the original Kingdom of Israel with the Kingdom of Israel article. Then have a United Monarchy article which provides informative relative to both kingdoms united (which can of course include the "minimalist" perspective). Does that make sense? Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this article, which is about the original kingdom, should be merged into the one on the northern successor kingdom, it creates the impression that the northern kingdom was the normal continuation of the original kingdom when the reality is that the southern Kingdom of Judah continued the dynasty of David and Solomon while the northern kingdom was a breakaway kingdom despite the fact that it ended up keeping the name Israel. Also be aware that the mainstream view of the history is not that the original kingdom was a unification of two previous independent political entities called Judah and Israel, the mainstream view is that there was originally no central government and then the establishment of a kingdom under Saul and that this kingdom divided in two during the reign of Rehoboam, the northern part retaining the name Israel and the southern being known as Judah. Claims that these two were originally separate entities that came together to form one united kingdom under Saul is revisionist history and an inversion of what all known sources say. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

However, according to the Bible the northern Kingdom is in fact the continuation of the realm, because the continuation is defined by the people, not by the ruling dynasty. Solomon was a bad king and the people wanted a change after his death.

According to historical and archaeological research on the other hand, there has never been a United Monarchy. The record is devoid of any evidence for such a period. This article should be deleted as it only represents religious POV and has no roots in actual history. CUSH 00:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice job making this look like a reasonable article. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)