Talk:David

"A different version"

"A different version is told in 1 Samuel 27:1–4, in which Saul ceased to pursue David because David took refuge a second[30] time with Achish, the Philistine king of Gath." Doug Weller, others, we should probably have a source stating that this a different version, it may not be obvious to many readers. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree. In fact at Joshua tonight I deleted a sentence sourced only to a vers in Nememiah which oddly contradicted the sentence. I think that was due to someone changing a template from KJV to Chabad, but my point is that we need secondary sources to make arguments. This problem is endemic in religious articles. Doug Weller talk 20:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Addition of a source stating that 1 Sam 27 gives a different version/tradition from 1 Sam 21 would be a positive change but ultimately incorrect. The section in question summarizes the biblical narrative, not scholars opinions of the true history, and it is clear that in the narrative 1 Sam 21 and 1 Sam 27 are treated as separate events and work together to frame the narrative structure. Readingwords (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't very clear. We should source it or, if that is the better option, remove it. I think I read somewhere that the story of David has some sort of different versions, but sources are what matters. If this is well-established, it is not necessarily incorrect to note it in the narrative section, but it can also be noted in a separate section. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Image

This Statue by Michelangelo is a much better statue than the one made by Nicolas Cordier, so wouldn't it be better to use the Michalangelo statue as the image for the infobox?(Pseudo-Dionysius the areopagite (talk) 01:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)).

Pseudo-Dionysius the areopagite I really don't want to see a statue of a naked man. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 02:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I think there's a good argument for having David (Michelangelo) as lead-image, but this falls under editorial discretion/consensus, and some editors wish to avoid prominent nudity (see for example Talk:Bathsheba/Archive_1#Why_are_all_the_pictures_of_her_nude?/Talk:Pregnancy/Archive_4#Nudity). It is possible that using Michelangelo would lead to reccuring time-wasting bickering on the talk-page, perhaps connected to WP:ASTONISH. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Second or third

There's been some back and forth editing on if David is the second or third king. Anyone want to talk about it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

The first is Saul, the second is Ish-bosheth. David usurps the throne after the assassination of Ish-bosheth. What more is there to discuss? Dimadick (talk) 22:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

That's how I count it too, and yet edits like [1][2] pops up. Do they have any scholarly basis (or at least narrative)? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

According to the Hebrew Bible, Ishboshet was never the "king of the Unified Kingdoms of Israel and Judah". David was acclaimed king of Judah, after that Ishboshet was declared king of Israel, then he was killed and David became king of the Unified Kingdom. David is the second king according to the Hebrew Bible, the Hebrew Encyclopedia, [Britannica], etc. Sources added to the article. 2A01:CB09:B04B:815F:50D5:9E4:977B:2260 (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Britannica and JE does say second king. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, it says "second king of ancient Israel." That's the first sentence of the lead, so I think we can go with that in our article as well. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

We can, but I'm still interested if there's RS that takes a different view. Currently, Ish-bosheth is also the second king, this is not ideal. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Dimadick, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, and Sir Joseph: Looking at the sources that the IP added in the infobox to support the ideal that David was the second king of Israel is highly questionable. Starting with the oldest source, the Jewish Encyclopedia is dated to 1901-1906 and is therefore outdated, and the Britannica source is an overview of David's life according to J. Coert Rylaarsdam. It does not provide any scholarly thoughts on the matter or any other thoughts on scholarly disputes. The beginning even states that David flourished 1000 BC, but the site does not provide any evidence to support that date. The rest of the article is based on the primary source via the Bible, but the author of the page didn't even have the decency to provide Biblical chapters and verses to confirm any of the content, pure laziness. The Bible has different scenarios as to how David became king. Looking at the Biblical chapters/verses, David did not become king of Israel after Saul's death. He was anointed king only by the tribe of Judah. He ruled Judah in Hebron. His reign of Judah was seven years and six months before becoming king of Israel, and it shouldn't be difficult to figure out who ruled everything else while David was king of Judah. Primary source: 2 Samuel Ch. 2:2 - 11. Jerm (talk) 04:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

So, the answer is to find better scholarly sources and see what they say. Without them, the current ones "win" IMO, being not glaringly bad. Also, for a ping to work you must have ping-template and WP:SIGN in the same saved edit, they can't be added separately (WP:PINGFIX). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Also also, I think calling JE "outdated" in this particlular context is making things too simple, this isn't medical science. Here is one RSN discussion on JE: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_196#Are_jewishencyclopedia.com_(the_Jewish_Encyclopedia)_and_newadvent.org_WP:Reliable_sources?. It's from 2015, though, there may be newer ones. Perhaps it could be added to WP:RSP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång I've restored Ish-bosheth back as predecessor, and added academic sources for support. Jerm (talk) 03:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Did you notice that the ref you inserted [3] seems to contradict " third king of the United Monarchy of Israel and Judah"? As I read it, it agrees with IP 2A01's comment above. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:23, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

You must be referring as to how David became king with the help of Abner, but before Abner betrayed Ish-bosheth, Abner made Ish-bosheth king which would make Ish-bosheth David’s predecessor. The source also states “Ish-bosheth, Saul’s successor”. Jerm (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Jerm, apologies! I got my refs mixed up, and I was talking about the current ref #3 [4]: King David at first ruled his own tribe of Judah only ... Eshbaal was crowned king of Israel. That contradicts "third king of the United Monarchy of Israel and Judah". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

No, the reference was correct, by Avner Falk. Ignoring how they became king, Ish-bosheth was first declared king and if you continue in the same page under “David, King of Israel”, the author refers Ish-bosheth as Saul’s successor. Jerm (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

We'll see if other editors have an opinion on the sources brought up so far. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

That’s an obscure reply. It’s like you purposely ignored my previous response so that other editors can intervene. For what though? Whatever the case may be, I do not like your reply because you didn’t confirm anything that I had previously said. Doesn’t matter now though, I provided two academic sources that support Ish-bosheth was the second King of Israel. Jerm (talk) 07:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Current lead "is described in the Hebrew Bible as the third king of the United Monarchy of Israel and Judah", my emphasis.
• Current body "David is anointed king over Judah.[42] In the north, Saul's son Ish-Bosheth is anointed king of Israel, and war ensues until Ish-Bosheth is murdered.[43] With the death of Saul's son, the elders of Israel come to Hebron and David is anointed king over all of Israel.[44]", my emphasis.

IMO, there's still contradiction here. It seems there are decent sources that doesn't consider Ish-Bosheth king of the United Monarchy of Israel and Judah (making David the 2nd such, while still being IB's successor for the Israel part, I'm reminded of James VI and I). You think otherwise, that's fine and WP-respectable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

You still haven’t elaborated on anything. The sources state that Ish-Bosheth reigned after Saul. I’ve even guided you to where ref#3 states it, but you still haven’t confirmed a thing. Do I have to upload a screenshot? Jerm (talk) 10:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

No, we seem to have reached a dead end. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree, it seems you don’t want to confirm anything I said, but it’s most likely you purposely don’t want to confirm that Ish-Bosheth was David’s predecessor. Jerm (talk) 10:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, David was declared king of Israel by the tribe of Judah only, not the Kingdom of Judah which did not exist until Solomon died. Being declared king by one tribe didn’t mean he suddenly became the next king. If that were the case, David would’ve been reigning over Israel rather than just the tribe of Judah alone and the conflict between him and Ish-Bosheth would’ve never been present in the Bible. Also, the “United Monarchy of Israel and Judah“ is more of a coined term we use on Wikipedia to distinguish the Kingdom of Israel first ruled by Saul from the Northern Kingdom of Israel first ruled by Jeroboam I but that did not exist until after Solomon had died hence why the Bible is no longer considered a reliable source when it comes to academic arguments per WP:RSPSCRIPTURE because Wiki editors had always inserted their own OR according to their own interpretations of the Bible like content such as 'United Monarchy of Israel and Judah”. And like you said above, David was declared king over Judah and Ish-Bosheth over Israel which supports 2 Samuel Ch. 2:2 - 11 that David ruled only over Judah for seven years before finally becoming king of Israel after Ish-bosheth died making David the third king of Israel by the representatives (elders) of the other tribes. Jerm (talk) 14:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

It is like debating how many angels can fit of the top of a needle. It seems highly likely that a Davidic-Solomonic United Monarchy never existed, so it is much ado for nothing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#WP:RSPSCRIPTURE

Discussion about to what extent "Biblical account" sections (and similar) needs secondary sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Triplestein?

Can someone explain to me why the Biblical Criticism section restates the views of Finkelstein and Silberman no less than three separate times?Editshmedt (talk) 16:01, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

About Finkelstein making contentious arguments: always what mainstream historians and archaeologists will say about the Ancient Israel will be contentious for true believers, or even for people who do not follow the history journals. And in the academia there is always debate among scholarly factions. That's business as usual. The gist is that Finkelstein is the "big gorilla" of Israeli archeology (see quotes about that a Talk:Omri) and every scholar who will defeat Finkelstein will earn great fame. That's why is so much attacked. And of course, because of conservative evangelicals and of Orthodox Jews, who hate every line Finkelstein writes. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:05, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs) I think you should read more of the literature, as your understanding of it seems to be "Israel Finkelstein big genius, defeat many evangelical pseudoscholars!" In reality, though Finkelstein himself doesn't like the label minimalist, he's often called a minimalist, and the scholarly majority is neither minimalist nor maximalist. And while Finkelstein is a big gorilla of the last half century of Israeli archaeology, he is not the big gorilla. [EDIT: I took a look at the Omri talk page. The "big gorilla" quote is from Robert Draper, who is not a scholar but a National Geographic journalist. It's true that Finkelstein is one of the top archaeologists, but to state that he is the undisputed greatest ever living archaeologist is as uncritical as declaring that there's "one" greatest living chemist.] Also ImTheIP (talk · contribs), you appear to have reverted the edits I made and wanted to discuss them here. That's fine. The basis on which you reverted my edits seem to have been nothing more then that they state that Finkelstein's views are contentious, which they, of course, are. You didn't appear to actually, you know, consult any of the sources cited. For example, I added the point of the following paper into the page: Erez Ben-Yosef, "The Architectural Bias in Current Biblical Archaeology", Vetus Testamentum (2019). Did you even look at the paper? The author is Erez Ben-Yosef, a professor at Tel Aviv University. I don't know if you know this, but that's the same university that Israel Finkelstein is a professor in. In fact, they're in the same department. Heck, they've even coauthored papers. Ben-Yosef is a significant contemporary scholar in Israeli archaeology. Another significant scholar who is already listed in the page as seriously disagreeing with Finkelstein's low chronology is Amihai Mazar. Are you aware that other significant contemporary archaeologists, like Avraham Faust and Yosef Garfinkel, although disagree with the Low Chronology based on excavations in the last decade? Some people agree with Finkelstein, but to say that his views aren't contentious is a bit off.Editshmedt (talk) 03:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Let's not lose focus on what the topic is - the historicity of the Bible's description of David. Historians believe that neither the United Monarchy existed nor David's empire. In other words, the Bible's description of David is completely wrong. This is not controversial. Finkelstein & Silberman argues that David can't have existed for reasons X, Y, Z, and so on. Here X is the sparse population of Judah, Y the unfavorable location of Jerusalem, Z the relative dominance of the Northern kingdom, and so on. Of course, not all of their arguments are uncontroversial. They say "The absence of A indicates B" and one of their opponents say "But C indicates A so maybe not B!" Controversy! But this doesn't change the big picture; if David existed and if he ruled in Jerusalem then his domains was relatiely small. The "controversy" is, more or less, over whether they fitted in a kingdom with the radius 20 km or maybe 40 km. ImTheIP (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Finkelstein and Silberman say that David did exist; his empire didn't. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

True, I meant "The version of David described in the Bible can't have existed." I think this consensus among historians can be described without going into polemics. ImTheIP (talk) 19:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Huh? No one said anything about the David of the Bible existing. Finkelstein's view that David was just a little tribal chief without note and that there was no United Monarchy is contentious. Finkelstein's 1996-2001 publications started the debate, not ended it.

"Garfinkel states that in contemporary research the biblical representation of the so-called 'United Monarchy' is represented as 'a purely literary composition'. I don't know any reputable colleague who holds such an undifferentiated opinion." (H.M. Niemann, "Comments and Questions about the Interpretation of Khirbet Qeiyafa: Talking with Yosef Garfinkel", Journal for Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Law (2017), pg. 250)

"Slightly later, however, toward the middle of the 10th century B.C.E., the picture changed. The highland polity—apparently the biblical United Monarchy—was growing stronger, seemingly forming alliances with the Canaanite settlements of the Shephelah, and this enabled it to get a firmer foothold in this region. This is manifested in the transformation at Tel ʿEton, and later also in BethShemesh and probably also in Tell Beit Mirsim and Tel Halif." (Avraham Faust, "Between the Highland Polity and Philistia: The United Monarchy and the Resettlement of the Shephelah in the Iron Age IIA, with a Special Focus on Tel ʿEton and Khirbet Qeiyafa", Bulletin for the American Schools of Oriental Research (2020), pg. 131)

You were saying?Editshmedt (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

This discussion predates Finkelstein, see e.g. Herzog, Ze'ev (29 October 1999). "Deconstructing the walls of Jericho". lib1.library.cornell.edu. Ha'aretz. Archived from the original on 10 November 2001. Retrieved 9 February 2019. So, Finkelstein might be the poster boy of this claim, but he was certainly not the first to claim it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

No it doesn't. The debate on the extent of David's kingdom begins with Finkelstein's 1996 publication "The Archaeology of the United Monarchy: an Alternative View", Levant (1996) pp. 177-87. Something tells me you don't know that this paper, cited nearly 300 times, exists. In case you're not convinced by Finkelstein's own words, a recent review paper of the field reiterates it: "As for the united monarchy, the current controversy began with the 1996 publication of the first major radiocarbon study of key sites by Finkelstein (1996)." (Andrew Tobolowsky, "Israelite and Judahite History in Contemporary Theoretical Approaches", Curents in Biblical Research (2018), pg. 40). I recommend you begin reading a lot of papers because your understanding of the field, and I really don't mean this rudely, appears superficial.Editshmedt (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I am not a historian/archaeologist, I am an amateur. But that isn't a claim that could be done in isolation (i.e. just one person). See also Grabbe, Lester L. (23 February 2017). Ancient Israel: What Do We Know and How Do We Know It?: Revised Edition. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 36. ISBN 978-0-567-67044-1. The impression one has now is that the debate has settled down. Although they do not seem to admit it, the minimalists have triumphed in many ways. That is, most scholars reject the historicity of the 'patriarchal period', see the settlement as mostly made up of indigenous inhabitants of Canaan and are cautious about the early monarchy. The exodus is rejected or assumed to be based on an event much different from the biblical account. On the other hand, there is not the widespread rejection of the biblical text as a historical source that one finds among the main minimalists. There are few, if any, maximalists (defined as those who accept the biblical text unless it can be absolutely disproved) in mainstream scholarship, only on the more fundamentalist fringes. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Many of the findings mentioned here have been known for decades. The professional literature in the spheres of archaeology, Bible and the history of the Jewish people has addressed them in dozens of books and hundreds of articles. Even if not all the scholars accept the individual arguments that inform the examples I cited, the majority have adopted their main points.

— Herzog, Deconstructing the walls of Jericho

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Holy moly. You're blatantly confusing the debate about about the Exodus and patriarchal period with the debate about the United Monarchy. Your quotes are all therefore irrelevant. It really does seem like you are going to willfully ignore both Finkelstein's own words on the debate and the review paper by Tobolowsky. Conversing with you is, therefore, impossible. I give up. This article is clearly being protected by special interests.Editshmedt (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

As we say around here, There is no cabal.

Following 70 years of intensive excavations in the Land of Israel, archaeologists have found out: The patriarchs' acts are legendary, the Israelites did not sojourn in Egypt or make an exodus, they did not conquer the land. Neither is there any mention of the empire of David and Solomon, nor of the source of belief in the God of Israel. These facts have been known for years, but Israel is a stubborn people and nobody wants to hear about it

— Herzog, op. cit.

You ignore something: we are not an academic debate website, we are an encyclopedia. For us statements which comply with WP:RS/AC are very high on the pecking order.

Spelling it out: most scholars ... are cautious about the early monarchy. And Neither is there any mention of the empire of David and Solomon. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

You're embarrassing yourself. Herzog's 1999 article is clearly dependent on the debate opened up by Finkelstein in his 1996 paper to anyone who knows the literature. I also have no clue how you think the other quote, about caution, is relevant. Umm, yeah, there's caution. That isn't the same as Finkelstein's views not being contentious? Editshmedt (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The Wikipedic rule of thumb: what one scholar says it is so, it may or may not be so. What the majority of scholars in a field tells it is so, it is so for Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

And since there is no majority here, one begs to try to understand why you thought your proverb was important.Editshmedt (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Spelling it out: most scholars ... the majority have adopted their main points. This clearly fits WP:RS/AC. And I am afraid that Herzog did not say Neither is there any mention of the empire of David and Solomon, nor of the source of belief in the God of Israel. These facts have been known for three years.

You're conflating known for years with known for two or three years. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm amazed you're not done embarrassing yourself. Ze'ev Herzog is one of Finkelstein's colleagues at Tel Aviv and they've coauthored numerous papers together. Of course he's referring to Finkelstein's paper. And I find it comical that you think a quote from 1999 about majority is relevant, back before even 5 papers existed on this debate, compared to now, when there are literally hundreds. Herzog was part of Finkelstein's convoluted 2007 attempt to downdate the Stepped Stone Structure that Eilat Mazar discovered in 2005, which suggested a much more significant polity in Jerusalem than Finkelstein and Herzog wished there was. That attempt was subsequently destroyed by the very 2010 paper by Amihai Mazar that is now cited in the Biblical Criticism section of this article. In 2017, Richard Elliott Friedman wrote that it is now established that the Stepped Stone Structure "reflects an enormous undertaking by an established organized society" directly contra Finkelstein (in his book The Exodus pg. 98). Not to mention the fact that the excavations at Khirbet Qeiyafa, Lachish, Tel Burna, Tel Eton, Beit Shemesh, and so forth in the last decade have toppled our previous understanding of Israel in the Iron IIA period over its head. Citing an ancient media article on the opinion of the field in 2020 is the equivalent of citing Albright from the 1940s to prove that scholars accept the historicity of the conquest.Editshmedt (talk) 00:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Did Finkelstein convince the majority of Levantine archeologists in just three years? Herzog's point is that his article isn't news (in universities).

Let me tell you something: Wikipedia isn't bleeding edge, it is conservatively mainstream academic.

The two camps of Levantine chronologies: "The Truth About Solomon's Temple" Israel Finkelstein on YouTube, minute 27. We would say Finkelstein's camp is twice or thrice the size of Dever's camp, with half Amihai Mazar in both camps. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I think you're finally starting to get it. It is impossible for Finkelstein to convince every scholar in three years. Which means Herzog made it up. Once you become a big boy, you'll learn that academics aren't perfect representatives of pure honesty and are actually kind of polemical. The fact that out of literally hundreds of reports published in the last 20 years, all you have is a 1999 media article by one of Finkelstein's colleagues to suggest that there's a majority, is comical. As I noted earlier, you are ignorant of the literature. This is further confirmed by the fact that you're now citing YouTube videos.Editshmedt (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

If you master the literature, then why don't you produce WP:RS/AC-compatible quotations? It would be very easy if you would state them openly. The WP:BURDEN/WP:ONUS is upon you to show that things have changed.

Your point till now: Finkelstein and Herzog are liars and I am an ignorant. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Whoops, another slew of errors. No, bucko, Finkelstein never claimed that there was a majority, and therefore Finkelstein gives you no support for the existence of any majority. Neither does Herzog, who published his claim in a magazine. Hershal Shanks responded to Herzog's article in the next edition of the same Haaretz Magazine and described him as part of a "small group" of minimalists. So the same source, Haaretz Magazine, is on record saying that Finkelstein's position is both the majority and the minority of scholarship. Nice try. You have no peer-reviewed source saying that Finkelstein's views are a majority. And there is none. But you will find dozens of reports speaking about the ongoing "debate". But you find it necessary to hide the fact that Finkelstein's views are seen as contentious.Editshmedt (talk) 01:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Incidentally, all defections are from the traditional ‘majority’ to the Low Chronology ‘minority’.

— Israel Finkelstein, A Great United Monarchy? Archaeological and Historical Perspectives

Quoted from Finkelstein, Israel (17 January 2010). "A Great United Monarchy? Archaeological and Historical Perspectives". In Kratz, Reinhard G.; Spieckermann, Hermann; Corzilius, Björn; Pilger, Tanja (eds.). One God – One Cult – One Nation. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter. pp. 1–28. doi:10.1515/9783110223583.1. ISBN 978-3-11-022358-3. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

You literally just quoted Finkelstein saying that his position (the Low Chronology) is a minority. Hopefully you've embarrassed yourself for the last time.Editshmedt (talk) 01:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Notice the quote marks of scorn. And according to the WP:RS/AC-compliant quote from Grabbe (2017), the minimalists have preponderantly won the dispute with Biblical maximalists. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

That is the most laughably ambiguous reference to Finkelstein's position commanding a majority that I've ever seen. Also, this has nothing to do with maximalism. If you genuinely think that Amihai Mazar et al are biblical maximalists, you've once again embarrassed yourself.Editshmedt (talk) 01:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

It was about Hershal Shanks responded to Herzog's article in the next edition of the same Haaretz Magazine and described him as part of a "small group" of minimalists. Minimalists won the game at least 90%, so minimalists aren't a small group and they did get to define the mainstream. Anyway, please WP:CITE WP:RS making WP:RS/AC claims or remain silent. This debate won't be sorted out by WP:OR. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The only peer-reviewed reference you have for Finkelstein's Low Chronology commanding a majority is the worlds most ambiguous quote. I don't need to offer any sources to show that the majority has changed because you haven't established that there was a majority to begin with. DUh. This conversation is over.Editshmedt (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is behind the ball – that is we don't lead, we follow – [we] let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements and find NPOV ways of presenting them if needed." User:Benjiboi. I have produced here several WP:RS/AC claims, you have only produced your own witticisms. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

More proverbs to cover up for the fact that you've adduced no reliable sources for Finkelstein's position commanding a majority. This comment also suggests you're dishonest, as I've quoted half a dozen mainstream scholars that disagree with Finkelstein. Yes, all I have are my own witticisms - not like I have Friedman, Ben-Yosef, Faust, Garfinkel, Ganor, Eilat Mazar, Amihai Mazar, and so forth.Editshmedt (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Again, you master the literature, you find novel WP:RS/AC claims to topple mine. Just calling Herzog a liar won't do. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Didn't I make it obvious enough to you? There is no quote, anywhere in the literature about which position constitutes a majority. Despite the fact that Herzog wrote a very excited but non-reliable media article declaring who constitutes the majority almost at the outset of the discussion, more honest scholars tend to be a little more restrained. Since literally hundreds of papers have been published in the last two decades as the literature on this topic exploded, some scholars kind of want to let the dust settle before making any overarching claims about what's holy and true! You know, some scholars (i.e. anyone who isn't Herzog) would actually like to see what the incoming data says before jumping to conclusions! Finkelstein has repeatedly modified his own position. His latest position is in his 2013 book The Forgotten Kingdom. Wow! Finkelstein in 2013 doesn't agree with the Finkelstein who wrote the original 1996 paper, or the Finkelstein who wrote the 2006 book The Bible Unearthed, or even the 2010 Finkelstein who wrote the quote you cited! Isn't that crazy, it's almost like this is an ongoing discussion where the views of numerous scholars are being repeatedly modified as the data comes in. After a 2018 report demonstrated the usage of ashlar in construction in the 10th century BC in a Judahite site, Finkelstein will have to modify his position again. Weird how science works.Editshmedt (talk) 01:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, Einstein, science changes with time. Welcome to the club. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Took a look through a couple of papers. The following is the closest I think any paper will get to stating where scholars lie:

"Some scholars, following Mazar’s modified conventional chronology, date the beginning of Iron IIA to some point in the first half of the tenth century b.c.e., and its end to about 840 or 830 b.c.e. (e.g., Mazar 2005; 2011). Those who follow the low chronology believe that Iron Age IIA started in the ninth or late tenth century6 and that it covered the ninth century (Finkelstein 2005; Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2011). While there might be some additional disagreement (e.g., some would even stretch this phase deep into the eighth century [e.g., Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2004: 230]), we think that the above is a fair summary of current views on Iron Age absolute chronology." (Katz & Faust, "The Chronology of the Iron Age IIA in Judah in the Light of Tel ʿEton Tomb C3 and Other Assemblages", Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research (2014), pg. 105)

Notice how Faust provides a "fair summary", from 2014, on current views. Out of the three views in current debate, there is no majority. Mostly, scholars appear divided between the Modified Conventional Chronology and the Low Chronology. Faust actually lists the Modified Conventional Chronology first, which might indicate that scholarship is slightly tipped in favour of this position at the moment. The funniest part of this whole quote is that Faust says in it that the most extreme view and least accepted view is that of ... Herzog.Editshmedt (talk) 03:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Friend, every time I stated something here about most scholars, the majority or Finkelstein's camp is twice or thrice the size of Dever's camp it is directly WP:Verifiable in a WP:RS written by a top scholar. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, a YouTube video isn't a reliable source! A paper published in the Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research is a reliable source. You were fully refuted with that quote by Hatz & Faust.Editshmedt (talk) 03:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

In general YouTube videos are not WP:RS, agreed. However, a DVD published by https://iishj.org/colloquium/colloquium-2005/ is a WP:RS and you're not entitled to dissent in this respect. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

LOL, who told you that DVDs published by the "International Institute for Secular Humanistic Judaism" are a reliable source? Yeah, I can't dissent from obvious nonsense. The DVD also claims to be based on the book The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel (2012). Can you show me where this book says that Finkelstein commands a majority? I literally just proved, from the literature, that the scholarship is divided between the Modified Conventional Chronology and the Low Chronology and you're still denying that you don't have a majority.Editshmedt (talk) 03:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Although not legible, you may count all the names in Finkelstein's camp and all the names in Dever's camp, at minute 27. About the Institute: https://iishj.org/programs/masters-degree/

Proceedings published at https://secure.aidcvt.com/sbl/ProdDetails.asp?ID=061717P&PG=1&Type=BL&PCS=SBL Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, you never give up. As I literally just told you, YouTube videos aren't reliable sources, and so you can consider that irrelevant. Secondly, you once again embarrass yourself. Trying to prove that the "International Institute for Secular Humanistic Judaism" is a reliable source, even though the name by itself refutes that, you cite a page from their website on their Masters Program. And according to THAT SAME PAGE, it ISN'T EVEN ACCREDITED! BTW, consider your "proceedings published" in irrelevant, because the book you linked to nowhere says that Finkelstein is a majority. I have a copy of the book. The whole point of the book is that there are two main positions, represented by Amihai Mazar and Israel Finkelstein, that are currently in contentious debate. Which is exactly what the WP:RS quote I gave earlier said. Don't you realize how that proves you completely wrong? The very book you're citing?Editshmedt (talk) 03:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't usually give up when I'm not wrong:

in order to set the record straight I am presenting two lists of scholars who came out in print in favor or against my system half Mazar on both sides looking can you explain this looking looking at the dream team on my side I can looking at the dream team on my side which includes half Mazar I can only hope to always be able to stand similarly alone and one more very meaningful note on this issue all the factions are from right to left all the factions are from right to left incidentally Dever himself has recently started his long cold voyage of defection in fact with Mazar halfway down and Dever defecting that additional chronology has gone down

— Israel Finkelstein, YouTube transcript

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Quoted FROM A YOUTUBE VIDEO, LOL. You're not citing a systematic review of the field, you're citing a YouTube video. After completely failing in all your attempts, and being presented with both a full book published by the SBL and a 2014 paper in BASOR that represent the field as divided between Mazar and Finkelstein's views, the only thing you have left is this quote from a YouTube video. I think that settles this.03:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editshmedt (talk • contribs)

OK, full quote:

4. Several scholars, primarily William Dever, suggested that the Low Chronology camp is a minority.⁴⁹ The truth is, I am far from being troubled by the idea of being part of a minority that defends a case which, so I believe, is supported by the evidence. Just to set the record straight, however, among the small group of scholars who understand the intricate archaeological arguments behind the debate, the supporters of the Low Chronology make an impressive group.⁵⁰ Looking at the Dream Team on my side I can only hope to always be able to stand with a similar minority. Incidentally, all defections are from the traditional ‘majority’ to the Low Chronology ‘minority’. Dever himself has recently started his long, cold voyage of defection: “Caution is indicated at the moment; but one should allow the possibility of slightly lower 10th–9th centuries BCE dates.”⁵¹

49 Dever (2001), 68.
50 See temporary and far from complete list in Finkelstein/Silberman (2002), 66–67.
51 From the abstract of his lecture at a 2004 Oxford conference.

— Israel Finkelstein, A Great United Monarchy? Archaeological and Historical Perspectives*

The list:

We are not troubled by the idea of standing alone to defend a hypothesis we believe is supported by the evidence. But in order to set the record straight, we wish to provide an interim list of the supporters (or supporters in part) 0f the Low Chronology: Avitz-Singer (in Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz 2001); Fantalkin (2001 , On Aegean-Levantine relationship in the early Iron II); Gilboa and Sharon (2001, on the Dor C14 dates); Herzog (2002, on the sites in the south); Knauf (2000a; 20b); Mazar on the terminal date of the Megiddo VA—IVB horizon (Mazar and Carmi 2001: 1340); Münger On the chronological evidence of Egyptian stamp-seal amulets (Munger in press); Na'aman (2000, On the Philistine phase of the debate; 1997 on the conquests Of Hazael; 2002: 22 on the date of Construction of the Megiddo palaces); Niemann (1997: 263 in general; samples of grain from the destruction of Stratum C I —the contemporary of Stratum VA—IVB at Megiddo dated to 906—843 cal B.C.E. (l Sigma range) or to cal 916—832 BCE. (2 Sigma range), Mazar•s they fit the dating of Megiddo VA —IVB and its contemporaries the first half of the 9th century rather than to the mid•lOth century B.C.E. 2000•. 71—72 on Megiddo); Sass (in press, on the 11-th- to 9th-century epigraphic evidence); Uehlinger (1997: 102, n. 30); Ussishkin and Woodhead (1997: 70, on Jezreel and Megiddo); Zimhoni (1997: 38—39, on the pottery 0f Jezreel and Megiddo).2 Finally on this point. it is true that Mazar, Zarzeki-Peleg, and Ben-Tor and Ben-Ami have disputed the Low Chronology, but Dever failed to mention that Finkelstein responded to each of their arguments in detail (e.g., Finkelstein 1998; 1999).

— Finkelstein/Silberman (2002), 66–67

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

.... Dude, are your glasses on? In your "full quote", Finkelstein admits he's in the minority and says he's not troubled by being in the minority because the group he's part of is an "impressive group". In the second quote, Finkelstein doesn't dispute Dever's note that he's in the minority. He just disputes that he's literally the only one. Now that YOU have shown that Finkelstein himself said he's in the minority, in his own words, in this paper on pg. 14, there is no possible way you can still deny you're wrong.Editshmedt (talk) 04:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I think that one of us needs taking reading with comprehension classes. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

In literally none of the quotes you just gave does Finkelstein say he's in the majority. You just quoted Finkelstein saying that his side is "impressive" and then listing out the members of that group. I have the feeling you are dishonest.Editshmedt (talk) 04:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

If you don't sense the scorn in Finkelstein's words, that's just your POV, he, he. Again, my WP:RS/AC claims from above are WP:Verifiable. Try to match my academic consensus/academic majority claims with other verifiable academic consensus/academic majority claims. Till now, it is just your POV that a majority of mainstream Bible scholars do not disbelieve the United Monarchy. Try to make it verifiable. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Your laughable logic just keeps on giving. "Finkelstein scorns Dever for dismissing him in one sentence based on him being in a minority, therefore Finkelstein believes he is actually in the majority!" When will this circus end? Also, you still haven't made a peep about the WP:RS 2014 paper I cited from the journal BASOR where Hatz & Faust represent the field as divided between Mazar and Finkelstein's views. Why not? Too hard on your emotions to realize you're wrong? This paper is a decade more recent than anything you've cited. You've shown no evidence of familiarity of anything outside of Finkelstein's own publications. No wonder you think he's in the majority. Editshmedt (talk) 04:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Editshmedt: Finkelstein's view that David was just a little tribal chief without note and that there was no United Monarchy is contentious. But the article doesn't state that David was "just a little tribal chief". Whether that opinion is contentious or not is irrelevant since it is not present. Same thing with the United Monarchy. But, of course, the claim that the United Monarchy, as depicted in the Bible, didn't exist is not contentious because there is no archaeological evidence for it.

The article you cite "Between the Highland Polity and Philistia: The United Monarchy and the Resettlement of the Shephelah in the Iron Age IIA, with a Special Focus on Tel ʿEton and Khirbet Qeiyafa" doesn't argue for the existence of a United Monarchy. It argues that a Judahite "polity" colonized the eastern Shephelah which is not the same thing.

Also, my main objection to your changes is that I think sections on this format are terrible: "A states X. However, B states not X. However, C states Y. But D states not Y and maybe X. ..." That's not a great way to summarize a topic. ImTheIP (talk) 04:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Editshmedt: You state that the game is now between Mazar and Finkelstein, i.e. between 50% Finkelstein (remember Mazar being in both camps at the same time) and 100% Finkelstein.

Changes With the Monarchy: Religion in Crisis

By the 10th century B.c., after some two centuries of experience during a formative era, when Israelite society was largely rural and egalitarian and "every man did what was right in his own eyes" (Judges 17:6), a major change took place. There occurred what anthropologists have called in past a cultural and socio-economic evolution from "tribe," to "chiefdom," to "state." In biblical terms, the "period of the judges" was supplanted by the "United Monarchy" — the reigns of Saul, David, and Solomon, which we now know date to ca. 1020-930 B.c.. The historicity of the United Monarchy, however, has become one of the most hotly contested issues in both recent biblical studies and archaeology.

The biblical "revisionists" reject the notion altogether, declaring that this is just another "myth" concocted by the biblical writers, who wrote in the Persian or Hellenistic period and knew next to nothing about the Iron Age centuries earlier. A few idiosyncratic archaeologists (among them, notably, Israel Finkelstein) lend support to the "minimalist" view by downdating the monumental "Solomonic" architecture traditionally dated to the 10th century B.c. at Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer (I Kings 9:15-17) to the 9th century B.c., thereby robbing us of crucial archaeological data. The minimalists would date the rise of the state in the north (Israel) to the 9th century B.c. and comparable development in the south (Judah) to after the Neo-Assyrian campaigns in 701 B.c. (but then, "campaigns" against what?).

— William G. Dever, Did God have a wife? pp. 271-272

Perhaps it is good to remember that essentially minimalists won, so reading such quote in the light of their victory helps you find which side of the debate was proven right. It also exemplifies the fact that the denial of the United Monarchy predates Finkelstein. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Tgeorg, you are honestly one of the dumbest guys I've ever talked to. The minimalists didn't win when it comes to the United Monarchy. They won with the patriarchs and conquest. You're clearly desperate for anything to prove you right at this point, still not having made even a peep about the fact that a WP:RS 2014 paper in BASOR said that the field is divided. Your comment on Amihai Mazar is even stupider, claiming that he's in both camps. He isn't. You're clearly blind, since your YouTube video said a different Mazar was on both sides. Amihai Mazar rejects Finkelstein's Low Chronology in favour of the Modified Conventional Chronology, and he thinks that there was a United Kingdom. I'm honestly in pain over the fact that you're spewing such disinformed garbage on this talk page. Somehow, you take the gibberish you just quoted to mean that the dispute over the United Monarchy predates Finkelstein, despite the fact that Finkelstein outright says in his 1996 paper that he's introducing this view and that I even noted a 2018 systematic review of the field by Tobolowsky traces the origins of the debate about the United Monarchy to Finkelstein. You're genuinely clueless and incompetent.

ImTheIP, the article actually does say that David ruled over no more than a little chiefdom. "The evidence suggested that David ruled only as a chieftain over the southern kingdom of Judah". This is contentious. The idea that "Judah was sparsely inhabited and Jerusalem no more than a small village" is arguably fully refuted by Mazar's excavation of the Large/Stepped Stone Structure, which Finkelstein briefly tried to redate in a 2007 report before Amihai Mazar refuted him on that one.Editshmedt (talk) 05:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Friend, do not call me incompetent if you want to edit further. Obviously the "school" of biblical mininmalism predates Finkelstein in his claim there was no United Monarchy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that Wikipedia pages are guarded by individuals who become disinterested with the literature when it contradicts their beliefs.Editshmedt (talk) 05:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

P.S. ImTheIP, I've already cited several papers which accept the United Monarchy and/or argue for it. See the 2020 paper by Faust in BASOR I quoted early on.Editshmedt (talk) 06:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Seeing this epitaph on the cover of BAR (37:03, May/Jun 2011, see edited version here) immediately brought to mind one of Mark Twain’s celebrated sayings: “The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.”
In this case, not only exaggerated but also so often repeated over the last 30 years that my “minimalist” colleagues and I (all pictured in our youth) are feeling like Lazarus.
So why is Yosef Garfinkel so brave as to cry “wolf” yet again, when the basic principles of what its opponents call “minimalism” have become so widely adopted in biblical scholarship (it would be just as weary to cite the references let alone keep up with the reading). Well, it obviously demands some misrepresentation of what “minimalism” is (like most previous epitaphs). Its opponents regularly choose to define it in the way they think they can most easily attack it. No wonder so many people are confused about what it is. In this case, “minimalism” is defined, apparently, as the belief that David and Solomon and their “United Monarchy” did not exist. Well, “minimalists” have come to that conclusion, it is true, though there is a great deal of historical methodology, archaeological data, and textual exegesis lying behind that conclusion, and no minimalist that I know would regard the existence of David et al. as an essential tenet of minimalism. Without indulging in a detailed exposition, the issue is about how, why, and when the biblical books were written—a rather larger and more complex thesis than Garfinkel seems to appreciate, and a problem of which the historicity of otherwise any individual person or event forms only a rather small part.

— Philip Davies, “The End of Biblical Minimalism?”

In chap. 6 D.N. Freedman discusses ... There was no united monarchy under David, only a uniting monarch.

— Reviewed Work: The Age of the Monarchies: Political History (The World History of the Jewish People, 4/1) by ABRAHAM MALAMAT Review by: John F. Craghan, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Vol. 43, No. 3 (July, 1981), pp. 449-451 (3 pages)

Yup, you read well: it was 1981!

Mulhall, John W. (1995). America and the Founding of Israel: An Investigation of the Morality of America's Role. Deshon Press. ISBN 978-0-9645157-0-3. 5. According to at least one reductionist, archaeological data indicates that Jerusalem was not an important city until the late eighth century B.C., after Assyria captured Samaria and destroyed the Kingdom of Israel, the "northern kingdom." Therefore, he maintains, Jerusalem was developed much later than was the city of Samaria. Jerusalem could not have been the capital of a monarchy uniting Judea and Samaria under David and Solomon during the tenth century. Moreover, there was no united monarchy before Assyria destroyed the Kingdom of Israel in 722 B.C. (And there could have been none afterward until the Maccabean period in the second and first centuries B.C.) Thus the historical factualness of Saul, David and Solomon, their wars of conquest, and the size of their empires would seem to be seriously questioned by this reductionist.

Another reductionist, J.M. Miller, thinks that many, perhaps most, traditions about David and Solomon are based on actual historical persons and events. But he thinks that their empire was much smaller than some moderate historicalists believe. Miller maintains that it extended only some fifteen miles north of Lake Hulah and some twenty-five miles east into Syria. It did not include the Bakaa Valley, Damascus, or lands nearer to the Euphrates River, as some Bible passages seem to indicate.

The reductionist group of archaeologists and biblical scholars has grown in the past twenty years. Its scholarship, especially its conclusions, have met with moderate-historicalist criticism. For what they are worth, reductionists' conclusions even more seriously call into question the claim that the Bible is the Jewish people's "deed of ownership" to the Holy Land.

Yup, you read well: it was a year before Finkelstein published the paper you mentioned. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The quote you give by Davies fully debunks your argument that minimalism being prominent = no United Monarchy. Davies wrote there that being against the United Monarchy is not necessarily part of minimalism, contra Garfinkel. The other quotes you give are irrelevant, as it confuses the beginning of the archaeological debate over the United Kingdom with the first time someone questioned it. Finkelstein writes in a 1995 paper that he, in fact, is not the originator of the Low Chronology, in fact David Ussishkin proposed it in 1985, but it was unanimously dismissed by other scholars;

"A third theory, which can be described as the Low Chronology, was briefly presented by Ussishkin (1985:223; 1992:118-119). The absence ofPhilistine pottery - Monochrome and Bichrome alike - in Stratum VI at Lachish which dates to the days of Ramses III, led him to date its appearance to "the last third of the 12th century B.c., or even later" (1992:119). Ussishkin did not elaborate on the archaeological arid historical implications of his revolutionary proposal, and as a result, his low chronology has been unanimously dismissed, or ignored." (Finkelstein, "The Date of the Settlement of the Philistines in Canaan", Tel Aviv (1995))

Once again, your misunderstanding of the literature lead you to make inaccurate claims about it. The archaeological debate started with Finkelstein because he's the first one who made a credible case for his side, not because he was the first to propose it.Editshmedt (talk) 07:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Editshmedt: Conclusion: all the claims you made here about majorities and minorites are utterly unverifiable. My WP:RS/AC claims are verifiable. And finding uncontestable objective evidence for the United Monarchy would be something all TV news journals would report all over the world, and something for which would be granted the 1 million dollars Dan David Prize. So: renounce to ad hominems and concentrate upon verifiable WP:RS/AC claims. Your claims that I am ignorant and that Herzog is a liar won't replace verifiable WP:RS. You can only win this game by citing WP:RS with WP:RS/AC claims, not by calling me names. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

GBRV: "there wasn't any archaeological evidence to confirm the existence of Bablyon, Nineveh, Asshur, or other cities mentioned in the Bible". That's right, until there was evidence, there wasn't any evidence. (And it is misleading to suggest that references to contemporary cities at or near the time of writing confirm the veracity of tales that supposedly happened in a much earlier period.) If at some point there is evidence for the Exodus, then the article will say there is evidence. It is not a violation of WP:NPOV to say there is no evidence for something for which there is no evidence. It isn't even an assertion that something didn't happen. It's just a statement indicating that there isn't a good reason for believing that it did, especially for claims that are extraordinary.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Wrong again. You have no reliable sources about minorities/majorities. I quoted a 2014 paper in BASOR saying that the field is divided and that Herzog is actually in an extreme minority.

"Some scholars, following Mazar’s modified conventional chronology, date the beginning of Iron IIA to some point in the first half of the tenth century b.c.e., and its end to about 840 or 830 b.c.e. (e.g., Mazar 2005; 2011). Those who follow the low chronology believe that Iron Age IIA started in the ninth or late tenth century6 and that it covered the ninth century (Finkelstein 2005; Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2011). While there might be some additional disagreement (e.g., some would even stretch this phase deep into the eighth century [e.g., Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2004: 230]), we think that the above is a fair summary of current views on Iron Age absolute chronology." (Katz & Faust, "The Chronology of the Iron Age IIA in Judah in the Light of Tel ʿEton Tomb C3 and Other Assemblages", Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research (2014), pg. 105)

I've already demonstrated a dozen examples of you misunderstanding the field. I don't know why you think this is any different.Editshmedt (talk) 07:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The difference is that most scholars ... are cautious about the early monarchy and the majority have adopted their main points are WP:Verifiable statements. Yours aren't.

Lipschits, Oded (2014). "The history of Israel in the biblical period". In Berlin, Adele; Brettler, Marc Zvi (eds.). The Jewish Study Bible (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-997846-5. As this essay will show, however, the premonarchic period long ago became a literary description of the mythological roots, the early beginnings of the nation and the way to describe the right of Israel on its land. The archeological evidence also does not support the existence of a united monarchy under David and Solomon as described in the Bible, so the rubric of "united monarchy" is best abandoned, although it remains useful for discussing how the Bible views the Israelite past.

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

"The majority have adopted their main point" is from a Magazine article, and so is unreliable. The fact that Grabbe said that scholars are cautious is correct and does not mean that a majority of scholars reject the United Monarchy, it means scholars are cautious, which is true for all scholars who both accept and reject the United Monarchy. Address the reliable 2014 paper which presents the field as divided.

Here are 9 examples of factual errors you've made so far in this conversation:

1. Only believers find Finkelstein's views contentious. In fact, half if not a small majority of scholars follow the Modified Conventional Chronology over Finkelstein's Low Chronology.

2. Israel Finkelstein is "the big gorilla" in current Israeli archaeology. In fact, the "the big gorilla" quote came from a National Geographic journalist and not an actual scholar. A number of archaeologists are equally critical in todays discussions.

3. Herzog's article suggests the archaeological debate over the United Monarchy predates Finkelstein. In fact, his article was from 1999, and Finkelstein's paper that initiated the debate is from 1996.

4. Herzog's article is reliable. In fact, it was published in a magazine, not a peer-reviewed journal, and so is unreliable.

5. The debate began before Finkelstein because some people mentioned it before Finkelstein. In fact, even if Finkelstein wasn't the first to propose it, the archaeological debate begins with him because all prior discussions were weakly argued according to Finkelstein.

6. Minimalism requires that there is no United Monarchy. In fact, Philip Davies is on record stating that a minimalist may or may not accept the United Monarchy.

7. Finkelstein scorning Dever's dismissal of him as the minority position proves that Finkelstein believes he's in the majority. In fact, Finkelstein is just scorning the fact that Dever so balatantly dismisses him based on being in a 'minority', as if that means anything to him.

8. DVDs published by the "International Institute for Secular Humanistic Judaism" are a reliable source. In fact, this is a completely unaccredited institution.

9. The book The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel (2007) supports the claim that Finkelstein is in the majority. In fact, this book presents the debate as divided and makes no claims about minorities/majorities.

I don't know why you think this is any different. Hatz & Faust say in a 2014 paper that the field is divided, and all you have is a 1999 article by a fringe scholar on this topic (fringe according to that 2014 paper) saying that all scholars believe he is right.Editshmedt (talk) 07:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Editshmedt: Tgeorg, you are honestly one of the dumbest guys I've ever talked to. You need to calm down and read WP:NPA. We can quibble over whether David should be characterized as a chieftain, tribal leader, or king forever, but it is irrelevant. Can you find me a source that unequivocally states that David ruled over the entirety of Samaria? If you can'ta, then I don't think you have a leg to stand on. ImTheIP (talk) 10:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Yup, and Shanks's idea that minimalists would be anti-Israel and antisemitic has been proven bunk. So his criticism of Herzog might have been credible then, it is no longer credible now, in the light of almost total victory of minimalists. And Editshmedt has a hard nut to crack, since Table 1 in Faust 2020 does not leave any room for a kingdom of David. According to Faust 2020, the early 10th century BCE is already taken by Philistia, so there is no room for a Judahite kingdom. According to him, Philistia begins to decline after the death of David. So there could be no Judahite king before Solomon. I'm curious if Editshmedt will also claim that Faust lied through his teeth. Since powerful Philistia did not allow for powerful Judah. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs) Tgeorg, I don't know why you're misrepresenting Faust's paper. United Monarchy means "David ruled over Judah and Israel", not "the Philistines were powerless". So that criticism is in shambles. ImTheIP (talk · contribs) IP, do you mind reading the literature? I don't need to find a specific quote saying "David ruled over Samaria" since I have several quotes affirming the United Monarchy.Editshmedt (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

United Monarchy means "David ruled over Judah and Israel" That's what you write, not what Faust wrote. It's not WP:Verifiable in Faust's paper that David ruled over the United Monarchy. That's the problem with your claims: those are not verifiable. It is not verifiable what you said about minorities, it is not verifiable that Herzog lied through his teeth, it is not verifiable that Finkelstein is part of a minority, and so on. And I do distinguish between genuine minimalists (100% minimalists) and the majority who are each 90% minimalist and 10% biblicist. That's what I meant by 90% victory of minimalists. Anyone who thinks that the Bible is still usable in archaeology is not a genuine minimalist, i.e. Finkelstein is not a genuine minimalist. And it's not a secret that Finkelstein has scorn for Dever, and Dever scorn for Finkelstein. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Interestingly, the major resettlement of the Shephelah was initiated during the Iron Age IIA, i.e., in tandem with, and especially after, the significant decline in Philistia that took place in the early phases of the Iron Age IIA. The latter’s decline and changes are commonly associated, among other causes (like economic changes in the eastern Mediterranean), with the emerging highland kingdom (Ehrlich 1996: 53–55; Mazar 2007: 135; Faust 2013a; Frumin et al. 2015: 8, and see more below), which led the Philistines to abandon the quest for political and military hegemony, and they were gradually drawn into the Phoenician economic sphere (Faust 2013a, 2015b). Whether the cause for the decline in Philistia is associated with the rise of Israel or not, it is clear that the weakened Philistines did not initiate the resettlement of the Shephelah.

— Faust 2020, p. 119

This is a quote that leaves no room for a Davidic kingdom. Why? Because a strong Philistia was hegemonic. A strong Philistia would not have allowed such a Judahite kingdom. So, unless you can produce a verifiable quote to the contrary, Faust 2020 denies that David ruled over the United Monarchy. Such thing would not have been possible to due Philistian hegemony and millitarism. If David claimed kingship and independence, they would have killed him. After 970 BCE, Philistia was weak enough to allow a Judahite kingdom. Not before that.

If you're going to refute that, I need a verbatim quote. Your own interpretation won't do.

If David were a vassal of Philistia, that would change the situation. Anyway, a strong Philistia would not have allowed an independent king of Judah. So, Faust leaves room for David as a vassal of Philistia, but not for a Davidic United Monarchy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Your claim that any of this was fringe on the fringe discussion board was refuted. As for your new claim, it doesn't make any sense. (1) Your claim, which is WP:OR, contradicts the paper, which is a WP:RS, which concludes that at the time there was both a strong Philsitine power and an emerging United Monarchy (2) A Philistine power centred around Gath is not incompatible with the existence of a Judahite kingdom in the rest (99%) of Israel (3) There's no evidence that a Philistine polity would have wanted to annihilate an emerging Judahite kingdom (4a) Even if it did want to annihilate an emerging Judahite kingdom, there's nothing to suggest that it would have been necessarily successful especially since (4b) the same Table 1 you were referring to shows that the Philistine polity began to rapidly decline around the middle of the 10th century BC, just as the United Monarchy was growing and gaining power, which actually suggests that (4c) the verifiable rise of the Judahite kingdom is linked to the fall of the Philistine polity, which means that the evidence depicts the reverse of what you claimed - i.e. that the Judahite kingdom was also hegemonic and eventually overpowered the Philistines. So, by Wikipedia's standards, your claims contradict the paper and so are WP:OR and have no bearing on our discussion. Factually, you misunderstand the geography of both polities under discussion (Philistia and the Judahite kingdom) and make unverifiable claims regarding the nature of their relationship. In addition, here is a 2019 paper by Garfinkel et al in the journal Radiocarbon which demonstrates that evidence of the transformation of Judahite Lachish in the 10th century BC helps verify the rise of the Judahite kingdom in this period. As Garfinkel et al write in the abstract, "When and where the process of state formation took place in the biblical kingdom of Judah is heavily debated ... The controversial question of when the kingdom was able to build a fortified city at Lachish, its foremost center after Jerusalem, is now resolved thanks to the excavation of a previously unknown city wall, dated by radiocarbon (14C) to the second half of the 10th century BCE." It's clear that a series of publications between 2018-2020, most of which I still have not even mentioned to you yet, are burying the idea that there was no Judahite state or kingdom in the 10th century BC. Faust affirms the United Monarchy, and of course, scholarship discusses no one who would have ruled over a United Monarchy besides David. To claim that a scholar has someone else in mind, against the vast majority of the literature, requires a WP:RS - and so I have no need to specifically quote Faust saying "David ruled over the United Monarchy". I've already demonstrated, verifiably from Dever's own words which (unlike Herzog's) are peer-reviewed, that Finkelstein is in the minority because he is a minimalist and minimalists are in the minority. Your 90% and 10% conjectures appear to be WP:OR and so have no bearing on the discussion. Minimalists are in the minority, whether or not maximalists lost. Editshmedt (talk) 05:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

This long text is self-contracitory. shows that the Philistine polity began to rapidly decline around the middle of the 10th century BC, just as the United Monarchy was growing and gaining power That is around 950 BCE for those keeping track. Faust affirms the United Monarchy, and of course, scholarship discusses no one who would have ruled over a United Monarchy besides David. This is your inference. David is supposed to have ruled from 1010 BCE to 970 BCE. He died some 20 years before, according to you, "the United Monarchy was growing and gaining power". You also seem to lack any source claiming that David ruled over the entirety of Samaria. Which means that this discussion is, at best, about semantics. This is not the United Monarchy you are looking for. ImTheIP (talk) 05:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Genuine minimalists believe that the Bible is craps. Finkelstein does not believe that, so he is not a genuine minimalist. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Also I don't think the way you have set up the section as a polemic between two camps (e.g this edit) is constructive. I detest Wikipedia articles that read: "A says X. However B says not X. But C says ..." It clouds the big picture, that archaeologists are in agreement about most details. The quibble is over whether David's kingdom/polity/tribe, if it existed, could fit within a circle with radius 20 km centered around Jerusalem or if the radius has to be 40 km. ImTheIP (talk) 05:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

To claim that a scholar has someone else in mind, against the vast majority of the literature, requires a WP:RS - and so I have no need to specifically quote Faust saying "David ruled over the United Monarchy". Textbook case of WP:SYNTH. I.e. Faust does not claim that a United Monarchy of Israel (Samaria) and Judah existed during David's lifetime. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Before proceeding, let us keep in mind that Tgeorg misunderstood the geography and the political relationship between the Philistines and the non-Philistines in Iron IIA Israel. Based on these misunderstandings, he suggested a WP:OR opinion, which contradicted the WP:RS source, that the Philistine power is incompatible with the Judahite power. However, this is the opposite of what Faust says, who finds that the Judahite kingdom began to emerge when the Philistines were at the height of their power, and as the Judahite kingdrom grew, the Philistine polity weakened. Keep in mind I cited in additional WP:RS paper by Garfinkel et al in 2019 that further supported the emergence of the Judahite kingdom in the 10th century. Numerous more references can be adduced if necessary. Let us now move on. Tgeorg - So I contradicted myself because I said something that I didn't say? "David is supposed to have ruled from 1010 BCE to 970 BCE. He died some 20 years before, according to you" - according to me? Where? Since this is a strawman fallacy, it has no bearing on the discussion and I expect a retraction and apology in your subsequent response for misrepresenting me. Nadav Na'aman has shown that chronologies, lifespans, and so forth for the rulers of Israel are formulaic and not historical. David and Solomon both reign ... exactly 40 years? Of course not. 40 is a symbolic number. Moses' life, for example, is 120 years, and the activities of his life can be divided into 3 sets of 40. So I never claimed that David reigned from 1070-970 BC, or died 20 years before this or that. Furthermore, I also never said "950 BC". That is a second strawman I expect an apology and retraction for. I said middle of the 10th century BC, which is a range. Notice how I never said any specific values. In my opinion, you do not understand the critical methods relevant to this conversation and so have a high probability of making these mistaken inferences. Since all your claims require strawmen of my position, they simultaneously do not work. William Dever said Finkelstein is in the minority in peer-review, and so I see no reason to discuss that further. Finkelstein is in the minority. Also, ImTheIP, I don't know where you see any of my edits on this page sounding like "A says X, but B says not X, but C responds to B". In fact, if you reviewed my edits, you'd find that I divide the opinions into two different camps, which is expected when there are ... two different camps on the discussion. Also, the scholarly discussion is nothing even like "could the Davidic polity exist within 20km around Jerusalem" - I've never read that in any WP:RS. Editshmedt (talk) 07:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Before proceeding, let us keep in mind that Tgeorg misunderstood ... No, quit it. Harping on supposed misunderstandings indicates that you are more after a quarrel than improving the article. See the article itself for the years of David's supposed reign; 1010 BCE to 970 BCE. Since David's reign is supposed to have coincided with the zenith of the United Monarchy, the claim that the United Monarchy was "growing and gaining power" c. 950 BCE is discordant. Now here is a map of the extent of the "United Monarchy" as described in the Bible. Can you answer in the affirmtive or negative whether you believe that any of the sources you have presented corroborates the existence of this kingdom? ImTheIP (talk) 08:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

This is Faust's only substantive use of the words United Monarchy: "The highland polity—apparently the biblical United Monarchy—was growing stronger, seemingly forming alliances with the Canaanite settlements of the Shephelah, and this enabled it to get a firmer foothold in this region." He does not say what he means by United Monarchy, he does not say how he came to that conclusion, he does not say if Israel (Samaria) was part of it (apparently not, since he does not discuss about it). So, it's at best WP:SYNTH to say that he meant that David ruled over Samaria. Also, Editshmedt, if you redefine too many of the terms, the story no longer has any resemblance to what the Bible tells.

Do you know what's the problem with the chronologies of Ancient Israel? None of them (traditional, modified or low) are falsifiable with carbon dating.

Again the same problem: Editshmedt's claim that David ruled over Samaria is not WP:Verifiable in any WP:RS (apologetics WP:CB excepted). Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

The claim that the chronologies are unfalsifiable via radiometric dating is WP:OR and contradicts dozens of papers I know of. I am not "harping" on misunderstandings. These recaps are critical for helping us get a grasp of where we exactly are. Back to this date thing. It is irrelevant that this page uncritically follows the biblical chronology of David reigning for exactly forty years between 1010-970 BC, which is honestly obviously ahistorical. I added in an edit to the article to reflect that this is ahistorical. For example, H.M. Niemann, someone on Finkelstein's sides, writes "Little can be said about the chronologies of David and Solomon but that Saul probably belongs in the first, David in the second, and Solomon in the third quarter of the 10th century B.C." (H.M. Niemann, "Comments and Questions about the Interpretation of Khirbet Qeiyafa: Talking with Yosef Garfinkel", Journal of Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Law (2017)). Notice an interesting coincidence (or perhaps it is not a coincidence?). The Philistine polity begins to decline around the middle of the 10th century BC, which is exactly the period that Niemann happens to place the reign of David. So, if Tgeorg seriously does think that that a Philistine and United Monarchy cannot coexist, which I provided a serious critique of based on the archaeological data provided in the 2020 paper earlier, then the fact that Finkelstein's side seems to prefer a dating of David's reign to the middle third of the 10th century BC should resolve any issues. ImTheIP gives a map of the United Monarchy and asks if I think that the historical Davidic kingdom was that big. In fact, I have no idea how big the United Monarchy was, neither does anyone else - but not knowing the exact borders of the polity is irrelevant to the fact that numerous scholars, especially in more recent years, have begun to see that the archaeology suggests it exists. I'm going to overlook Tgeorg's misrepresentation that I've relied on apologetics. Tgeorg issues this strawman, despite the fact that I've only been relying on dozens of scholarly papers and books throughout this conversation, to draw attention away from the fact that he has not read the literature and so is prone to making mistakes when we discuss this. I also really don't understand the recent attempt to cast doubt over the meaning of Faust's words. They're unambiguous. Throughout the length of the paper, Faust traces the quick emergence of a kingdom in Israel during the 10th century BC. In the conclusion of the paper, he provides his professional judgement that this rising polity be identified with the United Monarchy. If you're really that uncertain about what Faust could possibly mean by "United Monarchy", read the rest of his work.Editshmedt (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

A. Mazar 2014 also supports the existence of a United Monarchy and concludes that it's existence also cannot be rejected given the known archaeology (pp. 365, 369). I may continue throwing such papers in every once in a while, if only to complicate the position I interact with that I do not think rests on solid scholarly or archaeological foundations.Editshmedt (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

All that is based upon your own opinion. No WP:V quote offered, just attempts to dodge WP:V. The WP:BURDEN is upon you: you master the literature, you give us a verifiable quote. Faust obviously does not discuss about Samaria since he has no evidence that David ruled there.

The rules of the game are clear: give us a verbatim quote that David ruled over Samaria or leave this talk page. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

So the half a dozen papers I cited are my opinion? How did that happen? It's also highly inappropriate to demand someone exit a talk page for noting that the literature is incongruent with your opinion. We, as Wikipedia editors, are supposed to favour the evidence over a priori belief systems. If you would like additional advice on how to better abide by this, feel free to leave a note on my talk page and we I can give you a beneficial explanation on where to start as well as what literature you need to read. Tgeorg, in my opinion, it is inappropriate that you are trying to edit the Biblical Criticism section on this page as you do not understand any of the literature on the topic, nor have you read any of the relevant books or papers. It appears analogous to an amateur editing a page like DnaC without knowing any molecular biology. This misunderstanding manifests in your repetition of the Samaria thing, which was discredited above.Editshmedt (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Scholarly favour of the United Monarchy has been confirmed in Mazar 2010, Mazar 2014, Thomas 2016, Faust & Sapir 2018, and Faust 2020. Why are we still talking about this?Editshmedt (talk) 20:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

The reasoning is quite simple: if David did not rule over most of the surface of Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) then United Monarchy is silly metaphorical language.

And to show the absurdity of moving David's reign to about 950 BCE, that would mean that the reigns of Solomon and Jeroboam happened concurrently (at roughly the same time). Or it would mean that David's successor to the throne was Jeroboam, not Solomon. So, the historical Solomon is king Jeroboam, oh, dear.

What you stated till now: Finkelstein is part of a tiny minority, Herzog is a liar and I'm ignorant and stupid. Do you understand that none of these verifies the claim that David ruled over the Kingdom of Israel (Samaria)?

And here is the ground for my revert: WP:FRANKIE. Namely, you equivocated two very different meanings of United Monarchy: Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy) (consisting of the areas of Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) and Kingdom of Judah) with the polity which Faust metaphorically calls United Monarchy, si duo dicunt idem, non est idem. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

The squabbling about whether the minimalists or maximalists were in the majority or minority, is like the squabbling between Boris Johnson and Emmanuel Macron over who won the better deal in Brexit fish – tedious, and largely irrelevant. The Brexit "victory" argument will be settled by real-life facts once the British financial sector has or has not collapsed – which will take a few more years to become clear.

This United Monarchy argument is further poisoned by the modern-day political implications of the "historical reality", so a clear-cut academic agreement is unlikely to ever emerge. However the "objective facts" are fairly clear, if you are prepared to consider them objectively.

There are only a handful of inscriptions which attest to Israel / Judah in that time period. All speak of minor tribes which were easily vanquished. None make a single mention of Saul or David or Solomon, even though Solomon was supposedly important enough to rate a diplomatic marriage with a daughter of the Egyptian Pharaoh. Of the great Biblical victories by the "United Monarchy" kings, not a word was mentioned anywhere in the entire region.

The Tel Dan stele mentions a minor king of a minor state stomping on both Israel and Judah, as well as on 68 other kings. Considering the small size of the geographic area in question, and the fact that he presumably didn’t attack every single king in existence, it would seem that the title "king" in those days basically meant "headman of a small town and its surrounding pastures". Hardly equivalent to the United Monarchy of the Bible, mmm? There is also on-going dispute about what the damaged inscriptions actually say.

I have not read every paper on the subject, but after skimming the arguments on this page, I did read two of the papers referred to.

Re the “Governor’s Residency” at Tel ‘Eton, as interpreted by Avraham Faust and Yair Sapir, the following can be discerned:

• Radiocarbon C14 samples taken from within a foundation deposit and from the floor make-up indicate that the earliest phase of the residency was built in the late 11th–10th century BCE (Iron Age IIA).
• The authors acknowledge that the site was occupied (by Canaanites) from the Early Bronze Age (mid-third millennium BC), and that the site was quite large and significant during much of the Late Bronze Age (mainly 14th–13th centuries BCE), and that during the Iron I (roughly 12th–11th centuries BCE) the settlement was smaller but still present.
• The authors admit that in the course of the Iron Age IIA, the older Canaanite centers experienced significant changes, including being fortified in the mid-10th century. They admit that these changes probably resulted from alliances between the Canaanites in Tel ‘Eton and some expanding Israelites.
• The authors admit that the construction of the classical four-room house involved traditional Canaanite conventions.
• The authors discovered a "foundation deposit" which was typical of Canaanite sites during the 13th–11th centuries, "probably as a result of Egyptian influence", but which was rare in the Iron Age IIA.

There is no evidence – or discussion – of Israelite kings, Israelite authority, or any evidence of the size or power of the assumed community.

Notwithstanding all of the above, the authors claim that the “four-room” plan indicates it is an Iron Age dwelling probably of Israelite construction, and they claim that the size (230 m2 ) and location make it an "elite residence", which apparently indicates "public construction" which was "typical of elaborate Israelite structures" and that this indicates the existence of a powerful political activity and substantial social complexity, which they then assume is evidence of the United Monarchy. This is called "stretching".

They also hypothesise the so-called "old house" effect, in terms of which the absence of evidence of existence is assumed to be evidence of existence.

In the paper by Amihai Mazar, the author admits that biblical accounts are "distorted and laden with later anachronisms, legends and literary forms added during the time of transmission, writing and editing of the texts and inspired by the authors’ theological and ideological viewpoint."

The author used the word "suggest/suggested" 24 times in 25 pages; "perhaps" 15 times; "could" 13 times; and "possible" 8 times in 25 pages. Not exactly a confident thesis.

The author admits that Jerusalem in those days was too small to be a regional force. The author also admits that the total population of all of Judah and Benjamin in the Iron IIA period would have been at most about 20,000 people, and that this horde "provides a sufficient demographic basis for an Israelite state in the 10th century BCE." At least half of those people would have been women, and at least half would have been children, so even if every able bodied man and boy able to wave a stick were drafted, the army would have been maximum 5000 strong. Hardly the regional super-power of the Bible stories.

However Mazar feels that, in the absence of strong opposition, "a talented and charismatic leader, politically astute, and in control of a small yet effective military power, may have taken hold of large parts of a small country like the Land of Israel and controlled diverse population groups under his regime from his stronghold in Jerusalem."

The core of this thesis seems to rely on the assumption that the ‘Stepped Structure’ and ‘Large Stone Structure’ should be seen as one large and substantial architectural complex, which should be interpreted as David’s palace. Such a profile would show Jerusalem as a rather small town with a mighty citadel, which could have been a center of a substantial regional polity. This interpretation is rejected by various credible experts.

Mazar does however admit that the most impressive of the fortifications date to the Middle Bronze Age, ie are Canaanite. They are evidence for a central powerful authority and the outstanding status of Jerusalem during the Middle Bronze Age, and they "might have been retained in the local memory until the end of the second millennium BCE and later".

Mazar proposes that these early (Canaanite) structures and traditions were inserted into the later Israelite historiographic narrative, which is also thickly veiled in theology and ideology.

Mazar thus proposes that the United Monarchy can be described as a state in an early stage of evolution, far from the rich and widely expanding state as was subsequently portrayed in the biblical narrative.

Wdford (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)