Talk:Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 who nobody agrees with" 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.