Talk:Israelites

"largely shown"; "impossible"

I stumbled across this article today. The lead has the sentence

Modern archaeology has largely shown that determining the historicity of the religious narrative is impossible.

Consider rephrasing, as something which merely "largely shows" cannot imply impossibility. If, according to the relevant citations, modern archaeology does in fact demonstrate said impossibility, then remove the word largely from the sentence. If, on the other hand, we are in an unsure state, then opt for replacing impossible with a representation of the difficulty of the exercise. For example,

Modern archaeology has demonstrated difficulty in determining the historicity of the religious narrative.

I am not watching this article or talk page. — TheJJJunk ^{(say hello)} 17:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with TheJJJunk that the paraphrasing here distorts the source. Furthermore, it is easy to overlook the phrase "determining the historicity of" and splice the rest of the sentence together to an entirely different assertion. An alternative wording might be: "Efforts to confirm the religious texts through archaeology, once widespread, have been abandoned as unproductive and misguided.[ref] Many scholars now consider …" 73.71.251.64 (talk) 17:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I am not completely happy with the proposal, since the quotation talks about the forefathers, Moses and the Exodus, not "the religious texts" in general. I do agree with both editors that the present text must be changed, since it is even farther from the quoted text than the new proposal. Debresser (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

religious texts -> Israelites' biblical origins? 73.71.251.64 (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

C I've declined the edit request for the moment, as it appears as though consensus hasn't yet been reached on how to edit this part of the article. Both Debresser and TheJJJunk are able to edit this page themselves once consensus has been reached. Seagull123 Φ 22:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

"Efforts to confirm the Israelites' biblical origins through archaeology, once widespread, have been abandoned as unproductive and misguided." is fine with me. @TheJJJunk:, what do you say? Debresser (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@73.71.251.64 @Debresser: I would strip "and misguided" from your version. Also, with this new version, unless all "efforts" have ceased (with which I am unfamiliar and am not reviewing sources at this time), we can recover "largely": "Efforts to confirm the Israelites' biblical origins through archaeology, once widespread, have been largely abandoned as unproductive." For the purposes of consensus, I defer to the other editors' judgement. Like I said, I just stumbled onto this article and noticed the text in question. Thanks for the consideration. — TheJJJunk ^{(say hello)} 19:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Wording is confusing

@Debresser: hi. Now we have:

In modern Hebrew, b'nei yisrael ("children of Israel") can denote the Jewish people at any time in history; it is typically used to emphasize Jewish ethnic identity. From the period of the Mishna (but probably used before that period) the term Yisrael ("an Israel") acquired an additional narrower meaning of Jews of legitimate birth other than Levites and Aaronite priests (kohanim). In modern Hebrew this contrasts with the term Yisraeli (English "Israeli"), a citizen of the modern State of Israel, regardless of religion or ethnicity.

I would maintain that "the term Yisrael ("an Israel")" is ambiguous if not misleading, as it does not say in proper English what it's supposed to say. Yisrael in English is simply "Israel", not "an Israel". Please check if my edit reflects the meaning you want to convey. Thanks and stay well, Arminden (talk) 11:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps it's supposed to be "am Israel", people of Israel. “WarKosign” 13:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The misspelled parenthesis is not currently there, at least not in the version of the page I am looking at. But User:WarKosign is correct. It is supposed to be am Israel, which in Hebrew means the "People of Israel." Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 17:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@warshy You must have missed this edit and its summary: "Remove dubious tag, as it is indeed "an Israel" as opposed to "a Levy" or "a Cohen"."

I made a few edits, dividing the subsection into two, and additionally clarifying the issue.

@Arminden I think you misunderstood. Please see my latest edit, and let me know if this clarified the matter in your opinion. Debresser (talk) 07:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Debresser, Warshy, and WarKosign: hi. Debresser, I think we need clarification.

• We need a source. Talking among ourselves brings us nowhere.
• "Yisrael" as such is just another spelling for "Israel". It does neither include or imply any definite article ("an"). Therefore, the very brief way you formulate it (Yisrael = "an Israel") looks plainly erroneous and is misleading. It cannot be left as it is now.
• If there is a discussion in the Mishna, or in secondary lit. concerning it, please do summarise its content and indicate the source. If it's too time-consuming, pls. give at least some explanation. For instance a sentence from the Mishna where "Yisrael", with no specification such as "man of Yisrael", "son of Yisrael", and no suffix is used, and still it is obvious from the context that just one "regular" Jewish person is meant.
• As long as this matter is not sorted, I would like to reinstate the explanation that makes more sense in plain English: ... Yisrael, used for "a member of the People of Israel" who is neither a Levite nor an Aaronite priest (kohen).
  Cheers, Arminden (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to that, although IMHO the present wording is clear enough. By the way, the 3 matzot we take on the seder are also called Cohen, Levy and Yisrael. Something I am sure is mentioned in one of our articles about Pesach. Debresser (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Samaritans

"Today, Jews and Samaritans both recognize each other as communities with an authentic Israelite origin." ←This definitely needs a citation. My personal experience is that this is incorrect, and without references from both the jewish and samaritan communities, I would recommend it be removed. TimeEngineer (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree, this seems highly suspect without citations.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2020

Request to modify section, "Judahite, Judaean, Jew": The Greek term "Ioudaios" does NOT refer to members of the Tribe of Judah, but to the the people from Kingdom of Judah, and later, the region of Judea. Literally, "Ioudaios" means "Judean" (i.e. from "Ioudaia", meaning "Judea" in Greek). There were, of course, several tribes in the Kingdom of Judah (Judah, Benjamin, Simeon, part of Levi, and numerous refugees from the northern tribes of Israel after the Assyrian destruction). In the Bible, members of Judah are referred to either as "Sons of Judah" or simply "Judah" ("Ἰούδα" in the Greek Septuagint"), not as "Yehudim"/"Judeans"/Ioudaioi". 62.0.34.134 (talk) 10:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Jacob D 62.0.34.134 (talk) 10:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

But still, that is where the word "Jews" comes from. Debresser (talk) 12:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

"But still, that is where the word "Jews" comes from."

The tribe of Judah (יהודה) is the Biblical origin of for the word "Jew" (יהודי). However, in the Hebrew Bible itself, the word יהודי was applied to those who were members of the Kingdom of Judah (2 Kings 16:6 and 25:25), and after the exile of the northern Israelite tribes, to any Israelite. See the dictionaries of Gesenius, Klein, and Jastrow. 62.0.34.134 (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Jacob D

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ~ Amkgp 💬 10:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

This subject is addressed in the article Ioudaios, citing references such as the highly respected Bauer Lexicon (of Biblical Greek) as well as a 2007 article by Steve Mason and other references, indicating that the translation "Judean" is widely regarded as the preferred one. 62.0.34.134 (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Jacob D

What you say is well known, and not relevant. As I said: 'But still, that is where the word "Jews" comes from.' Debresser (talk) 19:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

How is not relevant when I was specifically referring to this sentence in the article?

"The Greek term Ioudaioi (Jews) was an exonym originally referring to members of the Tribe of Judah, which formed the nucleus of the kingdom of Judah". Actually the references provided to this sentence in the article all support the original appoint I made, i.e. that the Greek term "Ioudaioi" essentially means "Judean".

Jacob D (talk) 09:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Jacob D

You keep repeating yourself. You already received an explanation. Nothing more I can do for you. I see no consensus for your proposed edit. Try asking editors at WT:JUDAISM perhaps. Debresser (talk) 10:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

It appears my modification has been accepted by the editors, with minor editing. It now reads:

"The Greek term Ioudaioi (Jews) was an exonym originally referring to members of the Tribe of Judah, and per extension the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Judah and the Judean region, and was later adopted as a self-designation by people in the diaspora who identified themselves as loyal to the God of Israel and the Temple in Jerusalem."

212.235.98.140 (talk) 12:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Jacob D

Yeah, that was me who edited your addition. Debresser (talk) 12:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)