Jump to content

Talk:History of ancient Israel and Judah/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5



Old testament

Although the old testament is a significant source of information on the history of ancient Israel and Judah, there are some things which many historians would dispute. Sentences such as:

Moses later led the people out of Egypt, after the famous confrontation with Pharoah and the great plagues. The Israelites wandered in the desert for 40 years and eventually came to "the promised land" in Canaan? (Palestine). Moses died before entering Canaan, and Joshua became the next leader. They invaded and took over, killing most of the inhabitants.

... are not exactly known to be true. (I recall that for some historians whether the people who became Jews actually originated from Egypt is under question.)

From http://www.knowledge.co.uk/xxx/cat/rohl/foreword.htm:

In recent years, however, a certain degree of scepticism has developed regarding the
historicity of the Genesis, Exodus and Joshua narratives, and doubt is now even being
expressed about the later books of the Old Testament, such as Judges, Samuel, and the early
sections of Kings and Chronicles. Some contemporary scholars - even the occasional
theologian - would today prefer to treat the early books of the Bible as, for the most part,
works of fiction. This is primarily because, in their view, these narratives are later
compilations, prepared by post-exilic editors who had only an imperfect understanding of
the more remote times about which they were attempting to narrate. (Professor Robert S. Bianchi)

Because the reliability is under dispute, this (and other similar entries) should not be based solely on information from the bible, nor should the information in the bible be so trusted. --sodium

Rohl holds a minority POV and he over emphasizes alleged skepticism in order to justify his minority views on redating history. Kuratowski's Ghost 14:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Well all I've been doing at the moment was establishing an entry Kingdom of Israel and an entry Kingdom of Judah and done some linking. I think this is pretty save. And I don't think that Tanach sources are less reliable than other sources of the time. Sources are to be checked in any case. -- Di Stroppo

This wasn't a criticism of you, but the of the entry. Obviously like most sources, in some respects the Old Testament is going to be reliable and in others it will be less so. But including statements like:

Jacob's son Joseph, of the famous coveted colorful coat, became a powerful man in Egypt and the Israelites went there seeking relief from a famine. They stayed and over time grew in number but also became slaves.

...are only printed in the Old Testament, so it is very difficult for them to be checked. It and similar statements should be disclaimed that this is the opinion of the Old Testament. Also should be an inclusion of the likelihood of their accuracy, for example should the story of Joseph's multi-coloured coat be treated just as a metaphor? Also some more bigger problems concern actual known historical events where historians are beginning to doubt the Old Testament's account. Basicly, in the entry it looks like the Old Testament is being treated as, em, gospel; it should be explained that this is not so. -- sodium (why do people get my pseudo-name wrong? Its 'sodium' not 'sodiumtheperson' :) )

Since these entries seem to rely exclusively on the Tanach, and do not discuss any of the issues raised by historians, one solution woould be to rename them, "Bibilical History of..." or "The History of ... According to the Bible." In the meantime, I am adding a link to a relevant article, SR

Article said, concerning the construction of the second temple:

but is soon stopped for many years due to sabotage and political slander by the Samaritans

According to the Bible, which was written by Jews, who never liked the Samaritans. I don't think we should include claims like this unless we actually have some evidence that its true, beyond merely the Bible says so. We shouldn't presume to be true what is quite likely inter-ethnic propaganda. -- SJK

There's an article called Israelites. Can we combine these, or keep them separate? -- Zoe

I moved this here: During this time, tens of thousands of documents from the Temple in Jerusalem are brought to the Qumran fortress and other storage sites east of Jerusalem. The Qumran collection is collectively called the Dead Sea scrolls. While Golb's theory regarding the origin of the Dead Sea Scrolls is interesting, it is still a minority opinion and should not be presented as fact. The alternate, majority view, that the scrolls are local productions by a particular sect of scribes has yet to be discredited. It is simply disputed. Not every new theory is fact. If they were, I could have a field day on these articles presenting every new idea. Danny

Dear Danny: Yes, Golb did refute the Essene-Scrolls theory. The folks who insist that Essenes produced hundreds of scroll copies at a "scriptorum" at Qumran are perpetuating an agenda which has no basis in fact, rather than conducting research. If the Essenes really wrote these scrolls there, then why are there no scroll fragments at Qumran fortress, and why are there many anti-Essene viewpoints expressed in the documents? Furthermore, why are there women's and children's bones in the burial near Qumran, if only celibate sectarian men allegedly lived there? Why are there indications that Qumran was a fortress at one point, when that's said to be out of character for Essenes? Why is the so-called scriptorum "table" actually a "bench"? The Essenists have suppressed debate for decades and withheld key texts (e.g., Copper Scroll) and ideas from the public, as Golb documented in his book. They even tried to copyright 2000-year-old manuscripts and prevent other scholars from translating them. Golb refutes the myths largely with alternative facts rather than merely theories. Therefore, the Essene theory remains a theory and should not have assumed the status of fact in various articles at Wikipedia, regardless of how many scholars were duped into believing it. The scrolls found near the Dead Sea at various locations, expressing multiple contradictory viewpoints from various Jewish sects, were certainly brought there from one or more libraries and deposited for safe storage, as the Copper Scroll explicitly describes. Do you think it was appropriate that you deleted the entire paragraph rather than amended the part you object to: the claim that it came from the Temple in Jerusalem? Isn't it rather significant that such a large collection of scrolls survived? BTW the exaggerated number of documents I gave was an accident; the real figure is closer to 850. Also, the concept that the scrolls were at Qumran fortress at one time was my accidental adoption of an element of the Essene theory. -- KAB

As well as adding a new introduction, I removed the following text

=== The Bible and History ===
The absence of independent evidence confirming the biblical narrative causes many scholars to question the accuracy or even the veracity of the historical account. According to many historians, the Biblical patriarchs, Moses, King David, and King Solomon are little more than legendary figures, though possibly based on historical events and persons.
Today there are two loosely defined schools of thought with regard to the historicity of the Bible (biblical minimalism and biblical maximalism), in addition to the traditional religious reading of the Bible.

intending to add it to The Bible and history, but it was already there. That confirms that it needed removal IMO, it doesn't belong in both places.

There is still a lot more to do IMO. The article doesn't do the introduction justice. I have not yet followed all the links, but I think many of them would also be better moved to The Bible and history, or possibly to a new article. The use of these numerous imbedded links is an interesting device, but perhaps better suited to an essay than an encyclopedia article. Perhaps move to the Meta? Andrewa 02:08, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)


The statement that the bible says that the time in Egypt was 430 years, is simply incorrect. A young child in cheder can prove for you using only the text and simple arithmetic that the 430 years dates from the time G-d told Abraham that his descendants would go down into Egypt, and not from the time when Jacob and his sons actually descended into Egypt.

Removed lost tribes text

I removed the following text

However, what is less commonly known is that many people from the conquered northern kingdom fled south to safety in Judea, the Southern Kingdom, which maintained its independence. By this time the nation of Judah then was populated with Israelites from Judah, Bejamain, Shimeon, some of Levi, and many from all of the other tribes as well.

for the reasons detailed in Talk:Israelite#Lost tribes.

Perhaps it should be added in again. Archaeology confirms that the size of Jerusalem grew by 500% as a result of the collapse of the northern Kingdom, with the refugees fleeing south. Hezekiah needed to greatly expand the city walls, and create a whole new water supply for the lower city. John D. Croft 14:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"Canaanites" as earliest inhabitants

It is only true that the Canaanites are the earliest inhabitants if one uses the term incorrectly to mean anyone uncovered by archaeologists prior to the period of Abaraham, but this is not how the term Canaanite is used in traditional sources. In Jewish and Ethiopian sources the term is used for a people who invaded the land around the time of Abraham, the prior inhabitants are generally referred to as the sons of Shem i.e. Semites. The traditional Canaanites were descended from Ham - Hamites.

Some people feel that this information which is currently in one sentence in the article should be removed, I don't see why. It is indeed part of the traditional history found in Rashi and independently in the Ethiopian Kebra Nagast. It is also supported by Phoenician traditions that they were invaders from the Persian gulf (can't remember offhand the Greek source for this). Kuratowski's Ghost 11:50, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, they are said to have come from the Erythraean Sea (i.e. Red Sea) in Greek sources. If they had come from the Persian Gulf they could hardly have come out of Egypt. John D. Croft 15:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Its in Herodotus Histories I, 1. Also information similar to that in the Kebra Nagast is found in the mediaeval Sefer Hayashar. Kuratowski's Ghost 13:37, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Semites and Hamites are modern terms relating to people speaking a Semitic or a Hamitic (i.e. Egyptian/Coptic) language. Using this modern language, Canaanites are Semitic, not Hamitic. Check Semitic languages for yourself. John D. Croft 14:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

neutrality

i am unsure if this webpage is neutral. i have tried to make changes, but the page was unresponsive / would not update. as long as it is so, i cannot consider the page a neutral site.

also, the hyksos people were not 'asiatic' but merely called so by the egyptians. leaving it as it is is, i think, almost deliberately confusing and unclear. however, i am not clear on who the hyksos actually were - were they invading cannanite / hebrew peoples? here for 'hebrew' i mean all people then who took El on as the major god.

hummm..

when joseph showed up in egypt and helped out the pharoh, was it then a hyksos pharoh that he was helping? cause it seems like there's not that much time...

thutmose (the III, not the II) extended out Egyptian Empire like in 1450 or so bc... pretty soon after them all thebeian pharohs kicked out those pesky hyksos. and pretty soon after that is the supposed time of moses.

this web site just doesn't add up for me.

<All of the above is 24.198.22.128, unsigned>

  • Could someone who knows this topic better than I please take a good look at 24.198.22.128's recent edit? I'm sure at least some of the changes are correct, but I am not sure they are all correct. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:03, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Iran/Persia

In the historical context of this article, is it really appropriate to link "Persia" to Iran? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:28, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Santorini volcano?

Recently added: "If however the parting of the Red Sea was caused by the eruption of the Santorini volcano, then the Exodus might have happened around 1500 BC." And if it was caused by the September 11, 2001 attacks then the Exodus might have happened in 2001. Seriously, though: is there an appropriate citation for the theory that the parting of the Red Sea is an historical fact and might have been caused by the eruption of the Santorini volcano? If there is cite it. If not, let's get this out of the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:51, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

The Santorini volcano has recently been redated to 1628 BCE or thereabouts on a number of different dating chronologies, which is considered far too early to have any effects upon so-called crossings of the Red Sea (which would not be effected by tsunamis in the Mediterranean). John D. Croft 21:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Economic and Social system

I would like to see more about how ordinary people lived. Were they farmers (what did they grow?), shepherds, ranchers or fishermen? Was there mining or manufacturing? For example, in North America we have archeological evidence that native peoples mined flint and manufactured arrowheads which were traded over much of the continent. Surely there must be information about mining manufacturing and trading in ancient Israel.
Also, we know quite a bit about the ancient political and social systems from Egypt to Mesapotamia. They had hereditary kings and ruling classes and military classes and priest classes and most of the population were slaves or serfs. How do these compare with ancient Israel?24.71.223.140 06:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Canaanites descended from Ham

This is silly. First, don't refer to a vague tradition when claiming Canaanites descended from Ham. At least cite a specific source. Secondly, we're trying to make a historical model of Canaan in the 2nd millenium BC...it makes no sense to rely on much later traditions when all the archaeological evidence contradicts that tradition. Israelites emerged from Canaanite culture. Their pottery is similar, their dwellings are similar, their temples are similar. ~13th-11th centuries BC differentiating Israelite from Canaanite is very fuzzy and imprecise...because they started out as the same people. User:Cypherx 12:45am, 4 June 2005

That the Canaanites were descended from Ham is a tradion going back to Genesis 10. It is not contradicted by any archaeological evidence. Confusion arises from the fact that some people insist on incorrectly using the word "Canaanite" for anything found by archaeologists prior to the period of Israelite monarchy, which is not at all how the word was used for thousands of years before the quasi-religion of "modernism" decided that all tradition should be rejected and replaced by fabricated nonsense wrongly labeled "science". Looking at pottery style and architecture and concluding that israelites emerged from Canaanites is the height of modernist irrationality. By this sort of reasoning DJs who use vinyl, CD or mp3 respectivley belong to three different civilizations. By this sort of "logic" African Americans are descended from people in England. By this sort of "logic" I am an offshoot of the Japanese because I drive a Toyota and eat sushi. :P Kuratowski's Ghost 12:42, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Kuratowskis' Ghost is incorrect when he says that there is no archaeological evidence which contradicts the assumption the Canaanites came from the Hamites. In fact the archaeology shows that the Canaanite culture came from the Middle Bronze Age cultures of the city states that developed at that time which were an autochthonous development, completely independent from the development of Old and Middle Kingdom Egypt. These cultures developed from the earlier Ghassulian chalcolithic culture, which was completely independent and showed no real connection with the pre-Dynastic Amratian (NaqadaI) and Gerzian (Naqada II and III) cultures of the first Hamitic civilisation. Using the example of African Americans is a good one, because although these people were taken as black slaves very little of their culture survived the Atlantic crossing, and most African American culture today (the language they speak, the clothes they wear, their style of housing) did come from the people of England. Similarly, as Johnathan Tubbs shows in his book on the Israelite kingdoms of Israel and Judah, most of their culture did come from the Canaanites. Because you drive a Toyota and Eat Sushi shows that you are adopting elements of Japanese culture, just as the Israelites when they arrived in Canaan did adopt much of the Canaanite culture for themselves. John D. Croft 14:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
You are completely wrong because you are making a blanket equation of Nakada I, II and III with Ham. Ham is in fact a traditional ancestor of peoples in both Mesopotamia and Pharoanic Egypt which ties up with archaeological evidence of Mesopotamian origins of Nakada II. Levantine cultures were indeed different corresponding to the view that the earliest inhabitants were "sons of Shem" not "sons of Ham" from Egypt (or Mesopotamia). Then we have evidence of early dynastic Egypt extending its influence into the Levant corresponding to the tradition of Canaan seizing land from the the sons of Shem. Kuratowski's Ghost 18:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
There is no Mesopotamian origin of (sic)Nakada II. Rohl finds a Mesopotamian link in Naqada III, but this is disputed by most modern archaeologists as it is based on the obsolete racist theiries of Reisner, the Nazi archaeologist. Read Wilkinson or Midant on the issue, they are the most recent authorities on the subject. John D. Croft 15:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, Nakada(Naqada/Naqadah take your pick) III. Nothing to do with Rohl, this goes back to Petrie and yes was unfortunately tainted with racist views that Africans couldn't have started the Egyptian civilization, nevertheless its based on artifacts depicting Mesopotamian conqerers. Kuratowski's Ghost 16:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Leaving aside the validity of the entire field of archaeology, even if we accept Genesis to be historical, Genesis 10:6 states: "And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan."

Genesis 10:15-10:16 states: "And Canaan begat...the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgasite. And the Hivite..." How do these passages support the claim that "Traditional history refers to the early inhabitants as the sons of Shem and speaks of an invasion by a people called Canaanites descended from Ham."? If anything Semites are the invaders, since Moabites and Israelites are descended from Shem and definitely late comers to the game. User:Cypherx 8:47am, 6 June 2005

Genesis 10:15 is the traditional source that they are descended from Ham, together with the corresponding passage in Chronicles. Genesis 12:6 says "and the Canaanite was then in the land". The connotation of "then in the land", in Hebrew "az be'aretz" is that they were there at the time being referred to, but not _before_ that time.
This is an original point of view, out of keeping with Wikipedia's injunction against original research. I would like to see a modern recent authority which supports the view that Canaanites were not Semitic, or that they displaced Semites from the area. Otherwise this is a POV error. John D. Croft 15:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
You seem to completely miss the fact that the modern usage of Semitic and Hamitic in linquistics has very little to do with who is listed as descended from Shem or Ham in the Bible. The term "Semitic" languages was used for languages related to Hebrew and Arabic as the speakers of these languages were said to be desecended from Shem while languages related to Egyptian were called Hamitic as Mizraim (Egypt) was said to be descended from Ham. But this scheme missed the fact that tradition claims that Hebrew was actually the language of Canaan said to be descended from Ham and indeed Ham is also the ancestor of Mesopotamian and Arabian peoples in the table of nations while Elam (neither Semitic nor Hamitic) is listed as a descendant of Shem. Thus "Semitic" does not match or mean "son of Shem" and "Hamitic" does not match or mean "son of Ham". Canaanites spoke a Semitic language in the modern sense but are listed as sons of Ham, no one says they were non-Semitic in the linquistic sense. Kuratowski's Ghost 16:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Reading it in English one can miss this and mistake it to mean that they were there at that time but not at the time of narration, which is obviously false since remnants of the Canaanites were around as late as the Persian period. This is pointed out explicitly in Rashi's commentary on Genesis 12:6, where he mentions that the Canaanites were in fact invading and taking the land from the sons of Shem. This tradition is consistent with what Herodotus says about the Phoenicians having come from the Persian Gulf. The Ethiopian Kebra Nagast explicitly states in Chap 12.

The Ethiopian text is not considered authoritative by most traditional historians. John D. Croft 15:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The Ethiopian Kebra Nagast is not a reputable accepted source for the History of Judah and Israel. Its use represents a highly contentious unencyclopedic use of one specific source in preference to many others. John D. Croft 14:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"Now, it was CANAAN who rent the kingdom from the children of SHEM, and he transgressed the oath which his father NOAH had made them to swear. And the sons of CANAAN were seven mighty men, and he took seven mighty cities from the land of SHEM, and set his sons over them; and likewise he also made his own portion double." Kuratowski's Ghost 16:15, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa. Let's take hese sources one at a time.
  • Genesis 10 lists several Canaanite peoples (Jebusite, Amorite, Girgasite and Hivite) as descendants of Ham. Are we agreed on that?
  • Genesis 12:6 says that at the time of Abraham's at Schechem arrival "the Canaanite was then in the land". "Az b'aretz" does not mean the Canaanite wasn't there before, only that the Canaanite isn't there now. The land this refers to is Schechem, and the Canaanites there were completely wiped out in Genesis 34:25.
  • Not exactly, "land" there is referring to Canaan, the word "maqom" is used to describe Shechem. Kuratowski's Ghost 22:41, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Even if Genesis 12:6 meant what you say it does, who were the Semites living in Canaan before the Canaanites? The bible doesn't list any.
  • Rashi's 11th century commentary from France can only be of theological, not historical, value when trying to figure out what happened several thousand years earlier in the near-east. Much of Rashi's commentary is invented midrash with no historical evidence provided. It's useful theologically but it's very dishonest to claim Rashi as the basis of any, even traditional, history.
  • Herodotus says the Phoenicians came from the Erythrean sea, which could be the Red Sea, the Persian Gulf or Indian Ocean.
Taken together with Strabo it becomes clear that he is referring to the Persian Gulf. Kuratowski's Ghost 22:41, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Herodotus is citing a Phoenician myth of their own origins, which is abruptly followed by a tale of the abduction of Io, the daughter of the river god Inachus.
  • The principal phoenician cities were Tyre, Byblos and Sidon. Remember Sidon? The descendant of Canaan, descendant of Ham.
  • The Kebra Nagast is a 13th century text, and the history it portrays (umm..."history"...) is really unclear. : "The seven sons of CANAAN, who were the sons of HAM, seized seven cities that belonged to SHEM'S children, but eventually had to relinquish them. The nations seized by CANAAN'S sons were the CANAANITES, the PERIZZITES, the HIVITES, the HITTITES, the AMORITE". So According to this text the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, Hittites and Amorites were all originally...Semitic? In contradiction with the Biblical narrative which lists them as the descendants of Ham?
Please accept modern usage on these terms, to use legendary material not accepted by modern historians is to distort the history of this important area. John D. Croft 15:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Looks like you are misunderstanding what the passage says.Kuratowski's Ghost 22:41, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Then please explain it. To me it seems to say that Canaan's sons seized the Shemite nations of the Canaanites, Perizzites, etc... How do you read it? --Cypherx 01:58, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The Bible tells the hisory very clearly (Canaanites were Hamites, the Semitic Israelites, Moabites and Ammonites invaded later). The first Moabite, Ammonite and Israelite settlements in Canaan are all dated to the 13th century BC. So the Bible roughly agrees with Archaeology on this point. What is your basis for disagreeing? Texts written two thousand years later in other countries? Who were the original Semites?
-User:Cypherx 12:08pm, 6 June 2005
The texts are indeed from the Middle Ages, thats why it clearly says in the article "traditional history". It is not intended to be a claim that it is history confirmed by modern methodologies.
OK where in Wikipedia is the history of Israel and Judah that is confirmed by modern methodologies. To use Midieval and ancient Ethiopian sources in justification for a history of Israel and Judah and exclude modern methods drawn from 2 centuries of archaeology represents a highly original and personal point of view not acceptable to Wikipedia. John D. Croft 15:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It has a place in the article in the same way that traditions about Romulus and Remus have a place in a passage about the earliest history of Rome. Its no different to say summarizing the legends recorded by Saxo Grammaticus in an article about the overall history of Denmark. It tells how people viewed things prior to more modern methodologies. Terms like Natufian, Kebaran are modern inventions and do not reflect how people viewed the history for literally thousands of years. (Btw it was me who added most of the modern archaeological perspective about the earliest history to the article, I'm not arguing against scientific archaeology). Kuratowski's Ghost 22:38, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is interesting the differences between how Romulus and Remus are treated critically in the History of Rome article, compared how the stories of the Patriarchs are treated in this history of Israel and Judah artricle. Compare it for yourself.
"The origin of the city's name is unknown, with several theories already circulating in Antiquity; the most likely is derived from Greek language Ρώμη meaning braveness, courage; probably the connection is with a root *rum-, "teat", with possible reference to the totem wolf (Latin lupa, a word also meaning "prostitute") that adopted and suckled the cognately-named twins Romulus and Remus. Romulus and Remus are believed to come from the people of Lavinium. Romulus killed Remus and founded Rome. While Romulus would seem to be an epynymous founder legend (the name means "Little Roman"), Remus derives from the Proto-Indo-European myth of the slain twin-god (Germanic Ymir, and Indo-Iranian Yama). The Basque scholar Manuel de Larramendi thought that the origin could be related to the Basque language word orma (modern Basque horma), "wall".
In the past few decades further progress in the Etruscan language and the archaeology of Italy made the above theories less likely, and made more definitive hypotheses possible. We know now that Etruscan was spoken from what became Rhaetia in the Alps through Etruria to include Latium all the way south to Capua. The Italic tribes intruded into Latium from a core Italic region in the central mountains, into which they had moved from the east coast. Regardless of the circumstances of Rome's founding, its original population was certainly a combination of Etruscan and Italic elements, with the Etruscan predominating. Gradually Italic infiltration increased to a flood and overwhelmed the Etruscans; that is, the Etruscan population within and outside Rome assimilated to Italic.
Etruscan gives us the word Rumach, "from Rome", from which Ruma can be extracted." John D. Croft 15:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I've reworded the contentious sentence so that it is clear that it is talking about tradition recorded in late sources. The readers can decide for themselves what weight should be given to such traditions. Kuratowski's Ghost 23:32, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This represents "original research", that should be excluded immediately. John D. Croft 15:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The thing I still don't understand is who were the original Semites? What were their people called? Where are they ever mentioned? --Cypherx 01:58, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Semites, in modern usage, are people who who speak one of a group of Semitic languages. They never referred to themselves collectively as Semite (indeed the Canaanite language is a Semitic one, not a Hamitic (i.e. Ham comes from Egyptian language, from Kemet = black (soiuled land)) one!). The divisions Ham, Shem and Japeth seem related to political divisions at the time of the late Assyrian Empire (Ham = pro-Egyptian, Shem = pro Assyrian, Japeth = neutral). John D. Croft 21:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

--- Having read some of the other articles on the history of Canaan/Israel/Palestine, the Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah, I'm wondering: What's the point of this article? It seems to dabble in a lot of topics without central theme. Maybe it should be deleted and information moved to other articles. User:Cypherx 12:55pm, 6 June 2005

To my mind its central theme is the overall history of the region based on _all_ sources listed in the intro. Kuratowski's Ghost 22:38, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
So is this a history of the region? Why then is it titled History of ancient Israel and Judah when both of these kingdoms existed only for a tiny fraction of the region's recorded history? Why not merge some of this content with the article on Canaan? (which is supposed to be a history of the region) --Cypherx 01:58, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The "Kingdom of Israel" and the "Kingdom of Judah" did only last for a portion of the regions history, but the names "Israel" and "Judah" have been used for the region for most of its recorded history, more so "Israel" than "Judah". I would prefer the article to be called simply "History of ancient Israel", "Israel" as a name of the region as opposed to "Kingdom of Israel" includes the area called Judah. Canaan was the name for a part of the Land of Israel at one particular time in history - the time of Canaanite dominance, its never used as a name for the region in other periods. Looking at the Canaan article, it is mainly about the Canaanite people and should be moved to to an article called "Canaanite (people)" or similar. The parts that are simply history of the region should be merged into this article not vice versa. Kuratowski's Ghost 23:53, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If you disagree with the name Canaan, then please use Palestine, as that is currently the most common name for the region among archaeologists. The title of this article is simply invented history. Outside of religious use, Israel as the name of a geographic region was used for less than 300 years. Afterwards the regions that were once Israel came to be called the Galilee and Samaria. Judah was used for about a thousand. Canaan was used for about a thousand years (2nd millenium BC). Palestine was used for nearly two thousand years (2nd century AD until 20th century AD). The coastal regions were called Philistia for quite some time also (possibly most of the 1st millenium BC). Picking Judah and Israel is arbitrary, judeo-centric and doesn't agree with how any scholars refer to the area. --Cypherx 01:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The name Israel has been used since the 2nd millenium BCE, nearly 4000 years.
The meaning of the word "Palestine" is hardly neutral and certainly not accurate. The meaning of the word has changed over time. The Romans used it after the Bar Kochba revolt as a replacement for Judea as a deliberate insult to the Jews, it is derived from the Greek rendering of the Hebrew "Peleshet" (Philistia) that had been used by Herodotus - the original Philistia was a coastal region not the whole land. In the 19th century Palestine was used as a general name for the region but in the 20th century its meaning changed to that of a particular political entity, British Mandate Palestine (initially including Transjordan) in the past 20 years or so it has come to mean almost exclusively the proposed state for the Palestinian Arabs and the autonomous Palestian Authority region seen as the forerunner of such a state, comprising the Gaza strip and West Bank. So its hardly appropriate to use it as a name for the whole region.
In archaeology, the name Palestine is still in general usage to cover the whole region. It has been used in this sense since the days of Flinders Petrie.
There is nothing invented about the history, the sources are no worse than anything we have for the history of Greece, Rome, Persia or Denmark or early Britain or China or Japan or almost any other area you choose to name. History has never been about absolute certainty about events, it has always been traditions of varying proveability and reliability. Treating the history the same way as the history of any other region while using known traditional names is not "Judeocentric". Singling out Jewish related history for dismissal based on standards not applied elsewhere while proposing the use of a politically non-neutral historically anti-Jewish name "Palestine" and yammering about "Judeocentric" smacks of antisemitism to me. Kuratowski's Ghost 02:37, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Antisemitic? Keith Whitlam was no antisemite. Palestinians are semitic people too! John D. Croft 21:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Look, Palestine is the accepted name, no matter what political connotation you think that implies. Palestine, as used by archaeologists and historians doesn't mean the Roman territory, the land of the Philistines or the future country of Palestinian Arabs. Palestine, in our context is: an apolitical geographical term regardless of the nation-states and administrative entities that have existed in this region (http://www.pef.org.uk/Paldef.htm). Amihai Mazar in his book "Archaeology of the Land of the Bible" calls the region Palestine. Check out the University of Chicago's publications on Syro / Palestine. Calling the land Palestine isn't a political move, it's conformity to an accepted standard. Now find me an academic institution that in any way connects the name Judah removed from a specific time period? --Cypherx 08:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Also, please, please show me a reference to a geographic region called Israel in the 2nd millenium BC. I'm sure this would cause quite a stir and overthrow some dominant theories of archaeology. --Cypherx 08:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
One more point: I'm not calling the content of your article invented history (that would be a different debate), but your title, which doesn't jibe with the archeologist's use of the names Israel and Judah. --Cypherx 08:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
...and lastly, since applying the name Judah to a region in which hundreds of civilizations have existed over the past 10,0000 years, almost of which had nothing to do with the name Judah, certainly is Judeocentric, what's antisemitic about saying that? --Cypherx 08:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Forgetting the issue of anti-Semitism for the moment, this is an article about "ANCIENT Israel and Judah," and there is no question that in the period covered by this article, the accepted name for the northern Kingdom was "Israel," the Southern, Judah. Period. No scholar of this period will debate that. It was followed by JUDEA, after the Roman legions conquered the area. Even during Roman times (i.e. until c. 400 AD), there was no region heard of called Palestine. It was Judea. "Palestine" did not come into use until much later (I won't go into the issue of how much later); "Philistia" is not so incorrect for the land UNDER THE RULE of the Philistines contemporaneous with the period described by this article; but even then, Judah and Israel were more substantial political entities than Philistia. Of all issues of nomenclature, Cypherx, you have really selected a losing battle, by all academics' accounts.66.108.145.155 17:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

Israel or Palestine for the region?

An article on the origin of "Palestine" for southern Syria:

"Palestine and Israel", David M. Jacobson, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 313 (Feb., 1999), pp. 65-74

"Abstract: This article critically reexamines the origin of the name Palestine. The earliest occurrence of this name in a Greek text is in the mid-fifth century B. C., Histories of Herodotus, where it is applied to the area of the Levant between Phoenicia and Egypt. Josephus, the Jewish historian of the first century A. D., explicitly links this name to the land of the Philistines and modern consensus agrees with him. Yet, some 300 years earlier, the translators of the Greek Septuagint version of the Pentateuch chose Philistieim rather than Palaistinoi to describe the Philistines. In the earliest Classical literature references to Palestine generally applied to the Land of Israel in the wider sense. A reappraisal of this question has given rise to the proposition that the name Palestine, in its Greek form Palaistine, was both a transliteration of a word used to describe the land of the Philistines and, at the same time, a literal translation of the name Israel. This dual interpretation reconciles apparent contradictions in early definitions of the name Palaistine and is compatible with the Greeks' penchant for punning, especially on place names." --Poluphlosboiu66.201.146.58 15:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Herodotus refers to "Syria-Palestine", which was then part of the Persian Empire's Fifth Satrapy, called "Beyond the (Euphrates) River", & of course included Judah, to which homeland the Jews in exile in Babylon were allowed to return by the Great King Cyrus after he conquered the Neo-Babylonian (Chaldean) Empire. Before the Assyrian conquest of the northern Hebrew kingdom of Israel, the geographic region later referred to by "Palestine" of course also included the southern Hebrew kingdom of Judea &, along the coast south of Phoenicia, the land of the Philistines (probably originally Indo-European "Sea Peoples"). The "people of the land" not carried off into captivity by the Assyrians to become the "Ten Lost Tribes of Israel" were presumably ancestral to the Samaritans.

East, in or across the Jordan River valley, lay other kingdoms (Ammon, Moab & Edom) speaking dialects of Hebrew or at least mutually intelligible varieties of West Semitic or Canaanite languages & to the south & southeast of Judea were others claiming descent from Abraham & speaking a related tongue, the Arabs. In the previous millennium, proto-Hebrew & proto-Arabic were likely dialects of the same language. --Poluphlosboiu66.201.146.58 15:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Some articles on the subject:

I refer to archaeology journals with no political interests...and you give me links to a website called "INTERNATIONAL WALL OF PRAYER: A CALL TO PRAY FOR AND TO BLESS ISRAEL" and another that states "Israel is the 20th century miracle that sends a clear signal that God is about to undertake a wondrous work in the world" and whose stated purpose is to "to proclaim the urgent message of the imminent return of Jesus to this earth!" Heard of NPOV? I'm sure the name Palestine is very offensive to the religious zionist fringe, just as the names Israel and Judah are probably very offensive to the palestinian nationalist fringe. What's the deciding factor between? Palestine is actually used and is understood to have meaning aside from any connection to the Palestinian Arabs. Please leave your personal ideology at the door. --Cypherx 10:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Also, you still haven't answered some big questions in previous debate. Who were the supposed original semites according to traditional history? Where is your source for claiming the name Israel was used to described a place in the 2nd millenium? --

Cypherx 10:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

According to the traditional sources its called "Israel" already at the time of Jacob (Genesis 34:7). Even if you don't consider that reliable, it nevertheless shows that it was the practice when the Pentateuch was written to (possibly retrospectively) call it "Israel" when talking about the 2nd millenium. If you want a contemporary reference to the name "Israel" there is the Merneptah Stele. Lets not be stupid here, everyone is well aware that the name "Palestine" is highly contentious. Kuratowski's Ghost 10:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Merneptah Stele refers to a people Israel, not a place.
  • So does your Bible quote: "Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her... The sons of Jacob came in from the field when they heard it. The men were grieved, and they were very angry, because he had done folly in Israel in lying with Jacob's daughter; a which thing ought not to be done."
  • We're not talking about "traditional" histories here, rather I asked you for something actually written in the 2nd millenium BC referring to Israel as a place. I asked because I knew such a thing does not exist. --Cypherx 17:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Why is Palestine contentious? It's used in droves by people actually studying this history, including many Israelis. Israel is used by a few, and its usage seems to be motivated by a desire to distance to the history of the land from the people currently called Palestinians. Maybe we can make the names coexist in this article, but what about Judah? There's really no justification for having that name here, it needs to be removed from the title. --Cypherx 17:24, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In traditional sources, examples of "sons of Shem" living in the land are for example the people of Jerusalem prior to the arrival of the Jebusites.
There is no traditional source that tells of who was living in Jerusalem before the Jebusites. John D. Croft 15:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you have more examples? Perhaps a quote you'd like to share? --Cypherx 17:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Examples of academic works by archaeologists calling the land "ancient Israel" are found for example in "The Archaeology of Ancient Israel", Amnon Ben-Tor ed., Yale University Press, 1994 Kuratowski's Ghost 14:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I checked out that book and found a few others that use Israel in this way. So I guess you're right to a degree. But it's certainly a minority usage compared to Palestine. If going by books try searching "Israel Archaeology" and "Palestine Archaeology". Many, many of the Israel hits refer to a current state or an ancient people. Most of the Palestine hits refer to the region through all time. --Cypherx 17:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I feel that separate but interlinked articles for each of the peoples or states who have lived or existed should be maintained. This article can certainly contain some of the other peoples' information on it, just as information about Israel / Judah can appear in the other articles (Canaan, Palestine, etc.) The concept of 'neutrality' that wikipedia is striving for, means to give everybody their say in the article(s) without censoring one side or the other, with the conflicting or conentious viewpoints summed up in separate paragraphs, and written in such a way that no pov is favored. If there is a dispute, it can be explained clearly in the article, for example: a section in the article itself could be entitled 'Israel or Palestine for the region?', with a summary of why each side disagrees. State that some historians prefer to use the term Palestine exclusively for the region and avoid the term Israel altogether - explaining what their reasoning is for refusing to use Israel - like this is because they argue that, A, B, C (maybe, because they argue that the Ancient Philistines have a better or more longstanding claim, or, maybe because they feel the modern Palestinian Arabs do; probably someone else who understands it better, can fill in the actual argument here better than I can, and then the rest of us could revise it and make sure it is presented neutrally) Codex Sinaiticus 15:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
To me it seems clear that Palestine is the preferred name and Israel should be made mention of in the intro. Still that's a minor point compared to the inappropriateness of Judah in the name. No one uses it outside of reference to a specific time. This article shouldn't either. --Cypherx 17:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think a far more neutral term (and one that is used quite widely in archaeology) is calling the region the "southern Levant". This gets round the problems with the other terms, as it is purely geographical in nature. --G Rutter 08:03, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The problem with Levant is that it is obscure and not commonly used. Once when I delivered a paper on "Early Levantine Civilization" several people asked if I had invented this term! "Southern Levant" is even more obscure than just Levant. There is nothing wrong with using "Israel", it is the name used throughout the traditional historical writings for the land when describing its ancient history. The name is not inherently offensive to any group. (Its even used in the Koran.) Is there any honest reason other than anti-semitism for not using it? The English "Palestine" on the other hand orignates as a deliberately insulting name used by the Romans in late antiquity. The word was based on one of several Greek renditions of Hebrew "Peleshet" which is correctly "Philistia" in English and denotes only a small part of the land at a particular period in history. In English "Palestine" has changed meaning over time. Yes, in the 19th century it was considered a neutral geographic term but we are not living in the 19th century. The most common usage of "Palestine" in modern English is as a designation of the proposed independent Arab state in the West Bank and Gaza strip. It is also commonly used in anti-Jewish historical revisionist propaganda. To me the suggestion of using "Palestine" cannot be taken as a serious or honest suggestion. Looking for other alternatives to "Israel" is just another attempt to wipe out Jewish (and Christian) history while whitewashing it as "neutrality". Kuratowski's Ghost 09:56, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Palestine" is most commonly used in relevant literature, even though there has not been a "Palestinian nation" until the 20th century (and even that is contentious). I think Wikipedia should stick to prevalent terminology. JFW | T@lk 12:35, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Clearly, either term raises political hackles on either side of the debate, and terms such as "southern Levant" may be workable as compromises, but have other limitations. If this were 60 years ago, I wouldn't have a problem with the term "Palestine," as it was purely a geographical term then. But now, thanks to revisionist efforts from Arab rejectionists, it's become an accepted term for a nation-state that may yet come to exist, but certainly didn't in the past. In other words, because the term has been co-opted for political purposes, it's contaminated.

Palestine, as a neutral archaeological and scientific term does not raise the hackles, nor is it contentious to the majority of Israeli archaeologists who also use the term in the scientific literature. John D. Croft 15:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I recognize, of course, that "Israel" in common usage refers to today's State of Israel, even though the term can also refer to the land of Israel, the people Israel, or even the historical kingdom of Israel. Similarly, Judah and Judea have historical meaning and are used for a particular area today; but don't encompass the whole territory in question. --Leifern 12:50, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Israel" would be the more proper name, since it is the ancient name of the region, unlike "Palestine" - which is a mispronounction of the Roman name given to the region (Syria-Palaestina) in order to supress the Jewish rebellions of 70AD. In ancient history context there is no doubt that "Judah"\"Judea" and "Israel" should be prefered over Palestine. MathKnight 12:54, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is a personal point of view not supported in the majority literature, as demanded by the standards of Wikipedia. John D. Croft 15:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the context is important. This article is almost entirely about the region during the Israelite period, so it is only natural that the title would be "History of ancient Israel" (I'm not so keen about "and Judah"). The region was called "Paletine" only for a small proportion of the time span covered in this article. Just as "History of Gaul" would be more appropriate than "History of ancient France" for that region if the article was entirely about the Roman period when "France" didn't exist in any way.--Doron 13:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I find Doron's argument to be the most compelling one here so far. Jayjg (talk) 16:09, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I support Doron's argument as well. -- Nahum 20:49, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think "Ancient Israel" is appropriate when referring to the land during a period in which the area was dominated by Jews/Israelites. For historical periods (earlier or later) in which this was not Jewish territory, I would consider "Israel" a contentious usage. It would be a particularly contentious usage when referring to the region in centuries imediately preceding the founding of the modern State of Israel. A century ago, most Jews called the region "Palestine".

If we are talking then of the history of Israel, then we should only have mention of it for the period in which there was a ancient historic state of Israel - i.e. from the 10th century until 720 BCE. Otherwise to use the term is (until modern times) anachronistic.

Maybe English speaking Jews, most called it Eretz Yisrael in Yiddish, I don't know what was used in other languages. I wouldn't object to "Palestine" being used for Mandate Palestine (because it was indeed called Palestine in English) or as an English translation of "Filastin" used by the Ottomans (because it was indeed called this in English), but it is of course wrong for the the ancient period. Kuratowski's Ghost 23:38, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
We have an encyclopedia here for the world, not just for English speaking Jews. Encyclopedia Judaica serves that need, not Wikipedia. John D. Croft 15:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

On a different note, addressing MathKnight's remark about "Palestine": it's no more a "misspelling" than the English "Rome" is a misspelling of "Roma". And, while the Romans' adoption of the name "Syria-Palæstina" may, indeed, have been in part to suppress the name "Judea", clearly the etymolgy is the same as "Philistine", and that is a much older word. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:22, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

I think that we still haven't figured out the purpose of this article. What is the time span this article should cover? Right now the main focus of this article is the Israelite nation, with a small amount of background and a paragraph about the Byzanites. Perhaps the article should be refactored as a history of the ancient Israelites? If the focus is explicitly the Israelites, then the natural name for the region is Israel. --Cypherx 01:07, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The following seem fairly well established: (1.) Palestine is most prevalently used in academic texts to refer to the region historically. (2.) Ancient Israel is also used fairly commonly for this purpose. (3.) Apparently, people may be confused by either usage, and may think that either one reflects claims of ancestral rights to the region. In other words: While either usage is clearly not POV (in my opinion), either may look like POV to readers. (4.) Most readers looking up historical information online about the region will not enter a search for Southern Levant. (5.) There are already articles entitled History of Palestine and Southern Levant, and the existence of both those and this article creates redundancy issues.
I therefore suggest the following: (1.) Efforts be made to merge all articles in question and, in the opening of the merged article, attribute all names to the region. Perhaps, the first (and apparently primary) name provided in the opening should be Southern Levant. (This would pose no practical problems, given re-directs from more commonly used names, and would diminish perceived POV). (2.) Obviously, all names should redirect to the new article.
P.S. Just to open a can of worms, see Occupations of Palestine.HKT 01:59, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I strongly support this idea. I'd like to hear other people's opinions, if we agree I'll start working on merging the following articles: History of Palestine, Occupations of Palestine (really horrid article, but might be a piece or two worth saving), and this article History of ancient Israel and Judah. I also propose that much of the content of this article be moved to History of the Israelites. --Cypherx 05:59, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Cypherx:You will do no such thing (to rename the article)! As you can see from the consensus here, most of our learned editors here agree that the article does NOT need "renaming" at this time. In any case, since there were in fact two separate entities in history, first the Kingdom of Israel which then had as "spin-off", a second entity, the Kingdom of Judah, it is more than appropriate AND accurate that a history of that period differentiates between those two names AND have both names in its title as this article has, and NOT be dumped into one "Israelite" article, as you so casually propose here. Please tread carefully, these are serious subjects.IZAK 19:26, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Off topic?

I've removed the following paragraph as it seems to be off topic.

"1365 BCE Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten) came to power. He unsuccessfully tried to promote a form of monotheism with the Sun god 'Aten' as creator. Akhenaten's successor was Tutankhamun."

Looks like its purely about Egypt not about Israel. The fact that it mentions monotheism doesn't make it a statement about Israel. There a few other paragraphs that seem to be just barely relevant to Ancient Israel and are more about Egypt and Turkey/Anatolia. Kuratowski's Ghost 16:23, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Another:

"323 BCE-31 BCE. Hellenistic Greek period. The Library at Alexandria was built. The great altar of Zeus and Athena was built at Pergamon. Rome defeated Macedonia (168 BCE) and sacked Corinth (146 BCE)." nothing directly related to Ancient Israel Kuratowski's Ghost 22:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Regional Name

I think our debate over what to name the region between southern lebanon and Eilat might reflect a greater debate in the academic community. There is no official name. In the Biblical Archaeology class I took, Palestine was used to describe the region purely geographically and names such as Canaan and Israel referred to certain periods of time. This naming system was consistent with our course book (Amihai Mazar's "Archaeology of the land of the Bible") and many articles and essays we read. I assumed Palestine is the standard. As Kuratowski's Ghost pointed out, some archaeologists/historians do use Israel. Southern Levant is really rare...I would know what it referred to, but I've never seen it used. Here are the pros and cons of each name (as I understand them)

name origin pro con
Palestine the Philistines (inhabited coast of Israel), name Palestina given by Romans in 2nd century AD was universally accepted name 50 years ago, still in majority usage perceived as "pro-Palestinian" politically
Israel the Israelite people, the kingdom of Israel very appropriate for 10th century BC - 1st century AD minority usage, perceived as politically "pro-Israel"
Southern Levant Southern East (from latin verb levo -are, literally "to bring up", where the sun rises) politically neutral obscure
Canaan Canaanite nations of 2nd millenium BC politically neutral refers to specific people and time

If we scale the article back to deal only with the Israelite period (~13th century BC - ~2nd century AD) then Israel is definitely the way to go. If we expand it to cover all of "ancient" history, then...I don't know. All the choices look bad to me. --Cypherx 01:07, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Israel disappeared 720 BCE so the Israel period would be between the Merenptah stele (c.1206 BCE) and the sack of Samaria, 720 BCE. John D. Croft 15:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd add that Canaan is also typically a smaller region e.g Gilead is part of the Land of Israel but not part of Canaan. Kuratowski's Ghost 10:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Is it already decided that articles ought to be merged to create one big ancient history article?--Doron 02:44, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think there definitely needs to be an article that hits the highlights of the region's past 200,000 years. Perhaps this could be divided along the archaeological ages (paleolithic, epipaleolithic, neolithic, calcholithic, bronze age, iron age). An alternative would be to have an "Early History" section cover the paleolithic-calcholithic, and then sort the rest of the article according to inhabitants/ruling power(Canaanite, Israelite, Roman, Byzantine, etc...). There are many articles that cover bits and pieces of the overall history (History of Palestine, Canaan, Southern Levant, History of the Levant, History of ancient Israel and Judah, Occupations of Palestine), but none of them satisfy me. Perhaps one of these articles can be used as a baseline onto which we can pile info from other articles. In my opinion this particular article (History of ancient Israel and Judah) should be renamed "History of the Israelites" and stripped down to focus on the time between the 13th century BC and 2nd century AD, when it was inhabited by Israelites. --Cypherx 05:48, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The danger of focussing on peoples (Israelites) rather than regions/kingdoms (Israel and Judah) is that there are all sorts of speculation about the origins of the Israelites, what happened to them, groups today who claim to be them, etc., whereas the history of the kingdom's is much more easily defined. I think a main article covering the history of the region, with sub-articles covering different kinds of governments (Canaan, Israel, Persian, Greek, Hasmoneans, Roman, Byzantine, Muslim, Crusader, etc.) might make sense. Jayjg (talk) 18:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That would mean stripping traditional history prior to the Exodus (Abraham etc.) which wouldn't sit well, it also means stripping info on early cultures, Canaanites and Philistines making the article purely about the Israelite people which to my mind belongs as a part of the Jewish history article (and it is there in condensed form). This should be an article about the history of the land in general in ancient times. Kuratowski's Ghost 10:29, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Abraham is effectively covered elsewhere in Wikipedia. He is not directly relevant to a history of Israel. John D. Croft 15:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

For heaven's sake, this area is universally referred to as the ANCIENT NEAR EAST. Period. The article on "History of Ancient Israel and Judah" refers specifically to the Hebrew Kingdoms (and related previous and subsequent events, to a limited degree) that existed in the Ancient Near East. It is clearly a separate sub-topic. A separate article on "Canaan" is also justified; Canaan also refers to a specific culture located in the Ancient Near East, viz., the land inhabited by the Canaanite tribes, their social and religious institutions, their gods, their agriculture, their cities, etc. etc. which, slowly, disappeared from history while the Hebrew Kingdoms were consolidating their rule over the area. The Hebrew Kingdoms, in turn, were subjugated by Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, and eventually Rome. Consequently, an article on the Ancient Near East must needs be less detailed, as it would cover the entire area and for a much longer period of time starting, clearly, in Paleolithic times, and concluding, somewhere around the arrival of Rome, say? Then an article on Judaea might take over, in addition, obviously, to a small section in Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire, which would eventually take over this entire area (possible small exceptions). The word "Palestine" is so completely linguistically out of place in this entire discussion. Notwithstanding the claims of some on this page, and their citing of admittedly respectable university or other scholarly books, context is always key. The phrase "Ancient Palestine" makes no sense. If and when a State called "Palestine" comes into existence (which seems quite likely), it would not be completely nonsensical to refer, in a history of such a State, to "Ancient Palestine," similar to a book by Assyriologist Georges Roux called "Ancient Iraq." Now, clearly, Iraq is a state that was created by the British and French, with the cooperation of some Arab Sheiks, in the twentieth century, and no such state existed in ancient times. One could conceivably argue that his book should have been called "Ancient Mesopotamia," or "Ancient Assyria," or "Ancient Babylonia." But his choice was "Ancient Iraq," which some may consider an anachronism. But "Ancient Israel" is decidedly not a reference to the modern State of Israel in the same way that "Ancient Iraq" is to the State of Iraq, because there was indeed a Kingdom called Israel in ancient times. There was no state called "Palestine" in ancient times and, even if there were, that may require an article on such a State; it would not not remove the need for an article on the Kingdom of Israel as well. Perhaps what may be annoying some critics, such as Cypherx, is that, the Ancient Kingdom "Yisrael" has, in English, the exact same spelling as the current (State of) Israel. But this happens to be a result of the decision by Zionists to name their State "Israel," after the ancient Hebrew Kingdom. That is, the Ancient "Kingdom of Israel" has a similar name to the contemporary "State of Israel." It is, consequently, not politically contentious to refer to the ancient Kingdom of Israel. THAT IS WHAT IT WAS CALLED. In the Hebrew Scriptures, the New Testament, and in contemporary writings. In this respect, it is interesting to note that, in late April and early May, 1948, when the members of the Yishuv in Mandatory Palestine were drafting the Declaration of Independence of the State of Israel, they actually had to make a decision (just as we did in the United States) as to what their new country would be called. They chose the Hebrew phrase "Medi'naat Yisrael," the "State of Israel." They could obviously have called it other things, e.g. the State of Judah, the Jewish State, the Hebrew Commonwealth, etc. etc. They decided to name it after the ancient Hebrew Kingdom that existed nearly 2,500 years previously.

Not entirely true, the overwhelming reason for the choice of the name Yisrael/Israel is the fact that the region was always called Eretz Yisrael (Land of Israel) in Hebrew regardless of whether an independent kingdom or state called "Yisrael" existed or not. Look at a Hebrew-English dictionary from way before 1948 and you find English "Palestine" translated as Hebrew Eretz Yisrael and vice versa. Kuratowski's Ghost 22:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

\But this is not a history of Ancient Eretz Ysrael? You say that Wikipedia should adopt the majority view. The majority view accepts the equivalency of the terms of ancient Palestine for the whole period, and ancient Israel for the period of existence of the Kingdom of the state of ancient Israel. John D. Croft 15:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, of course, But the name "Eretz Yisrael" itself comes, via the Talmud and rabbinical writings, from "Yisrael" of the Bible, as the name of the Kingdom of Israel. As far as the dictionary issue is concerned, it is not dispositive: I have Mandatory Palestinian coins from the 1920s and the 1930s; the country's name is minted in 3 languages: Hebrew, Arabic, and English, and the Hebrew is not "Eretz Yisrael," but "Palestina." I was quite surprised when I saw this. That is to say, the dictionary's entries are designed in this case merely to identify the referrent to the user and, for that purpose, the entries are correct. I would say the definiens which you cite were incorrect. Before 1948, "Eretz Yisrael" should have been translated as "[the] Land of Israel," possibly with a secondary definition of "Palestine." And I would suggest that the lexicographer's decision to translate "Palestine" as "Eretz Yisrael" as simply incorrect, regardless of one's stance on the Israeli/Palestine issue. I wouldn't go so far as to claim that the dictionary's editor was necessarily making a Zionist "statement," but I could see that some may do so. I will say that, when I purchased my first coins, and saw "Palestina" in Hebrew, I was very surprised. I had never, to my knowledge seen that word in any Hebrew text, although I wonder how Israeli newspapers, etc. today refer to "Palestine." I haven't read an Israeli periodical or newspaper in a while. 66.108.4.183 23:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

And this is the source of some of the confusion, silly charges of anti-Semitism, and other political charges that fill this silly page. Know your subject thoroughly before you start making suggestions and charges against other writers. That applies to both sides in this ridiculous and drawn-out piece of sophistry. Thank you. 66.108.4.183 00:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

What does Cypherx REALLY want?

As related to discussions at Talk:Occupations of Palestine#Please delete, here is what I have posted over there: "Hi, first to User:Cypherx: I am not sure how much experience you have had with reading, editing, and writing articles at Wikipedia, but judging from your reactions here, you are either VERY inexperienced or you choose to play dumb as the need arises...so for now, since I am a very old hand at both editing and writing articles at Wikipedia, I will give you the benefit of the doubt for a few more days. However, I have noticed that you DO have an immense prejudice against the Hebrew Bible judging by your comments and reactions elsewhere recently, see Talk:History of ancient Israel and Judah#Israel or Palestine for the region?, so I wonder if you could just clarify from what POV you appraoch things? Are you an athiest? Do you treat the Koran the same way that you treat the Bible? Do you happen to have an anti-Zionist agenda? Are you only pro the PLO or do you believe that the Jewish people also have rights and claims to the Land of Israel? Until such time as we can clarify these questions, it seems to me that your main objective appears to be to destroy the foundations of any articles that deal with the modern Jewish people's claim to Israel that can be construed as derived or connected to their great gift to all mankind: The Hebrew Bible which for many people is not the kind of "supect document" you pathetically try to make it out to be,

Good point, Biblical Minimalism is in reality a minority position amongst accomplished academics (four main proponents?) and has been repeatedly critique and found wanting. Yet it has a lot of fans amongst the religiously atheistic who insist on presenting it with statements like "most scholars" as if it were the majority view. Kuratowski's Ghost 21:46, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Biblical minimalism is usually a term of abuse against certain people with whom one disagrees. No one calls Noth, Alt, Grunemwald, Soggin, etc minimalists and yet their views on many issues are very similar to these writers. John D. Croft 15:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

because, now hear me loud and clear: The Hebrew Bible is a 100% reliable truthful and accurate primary source that has withstood the test time and will certainly withstand your attempts at dicrediting it! IZAK 19:30, 10 Jun 2005

While some passages in the Hebrew Bible have found a degree of archaeological support & others agree fairly well with historical documents recovered from Assyrian & other regional sources, your statement is quite astonishingly inaccurate. Not only does the Hebrew Bible contradict itself a number of times per page on page after page in some books, but also contradicts observed reality. While this is tangential, indeed arguably off-topic to the history of the Holy Land, it is relevant to your remarkable claim that in the Hebrew Bible, for instance, the earth is flat & immobile, supported on pillars, with the sun moving over it, covered by a hammered out solid dome separating the waters above it from the waters below it, with openings through which God operates floodgates to let rain fall, with storerooms off this vault of heaven for hail & snow, with openings through which move those celestial beings the sun & moon, subject to punishment by God for tardiness in their movements, with stars hanging from it & God Himself sitting in His throne & walking back & forth atop it. I'm sorry, but many are the scientists who would disagree with your assessment that this description of the cosmos is 100% accurate, whatever may be the case for the biblical record of the history of the southern Levant. Poluphlosboiu 05:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
This is definited a POV error John D. Croft 15:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

" What does Cypherx want to do with articles that relate to Biblical material? since evidently he gives them little credence (he only notices when there are Biblical excerpts critical of the hateful peoples and subjects near and dear to him it seems to me.)IZAK 19:41, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

IZAK, let's just focus on the proposal, and see how the conversation goes, OK? If we assume good faith, I'm sure things will work out fine. Jayjg (talk) 20:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jay, no problem, now that I have given a detailed response below, I am ready to roll, with good faith for now. IZAK 21:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, IZAK, you're right, I am fairly new to wikipedia, and my idealistic vision of this community is quickly fading. An encyclopedia that anyone can edit sounds great in theory but now that I see the result I'm regretting having tried to contribute. --Cypherx 20:59, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No need to get discouraged, you've stirred up some good discussion. IZAK is just a little worked up right now, but we'll all forge forward together and work something out. In the end Wikipedia will be better. Jayjg (talk) 21:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Cypher: Jay is correct, you have to expect vigorous discussions around here (sometimes, at least), usually more good than harm comes out of it, I assure you, I can also be "loving" (as in "Love thy neighbor etc..") take it easy buddy! IZAK 21:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Teaching Cypherx history: This article is NOT about "Prehistory"

Cypherx: This article is about History it is not about Prehistory. In the name of "ordering" things, you are actually proposing obfuscation and CHAOS! Here are just a few examples of where you seriously err:

  1. You say: "I think our debate over what to name the region between southern lebanon and Eilat might reflect a greater debate in the academic community." Response: What "academic community" EXACTLY are you referring to? because here at Wikipedia we also deal with Reality! For your information: Since the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, the vast bulk of that area is called the State of Israel, unless of course you side with that segment of the "academic community" that hates Israel and wishes it would just "disappear"?
  2. You say: "There is no official name". Response: What lunacy is this? By this logic there is no "official name" for the United States either, because a thousand years ago there were only animals, vegetables, and native tribes on it, or any other region for that matter, if you dig back long enough in time. This is NOT an article about Natural history, or Paleontology, and we don't care about Fossil records! We are talking history, intersecting with the politics of each age including our own, and there most certainly IS an "official" name for the majority of the region, and it is the State of Israel and for some, even more than that, it's the Land of Israel, or try Holy Land.
  3. You say "In the Biblical Archaeology class I took, Palestine was used to describe the region purely geographically and names such as Canaan and Israel referred to certain periods of time." Response: Wikipedia is NOT a "Biblical Archaeology class". Wikipedia may reflect its views if they are warranted, but Wikipedia is a team effort that takes ALL sources into account, and not all of us here share the views of your professors, because, certainly speaking for myself, I 100% trust the truth and accuracy of the Torah and Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible) particularly as seen through the prism of Rabbinic literature whose contents take into account not just mere "geography" (which would just be a gross marginalization of the Hebrew Bible's authority at best). In any case, there is a separate article for Canaan. Again, I see that you are approaching this topic as if it was a sub-division of Anthropology or Archaeology mainly, and I repeat, this is NOT an article about Archaeology or Anthropology only, if at all.
  4. You say: "This naming system was consistent with our course book (Amihai Mazar's "Archaeology of the land of the Bible") and many articles and essays we read." Response: Editors at Wikipedia do NOT have to "jump to attention and salute you" because you mention some egg-head's book (some of us have read far wider and deeper than what we learned in college by now). For example, for many editors here, the Book of Joshua and the Book of Judges are far, far better reliable WRITTEN first-hand records of what went on in ancient Canaan than what is said about it by some far-off academic who is paid $100,000 a year to sit in an "Ivory tower" and "pontificate" about an ancient past that he knows only from others like him/herself!
  5. You say: "I assumed Palestine is the standard." One slight problem, the fact remains that there REALLY was a Kingdom of Israel and a Kingdom of Judah, (oh yeah right, I forgot, academics hate religion, so they would not respect Primary source information from the Hebrew Bible. You know what? it's their loss as it shows how one-sided and dumb they then appear as a result of their blind prejudice and snobbishnes.)
  6. You say "I think there definitely needs to be an article that hits the highlights of the region's past 200,000 years." Response: Now this really blew me away! "200,000 years"!!! Wow!!! What "history" would that be? This is proof that you do not know the Definition of History BECAUSE history basically ONLY deals with WRITTEN records! What nonsense are you spouting?! This is NOT an article about "The results of Evolution in the Middle East 100,000 years since the first Neanderthal strolled into Canaan"! First of all why do you assume that every editor here agrees with your notion that the world has existed for "200,000" years? A: You should take into account that some people around here believe in the Jewish God and who believe in the literal Creation according to Genesis. B: There are basically NO real S U B S T A N S I V E WRITTEN records that exceed the Hebrew Bible's account of the ancient Biblical era under discussion here, that describe the first three millenia of the last 5765 years of History according to the Hebrew Calendar. C: Feel free to write articles about the Fauna and all the Neanderthals that come to your mind, however, once again I must point out your falacious thinking, this article is about a time in the recorded history of Civilization as we know it to be (and not of ape-men drawing "oxen" on cave walls), and we are most certainly NOT dealing with Middle Paleolithic, Lower Paleolithic, or Pleistocene ages because those are ENTIRELY different subject areas NOT related to conventional H I S T O R Y.
  7. You say "Perhaps this could be divided along the archaeological ages (paleolithic, epipaleolithic, neolithic, calcholithic, bronze age, iron age)." Response: Horrible idea! Here's why: You are misreading and distorting the nature of this article's intent. To repeat: What we are dealing with here is History and NOT Prehistory!!! Take some time and read the Prehistory article and you will learn that: "Prehistory (Greek words προ = before and ιστορία = history) is the period of human history including all previous history before humans which is prior to the advent of writing (which marks the beginning of recorded history)." Take note and let it sink in!
  8. You say: "An alternative would be to have an "Early History" section cover the paleolithic-calcholithic, and then sort the rest of the article according to inhabitants/ruling power(Canaanite, Israelite, Roman, Byzantine, etc...)." Response: TODAY, most of humanity knows that the Holy Land means the territory we are talking about here. How many people, besides the few academic egg-heads who live in their own deluded make-believe worlds, would associate the Holy Land with Romans or Byzantines? Rome had Rome, and the Byzantines had Byzantium (and the Arabs have Arabia by the way), and to the subject of the History of ancient Israel and Judah belongs the people of BOTH the Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah as well as to their latter-day descendants the Jewish people. Why confuse this point unless you have an agenda of denying the Jewish people their connection with their own land in Israel?
  9. You say: "In my opinion this particular article (History of ancient Israel and Judah) should be renamed "History of the Israelites" and stripped down to focus on the time between the 13th century BC and 2nd century AD, when it was inhabited by Israelites." Response: Sadly, I think the key word here from you is "stripped down" as I see that all you seem to want to do is "strip down" the Jews' claim to their own land of Israel, because you see, perhaps it has not entered your consciousness yet, the modern Jewish people in Israel, known as Israelis, also happen to be the rightful heirs of the ancient Israelites' Land of Israel who are their ancestors that had lived in it for thousands of years (from Abraham until the destruction of the Second Temple), or is that another point you see from a PLO POV perhaps? It is time to stop "stripping down" the Hebrew Bible and Israel, both ancient and modern, and instead recognize the fact that it is a fact of life and part of a firm reality that Israel is the true home of the Jews and it is here to stay because it has never "left" the domain of the Jews and Judaism at all. IZAK 21:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To summarize IZAK's point:

  • Any evidence that contradicts the Bible's account of history is an anti-zionist plot to challenge the ancestral claims of the Jewish people.
  • Anyone promoting views that do not treat the Bible as 100% accurate are antisemitic, anit-zionist, atheists (ma? hashavta sheh ani loh yehudi?)
  • Rashi is the first and only Biblical archaeolgist. All other scholars in that field are anti-religious fanatics, dedicated to destroying the Jewish world from their Ivory Tower.

That seems to be cover most of what you said...did I miss any important points? Seriously, the perverse illogic of your arguments and absolute certainty of enemy conspiracies (especially distrust of those crazy liberal professors) would fit right in on stormfront.org --Cypherx 22:14, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) (Yeah, I guess I quit. Good luck reasoning with this nutcase, Jayjg)

  • Well, well, well, what do have we here...? So nice of of you to "summarize" my words, only problem is you distort my words, let me reply though with some questions:
  1. What "evidence" is there that "contradicts" the Bible's account of history?
  2. If you don't like the Biblical basis for the Jews' claim to the Land of Israel, so I assume then that you prefer both of the fully secular Balfour Declaration, 1917 and the 1947 UN Partition Plan? Or maybe you like the PLO view better?
  3. Please explain what the real "arguments" of anti-Zionists are since you seem to indicate that you know what they really are or may be?
  4. Where has the Hebrew Bible "proven" to be "not" 100% accurate? More significantly, why are you so prejudiced against the Hebrew Bible? Don't like the message so you "kill" the messenger?
  5. Since when does being an "athiest" mean being a lo yehudi ("non-Jew")? Does Israel have a shortage of atheists, never heard of Tommy Lapid?
  6. Are people who want to cut the historical connection between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel not being anti-Semitic? Explain to me what I don't get, ok?
  7. Why would Rashi have wanted to be be so stupid as to go dig in the archaeological mud to "prove" his Jewish identity and the connection that the Jews have with the Land of Israel? he is smarter than that because he uses Logic, see Genesis 1:1#Rashi's view. Have you ever heard of Logic?
  8. What is an "anti-religious fanatic"? Is it something new we should have an article about maybe?
  9. You mean "liberal professors" are secretly no different to Haredi Rosh yeshivas and Hasidic Rebbes? This is an important discovery, don't you think?
  10. Since you (not me) mention "conspiracies" why not take a crack at editing 9/11 conspiracy claims regarding Jews or Israel instead of making unhelpful comments here?
  11. Since when is supporting the Torah equal to being like the Nazi "stormfront.com"? is that not a sign of how far you are from Judaism, and maybe you should think of becoming a Baal teshuva to sort out your thinking, don't you think? IZAK 23:00, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am a stranger to this community, but not to the Jewish history.

Quality of arguments used by IZAK would bring this community to complete obsoletion. Somebody has to explain him that not every yeshiva boher is a full source of our Jewish history.

  • Excuse me whoever you are, firstly, why don't you sign your comments with the ~~~~ "tildes"? Secondly, your comment seems anti-Semitic to me because you seem to think some types of Jews you don't like are "dummies" not worth listening to. Thirdly, if you know anything about my interests and the articles I am interested in and edit, you would know that my sources and methods were not just "picked up" in a yeshiva. Fourthly, if you have ever studied secular world History seriously (and I don't just mean Jewish history), and perhaps even majored in the subject, you would know that the objections I have outlined above are serious problems in historiography and have nothing to do with the "yeshiva boher" types you disparage so casually. Finally, you can rest assured, there are very few people on Wikipedia who are genuine "yehiva bohers" because the real "yeshiva bohers" would not waste their time with the trivial minds that try to edit Wikipedia articles relating to Jews and Judaism when they know so little about the subject in-depth in the first place most of the time judging from what I have seen...So then, if you have something you disagree with, cite the point and give a counter argument rather than stand on the sidelines and carp like a lame creature. IZAK 22:11, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Israel-Palestine, anyone?

I just wandered into this big discussion and was wondering if Ancient history of Israel-Palestine might be an acceptable compromise as it acknowledges the different sides (ethnic, geographical and political). Hopefully, if something is settled, development and debate can be advanced more on the actual content of the article.--Pharos 08:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To me that would be similar to History of Bosnia-West Serbia. Kuratowski's Ghost 22:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. Why are we suddenly injecting modern politics into an already accepted historical term? The name is fine as it is.

Guy Montag 23:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Of course "Ancient Israel" and "Judah" are historically accepted terms with a clear meaning, but this article runs through the Byzantine era. If we're going to have a broader historical article on the region during a broader period, then we should probably have a broader name.--Pharos 23:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well the names used were Syria-Palaestina (a deliberately derogatory name which I and many others still find offensive nearly 2000 years later) or Judea for the province. But the name "Israel" by virtue of the fact that it is used in the Bible was still used as name for the region in general. "Israel" is the most applicable name.
The "Judah" part is unnecessary, when using "Israel" as a region name it includes the region called "Judah", if we were talking about just the "Kingdom of Israel" and Kingdom of Judah" then both would be needed. Kuratowski's Ghost 23:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article is not related to anything "Palestine" at all! From what I recall, the primary purpose of this article was and is related to the Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah in a combined fashion insofar as their origins, their inter-action with each other, their role and positions as kingdoms of their times and their ultimate fate/s combined within one article which is necessary because the individual articles alone about the Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah focus mostly on the internal history of each kingdom and not as seen as a totality of two kingdoms consisting of Israelites and Jews as one entity. IZAK 06:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with IZAK, there should be an article about the Israelite presence in the region, including some pre-Israelite and post-Israelite information. If this is accepted, "and Judah" ought to be omitted from the title, as it is included in "Israel". The section about the Byzantine period may be irrelevant, as Jewish presence in Palestine had dwindled considerably by then.--Doron 06:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Jewish presence had certainly not dwindled in the Byzantine period (well all human presence dwindled in the period from bubonic plague), it is a very important period in Jewish history - the period of the Jewish Patriarchate and the compilation of the Mishna and Talmud Yerushalmi. I wouldn't include it as "Ancient History" though, to me the Byzantine period is already the early Middle Ages or if you prefer "Late Antiquity" Kuratowski's Ghost 11:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think you are rather mistaken here. Especially with the failure of Bar Kochba's revolt against the Romans, tens of thousands of Jews were killed or driven out of the province (often as slaves). Though the later period was very important culturally with the compiling of the Mishna etc., by this time the Jews had become a distinct minority in the area.--Pharos 21:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is a well known misconception, if you look at the figures you find that the population dropped maybe by as much as a million (worst case estimate) in the region that rebelled (roughly the modern southern West Bank) but there were 2 million to start with leaving still a million. Moreover the surrounding regions that did not rebel would have had several million. People have the habit of assuming that the relatively low Jewish population in the 19th century is somehow the direct consequence of the aftermath of Bar Kochba which is irrational and ignores the complicated events that occurred over literally thousands of years. It seems to be an artifact of the way Jewish history is usually presented, skipping to the Diaspora immediately after Bar Kochba and then only looking at the Land of Israel again with the Zionist movements. Kuratowski's Ghost 22:09, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Not saying that you're necessarily wrong, but I've commonly read otherwise. For example:
"The war of Bar Kokhba lasted three years (132 - 135 ce) and seriously strained the military resources of the Roman Empire. When it ended after the capture of Behar and the destruction of the last rebels in the Judean desert caves, the Jewish population of Judea was either dead, enslaved or in flight. Jerusalem and its environs were settled with non Jews and only Galilee remained as a bastion of Judaism" [1].
Could just the Galilee support a million people? Do you have a source I can read? --Cypherx 06:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Going on memory, what I was always taught is that bubonic plague in subsequent centuries had a far worse impact on the population of the Middle East in general and that it is only recovering to the levels it was in Late Antiquity in modern times. Can't find anything good online discussing the demographics, but browsing around I find references to Dio Cassius (b. 155 CE) listing 3 million Jews in Palestine. The main point I'm trying to get accross is that saying the Jews were a minority or few is highly misleading as these terms are relative to what the population could have been if the Zealot and Bar Kochba revolts had never occurred, and there were actually more Jews present at the time than say Israel in the 1950s where Jews are not typically described as being "few" or "a minority". Kuratowski's Ghost 13:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think the leading modern authority on historical demographics of the region is the Israeli Roberto Bachi, author of Population Trends of World Jewry and The Population of Israel. Don't have either (yet) but have seen him quoted often. Some factoids gleaned from something I happen to have at hand at the moment, a book "America and the Foundation of Israel", figures mainly derived from Bachi: in 65 there were ca. 4.5 million Jews worldwide, 2 million in Palestine. The main cause of population loss was mainly voluntary economic emigration after the revolts, many out of an increasingly unstable empire to Mesopotamia. There were enough Jews in 352 to revolt, but Julian's successors' restrictions after 363 encouraged more emigration. Conversions and persecutions also reduced the Jewish population, so sometime probably in the 3rd or 4th century Jews were no longer the majority. Around 420 the Jewish population was maybe 15% of an obscure total. There was a bit of a resurgence in Byzantine times, so the total population of Palestine in the 5th century was as large as it ever became before the 20th century, but by the 6th century, the Jewish population was about 250,000, Christians were the majority and Arabs moved in. By 638, after wars and massacres the area was about 1/10th Jewish and the Jewish population never rose above 10,000 again until the 19th century. Knowledge seems to be uncertian, the figures with some ups and downs, with the main trend down of course.--John Z 16:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is getting way off topic but the point is that the Jewish population was still significant at the start of the Byzantine period and did not simply become a minority immediately after Bar Kochba as many assume. I would say the article sensibly should include up to the end of the Patriarchate under the Byzantines (5th century if I remember?) but should definitely not go as far as 1453 as it currently does! Kuratowski's Ghost 17:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
429. Sounds sensible to me. Also only a little before the end of the western empire, the usual date for the end of the "ancient" in general. 1453 is a mite peculiar, unless you are a time traveller from the far future just visiting 2005.--John Z 19:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Kuratowski's Ghost, the period of the Mishnah and Talmud is indeed very important in Jewish history, only that the Mishnah was redecated in AD 200 and the Talmud Yerushalmi in AD 350, while the Byzantine period, at least according to this article, only started near AD 400. The fact that the "Byzantine Era" section says almost nothing about Palestine speaks for itself. What would you write about this period?--Doron 09:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Doron, I do not follow your reasoning, I am NOT proposing the "removal" of the name "Judah" from this article. On the contrary, I am pointing out that both the Kingdom of Judah as well as the later Judea (i.e. the Kingdom of Judea) EXISTED and they have a shared history with the earlier Kingdom of Israel from which they had originated and which they later OUTLIVED by hundreds of years (so I don't get how you propose "omitting Judah"?) This article should still be a combined history of Israel and Judah, as the title states. IZAK 07:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I was under the impression that you suggested an article about Israelite ancient history in the Land of Israel, sorry if I misunderstood you. If you are suggesting an article about the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, then there's not much to write about after the Great Jewish Revolt.--Doron 09:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm having trouble keeping track of the various proposals; does anyone know what they are? Jayjg (talk) 20:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The difference in scope between this article and History of Palestine should be clear. Geographically, Israel and Judah are not the whole of Palestine; Palestine further includes at least Philistia, and some would add Moab and Ammon. In a historical context, Palestine is the name of a region (like Maghreb or Sahara), whereas Israel and Judah refers specifically to a pair of kingdoms that emerged around 1000 BC and were finally destroyed in 70 AD. Material outside these dates and these periods - notably including the Mousterian business at the top - belongs in History of Palestine, as it gets cleaned up. History of Palestine should also summarize the history of Israel and Judah, but in less detail and in the wider context of the interactions of the various kingdoms in ancient Palestine, with equal weight placed on Israel, Judah, Philistia, Jebusites, etc. (That said, Judges-era stuff, exile stuff, and maybe early Byzantine Judaism, are of interest to this article, and perhaps argue for renaming it History of the ancient Hebrews. - Mustafaa 29 June 2005 19:38 (UTC)

To me "Israel" in the sense of "Land of Israel" is the name of the region and "Palestine" was the name of various different regions within Israel at different times, currently a name for the West Bank and Gaza. Kuratowski's Ghost 29 June 2005 20:55 (UTC)
That may be standard usage in Hebrew, but English-language historians almost unanimously use Palestine as the name of the region of which both Israel and Judah are subsets, and have for a long time. - Mustafaa 29 June 2005 21:02 (UTC)
They did from the 19th century to the mid 20th century, but there has been a definite shift in meaning and usage of "Palestine" in English in the last 20 years. We wouldn't be having this debate if things were so simple. Kuratowski's Ghost 29 June 2005 21:13 (UTC)
If you're referring to the usage of "Palestine" to refer to the Palestinian nation, then yes, that additional sense of the word has become widespread. However, the other sense - Palestine as a geographical region - remains unchanged; and the use of "Israel" to refer to a geographical region is practically unheard of. Even in Jewish contexts, "Eretz Yisrael" is normally translated as "Palestine" for academic usage, as in "Palestinian vocalization" or "Jewish Palestinian Aramaic". - Mustafaa 29 June 2005 21:18 (UTC)
This depends on which books you read and which people you speak to. To me the usage of "Palestine" as a region name comes across as antiquated belonging to the same era as the word "gramophone". I live in an English speaking country and I don't know of anyone who uses "Palestine" in any context other than current politics. Most English speakers are Christian and use "Israel" as the name of the region as it is the name used throughout the Bible. Kuratowski's Ghost 29 June 2005 21:42 (UTC)

Most English speakers, in my experience, talk about neither Israel nor Palestine except in the context of modern politics, and the Bible uses "Canaan" as the name of the region.

It uses Canaan for part of the region at only one period. Kuratowski's Ghost 29 June 2005 23:04 (UTC)

What counts is academic usage, which I think is nicely illustrated by academic publishers. Searching Brill, for instance, returns books such as "The Saints' Saints" (saying that Jerome’s saints’ Lives "revises our picture of the historical geography of Palestine"), "The Old Testament in its World" (discussing, among other things "The Presence of Greeks in Palestine in Old Testament Times"), "The Purpose of the Gospel of Mark in its Historical and Social Context" (talking of "The Position of the Jewish Leading Class in Palestine during the Second Half of the First Century AD"), "Cyril of Jerusalem: Bishop and City" (referring to "Jerusalem’s and Palestine’s religious landscape" in 350 AD, and "Eusebius' Onomasticon" (an important source on "fourth century Palestine"). OUP is even clearer, returning such results as "Amorites and Canaanites" ("From the Biblical record it is clear that the principal occupants of Palestine at the time of the advent of the Israelites were the Amorites and the Canaanites") and "Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine". The regional usage of Palestine is quite current; the regional use of "Land of Israel", nearly nonexistent. - Mustafaa 29 June 2005 21:58 (UTC)

"scholarly"

I'm fine with this article giving a synopsis of the bible. However, you cannot give the "patriarchal period" as historical fact, and refer to Abraham as a historical person etc. and at the same time say in the intro

This article attempts to give a conservative scholarly view which would currently be supported by most historians.

Either write an account summarizing the bible, and say so, or write a "conservative sholarly" article admitting that there are no sources about Israel prior to ca. 900 BC. By any scholarly standard, the 2nd millennium is prehistory, as far as Israel is concerned. dab (ᛏ) 4 July 2005 07:18 (UTC)

Well its one opinion that there are no sources prior to 900 BCE, another opinion is that the Pentateuch goes back to Moses and was partially compiled using writings by Abraham etc. If we go lowest common denominator when it comes to history then virtually nothing can be said about anything. One wouldn't even be able to write contemporary history as not everyone trusts the media! This article gives a conservative view in the sense of following traditional history as opposed to embracing modernist and post-modernist rejection of tradition, i.e it gives a so-called "maximalist" view. It is no less scholarly than using Geoffrey of Monmouth for British history, Tacitus for Roman history or Saxo Grammaticus for Danish history. Kuratowski's Ghost 4 July 2005 11:06 (UTC)
Exactly the problem! If I found an encyclopedic article claiming that Britain was founded by Brutus, I'd be amused if not outraged. No one would seriously consider using Geoffrey of Monmouth for British history where his account is not made credible by the external evidence. - Mustafaa 4 July 2005 17:06 (UTC)
LOL Ok Geoffrey is a bad choice, I reckon the Bible is far more reliable than him. Although even with him there are things he said which at first seemed to be complete nonsense like king Arthur but later it was realized that some of it matches Artorius Castus. Lets say instead Herodotus or Manetho. The important thing is to always qualify where the "history" comes from. Trying to determine absolute truth in history seems futile without a time machine, and even if we had one I wouldn't trust journalists sent back into time to give unbiased reports ;-) Kuratowski's Ghost 4 July 2005 20:53 (UTC)
  • Clarification needed: Mustafaa what's wrong with the Hebrew Bible as a Primary source? Is it not a POV to place the Hebrew Bible in the "suspect column" and at the same time be so blindly accepting of non-Judaic sources? IZAK 5 July 2005 07:54 (UTC)
Since you ask: a good historian places every account in the "suspect column", not just the Bible, and looks for validation from multiple independent sources, or from archeology and linguistics. Even contemporary accounts are often falsified (Ramses' account of his own conquests, for instance, is largely self-aggrandizing propaganda.) Accounts whose earliest surviving copies were made much later are normally given even less confidence. - Mustafaa 7 July 2005 19:01 (UTC)

For a calm, thorough, readable and authoritative book touching on many if not most of the points in this discussion, please have a look at "The Bible Unearthed; Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the origins of its ancient texts." Authors: Finkelstein and Silberman. (Free Press, 2001) Authors' summary at: http://www.bibleinterp.com/commentary/Finkelstein_Silberman022001.htm.Wooolfy 00:20, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

For a balanced view also look at The Old Testament in Light of the Archaeological Evidence: A New Assessment for the Twenty-First Century by Kenneth Kitchen. Kuratowski's Ghost 00:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Another scholarly book that evaluates the bible as a historical source is The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of Israel by Thomas L. Thompson The following summary of Thompson's book from the Kirkus review may be interesting to anyone following this discussion:

Arguing that the Bible should be read as literature rather than history in the modern sense, biblical archaeologist Thompson (Biblical Studies/Univ. of Copenhagen) sweepingly reassesses the historical evidence for the existence of ancient Israel. Bitter scholarly controversies, fueled by religious belief, have raged for decades about the historical authenticity of such Bible stories as the Garden of Eden, the Flood, and the flight from Egypt. These debates are misconceived, argues Thompson: much of the Bible was never intended to be read literally, or even to be understood as history as modern readers conceive it. Instead, much of the Bible consists of tall stories and other types of literature that, in ancient Jewish society as in other ancient cultures, provided people with an understanding of a common past. Relying on archaeological rather than biblical evidence, the author sketches the ancient economy and society of the people of Palestine. Rather than the unified "kingdom of Israel" depicted in the Bible, he paints a picture of a turbulent tribal Palestine, buffeted by drought, waves of immigrants from the Aegean, and expansionist neighbors. Contrasting this evidence with biblical narratives, shot through as they are with elements of the miraculous and the fantastic, Thompson questions the historicity of such scriptural accounts as the stories of the kingships of Saul, David, and Solomon and the Babylonian exile. Thompson finds magnificent poetry in the Bible, brilliant epic narratives and folktales, and great philosophical and moral writing that raises important questions about the meaning of life and the name of God: "it is only as history that the Bible does not make sense." In rather heavyhanded fashion, Thompson makes a good general point: that many biblical narratives should not be read literally as history; but in his total reliance on archaeology, he may overstate his case somewhat for the ahistoricity of the Bible. -- Copyright ©1999, Kirkus Associates, LP.

--Sjsilverman 02:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a tired rehashing of the sort of codswallop that was popular a century ago amongst the pseudo-intellectuals who infest humanities departments at universities :P Kuratowski's Ghost 01:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I think Thompson may be on to something, in a way. While a historian puts all sources into question, biblical or not, he does so as he employs a methodology that is somewhat post-Cartesian, (method of doubt) and post-Occham (the razor). Those discourses which operate by this method may produce different order truth claims (verificatory) than documents (such as ancient biblical ones) which do not operate according to these criteria. But it does not simply follow that these sources should be considered allegorical or metaphorical rather than literal. These scientific methodologies can ultimately be traced back to Aristotle, and it is in fact in Aristotle (Poetics) that we get the first extended account of metaphor, defined as displacements FROM the literal, the factual in this sense. (The influence of Aristotle upon modern sciences, historiographical methods, but also upon later Judaic and upon Christian theology, as well as Islam, is well documented.) In other words, to consider the bible as allegorical is already to grant it a lesser truth than that of metaphysical truth, (which defined metaphor as an abberation from itself,) and scientific truths which inherit their standards from such. But this is unwarranted. If metaphor is a derivation of literal truth, it would require such truth in the first place, but on the very terms of arguments for an allegorical bible, no such literality can be seperated from "metaphoricity." In other words one would be better placed to understand biblical truth as pre-literal, AND pre-metaphorical, perhaps as REVELATORY. However, the consequences of this is that biblical maximalists weaken their point by stressing the bible's literality, as they are already removing themselves from the revelatory, which is of an entirely different truth-order. These orders would in fact be incompatible in the context of the discussion at hand, (one could only talk of one from the predetermined vantage point of the other, and hence predetermine the answer). MAximalists use a model of truth which is in fact much the same as that of the scientists, as it shares much of the same metaphysical inheritance. The advantage of the revelatory reading should be obvious. It does require abandoning claims to literality, as entirely irrelevant, in favour of a greater or, at the very least, an entirely Other, relevance, (or revelance, no longer allegorical, beyond both allegory and literality). Such a view of course has little place on Wikipedia. But the ideals of Wikipedia, (commendable though they be,) are themselves contingent inheritors of an Aristotelianism, by way of Diderot, Rousseau and the gang. Hence I think this is at least worth noting in discussion. Within the NPOV arena of "Wikaphysics" however, (however contingent that arena may be) I probably would side with the minimalists. Nevertheless I commend the main authors of this page for clearly marking the stance of the article, and including links to such articles as The bible and history, at the start of the article. I think that this is sufficient to render this a balanced article. Simon

History of ancient Israel Series or Kingdom of Israel series?

I'm interested in creating History of Ancient Israel and Judah series, or Kingdom of Israel series. I imagine there will be red links if therei s a history of ancient Israel simply because Wikipedia is missing a lot material on the subject. On the other hand, Kindgom of Israel would be farely easy to fill in. Either way I am intending on creating Saul's Kindom, David's Empire, and Solomon's Empire in my free time. Thanks for any future coments or suggestions. Newbie222 02:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Definition of minimalists and maximalists.

Rejection of the Patriarchal narratives does not constitute minimalism. The term minimalism refers to a small number of interpreters, such as Davies, Lemche, and Thomson, who date all the biblical material to the Persian period and later, and deny most of the history of the Hebrew kingdoms that is given in the books of Kings. These scholars are decidedly on the fringe of biblical scholarship.

However the biblical "prehistory"- the period of the Patriarchs, Exodus, and Conquest- is generally seen as legendary/mythical by most archaeologists these days. The term "maximalists" is misleading really- Israeli archaeologist Amihai Mazar for example, is often used as the portrait of a sample maximalist, as he believes that there is some historical background in both the Patriarch and Exodus traditions- he is not a fundamentalist however, and makes clear (see Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 1990, part of the Anchor Bible Reference Library), that certain biblical traditions of the Patriarchs, such as Abraham's interactions with Aramaeans and Philistines, must be Iron Age anachronisms. Likewise, he has no problem accepting the indigenous origins of the majority of the early Israelites, even though he still believes the Exodus tradition must at least have originated with a small population movement from Egypt to Canaan who settled among, and passed their story along to, the Proto-Israelites. He also rejects the Conquest tradition of Joshua, which is standard practice among biblical archaeologists. Both Dever and Finkelstein, who reject the Patriarch and Exodus traditions, are not maximalists, but they certainly aren't minimalists either; Dever has spent a lot of efforts arguing with minimalists (whom he dubs "postmodern revisionists," see What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?, 2001), whereas Finkelstein politely evaluates their arguments but ultimately rejects them (The Bible Unearthed, 2001). The history of the kingdoms given in the Book of Kings is generally treated with credibility, all the way back to Saul and David in the eyes of most biblical archaeologists; and even Finkelstein, who sees the United Monarchy as legendary, treats the history from Omri onward with credibility. The Book of Judges is believed to contain many kernels of actual history as well, albeit in a legendary form.

That's the problem with using the minimalist-maximalist classification. The opposite of minimalism is fundamentalism, not maximalism. Fundamentalism and minimalism represent the extremes of conservative and skeptical respectively, with regard to biblical history. Maximalists like Mazar are conservative within the mainstream. Dever would be middle of the road, and Finkelstein is skeptical within the mainstream. "Minimalism" is a term reserved for fringe scholars like Thomson and Davies, not merely for rejection of the Patriarchal narratives.--Rob117 03:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Hmmm... Well, I've never seen anyone come and lay down the "Universally accepted definitions" of minimalists and maximalists that everyone else "must agree to", but as a subscriber to BAR, I understand them to mean generally, that a "minimalist" is someone trying to dismiss or brush aside any evidence or historical accounts that indicate the bible narrative is true in any respect -- sometimes going to ridiculous lengths to that end, like what they did with the Hittites ca. 100 years ago... whereas a "maximalist" would be someone who wants to make any and all evidence fit into the biblical account. I don't see them as terms that adherents of these "schools" necessarily apply to themselves, so much as labels that they use to tag each other with... so a minimalist might not want to consider himself a minimalist, but might see everyone to his "right" (for want of a better directional term) as a "maximalist"... and a maximalist might shudder at being called such, while calling everyone to his "left" a "minimalist"... I don't see it as a finely drawn, universally agreed-upon line between two camps or anything, but in general both camps are predisposed in their view of any evidence that comes to light, making it kind of a sensitive POV / NPOV topic... Oh, yeah, and anyone who talks of a "mainstream" should not be trusted, because invariably what they consider the "mainstream" happens to coincide with whatever they are bullying for... Codex Sinaiticus 03:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd better clarify that last bit some more... I mean, how does one define "mainstream" on something like this?? There's no doubt that some people ARE on the "fringes", on both ends... but is everyone else, by default, "part of the mainstream"? Which way is this "stream" flowing? I say there is no real consensus between the various schools, much as each school might like to claim to be the "academic standard" (somewhat presumptuously), and if there's no real consensus among the opposing schools, there is no "mainstream" either... Codex Sinaiticus 04:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

There most certainly is a mainstream. Not a single "school," but definitely a spectrum of positions held by the academic majority. Mazar, Dever, and Finkelstein, for example, are all mainstream in that, were you to pick out an article at random in BAR, the author of the article would have 99% chance of calling them mainstream, even though he doesn't necessarily agree with all their views, and they certainly don't agree with all of each other's views. The point is that the definition of minimalists that you just gave is correct, yet at the same time you are not putting it into practice in the article, as you assert that rejection of the Patriarchs is a minimalist view, which it is not. Dating the entire Pentateuch to the post-exilic period is a minimalist view; proposing that David and Solomon never existed is a minimalist view; proposing even that Omri, who is attested by near-contemporary Assyrian and Moabite inscriptions, never existed (as Thomson has) is definitely a minimalist view. The basic point is that there is a general consensus on the history of the Hebrew kingdoms that is broadly in tandem with the biblical account. Minimalists are those who would throw out this consensus. There is not a consensus on the "prehistoric" narrative, as when we get into the Abraham and Moses stories we're dealing with oral traditions passed from generation to generation, as opposed to the Book of Kings which most likely drew on Temple records.

And your definition of "maximalist" equates with my definition of "fundamentalist." Mazar is not a maximalist by your definition, as he's not a fundamentalist, whereas he is by mine, as he has a relatively high view of the prehistorical traditions. Which is why I really think "maximalist" is a misleading label.--Rob117 05:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

And I am not "bullying" any particular position. The views I just identified as mainstream fall on a very wide spectrum, and do not agree with each other on many technical points (i.e. stratigraphy, value assigned to oral tradition, value assigned to written tradition). Minimalist is a term that has fringe connotations, and to suggest that someone like Dever or Finkelstein is on the fringe of biblical scholarship, which is what your edit effectively did, is simply incorrect.--Rob117 05:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I would submit that someone is even less likely to refer to oneself as a "fundamentalist" than a "maximalist", making it even more of an exonym or an outside label... So bear in mind when you come up with all these "definitions", they are really the definitions that you use -- not definitions you can magically get everybody to use, just by summarily declaring them "mainstream" definitions... Codex Sinaiticus 22:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Strongly disagree, tens of millions of Americans proudly call themselves "fundamentalists". (Check out Fundamentalist Christianity if you are not sure exactly what they mean by this.) I've never heard anyone say "I'm Biblical maximalist". -- Jmabel | Talk 19:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Understood. But then shouldn't the terms be avoided, as "minimalist," at least, has fringe connotations which are inappropriate to describe researchers such as Dever, who reject the Patriarchs and Exodus but still have a high view of the biblical account of the Hebrew knigdoms.--Rob117 03:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Tanakh

Unless I am very mistaken, this series of edits is simply wrong. Certainly the Old Testament includes the the five books of Moses, and I'm unaware of any books of the prophets in the Tanakh that are not also in the Protestant Old Testament. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

No you are correct. The Tanakh and the *Protestant* Old Testament are identical. The Catholics add a few minor additions such as Ecclesiaticus and Maccabees. I have edited the page accordingly. Wjhonson 06:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Anon addition

An anon make some changes recently. See [2]. This editor has a history of making ridiculous edits to Quidditch. Can someone check these edits? -- Ec5618 18:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I just want to give my thanks to everyone who has taken the time to work on this mammoth of a page. I found a link to here from the Judah page and it's really great. Has it gained featured page status? It should have its amazing, my admiration and respect for a job well done. -- Shimirel (Talk) 02:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Map of 1st Century Palestine

I have created a map for the Jesus article and thought it may go well here under the "Roman conquests" section. I was wondering if any of the editors here would give me input and feedback about this map so I can make a final version. So far people have requested the inclusion of Idumea, somehow designate the jurisdictions of the tetrachs, and possibly change the name from Palestine to Holy Land or something else (suggestions welcomed).--Andrew c 02:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Walls of Jericho?

It states in the wandering section that Jericho did not have walls when the city was invade. I recently watched a BBC special on Biblical history that indicated walls were found that are attributed to Jericho at the time it was invaded by the Israelites. Apparently there is some dispute over this. Golden_Eternity


From: Jericho#Bronze_age:

The Biblical account of its destruction is found in the Book of Joshua. The Bible describes the destruction as having proceeded from the actions of Joshua, Moses' successor. Biblical researchers who use Scriptural genealogies to date the exodus to the 16th or 15th century BC see this as significant support for the veracity of the record, and a landmark in the Biblical archaeology corpus. Other scholars see a contradiction between history and the biblical text in this area, as the earliest known Israelite settlements do not appear until ca.1230 BC, long after Jericho's walls had already been destroyed. Indeed some archeologists such as Bill Dever are scathing about the historicity of Joshua's capture: "...if you want a miracle, here's your miracle: Joshua destroyed a city that wasn't even there". [1]

Jericho is indeed a very old city. The walls were built in 7000 bce, they fell in 2350 bce, the original city was abandoned in 1300 bce.

Tanakh does not claim the original inhabitants were Shemites

This tradition appears in later literature, like Jubilees and the rabbinic commentaries.--Rob117 00:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

True, although its hinted at in the Torah. Kuratowski's Ghost 08:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

isnt canaan Ham's Son?Deananoby2 20:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Other articles and duplication of information - Opinions?

Several topics on this page have entire pages devoted to them, namely:

United Monarchy, Kingdom of Israel, Kingdom of Judah, Babylonian Captivity

among others. It would make more sense to reduce the space devoted to these topics to a minimal outline and direct the interested reader to the full article elsewhere, and avoid duplication of information, as well as unaddressed contradictory information. Any comments? Spooky turnip 02:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I also noted that when editing this page there is a warning that it might be getting a bit too long. Perhaps another reason to reduce these topics to thumbnail overviews and directing the user to the other articles.Spooky turnip 03:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Chart at bottom of page?

The family tree at the bottom of the page is missing one of Ham's sons;Canaan.....Deananoby2 21:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Historicity

I see that there is a request for citation on the paragraph that begins "Some modern historians dispute the historical accuracy of the patriarchal narratives in the Bible..." I don't have a specific citation, but this is basically what our article The Bible and history is about. I would suggest looking there for an apropos citation; meanwhile, perhaps we should add "(See The Bible and history.)" at the end of that paragraph. - Jmabel | Talk 18:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Great idea. I thought that comment was fairly obvious and didn't need citation, but eery little bit helps WP:V .--Andrew c

money paid for the land of Israel

I heard the Jewish people paid for the land, but now I cannot find anything about it. Does anyone know anything about this?198.150.224.3 23:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

At what time and place? Like most peoples, Jews have at times in their history bought land, and at other times conquered it by military force. - Jmabel | Talk 22:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
If you are referring to ancient times, there is indeed a passage in Genesis that relates (a legend) how Abraham paid one of the Canaanite chiefs (I forget his name) a certain amount of money for the land in which to bury his ancestors; I believe it was Machpelah. I think that there are other similar passages describing other land purchases by the Patriarchs. But the Hebrew Scriptures also relate how, years later, after the Hebrew Exodus from slavery in Egypt, that God commanded the Israelites to conquer the land of Canaan, and kill all the inhabitants, men, women, and children. The Books of Joshua, Judges, and Kings make it clear that this was not completed; the Israelites were never completely able to kill all the Canaanite residents, and were compelled to live with them, side by side in the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah. If you are asking about modern times, much of the land acquired by the Yishuv (Jewish Community) in Ottoman Palestine was indeed purchased, mostly from absent Arab landowners. The actual sharecroppers were frequently Arab Palestinian peasant fellahin, who suddenly found themselves displaced from their land and livelihood. Some of the original opposition to the Zionist movement stemmed from these land dispossessions, in my opinion. But much of the future State of Israel indeed began from legal purchases of land. 66.108.4.183 22:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth
The name is Ephron, a Hittite (Heth) chieftan. See Gen. 23. --Shigaon
I agree with everything just said there; I'd supplement that, though, with the statement that, conversely, much of Israel was taken by conquest in various wars, with landholders who fled not receiving compensation. - Jmabel | Talk 05:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
It is generally taken that the story of the purchase of the Grove of Mamre at Hebron from Ephron the Hittite is evidence of the late composure of the story. Money was invented by Croesus of Lydia, and the first coinage spread into Canaan in Persian times. There were no Hittites in Canaan at 2200 BCE (the date the Biblical chronology gives for Abraham). Hittites were limited to Northern Syria until after the late Bronze Age collapse (1200 BCE), after which Assyrians called anyone from Syria a Hittte (i.e. a man of Hatte). The Hittite of the Bible has a good Semitic name (Ephron) which would indicate a period after which Hittites were thoroughly Semitised (i.e. Iron Age II period, closer to the period of the introduction of monetary economies than the conventional period given to Abraham) John D. Croft 01:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Firstly there is no mention of money in the form of coins only shekels which is a measure of weight. Secondly the usage of the term "Hittite" for the Nesite civilization of Anatolia is simply a convention and it is well recognized that they are not the people called Hittites in the Bible. Ergo no Iron Age anachronisms in the Bible. Kuratowski's Ghost 11:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
If there is mention of shekels being used, this too is a late feature. Shekels were only used in Israel after the Babylonian conquest (they were originally a Babylonian unit of measure, not an Israelite one. Hittite was not simply a convention, as Assyrian records show, as late as their conquests all the lands west of the Euphrates (i.e. Syria) was referred to as Hittite (i.e. Hatte). So yes, once again there are Iron Age anachronisms. You should read John Van Seters "Abraham in History and Tradition". John D. Croft 15:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Tradition of the Children of Shem being there before the Canaanites

There seems to have been a debate regarding who exactly it could have been that was in the land before the canaanites. An answer was never given. I have read sources claiming it was Arpachshad (Arphaxad). Where...I can't say I remember well, but it seems that it was a reference to a Midrashic source. I will try to look for it. The tradition that Shem and Ever had an academy, to which Jacob went, would also presumably place both personalities in the region. --Shigaon

hmmm

I don't understand why this article is a part of "series of articles on Jews and Judaism".

I mean this article talks about a part of the history of this REGION, a part which by the way was MISSING in the article of "Palestine" (which some of you so strongly argue is the name of this REGION - of course missing until I added it, very shortly, a few days ago).

My point is, if this is history (and it is so don't give me an answer it's not), why is it specifically attached to Jews and Judaism (as a special part of a series?) If somebody wants to study the history of this region, why would he be interested in an article which talks specifically on issues of Jews and Judaism? It should be an historical article with no other connotations.

Another problem I have, is that "History of Israel" talks about the state of Israel, but the History of "ISRAEL", of the Israeli people, the Hebrews, and the reason for the state of Israel extends out of the 58 years that this country exists... and it is very much connected to Canaan, southern Levant, Simiria, Judea, Eretz Israel, Palestine, or any other name you name it through ALL HISTORY (if this wasn't true then there wouldn't have been a Jewish religion, a Zionist move or an Israeli state for Jews to begin with).

All these problems lead to the entire well known cosmic Israel-Palestine Region problem.

What I suggest is to establish order in the history of this troubled area by making several distinct articles:

One big "History of Israel" article: 1) The first part this article will detail the history from the Bible and the Canaan period of this region until the Roman Time (when it was renamed Palestine). 2) The second part of the article will tell VERY SHORTLY of the Palestine period, and will detail ONLY on the Jews and the zionist movment in this region during this period. 3) And then the last part will detail the British Mandate from the Jewish Perspective.

History of Israel (state)': will detail the history of the Israeli State so far (from the day it was established until the present day).

One big "History of Palestine" article: 1) In the first part of the article there's going to be a VERY SHORT review of the history until the roman time (before it was named Palestine), with a special detailed section for those philistites and their small coast line that this region was named after. 2) The second part will detail the period from the Roman time until the British Mandate (the Crusades Period will be shortly tolled, and will have its own already existent main article). 3) The third part will detail the British Mandate from the Palestinian Arabs perspective.

History of Palestine (Authority) OR History of (the) Palestinias: An article that will detail the history of the Palestinian territories of Gaza Strip and the West Bank (and the Palestinan modern nationality people) from the establishment of the Israeli state until the present day [this article will be changed to "history of Palestine (state)" if there will be a Palestinian state]

The Prehistoric history of this region will be in the Middle East or the Levant History articles (I mean this region is TO SMALL to be that significant in the Prehistoric history, so it might as well and should be under the larger areas of near east and/or Levant).

About the Geography... each period (and name) had its own specific borders and lines that also changed through the years of the use of that name. So "Canaan", "Palestine" and "Judea" will be separate geographical featured articles. (The israelite tribes and kingdoms period lacked a specific name for the land, it was mainly referred to as "the promised land", while the region itself was described as part of Canaan... so it will be detailed under the Canaan section, and will have a special already existed "promised land" and "greater Israel" articles).

This means order and some article mergings: such as this article merging with the bigger "history of Israel" article, or the article about the Palestinian territories merging with the bigger "history of (the) Palestinias" article.

What do you think? --Zalashkolina

Offhand, I think you are wrong. And I'm not particularly a Zionist.
The Jews have continuity as a people. This article seems the right place to cover that history. Inclusion in one series does not mean it cannot be included in another.
The history of the Palestinians is a much more problematic area. While Arabs undoubtedly have continuity of over a millennium in the area that is now Israel/Palestine, Palestinian Arab identity is a relatively modern development, probably even slightly newer than political Zionism. Prior to that, identity was not on a "national" basis. It would have been either smaller units or simply an Arab or Islamic identity. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes you are 100% right!!!! :))... but you got me all wrong... I think that the "History of Israel" article should include this article in it, just like History of France includes all these different history articles including periods of times when France wasn't called France.
So at the same way "History of Israel" should include all these histories about Israel, even when it wasn't called Israel and not only the 58 years of the Israeli state existence... especially because Israel is much more then a modern state, and it definitely wasn't invented in modern times.
Now because I know about all this Israel/Palestine region problem I suggested a more compromising suggestion. But my main problem is that "History of Ancient Israel and Judah" and "History of Israel" clearly shouldn't be separate articles. --Zalashkolina 16:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC+2)
I agree they should be kept seperate simply because they are both likely to be enormous. The history of Israel article should link to the History of Ancient Israel and Judah article, for its early early. Similarly this article should link forward to the History of Israel for the modern state. Wjhonson 19:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
At this point both articles are long, but by merging changes will made of course: there will be one historical overview with short paragraphs in each period, and there will be directions to the main articles in each period. --Zalashkolina 22:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC+2)
Sounds like a lot of work, but hey, go for it if you can do it in a clear, consise, easy-to-understand manner. Wjhonson 20:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Without loss of content :) Wjhonson 20:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I strongly oppose a merge. These articles are gigantic and deserve to be split up. There is nothing wrong with forking out content when page size is too long. There is no need to sumarize or loose information just because you don't believe this article is inclusive. Besides, this is also a highly political topic, and there would probably be some opposition to this merger for valid political reasons. But that point aside, the size issue is enough by itself to keep these topics forked.--Andrew c 15:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't disagree with Palestine, I'm just saying that the specific "History of Israel" and the connection of it to this specific region and Hebrew people spans out of 58 years, and there are to many articles about it: History of Israel, Ancient history of Israel and Judah, Jewish history, Land of Israel, History of the Jews in the Land of Israel and History of Palestine (and probably some more that I haven't found yet).
Again, the size will not be a problem: (and I understand that this content is similar to the one in the history of Palestine article, but the purpose of this new one will be to merge all the above Jewish related articles into one, and all the smaller articles could be used and referenced too from both big articles)
Ancient history
  • Canaan (patriarchal period): blah blah (main article)
  • Israelite Tribes Period: blah blah (main article)
and so on...
Palestine history
(main article reference)
  • Byzantine period: blah blah (main article)
and so on...
Modern times (19th and 20th century)
  • Zionists: blah blah (main article)
  • British mandate: blah blah (main article)
  • state of Israel: blah blah (main article)
(blah blah = small paragraph)
And another thing about the political debate- like I said, I don't deny Palestine as much as I don't deny Gaul or Persia. Just like France today is France and Iran is Iran, Israel today is Israel, so just like History of France is History of France and History of Iran is Hostory of Iran, History of Israel should be History of Israel (but since I'm trying to compromise I have suggested the solution in my first offer...) --Zalashkolina 18:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC+2)

I think "merge" might be the wrong way to go. Rather, why don't you, Zalashkolina, make a summary of *this* article, and stick it, in *that* article where you think it isn't. Then you can point back to *this* article as the main article on the subject of Ancient, versus the overview article. Does that make sense? There are other articles that handle this in the same way. Where there is one overarching or *more relevant* article, with subsections which each have their own articles. Wjhonson 18:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I've thought about that and I'll probebly do it, but from all this topic I've seem to realize something. see this topic 24 Palestine vs. Israel. --Zalashkolina 18:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Reference

The reference to Salmanasar in the text (722 BC) is not to the right Salmanasar. 84.10.114.122 17:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

History of ancient Israel and Judah (1000-63 BCE)

Any ideas on how to add a link to History of ancient Israel and Judah (1000-63 BCE)? There are about 5 or so headers it could go under.--Andrew c 03:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


Point of View

This article tends to uncritically take the point of view of the Albright School of Biblical History, whilst the Copenhagen School (sometimes called Minimalists) is only cursorily treated. Greater balance is needed in dealing with both the Biblical texts and the archaeology of the area. I have attempted some adjustments, but suspect that the article may need major revision.

John D. Croft 20:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The article isn't meant to be a repetition of the The Bible and history article it is intended to present an overview of the history according to standard sources. The minimalist school is a minority view which has been heavily critiqued and found wanting, trying to push Copenhagen mass rejection of tradition (largely a rehashing of old early 20th century pseudo-scholarship and hokem) as the majority view is POV bias. Kuratowski's Ghost 13:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Martin Noth's "A History of Israel", is based upon the view that the persona of "The Deuteronomist", a single author who was using pre-Exilic material but was editing and writing in the age of exile, the mid 6th century BCE, and that the events of Joshua and Judges are legendary. The majority of scholars follow Noth's opinion, that the history (from Abraham to Joshua, and Judges) is largely legendary) and cannot be relied upon. This view is also taken by Albrecht Alt, who showed in the 1920s The whole of the events from Abraham to the period of Joshua, the settlement and Judges was a fictional Epic composed late in history and no more. Magen Broshi, Professor of Archaeology at the Israel Museum has written "Alt provided the assurance by uncovering internal contradictions in the Book of Joshua, whereas the archaeological surveys and exacavations showed that the picture on the ground is 180 degrees different from what is described in the various history books of the Bible. I think there is no serious scholar in Israel or in the world who does not accept this position." These people, with J. Alberto Soggin are not minimalists of the Copenhagen School. You obviously dodn't know the work of H. H. Schmid (1976) "Der sogenannte Jahwist. Beobachtungen und Fragen zur Pentateuchforschung". What about Frank Moore Cross (1973) "Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic" (Cambridge: Harvard University Press). Neither is Israel Finkelstein or David Ussishkin or Baruch Halpern a "Copenhagen Minimalist".
You speak of "standard sources" - I know of no reputable sources other than Albright and Bright that treat the history of Abraham as factual. To claim that the history as presented is factual is certainly not the view of the majority of sources outside of the USA. John D. Croft 17:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The standard sources I am referring to are the traditional accounts. You also don't seem to understand that "legend" doesn't mean false or fictional, it means handed down by oral tradition. The works you cite are fairly old and the opinions they express have been critiqued by more recent writers such as Kitchen and Yamauchi. Kuratowski's Ghost 20:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Legendary does certainly not mean false or fictional. It does, however, mean legendary, which is not the same as history. To quote Kitchen and Yamauchi is hardly "mainstream" as they both are extreme evangelical scholars, generally very approved of within Evangelical circles but considered an "extreme" view within the "mainstream" which has developed out of the traditions of which I spoke. An article that presents the extreme evangelical or conservative view of the history of ancient Israel and Judah, and excludes all other points of view is hardly NPOV. In fact it would give a misleading view to anyone that would read such an article. I am not against presenting the views of Kitchen and Yamauchi, but they need to be referenced, and balanced with other views otherwise it is a purely POV discussion. John D. Croft 10:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The article should present the mainstream view of the history of ancient Israel as found in works typically used as text books for the subject e.g. Ben-Sasson, Johnson, Dimont, Roth etc. Neither Kitchen nor Yamauchi are extreme evangelical scholars, Kitchen in particular would probably be regarded as a Bible critic in Evangelical circles and their views are pretty mainstream. Kuratowski's Ghost 18:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I think what this is boiling down to is what should this article be about? It seems like KG wants this article to be a plot summary of the bible (relying on the ancient primary sources). JDC seems to favor a more scholarly, historian's approach. I personally think this article, having "history" in the title should therefore be about the historian's view. We should not rely on biblical citations for our majority of sourcing, but instead cite typical college level texts and notable scholars/historians. The bible plot summaries should stay in the articles about each biblical book. This article isn't Ancient Israel and Judah as told by the good book. Does the History of India article cite religious texts primarily? of course not. So why are we doing that here? But again, this is about the scope of this article. I could be mistaken on what this article is about (but then we may need a title change). -Andrew c 13:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually History of India is in fact of another case of history being known from so-called religious texts - Hindu sources such as the Vedas are used for the earliest recorded traditions. Similar we get Chinese history from Confucist, Taoist and Buddhist texts. Arabian history comes from Islamic texts. Roman history was written by writers who endlessly refer to Roman gods and blend superstitious traditions with more straightforward accounts. Kuratowski's Ghost 08:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The History of India does not include a non-critical study of the Vedas as history. The History of India does not accept the stories of Indra and the other Vedic Gods as correct. Neither do we accept the Confucian view that Chinese history starts with the Yellow Emperor. Roman history shows that the stories of Romulus and Remus are fictional legends, and the errors in the story of Aeneas and Dido are frequently pointed to (as Aeneas is supposedly fleeing Troy in about 1200 whilst Dido settled Carthage 812 BCE. Kuratowski's Ghost is here completely wrong in his analysis of modern history, which reflects the biases in the article. To say that the majority of modern historians accept the story of Abraham as factually correct is simply not true. John D. Croft 10:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
But no one said modern historians accept it as "factually correct", there is a whole spectrum of opinion, yet in the end all we have to go on is what the ancient sources say and it is negligent to dismiss it just as it would be negligent to ignore the Yellow Emporer or Romulus and Remus. Aeneas is another matter as the Aeneid is and always was known to be a work of entertainment which embellished tradition. Historians of India not say one must accept the stories of Indra but they do recognize that there is real historical content in the Vedas. History is not about absolute truth, you can't even get that in the modern age of tv and internet new sources seeing how journalists twist things, history always includes accounts of varying reliability with no objective way of gauging that reliability. Kuratowski's Ghost 00:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Kuratowski's Ghost is correct in that religious texts are valuable historical sources. John D. Croft is correct in saying that the methods of History involved critical analysis. Therefore, I do not believe giving a plot summary of a religious text is the same thing as doing history. As I have suggested in the past, since this is an article on history, we should let the historians filter and analyze the information. Therefore, we should be citing reliable sources from notable historians (college level introductory texts are a good place to start, but journal articles and monographs from historians work as well). Our concern is there are parts of this article that say "The bible says X happened". Good for the bible. Just because the bible says something doesn't mean it actually happened. This is an article about history, not an article on specific books of the bible. Therefore, we should be saying "Historian Y anaylized claim X from the bible and concluded Z". I'm not saying we favor a minimalist or maximalist approach, but instead try to represent either both sides (or if possible) simply the majority view (centralist, if you will). -Andrew c 16:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that there are too many historians with different opinions and one article can't cover all of them, the article should therefore present the majority view while taking note of dissenting views, and hey, the article does do exactly that, the introductory paragraph explains this and points the reader to the Bible and history article. The article should not go into lengthy accounts of minority deliberately anti-tradition views based on sweeping POV interpretations (or sadly, deliberate misinterpretations) of inconclusive archaeological evidence. The best solution would be to source all statements in the standard majority view textbooks on the subject such as Roth's A History of the Jews. Kuratowski's Ghost 00:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
The claim that there is a single majority view is disputed. One could say that the majority of European students of the history of the history of Judah and Israel support the views of the well respected European authors and archaeologists I have quoted above. W. F. Albright and Bright, are regarded by these people as passe. A proper encyclopedia would present a spectrum of opinion where it exists (read any other modern authoritative encyclopedia and anyone can see what I mean)John D. Croft 15:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
You guys don't seem to understand that when it comes to history, the "good book" and the other texts mentioned in the article are the only sources we have. A article on history should present what the primary sources say about the history and should not be based on historical revisionist opinions by a handful of 20th century modernists whose ideas are based on highly biased interpretations of archaeological evidence. This is no different to a history of Rome or China say which is based on texts of similar quality to the Bible etc. Kuratowski's Ghost 17:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
This is untrue. There are many other archaeological sources that have been provided as a result of two centuries of excavations.John D. Croft 15:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The Bible is not a primary source for the history here. It is at best a secondary source. The Primary Sources are the Amarna letters, the Assyrian Texts referring to Ahab, Omri, Jehu and Hezekiah. These are our primary sources for the history of Judah and Israel. Having Abraham as a reference here is inappropriate - even the Bible shows that he existed long before the existence of either Israel or Judah. It should be removed.John D. Croft 05:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little confused here. Your comment above to Croft is basically the same thing I proposed doing: citing college level texts. But then you reply to me here encouraging cutting out the middle man and using the primary sources directly. I am nto suggested we only use "revisionist opinions". I am saying we use reliable sources from modern historians, and it sounds like we are in agreement here. Hence my confusion.-Andrew c 19:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
This artical clearly violates the NPOV and verifiability policies. Hopefully, it can be rewritten in a neutral, scholarly manner. EllenS 23:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
The Bible is indeed a "primary source" as we do not have any earlier sources from which it might have been derived. The article follows the mainstream view found in standard textbooks on the subject which does not feel the need to prefix every statement with obvious caveats that apply to virtually any text used as a source including texts of similar standing to the Bible used for Greek, Roman, British, Danish, Chinese, Japanese history. Going out of ones way to insinuate doubt about every statement from the Bible or replace them with arbitrary modernist ruminations that are deliberately contrary to tradition would be a violation of NPOV and verifiability. Kuratowski's Ghost 11:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
The Bible has been acknowledged as a secondary source ever since the discovery by Assyriologists in the 19th century of the Chaldean corpus, including earlier flood myths than that contained in the Bible. Many elements of the Bible show clear derivation from earlier stories circulating in the Middle East (for example Moses being cast adrift in a basket of bullrushes and bitumen is found in the earlier stories of Sargon of Akkad). Until this article gets reviewed by a historian rather than a Biblical apologeticist it deserves a NPOV tag. John D. Croft 19:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
This is nonsense as the Biblical story of Noah in no way derives from the related Babylonian story which is instead an independent account of the same events which together with the archaeological evidence of a massive flood in Mesopotamia shows that there is real history behind the account. The story of Sargon first appears after the exile of Jews from the northern Kingdom of Israel to Assyria, there is no evidence of it before this which suggests that it is a borrowing of the plot of the Jewish story of Moses which majority opinion considers to have been written well before the end of the northern kingdom. The other alleged examples are usually bizarre twisted comparisons typical of the early 20th century / late 19th century pseudo-scholars like saying that Genesis chap 1 is derived from the story of Tiamat because it uses the word tehom for the ocean. Kuratowski's Ghost 20:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The Biblical story of Noah is acknowledged by most scholars as derivative from the Babylonian story, which not only greatly preceeds it chronologically, but also incorporates many of the same story elements (eg. the release of birds to tell if the flood water was receeding etc). It is commonly accepted nowadays by most that both tales derive from a flood which covered Southern Iraq and was centred on the site of Shuruppak. Regarding the story of Moses in the Bullrushes, this part of the tale is considered also by many to have been written after the Babylonian captivity. For example, bitumen was rare to non-existent in Egypt - it is extremely common in oil rich Iraq. During the Babylonian captivity the tale of Sargon had been in circulation for millennia. To call the link between Akkadian *tiama and the Biblical *tehom "pseudo-science" is to show a complete misunderstanding of modern historical linguistics which acknowledges the two words are cognate of the same Proto-Semitic root, a root which is ultimately derived from the Sumerian language. John D. Croft 14:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The story of Noah is not considered derivative of the Babylonian story, both stories are considered derivitives of a common story based on the historical flood you mention. The Sargon story resembling Moses is from the 7th century BCE Assyrian King List several decades after the Assyrian conquest of Israel. Bitumen was well known and used in Egypt and in fact used in mummification making it something typically Egyptian! Biblical tehom is related to Ugaritic t-h-m and Akkadian tum(te) all meaning sea or ocean. Tiamat derives from Sumerian ti ama = mother of life despite punning on this name and the word tumte in the Enuma Elish. Kuratowski's Ghost 18:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The earliest extant copies of the Moses in the bullrushes story are significantly after the 7th century BCE. Most linguists accpet that the proto-Semitic root *THM is derived from the proto-Sumerian. It is significant that the areas in which the root is earliest attested are those in which the Uruk culture spread from c.4,000 BCE, and based upon the accounts found in the Uruk period it has been demonstrated that these were Sumerian speakers. John D. Croft 15:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The lead

The lead (the section right at the very top of the article, before even the introduction) doesn't fit the normal Wiki pattern. The normal lead begins with a one-line definition of the subject - in this case, I would expect to find something like: "The history of ancient Israel and Judah concerns political, social and religions developments in (define geographic area) between (dates);" I would not expect to find a discussion of sources, which is what this one gives. In fact I was rather curious, when I clicked the link to arrive here, as to just what the topic would turn out to be: Judah and Israel are (were) the two kingdoms that followed the kingdom of David and Solomon, with a combined lifespan roughly from 922 to 587 BC; and there are already articles on both of them; so what was this article going to be about? I think the lead needs to clarify that question. PiCo 11:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Pre-history is not part of ISRAEL and JUDAH's history

What does the following have to do with this article? Moved here:

This article attempts to give a scholarly view which would currently be supported by most historians. The precise dates and the precision by which they may be stated are subject to continuing discussion and challenge. There are no biblical events whose precise year can be validated by external sources before the early 9th century BCE (The rise of Omri, King of Israel). Therefore all earlier dates are extrapolations. Further, the Bible does not render itself very easily to these calculations: mostly it does not state any time period longer than a single life time and a historical line must be reconstructed by adding discrete quantities, a process that naturally introduces rounding errors. The earlier dates presented here and their accuracy reflects a maximalist view, in that it uses the Bible as its sole source.
Some writers consider the different source materials to be in conflict. See The Bible and history for further information. This is a controversial subject, with implications in the fields of religion, politics and diplomacy. Others, known as minimalists dispute that many of the events happened at all, making the dating of them moot: if the very existence of the United Kingdom is in doubt, it is pointless to claim that it disintegrated in 922 BCE. Philip Davies [2] for instance, shows how the canonical Biblical account can only have been composed for a people with a long literate tradition such is found only in Late Persian or early Hellenistic times, and argues that accounts of earlier periods are largely reconstructions based upon largely oral and other traditions. Even the minimalists don't dispute that a few of the events from the 9th century onward do have corroborations; see for example Mesha Stele.
Archaeologists have named the earliest inhabitants of the area Mousterian Neanderthals. They have been estimated to date to about 200,000 BCE. The first anatomically-modern humans to live in the area are called the Kebarans. They have been conventionally dated to about 18,000 - 10,500 BCE, but recent paleoanthropological evidence suggests that Kebarans may have arrived as early as 75,000 BCE and shared the region with the Neanderthals for millennia before the latter died out. They were followed by the Natufian culture (c. 10,500 BCE - 8500 BCE), the Yarmukians (c. 8500 - 4300 BCE) and the Ghassulians (carbon dated c. 4300 - 3300 BCE). None of these names appears in any pre-modern source; they were all devised as conventions in recent times by archaeologists to refer to the various cultures found in archaeological strata.
The Ghassulian period created the basis of the Mediterranean economy which has characterised the area ever since. A Chalcolithic culture, the Ghassulian economy was a mixed agricultural system consisting of extensive cultivation of grains (wheat and barley), intensive horticulture of vegetable crops, commercial production of vines and olives, and a combination of transhumance and nomadic pastoralism. The Gassulian culture, according to Juris Yarins, developed out of the earlier Minhata phase of what he calls the "circum Arabian nomadic pastoral complex", probably associated with the first appearance of Semites in this area.
Georgraphically the area is divided between a coastal plain, hill country to the East and the Jordan Valley joining the Sea of Galilee to the Dead Sea. Rainfall decreases from the north to the south, with the result that the northern region of Israel has generally been more economically developed than the southern one of Judah.
The Ghassulian period was associated with increasing urbanization, where people may have begun living in small city-states, one of which was Jericho. The area's location at the center of three trade routes linking three continents made it the meeting place for religious and cultural influences from Egypt, Syria, Mesopotamia, and Asia Minor:
  1. A Coastal Route: connecting Gaza and the Philistine coast north to Joppa and Megiddo, travelling north through Biblos to Phoenicia and Anatolia.
  2. A Hill Route: travelling through the Negev, Kadesh Barnea, to Hebron and Jerusalem, and thence north to Samaria, Sechem, Shiloh, Beth Shean and Hazor, and thence to Kadesh and Damascus.
  3. The "Kings Highway": travelling north from Eilat, east of the Jordan through Amman to Damascus, and connected to the "frankinsense road" north from Yemen and South Arabia.
This region was was also the natural battleground for the great powers of the region and subject to domination by adjacent empires, beginning with Egypt in the late 3rd millennium BCE. The period of the historical states of Judah and Israel was the period in which this area became gradually incorporated into the later Neo-Assyrian and Babylonian period traditions regarding the early history found in later works such as the Book of Jubilees, the Kebra Nagast and commentaries of Rashi, Philo and the Sepher Hayashar of Ibn Ezra refer to the early inhabitants as the sons of Shem and also speak of an invasion by the people known as Canaanites descended from Ham.
The history of the area seems to have suffered from acute periods of dessication, and reduced rainfall which has influenced the relative importance of settled versus nomadic ways of living. The cycle seems to have been repeated a number of times during which a reduced rainfall increases periods of fallow, with farmers spending increasing amounts of time with their flocks and away from cultivation. Eventually they revert to fully nomadic cultures, which, when rainfall increases settle around important sources of water and begin to spend increasing amounts of time on cultivation. The increased prosperity leads to a revival of inter-regional and eventually international trade. The growth of villages rapidly proceeds to increased prosperity of market towns and city states, which attract the attention of neighbouring great powers, who may invade to capture control of regional trade networks and possibilities for tribute and taxation. Warfare leads to opening the region to pandemics, with resultant depopulation, overuse of fragile soils and a reversion to nomadic pastoralism.
The Book of Jubilees, states that the land was originally allotted to Shem and Arphaxad (ancestor of the Hebrews) when it was still vacant, but was wrongfully occupied by Canaan and his son Sidon. The Kebra Nagast speaks of the Canaanites invading existing cities of Shem, and Ibn Ezra similarly notes that they had seized land from earlier inhabitants. Rashi mentions that the Canaanites were seizing land from the sons of Shem supposedly in the days of Abraham. The Tanakh does not directly mention Shemite presence in the land before the Canaanites, although some feel late Canaanite arrival is implied in Genesis 12:6 where the expression "At that time the Canaanites were in the land" cannot carry the connotation of then but not now as Canaanites were present up and until the second Temple period by which time Genesis had certainly been written.

The above should be called Pre-history of the Land of Canaan (it is now there) because it is not directly associated with Israel or Judah which are the main topics of this article. IZAK 08:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the above to Pre-history of the Land of Israel as the name "Canaan" is very time-specific applying only to the historical period during which the area was ruled by Canaanites, while the name Land of Israel is typically used as a timeless name for the region. Kuratowski's Ghost 11:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Corrections

I have deleted the section on the patriarchal period, as Israel and Judah did not exist in this time. The earliest historical reference to Israel is the Merenptah stele (1206). The article on the early Bronze Age has been moved to the pre-hsitory section as there are no historically verifiable information on these periods either. Even by Biblical accounts Israel as a person did not exist until 3 generations after Abraham, and so a discussion on Abraham is not relevant to the ancient history of Israel and Judah. John D. Croft 15:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

But you also deleted Israel himself, and yet you retain ancient Egyptian domination from... the same period. Seems a little unclear to me. As you know the date 1800BC is not fixed for Abraham it's merely a hypothesis, and one not completely supported by the evidence. Just perhaps the majority view you might say. There should at least be a section that explains *why* the alledged Israelites were in Egypt in the first place. Wjhonson 19:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Abraham was not a patriarch only of the Jewish people, he was patriarch of many different groups including the Arabs. Isaac was also not just a patriarch of the Jews as he was father also to Esau, ancestor of the Edomites. They should not be mentioned in an article on Israel, if mentioned at all they belong to an article on the Semitic peoples, or the history of the Levant. For these reasons I will revert to my original post. John D. Croft 19:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are together referred to as the Jewish patriarchs. The Edomites were reabsorbed into the Jewish people during the Hashmonean period. Abraham is not the patriarch of the Arabs, in Arabic tradition the patriarchs of the Arabs are Qahtan (father of the true Arabs) and Adnan (father of the Arabicized north Arabians. A late hermeneutical fable attempted to link an ancestor of Adnan with Ishmael son of Abraham but this is not regarded as history. Kuratowski's Ghost 23:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
It is regarded as history, as the Arabs claim (with some evidence) that it was Ishmael who was to be sacrificed, not Isaac (it was to be Abraham's "eldest son" and that was Ishmael). Ishmael is accepted as the ancestor of the Qaysite Arabs, which include the family of Mohammed. Abraham is a patriarch of the Arabs too. Ask any Muslim. John D. Croft 06:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Its far more complicated than this, there are numerous discussions of Adnan's lineage in the works of classical Islamic historians, attempts to trace him to Ishmael are inconsistent in name and number are rejected by other Islamic historians. Moreover such attempts are based on the equation of Adnan's ancestor Araq Al-Thara with Ishmael based on the delightful argument that Thara means mud and mud doesn't burn and Abraham being a prophet didn't burn in hell so Al-Thara is Abraham and Araq is his son Ishmael - no sane person would view this as history. Kuratowski's Ghost 09:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ Sturgis, Matthew (2001). It Ain't Necessarily So. London: Hodder Headline. pp. p 61. ISBN 0747245061. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ Davies, Philip (1998), "Scribes and Schools: The Canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures" (Knox Press)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_ancient_Israel_and_Judah/Archive_1&oldid=1039410830"