Talk:History of ancient Israel and Judah/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Change to lede to emphasise Israelite presence in the region

Ref the addition to the lede by Tombah, dated 11 August, which is justified by the statement - 'Ancient Israelite history does not begin with the kingdoms. The Israelites are attested in the region centuries before their emergence'. I thought that this article was about the History of the various Kingdoms named Israel (Samaria), and Judah, not about the Israelites, who are covered extensively elsewhere, and were not the only people in this land. The Merneptah stele is covered in the main article and it does not warrant inclusion in the lede. Can the change be reverted? Pngeditor (talk) 09:21, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Maybe I was driving a bit too fast, apologies! I've been wondering, too, what this article is about. Yes, we have an article about the Israelites, but we also have articles about the Kingdom of Judah, the Kingdom of Israel (Samaria), and the United Kingdom of Israel. In my opinion, this article should be a *general overview* of what scholars call "Ancient Israel", starting from the very beginning - the emergence of the Israelites as a distinct ethnic group - and then moving on to a discussion of the two kingdoms - emergence, main historical events, and decline, including a short discussion of the United Monarchy (main arguments etc). Following the historical events of the two kingdoms, this article should discuss sociology, demography, language, religion, prophecy, government, and other aspects of the time period. A brief discussion of the events following the fall of Judah - including the Babylonian captivity, the Return to Zion, and the emergence of the Samaritans as a separate community - is appropriate, however, the primary article for that period is "Second Temple period". The end result should be something similar to our articles on Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece. Maybe a better title would be just "Ancient Israel". What do you think? Tombah (talk) 09:33, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

"Ancient Israel" would be a better title for what you suggest. However, I'm not sure how you make it clear that the article is really about the use of the term Israel up to the Second Temple period. I see that this article used to be called First Temple Period. Maybe the lede could include the dates that this "Ancient Israel" article covers? So that the reader knows that the last section The Babylonian exile and Second Temple Judaism is the end point covered by this article? Otherwise it would appear that "Ancient Israel" stopped before the term Israel stopped being used. Is History of Ancient Israel to the Second Temple Period too long winded?Pngeditor (talk) 10:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Ancient is a bit of a misnomer here if the article overlaps with the classical period. The collection of articles in this genre appear to be a bit of a mess. There's a Second Temple Period, but now no First Temple Period one. This should be consistent. If these are the prevalent terms in history and archaeology circles, the division should go back to this. If these are not the principle terms, perhaps the Second Temple Period article should be merged to here, but the one thing that the encyclopedia certainly does not need is hugely overlapping articles covering identical periods and material, but simply under different variants of key period titles. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree in 100%. The two articles should be mutually exclusive. This article should explore the period between the first appearance of the Israelites until the fall of Judah (c. 1200-587 BCE), while the other one should discuss the events starting from the Return to Zion up up until the Roman destruction of Jerusalem (516-70 CE). The French article, in my opinion, is a fantastic example. We still need to decide where to put the Babylonian exile period (586-516 BCE).

Regarding the name, I think "Ancient Israel" and the "First Temple Period" are the front-runners. The term "Ancient Israel" generally refers to the pre- exilic period of Israelite history. The term "First Temple period" is similar but maybe only partially overlaps the time period discussed (as the First Temple is thought to had been built around 950 BCE), so I'd go with the first option. Thoughts? Tombah (talk) 11:21, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I imagine the difficulty of picking a title is the reason why the current page name has arrived where it has. Ancient Israel and ancient Judah are somewhat distinct subjects, so combining both, as is done here, requires a compound title ... though, thinking it through, that does beg the question of what value this article adds when Kingdom of Judah, Kingdom of Israel, the various articles on these provinces under subsequent kingdoms AND Second Temple Period also already exist. First Temple Period would at least define a term different to these, though as noted in at least one discussion above, the term is only rarely mentioned in the article. The only actually thing missing from the timeline, from what I can tell, is a methodical Early Israelite period, i.e.: bronze/iron age piece. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I suggest putting up all the editing of this and related articles, copy pasting and whatnot as a discussion item at the ISPalCollab page and try to get a consensus. As it says at content forking, forks that are created unintentionally result in redundant or conflicting articles and are to be avoided, as the goal of a single source of truth is preferable in most circumstances.Selfstudier (talk) 22:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

On Kingdom of Israel (Samaria)

Pngeditor, you don't put two sets of parenthesis next to each other (like this: (Samaria) (blue)). Northern Kingdom of Israel is also a valid name for the entity, which is why it is a blue link that redirects to the same article.--Lisa Day-Daniels (talk) 04:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

the article title shoyld be used and was until edit warriors with a few edits kept changing it. Just use the title Kingdom of Israel or Kingdom of Samaria without the parenthesis. Pngeditor (talk) 09:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

See the article page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Israel which uses tje correct titles for each of thw various references to Israel. Unless that page is changed we should use Israel/Samaria.Pngeditor (talk) 09:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that the previous kingdom (the United Kingdom of Israel and Judah before the split), is also called Kingdom of Israel, hence the parenthesis to differentiate the United Monarchy from the northern kingdom of Samaria.Lisa Day-Daniels (talk) 10:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The previous kingdom is known as tje United monarchy of Israel and Judah, we do not the term Kingdom of Israel on its own. it is always qualified by samaria or Israel and Judah. This is the long standing method of avoiding confusion. We can just use tbe term Northern Kingdom of Samaria or Samaria if you wish? Also note there is no redundancy between Samaria tje kingdom and Samaria the city. They are clearly separated in wikipedia so both can be used in the same sentence. This is important in view of the controversy over whether or not the United Kingdom actually existed. Pngeditor (talk) 10:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

It is usually better to make use of disambiguation because of possible confusion imo. Let's not have an edit war over this, eh? Selfstudier (talk) 11:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I dont understand what you mean. I agree that there should be no edit war. Lets simply stick with avoiding using the confusing term Kingdom of Israel when there are two possible meanings for that term. Either stick with the reference to Israel and Judah or Israel (Samaria) or just use the name Samaria, which has academic support. Your claim that the addition (Samaria) is only there to avoid possible confusion with the United Kingdom is not accepted. There is controversy over tbe existence of a United Kingdom and much more acceptance of the Northern Kingdom of Samaria as a real entity. We should follow tbe evidence. Regards. Pngeditor (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Evidence for 10th century BC Judah

I suggest the Wikipedia article should include among its bibliography this paper:

- Faust, Avraham; Garfinkel, Yosef; Mumcuoglu, Madeleine (2021). «The Study of the 10th Century BCE in the Early 21st Century CE: An Overview». Jerusalem Journal of Archaeology 1: 1-14.

It provides a collection of essays including evidence for the existence of a Kingdom of Judah in the 10th century BC (and not in the late 9th century BC, as stated in the current version of this page) as well as several essays which discuss the early history, formation and development of the Kingdom. I think it would be helpful in order to actualize the "Iron Age II (950–587 BCE)" section and present the current mainstream view (not just Finkelstein's minoritary view) on the subject.--Potatín5 (talk) 13:58, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Disagree, see:

Lipschits, Oded (2014). "The history of Israel in the biblical period". In Berlin, Adele; Brettler, Marc Zvi (eds.). The Jewish Study Bible (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. pp. 2107–2119. ISBN 978-0-19-997846-5. As this essay will show, however, the premonarchic period long ago became a literary description of the mythological roots, the early beginnings of the nation and the way to describe the right of Israel on its land. The archeological evidence also does not support the existence of a united monarchy under David and Solomon as described in the Bible, so the rubric of "united monarchy" is best abandoned, although it remains useful for discussing how the Bible views the Israelite past. [...] Although the kingdom of Judah is mentioned in some ancient inscriptions, they never suggest that it was part of a unit comprised of Israel and Judah. There are no extrabiblical indications of a united monarchy called "Israel."

Maeir, Aren M. (2014). "Archeology and the Hebrew Bible". In Berlin, Adele; Brettler, Marc Zvi (eds.). The Jewish Study Bible (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 2125. ISBN 978-0-19-997846-5. Archeological evidence for the early stages of the monarchy is minimal at best. [...] In any case, the lack of substantive epigraphic materials from this early stage of the Iron Age II (after 1000 BCE), and other extensive archeological evidence, indicate that even if an early united monarchy existed, its level of political and bureaucratic complexity was not as developed as the biblical text suggests. The mention of the "House of David" in the Tel Dan inscription, which dates to the mid/late 9th c. BCE, does not prove the existence of an extensive Davidic kingdom in the early 10th c. BCE, but does indicate a Judean polity during the 9th c. that even then associated its origin with David. [...] Although there is archeological and historical evidence (from extra biblical documents) supporting various events of the monarchical period (esp. the later period) recorded in the Bible, there is little, if any evidence corroborating the biblical depiction of early Israelite or Judean history.

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Disagree too, see:

Faust, Avraham; Garfinkel, Yosef; Mumcuoglu, Madeleine (2021). «The Study of the 10th Century BCE in the Early 21st Century CE: An Overview». Jerusalem Journal of Archaeology 1: 1-14. "The sophisticated methods of data collection and analysis that resulted from the debate significantly narrowed the chronological gap between the schools, leading most scholars to follow various versions of the traditional, or modified, chronology (e.g., Stager 2003; Mazar 2011; Katz and Faust 2014; Garfinkel et al. 2015; 2019; Dever 2017; Faust and Sapir 2018; Ortiz 2018; Master 2019)"

Dever, William G. (2021). «Solomon, Scripture, and Science: The Rise of the Judahite State in the 10th Century BCE». Jerusalem Journal of Archaeology p. 119. ISSN 2788-8819. "Conclusion: The biblical and archaeological “revisionists” have had their way for thirty years. It is time to say “No” to radical skepticism, to reclaim an early Judahite or Israelite state, in the light of clear stratigraphic evidence, improved ceramic chronology, new C14 dating, and – yes – a critical reading of pertinent Biblical texts. The Hebrew Bible is indeed a collection of stories, some of them fanciful or late. But some of them – early and buttressed by our current archaeological data – have the ring of truth about them. Let’s do some real “revisionist history.” On the basis of all the “witnesses” we have in this case, the claim that the kingdom of David and Solomon in Judah in the 10th century BCE did exist is true “beyond a reasonable doubt.”"

Quoted by Potatín5 (talk) 14:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

You tell me what stunning archaeological discoveries from the past eight years give the lie to Lipschits and Maeir. It is very easy to pontificate about the United Monarchy, and real evidence is extremely hard to come by. David is mentioned only once in all archaeological discoveries, and Solomon is mentioned zero times. While the Bible says Solomon married the daughter of the Pharaoh and had his own empire. And the Tel Dan Stele says that a small Aramean king stomped upon all kings of Judah, apparently 70 of them, including one king from the House of David.

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

Wdford writing about a paper by Amihai Mazar.

Coogan is a highly reputed OT scholar and wrote a scathing review of Finkelstein's bestseller. He also stated in Coogan, Michael (2010). "4. Thou Shalt Not: Forbidden Sexual Relationships in the Bible". God and Sex. What the Bible Really Says (1st ed.). New York, Boston: Twelve. Hachette Book Group. p. 105. ISBN 978-0-446-54525-9. Retrieved 5 May 2011. Jerusalem was no exception, except that it was barely a city—by our standards, just a village. In David's time, its population was only a few thousand, who lived on about a dozen acres, roughly equal to two blocks in Midtown Manhattan. So, he agrees that David's Jerusalem could fit on five or six rugby fields. That would be a circle with a diameter of 816 feet (249 meters). tgeorgescu (talk) 15:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu:

You tell me what stunning archaeological discoveries from the past eight years give the lie to Lipschits and Maeir. Well, we have for Judah the recent archaeological reports concerning Khirbet Queiyafa [1], Tel Moza [2], Tel Eton (Eglon) [3] or the Gihon Spring in Jerusalem [4]. And presence of royal architecture has been pointed as evidence for the existence of a kingdom already in that period [5].

Solomon is mentioned zero times. While the Bible says Solomon married the daughter of the Pharaoh and had his own empire.. Technically speaking thera are some references to Solomon in the work of Menander of Ephesus and Tyrian court records, as quoted by Josephus, so he's not absent at all. And there is archaeological evidence supporting the biblical narrative of the Pharaoh's destruction of Gezer [6].

And the Tel Dan Stele says that a small Aramean king stomped upon all kings of Judah, apparently 70 of them, including one king from the House of David. Where does the Tel Dan Stele state that there were 70 kings in Judah during the 9th century BC? I have not seen that statement anywhere in its text.

Wdford writing about a paper by Amihai Mazar. Mazar gives the figure of 20,000 inhabitans exclusively for the tribes of the Kingdom of Judah. If we counted the number of inhabitans of the northen tribes as well, then David would have had a much larger army than just 5000 men. And concerning the numbers of David's army, let me remember you that Spanish christians needed only 12,000–14,000 knights to win the most important battle of the history of the Reconquista (see Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa). Should David have needed more troops than that to defeat the neighbour kingdoms? I see no reason why. Potatín5 (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copy/pasted from Talk:David/Archive 6. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:13, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Garfinkel is an adamant proponent of the United Monarchy theory. It might be assumed that he is on top of all the latest "evidence". The paper you cited is most informative.

Garfinkel admits (pg 131) that "In addition, it should be mentioned that after more than a century of excavation in Jerusalem, particularly in the area known as the City of David, no remains that can be absolutely dated to the early 10th century BCE have been uncovered." (pg 131)

Garfinkel admits (pg 146) that "At the time (the very beginning of the 10th century BCE ) these sites were small, unfortified villages, and Lachish was not yet settled. Hence, at the beginning of the 10th century BCE the Kingdom of Judah had a limited urban core consisting of a few small fortified cities." He openly admits that these sites were all very small, and that almost all the material found in that time stratum was Canaanite/Philistine.

Garfinkel admits (pg 131) that the most main city of Khirbet Qeiyafa was "encircled by heavy fortifications of extraordinary strength, including a casemate city wall and two gates)", and that this major city was destroyed shortly after it was built. Extraordinary strength indeed.

Regarding the era of Solomon, Garfinkel admits that "No archaeological levels of this particular era were uncovered in our project." (pg 140) He then cheerfully fixates on "a portable shrine carved in limestone" which has architectural elements similar to what was claimed for Solomon's temple – although he also admits that these elements originated in Mesopotamia and were common throughout the Middle East for thousands of years.

Garfinkel also admits (pg 147) that, regarding Rehoboam: "The geographical distribution of the cities in the list fits well with the expansion of the Kingdom of Judah from three urban centers located within one day’s walking distance from one another to four urban centers located up to two days’ walking distance from Jerusalem." And that Iron Age Lachish was first fortified only in the days of king Rehoboam. (pg 143)

On this most tenuous basis, Garfinkel concludes that "a centralized state was formed as early as the end of the 11th century BCE, in the days of David." Cute.

Wdford (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

"no remains that can be absolutely dated to the early 10th century BCE have been uncovered" If I remember correctly, there are several buildings and ruins in Jerusalem with disputed dates. Does he mention anything specific? Dimadick (talk) 04:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

You can find the summarised discussion here [1] There are a lot of disputes, which is complicated by a lack of hard data, among other things. You can find the Garfinkel paper here [2] Wdford (talk) 09:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Exactly: there are no hard data, so all Israeli archaeologists can do is drill "what if" scenarios. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

There are simply not enough hard data to declare either Finkelstein or Dever as a victor. Dever sometimes cried "Victory!" but such cries are premature. In all major Israeli universities there are both supporters and detractors of Finkelstein. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Dever holds that there was a "united monarchy" as per the Bible stories in the 10th Century BCE, but even he does not claim that the full extent of the biblical grandiosity is historical - rather that the "kingdom" was small and localised. In 2003 Dever regarded the kingdom as an ethnic group rather than an organised state. In 2021 Dever still refers to the 10th century entity as an "early inchoate state,' one that will not be fully consolidated until the 9th century BCE". Wdford (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

@Wdford: The sweet spot is when Dever and Finkelstein agree upon something. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)