Talk:History of ancient Israel and Judah/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Para added to Iron I section re theories on emergence of Israel

The first two paras of the section on Iron I present the evidence, without interpretation; this final section gives an overview of notable theories explaining its import. It's based on the first few pages of an article from the Tyndall Review, which is an Evangelical publication, but a respectable scholarly "name". In these pages the author gives an overview of the current state of the scholarly debate: he's extremely good, he's concise, thorough, and comprehensible to the laymen. Please comment here if you have any points to make, but I don't think we'll find a better source. PiCo (talk) 10:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

As stated, I am holding analysis of this new paragraph until the previous graf's issues are semistable; the placeholder tag I left to note this hold has been removed. JJB 13:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

PiCo and Dylan Flaherty are sockpuppets (or more probable close associates)??

My impression is that either Dylan Flaherty is sockpuppet of PiCo or, what is more probable, is his close associate recruited to promote his point of view on certain subjects on Wikipedia. What lead to this impression? Obviously, they share close views, but this is certainly not enough to suspect a sockpuppet. The main reason is that DF has too much knowledge of Wikipedia,wiki editing, wiki rules and ongoing discussions for a few month old user. This leads to conclusion that he is either an old wikipedian, using a new username, or is tutored by an old wikipedian. Secondary, they also exchange remarks about other users` comments and edits that show close association and cooperation. 195.239.154.76 (talk) 10:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not helpful to make this accusation at article talk; it should be saved for the sock report board (search for it). I thought I saw circumstantial evidence that these two were not socks, but close association has some merit, particularly in the unquestioning acceptance of each other's POVs. I also noted that both Dougweller and PiCo claim to know personally Niels Lemche, who is a source for this article. However, a better board than sock might be ANI or 3RR for an ongoing slow war, and the general disruption of not following consensus-building procedures. A strong proof of this is that both PiCo and Dylan have refused to respond to a repeated mediation request when I said that such refusal would be taken as disinterest in the topic area, but both continue warring in the topic area, which is a good indication of refusal to build consensus and thus disruption. JJB 17:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I have a dreadful confession: Dylan, myself, AND John Bulten ARE ALL SOCKPUPPETS OF EACH OTHER! Yes, oh yes, you see, I get so bored here night after night, I just started replicating, all over the internet. I write something, then as John Bulten I contradict myself, then as Dylan I support myself. Oh God where will it end! Be careful young numerical ISP sir, lest you also be drawn into this pit of autoreferential depravity! (More later) PiCo (talk) 03:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I dont`t want to accuse anybody, I only shared my impression. In fact, I don`t care much about how many replicas do you have, it`s all same for me. And I don`t care for the "pit of autoreferential depravity" (what does it mean?) also. So you are welcome for "more later".
P.S. Meanwhile, you don`t have to speak so loud (capital letters in an internet discussion mean shouting, as far as I know). 195.239.154.76 (talk) 10:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Iron ages

We currently have separate headings for "Iron Age IIa (10th–9th centuries BCE)" and "Iron Age IIb (8th century – 586 BCE)", but there's no text for the first, and I don't see where the distinction is mentioned anywhere. Any objections to combining them again into "Iron Age II (10th century - 586 BCE)"? Dylan Flaherty 05:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Dylan, that was my fault - I deleted the content. See the post below. Yes, I think we need to combine into a single Iron II section, as we really can'ty keep subdividing our periods like this. PiCo (talk) 05:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


An editor has made an addition to the article - dividing the Iron Age II section into two parts, Iron Age IIa and IIb. The material added to the first of these sections I've just reverted. Before saying why, I'll paste it in here:

  • The traditional dating of the rise of a centralized, Israelite kingdom with its capital at Jerusalem in the 10th century BCE has received increasing support from archaeological evidence uncovered in the 21st century, particularly from the digs at the City of David, Khirbet Qeiyafa also known as Elah Fortress in the Valley of Elah, now proposed as the biblical Sha'arayim, and at Khirbat en-Nahas in modern southern Jordan.[1] Archaeologist Yosef Garfinkel understands Khirbet Qeiyafa as a Judean city dated to the late tenth century, making it the first excavated Judean city dated to the period traditionally described as that of a united kingdom under David and Solomon.[1] The enormous scale of the copper mines at Khirbet en-nahas supports the Biblical description of Moab as a powerful, centralized kingdom. It corroborates the other evidence for a strong, centralized 10th-century Israelite kingdom with the argument that if Moab was a powerful, 10th century kingdom, an Israelite kingdom of similar scale could also have existed.[1]

The reversion is partly because of the source - we like to have more scholarly works than the National Geographic. It's also because it misrepresents that source: as the Nat Geo article makes clear, the work of Mazar is highly disputed (in fact her dating of the Stepped Structure is almost universally dismissed), while the Khirbet Qeiyafa site (not a city, more a fortified village) tells us nothing about the biblical history of David, and won't do until it can be linked with an individual of that name (and in any case, if we follow the biblical history, it would have to have been built by Saul, since the Book of Samuel says David was just a boy at the time of the battle). Also Moab: nobody says Moab was a "powerful kingdom" in the 10th century, the idea is that it first began at this time. This is why we need to be ultra-careful with our sources. (Incidentally, there's a good blog-review of the Nat Geo article here).PiCo (talk) 05:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

New edit list

The following edits are a renumbering of the extant 10 Oct 2010 RFC issues so that the RFC can someday be archived. JJB 19:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC) Discussion of each sentence or clause should stay within its appropriate section, kept separate from other discussions. JJB 19:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Bible ascription

19 (RFC point 2). Add The Bible narratives are ascribed to the eras they depict by Bava Batra 14b ff. (Talmud) and early Church Fathers. PiCo has never objected to this sentence since listed for comment 10 Oct, until the last 24 hours; thus PiCo is now undoing long-standing consensus and deleting a POV complementary to Golden's. This sentence should be retained unless source-based reasons for deleting this POV emerge. JJB 19:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

While true in itself (yes, the Bava Batra and the Church fathers ascribed books to various authors), this is irrelevant - it's no more than an isolated fact, without obvious relevance to the article. In other words, what is it meant to demonstrate to our readers? PiCo (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, another editor said, "This sentence belongs in the section on the Biblical literature." Why don't you ask that editor? I don't know that I'd have much to add, since to me it's obvious that the historical POV and Golden's POV both need inclusion because they are contradictory. The fact that you are now requesting that all the other changes get put on hold while you reopen a consensus wording that stood for 1.5 months is not the mark of a constructive but a disruptive editor. You ask what it's meant to demonstrate, which is again the OR that WP must demonstrate something other than stating sourced facts. Since you admit the sentence is true and primary-sourced, and since it's obviously related to Golden's POV, and since no source-based reasons for deletion have emerged, I will reinsert it. JJB 03:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
"Golden's POV", as you term it, is mainstream; the "historical POV" isn't a point of view at all, it's a statement of fact; The question is, what does it mean? So the 2nd century rabbis put authors to the books of the bible, so what? Mainstream opinion is that all the biblical books have multiple authors, and none of them are by the authors named in today's bibles. (See Authorship of the Bible). PiCo (talk) 06:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Of course it's a POV; tens or hundreds of millions of people believe it, going back to at least those (approx. 2,000) rabbis. And you conceded its inclusion here, and you agree that it's accurate and primary-sourced, and apparently recognize that it contradicts Golden. Accordingly, accepting all your points arguendo, if it were only a bare statement of fact and you can't tell what it means, and even if it's not "mainstream opinion" (which is undefinable), you do not get to delete a sourced, accurate, longstanding fact that counters a POV you recently inserted. But there is another solution, and that is just source-verify your new Golden (and Dever) and retain the Talmudic balancing POV, so I'll try that first. JJB 17:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Tens or hundreds of millions of people have also believed that the Earth is flat. PiCo (talk) 12:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
But not today: to compare apples with apples, if you go back to the historic era, traditionalists number in the billions or ten billions. But you and I have just indulged in throwaway barbs. This, and your comments below, do not explain why you deleted attribution to Golden from the sentence because "it's in the citation", which does not wash because you've accepted other in-text names even though they're in citations. Attribution is necessary because WP does not say in its own voice "it is critical to ...": that's a judgment call and we should say who is making that judgment rather than say on Golden's authority that WE know such circumspection is critical. This is an extension of WP:SAY again, which is linked at WP:NPOV, and which deprecates expressions like "it is believed, ... it is often reported, it is widely thought." However, since you are now operating within the bounds of BRD by not reverting the other text, I need not revert until I hear your defense against these policies. JJB 14:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Since PiCo is editing elsewhere, I'm taking the inclusion of the Talmud clause as once again accepted, and the disagreement if any as having moved to the issue of citation of Golden, which is point 28 below, where discussion may continue. JJB 12:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:FOUND

Should be WP:SAY.

20 (RFC point 10). Change Certain features ... were once identified as intrinsically "Israelite," but have been found .... to Certain features ... were said to be intrinsically "Israelite," but are also said .... No reason for violating WP:SAY on "found" has ever been presented; objections about Albright's "certain features" position have been addressed through compromises. This phrasing should be retained unless additional sourcing indicates reasons to violate WP:SAY. JJB 19:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:FOUND tells me that the "Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. is a non-profit charitable organization headquartered in San Francisco, California," etc etc. Seriously, (and I must admit that was pretty funny), you've misunderstood your sources. As I've said before, the way you've got it, it reads as if these ideas are still current, but in fact they're not - therefore we use past tense. (See the link to Edelman that I put in somewhere up above). PiCo (talk) 06:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, in 2 months you'll catch me in a lapse now and then. I already accommodated your desire to use past tense, as you can see if you read it. You say it reads as if the ideas are still current, but that is a synthesis you are inferring from the change in verbs, not stated in the text. If you want to find a phrasing that complies with guidance, complies with sources, and accommodates your desire to remove an inference that only you see, you can propose a different wording, but you haven't. Since your inference is not actually present in the text, since you agree on using past tense and since you provide no reason for objecting to the very minor alignment with WP:SAY nor an alternative, I will reinsert it. JJB 17:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Continued at #2. Collar-rim jars & 4-room houses: need to bring into conformity with sources. JJB 04:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Continued at #Edits. JJB 14:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Distinctive repertoire

21 (RFC point 10). Add Ceramic repertoire and agrarian settlement plans are also said to distinguish highland sites.[2] This POV was accepted by PiCo but stated to be redundant, when its whole virtue is that it is not redundant, but expresses an ongoing (2005) POV complementary to both Albright's and Miller's. I have moved the sentence a bit later to accommodate PiCo's concerns about flow. This sentence should be retained unless source-based reasons for deleting this POV emerge. JJB 19:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You've misunderstood your sources again - I think you've confused "ceramic repertoire" with collar-rim pithoi. The ceramic repertoire is 100% Canaanite (see Edelman). The agrairan settlement plans I've explained before - this is reference to the circular village plans that you find at a few sites. But yo9u only find them in the very earliest sites. They are distinctive, but they're not widespread. And of course, Albright's idea of the distinctiveness of collar-riimmed pithoi and 4-chambered houses has been found to be wrong - as mentioned above. PiCo (talk) 06:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I have not confused them. You agreed the repertoire percentages are different and thus a distinguishing factor. If you want to add sources about the "impoverishment" or the "nonwidespread" nature, that is your burden. Since you have not presented any source-based reason that Killebrew's POV should be removed, and since you admit the applicability of the point if not its phrasing, I am reinserting it. JJB 17:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

"Ceramic repertoire and agrarian settlement plans are also said to distinguish highland sites.[3]" First the ceramic repertoire. You seem to be misinterpreting Killebrew, who says on page 157 that the ceramics "continue the tradition of Late Bronze Age pottery shapes." I suggest you look at page 44 of Diana Edelman, "Ethnicity and Early Israel": she notes the "general homogeneity of the Iron I ceramic repertoire" (meaning that all the highland villages were using very similar pots), "which is considered by ceramic experts to be a direct continuation of the Late Bronze "Canaanite" (note: Canaanite, not Palestinian - do you see the way the two terms are used?) tradition." And she concludes by saying that this homogenous ceramic repertoire "should not erroneously be presumed to reflect the presence of a similar, ethnically homogenous population, nor necessarily be an ethnic marker."

  • Edit: Reflect the common view of modern archaeologists as reflected here.

Now for the "agrarian settlement patterns": I think I've explained elsewhere that this refers to the circular villages with a sheep-pen in the middle. As I've noted above, this village type is found only in a few sites, the very earliest, and quickly disappears. Staying with Edelman, look at page 47, where she questions Finkelstein's thesis (it's Finkelstein's idea, not Killebrew's), saying: "It (i.e. this settlement pattern) reveals nothing about the origin of the inhabitants of a settlement, since animals would have been part of the economic strategy of all settlements...(and)...could have been used by different ethnic groups...". This is very much the way Finkelstein's idea has been received generally: some acceptance, far more doubt.

  • Edit: Reflect the general view, don't give undue weight to a controversial hypothesis that's been generally discredited. PiCo (talk) 13:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
You continue to neglect that Killebrew p. 13 (also a common view of modern archaeologists) says they are both distinguishing markers (though not necessarily ethnic markers), which is what the article says and what you seem to have agreed with. If you want additional sourcing as to homogeneity or impoverishment of ceramics, or rarity or economy of sheep-pens, feel free to add that without losing the POV from Killebrew p. 13; although we might need to know who those "ceramic experts" are. Since your requested edit is so vague as to not be a request, this one would fall on you anyway. However, I hardly think it's undue weight when the continuity side already has had more space anyway in virtually all edits; but if you want it to have more space, source away. JJB 15:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Continued at #3. Pottery repertoire and at #Settlement plans. JJB 20:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC) Continued at #Edits. JJB 14:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Iron I Canaan

22 (RFC point 10). Change Iron I Palestine to Iron I Canaan to correct anachronism, as the former has never been the name of any entity. Alternatively, we could change it to a present reference with some phrase like Iron I Palestine excavations, meaning excavations in Palestine of Iron I culture. This phrasing should be retained unless evidence exists that there was an entity called "Palestine" in Iron Age I. JJB 19:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

"Palestine" is normal usage - you can check this by looking in any of the books we're using. PiCo (talk) 06:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
This is a nonstarter. I refer you again to naming guidance and to your own admission, "before (classical times) it was Canaan and various other names", not Palestine. Since you have not proven that "Iron I Palestine" has any meaning per se, I am compromising by changing it to "Iron I Palestine excavations". JJB 17:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC) Thank you for not objecting to this compromise text. JJB 15:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Finkelstein

23 (RFC point 11). Add (as archaeologists like Israel Finkelstein have interpreted it) after interpreting this as an ethnic marker. PiCo agrees with quoting Finkelstein but has deleted him apparently due to grammar. Other phrasings are possible, and in fact I preferred the prior one, but I am working right now from PiCo's current move creating the difficult phrase "caution in interpreting" in the latter part of the sentence. This clause should be retained (or rephrased) unless there is a reason for removing the POV and attribution of archaeologists like Finkelstein (sourced to Killebrew p. 176). JJB 19:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You've got me confused here - what is it you're trying to say?PiCo (talk) 06:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Simply that you believe Finkelstein should be mentioned ("We source this to Finkestein [sic] because he wrote the book on it"). This is not even an objection to the inclusion, but only the phrasing, so I will move the "interpreting" portion and reinstate a reference to Finkelstein to fix the phrasing. JJB 17:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

"While the pig is notably absent from hill sites, which archaeologists like Israel Finkelstein interpret as an ethnic marker, specialists have advised caution in interpreting this as an ethnic marker since the lack of pig bones could reflect factors that have little to do with ethnicity; the issue of food taboos has been discussed in detail.[4][5]" I'll handle this section as a unit because it all relates to pig-bones. The essential problem is that it's badly written. But before we try to re-write it, let's look at what's to be said. There are no pig-bones in highland sites: this is a fact. There are pig-bones in lowland sites (especially Philistine ones): fact 2. Fact 3: this is the sole generally accepted difference between lowland and highland sites, and therefore the sole feature which might be used to call the people of these highland villages "Israelite". (As an aside, but an important one, the person who put forward this idea was Finkelstein, a name that keeps cropping up). So how is it to be explained? Finkelstein and those who agree with him say it reflects the Israelite food taboo as found in the bible; but others have pointed out that there could be other reasons, and that in any case it wasn't only the highland Palestinian villages that had no pig bones - it's actually pretty common, and pig-avoiders seem to be more representative of the region than pig-eaters. I think we actually agree on the basics, and the disagreement is over how it should be expressed. I leave it to you to craft us a piece of clear, simple prose. PiCo (talk) 13:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I will simply use your own sentence, change the front to "Archaeologists like Israel Finkelstein" per source, and cite the first half and request source for the second half. It's a fine compromise-draft sentence, even if a bit informal. Back to you. JJB 15:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

(I reverted the sentence you added re pig-bones - I know you were doing me a favour in the spirit of compromise, but in fact I never meant that as a proposal for the article. Thanks for the thought, but we'll get to the pig-bones in due course. PiCo (talk) 03:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC))

I really don't see what good it does to revert your own explanatory text on the grounds that, even if you think it's OK for explaining it to talk readers, you think it's not OK for explaining it to article readers. You did ask me to draft text, I copied your own text, you reverted it, and you again place the issue is "on hold" without your expressing true concerns with either draft. Enough of that activity can be considered to be stall tactics, as if there wasn't enough rediscussion already. However, as long as you continue to advance the conversation and not engage in warring, I have resolved to deal with the bytecount necessary. Since you have reverted your own informal sentence in favor of mine, indicating that you consider mine an improvement over yours in some sense, I consider my current sentence to be the new consensus text and will be suspicious of any potential future claims that another version that omits my concerns has greater validity than the sentence you inserted back. (Whenever I'm reverting to text that I still don't agree with, I usually at least tag it or mention the standing disagreement. Since you have done neither, but say only your thoughts come "in due course", you indicate a current consensus.) JJB 20:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Continued in next section, #Food taboos. JJB 08:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Food taboos

24 (new point). Add The issue of food taboos has been discussed in detail. at the Hesse footnote. PiCo has said we need to get across that food taboos are at issue, but acts like I had no reason for adding this sentence. Also, the deletion of the Hesse footnote along with this clause removes the primary motivators of the preceding clause cited also to Killebrew p. 176. This sentence should be retained unless there is a reason for not alluding to food taboos in the article as PiCo said should be alluded to. JJB 19:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Not quite. One of the possible reasons for the absence of pig bones is a food taboo - which of course the historical Hebrew scriptures stress. In that case, the lack of pig bones might be an ethnic marker. But others have pointed out that there can be other reasons for not having pigs, and also that lots of ancient peoples avoided them. This is what we need to explain.
Since all the rest is already explained but the food taboos aren't, and since you say here and previously that we do need to explain the position of food taboos, I am reinserting them. If you have a better source quote about food taboos, the burden is on you. JJB 17:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC) Per PiCo at point 23 above, moving the Hesse cite for this point to the first half of PiCo's proposed sentence. JJB 15:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

On this point and the previous one, PiCo now proposes the combined text, "Finkelstein also suggested that the notable absence of pig bones from the highlands could be taken as an ethnic marker (in line with the later Jewish food taboo), but others have pointed out that this could reflect ecological factors." This adds reference to a "later Jewish" food taboo and to "ecological" factors, not in Killebrew p. 176 or Silberman pp. 25, 238, which puts the burden of proof on PiCo for these points. It also deletes source reference to plural archaeologists, continues to change the source description "interpreted" to "suggested", and adds hesitancy with "could be taken as" rather than "is interpreted as", following source.

In this case PiCo had previously reverted to the text, "While the pig is notably absent from hill sites, which archaeologists like Israel Finkelstein interpret as an ethnic marker, specialists have advised caution in interpreting this as an ethnic marker since the lack of pig bones could reflect factors that have little to do with ethnicity; the issue of food taboos has been discussed in detail." Accordingly I will combine PiCo's older and newer versions to arrive at: "Archaeologists like Finkelstein interpret the notable absence of pig bones from hill sites as an ethnic marker (the issue of food taboos has been discussed in detail), but others have advised caution since this could reflect factors that have little to do with ethnicity." Continued at #Edits. JJB 14:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

McNutt position

25 (new point). Move Archaeologist Paula McNutt says, "It is probably safe to assume that sometime during Iron Age I a population began to identify itself as 'Israelite', differentiating itself from the Canaanites through such markers as the prohibition of intermarriage, an emphasis on family history and genealogy, and religion."[6] from end of graf 2 to end of graf 1, because it patently contradicts Dever, per above, and needs to be placed in contradistinction to him. It should not be given the concluding place as implying that Dever's (and Merneptah's) statement of an Israel established in 1209 is precluded by a judgment that they began that identification later. This move should be sustained unless there is a reason for believing that the contradistinction would not be misweighted if the two POVs are kept separate. JJB 19:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

John, you've misunderstood. Dever isn't contradicting McNutt (they're colleagues, and McNutt bases her work closely on Dever). McNutt is saying what's very much the mainstream opinion: the Israelite "ethnos" emerged from a mixed population, mainly but not exclusively of Canaanite extraction, (the material culture is almost exclusively Canaanite apart from the pig bones, plus there are those circular settlement plans in the very earliest villages) in the central Palestinian highlands during the Late Bronze/Early Iron transition. PiCo (talk) 06:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
She doesn't say it was during the transition, which would remove the contradiction. If you would like her to be sourced on saying it was the transition, that might work, and might remove the need for moving the sentence, and I can try that. If I don't find a pull quote though, I will move the sentence again to point out the technical contradiction, even if you're saying she doesn't believe what she says, that the beginning of Israel came only in Iron I, contrary to Merneptah's evidence. JJB 17:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC) Thank you for not objecting to this compromise text. JJB 15:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Ongoing guidance

26 (RFC point 17). In our third month of this it is even clearer that an overall review of other edits by PiCo for source violations is appropriate, and I continue to invite outside comments. JJB 19:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me. PiCo (talk) 06:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Origin theories

27 (new point). Discussion of the new origins paragraph will ensue when I have reviewed the sources. JJB 19:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Also fine by me - everyone is welcome to edit on Wikipedia. PiCo (talk) 06:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

In this paragraph PiCo has now replaced John Bright, as in source, with a redlinked G.E. Wright not in source, which is another uncarried burden; attributed the three theories only to the early-to-mid 20th century, when the source does not do so (it presents them as having emerged each with issues, and presents the later theories as ramifications of the third, leaving the other two extant); called the theories "major", not in source; backed out the more gradual "emerged" to the more one-time "proposed"; added the POV term "advanced by" instead of source's neutral "originated by"; changed "Marxist", as in source, to "essentially Marxist"; stated that Mendenhall and Gottwald positively ID'd the Israelites as Canaanites when source says they only drew attention to the possibility; added the blanket statement "By the 1980s ongoing archaeological discoveries had led to the abandonment of all three models, and new theories were advanced", not in source, in lieu of what the source actually said (that all three had problems or criticisms, and that later theories arose out of the third previously emergent theory); changed "biblical narrative" as per source to "Book of Joshua" when it is not that specific; repeated the word "subsequent", not repeated in source, to make Dever and McNutt the latest theorists rather than contemporaneous critics; added McNutt and "scholars such as" to Dever's theory of mixed people, attributed to him alone in source (while McNutt might be sourced for adding her name to this theory, she is not accorded it by Pitkänen); using the bald "group of indigenous origin" rather than the source's more nuanced "settlement was essentially an indigenous development". But since these are all new ideas, and PiCo has made another edit in another section, I'll leave this note for now and pick it up later. JJB 09:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, the minimum correction to PiCo's language to address the concerns above seems to be:

Three theories emerged to explain the origins of the highland population: the "conquest" model associated with Albright and Bright affirmed the basic historicity of the Bible; the "peaceful infiltration" model originated by Alt and Noth saw the Israelites as nomads who entered and settled over many years; and the "peasants revolt" model of Mendenhall and Gottwald proposed a Marxist analysis in which the Israelites were an underclass in revolt against their overlords.[7] Coote and Whitelam attempting to understand the birth of Israel in terms of climate change and the collapse of trade structures, while Israel Finkelstein explained the Iron Age hill-country settlements as previous nomads adopting a settled lifestyle. Dever has suggested that the Israelites were a mixed group seeking a better life in the highlands, including in their number pastoral and nomadic elements and a small "exodus" group from Egypt.[8]

I guess I can put that in now, although (unlike my other latest edits) there are a couple word choices not present in PiCo's drafts: Bright, emerged, originated, Bible. JJB 09:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC) PiCo has now, without point-by-point rebuttal, repeated a number of source conformity failures mentioned above, or in the #General section (where I said, 'Restore "(with Mendenhall and Gottwald)" because they too allow an exodus group .... Restore at end "These subsequent scholars sought an indigenous-origin explanation as suggested by the 'peasants revolt' model." to indicate per source that subsequent theories were inspired by that model rather than supplanting the prior three models.'). I am again restoring the same sourced points as follows, and/or deleting new points still not in sources:

  • Delete "in the early to mid 20th century" as source does not cast these theories as dated, above;
  • Restore "and Bright" per source and above;
  • Delete the new unsourced OR narrative, "argued that archaeology confirmed the the violent conquest of Canaan depicted in the first chapters of the Book of Joshua", not in source, and restore what is in source, "affirmed the basic historicity of the Bible" (source language is "to affirm the basic historicity of the biblical text"). If you wish to get this specific, the burden is on you to source it. "Argued" is a word to avoid.
  • The new time markers "More or less contemporary" and "A little later" are unsourced and I am changing them to source language "Another" and "Third,". Adding comma to the third theory.
  • Delete the new unsourced OR narrative, "For various reasons all three fell into disfavour in the last quarter of the century, and new models were advanced.", not in source, and restore what is in source, "All three have problems or criticisms." Source does not present any of the three as disfavored, it merely describes the later theories as outgrowths of the third general theory.
  • Delete "In the 1980s ... in the 1990s" as unsourced, as it is unclear when it should be said the new branches arose. The footnotes in the source attribute these two respectively to 1987 and 1988 (not 1990s), but it is not clear in source that either theory should be dated so particularly, nor to a particular misselected decade. Even if the dating is intended to support some synthetic narrative that may be present in the source, that support was already present with the source's word "subsequent", which I am reinserting.
  • Source does not say Coote and Whitelam "explained" but "attempt[ed] to understand" and "sought to explain"; I will use the latter. Switching Finkelstein's "explained" similarly for balance.
  • Again, reinserting the fact that 'These subsequent scholars sought an indigenous-origin explanation as suggested by the "peasants revolt" model, including in their number pastoral and nomadic elements and (with Mendenhall and Gottwald) a small "exodus" group from Egypt.' PiCo had deleted this sentence along with Dever, which I regard as a renege on PiCo's previous inclusion of Dever, the pastoral/nomadic element, and the exodus group. In addition to providing these details, it is also necessary to note the stated connections between the later theories and Mendenhall and Gottwald's theories. I don't regard Dever as strictly necessary in being slightly redundant, but in this case am going with omitting it as that would be "whatever PiCo said last". JJB 21:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Golden on ascription

28 (new point). Discussion of the Sources sentence describing Golden's ascription will ensue when I have reviewed the sources. JJB 19:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC) ADD: same for the new Dever sentence. JJB 17:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

General

John, this is far too much for me to take on at one sitting. I've reverted your edit back to the minor edit that you asked to be preserved, and I've answered the first of your points above (the one about the Bava Batra). I'm sure you'll challenge what I've said, so let's deal with that one before we go on to another. PiCo (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
You seem to have had no problem with lengths of sittings yesterday. Since your text continues the NPOV policy violations and you do not wish to defend it, I am reverting it while we wait for your reasons. I have been playing the seriatim game for 2 months and I am not continuing to sit idly while you refuse to provide the reasons to support your text. JJB 03:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Some days are busier than others. I've reverted (again) to the default text - since you're the one wanting to introduce changes, it's up to you to get them accepted. I know you feel I'm being obstructive, but from my perspective I'm faced with an editor who has minimal familarity with the subject and very little inclination to listen to any voice but the one in his head that tells him he's in the right. On the other hand, you're contributions have, I feel, led to a closer examination of the article and to a better text. So I do welcome your continuing involvement. PiCo (talk) 06:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Reversion is wholly unacceptable. It is obvious that we have had a 2-month situation of no consensus and only glimmers of light now and then, and only 3 editors have participated with any consistency. So at this phase the idea that there is a "default" text is disruptive, as it tends toward warring and hides your paucity of source-based argument. WP is not about it being up to me to get my changes accepted BY YOU, which is an WP:OWNERSHIP position; it is about both of us making compromises to get to a neutral text. Your compromises are rare and, on point 19, you contradicted your former agreement on retaining the sentence, which stood for 1.5 months; going back on an agreement or compromise means that any other compromises you might offer are tainted by the risk of recidivist reversion.
Your personal attacks are being ignored for the nonce (really, a voice in my head?).
I am making several changes per above for discussion, none of which are appropriate for reversion, because it would be a reversion to various guidance failures undefended for two months. On 19 (and 28), I am source-verifying and balancing the text as unbalanced POV, which is a new version not yet tried; on 20, 21, 24, and 25 I am restoring the text due to WP:SAY and unbalanced POV, and leaving you the WP:BURDEN of sourcing any concerns; on 22 and 23 I am trying a new untried phrasing, due to geonames and unbalanced POV; and on 26 and 27 I am holding on addressing your versions. When you have the burden of sourcing your concerns, reversion against the policies and guidelines stated, without addressing them, is bare-faced edit warring; instead you should source what you say should be in the article, or, more particularly, source texts in the article that contradict implications you see in my text (if you think Edelman is relevant, please pardon me for not reading her until you insert a cited assertion from her in the article). In the other cases, which a very loose reading of BRD might defend a reversion, the fact is that we are way way past BRD now: we are at the point where reversion indicates you are not assuming the good faith of my 2-month reporting of the violations, because you have stated no reason to prefer your version that contradicts that guidance: you generally agree that my text is accurate, sourced, and complementary to present text, yet you object on aesthetic or synthetic grounds. BRD is about people who can make compromises to reach consensus. Since you have not tried the compromise route yet in any significant way (as I have again on 19, 22, 23, 28 above), it's worth a shot, rather than getting a slow-war report written about you. You committed three reverts yesterday, even though you didn't touch the electric-wire fourth revert. JJB 17:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
It's the default text because it was the text we had before you started trying to get us to change it. PiCo (talk) 12:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Other miscellaneous responses to PiCo's newest text, which I'm not making at this moment:

  • Delete "from 25 at the end of Late Bronze" because, even if a "to" requires a "from", the "from" datum appears in the prior section and is redundant in Iron I. (But in fact PiCo deleted the very next "from", which was "20,000", without deleting the "to", so the argument is specious anyway.)  Not done, mooted by PiCo's change.
  • Change "end of the 11th century" to "end of Iron I" as the same meaning but shorter.  Done.
  • Change "pastoral nomads" to "other communities like pastoral nomads" per source inclusion of further people-groups.  Done.
  • Trim "although these left no trace in the archaeological record" to "that left no remains" per prior baseline.  Done.
  • Trim "the highland population" to "this population".  Not done, mooted.
  • Trim "associated with" to "of".  Done.
  • Trim "in which the Israelites were an underclass" to "of an Israelite underclass".  Done from variant text.
  • Trim "'exodus' group from Egypt" to "Egyptian exodus".  Done.
  • Restore "(with Mendenhall and Gottwald)" because they too allow an exodus group.  Done.
  • Restore at end "These subsequent scholars sought an indigenous-origin explanation as suggested by the 'peasants revolt' model." to indicate per source that subsequent theories were inspired by that model rather than supplanting the prior three models.  Done.

Since these changes (re)introduce text PiCo has not formally accepted, I may make them later after reviewing PiCo's response to my current edit set, which consists entirely of PiCo's language except for 4 words. JJB 10:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Since PiCo continues to IMHO renege on prior agreed text, the next steps are now (1) resolve any disagreements over the minimum source conformity requirements I just inserted, (2) add the above remaining trivial changes, (3) perform any other condensation necessary, (4) work on the sourcing section. These steps may be combined if PiCo continues behavior perceptible as stalling. JJB 14:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Addressing John's problems

The threads above are getting congested (again), so I'll paste here the portion of the para from the section on Iron I that John has problems with (this is the text John suggests):

"Archaeologists and historians see more continuity than discontinuity between the highland settlements and the preceding Late Bronze Canaanite culture.[9] Certain features such as collar-rimmed jars and four-roomed houses were said to be intrinsically "Israelite," but are also said to belong to a commonly shared culture throughout Iron I Palestine excavations.[10] Ceramic repertoire and agrarian settlement plans are also said to distinguish highland sites.[11] While the pig is notably absent from hill sites, which archaeologists like Israel Finkelstein interpret as an ethnic marker, specialists have advised caution in interpreting this as an ethnic marker since the lack of pig bones could reflect factors that have little to do with ethnicity; the issue of food taboos has been discussed in detail.[12][13]"

Now let me go through this line by line:

1. Colon needed for structural reasons

"Archaeologists and historians see more continuity than discontinuity between the highland settlements and the preceding Late Bronze Canaanite culture.[14]" No problems with this, except it needs a colon, as the next sentences are elaborations on these continuities/discontinuities.

  • Edit: Introduce a colon. PiCo (talk) 13:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Fine by me, doing. Your other line-by-line comments were moved to preserve the context of my comments about them, as I previously requested. Note that screensful of comments are no less congested when they are far removed from context than when they are inline with context. I also tend to reverse-indent before the indent level gets too far into creating more screensful than necessary to follow the thread, and am restoring that too, as I saw you introducing inconsistent indents without any offsetting benefit; and I am making this talk section heading more neutral. Please continue each conversation in place, thanks. JJB 15:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I need to add that your decision with this edit set to stick with a model resembling BRD makes things much easier for both of us. Rather than figure out how to address the new changes in article and talk at the same time, we can be more leisurely about making only changes that have consensus between us two. I also don't need to go back and fix minor improvements that vanish upon cold reverts, and there are other advantages. Now while writing these it occurs to me that you may be alluding to technical reasons for the difficult style you have adopted in the past: i.e., your expressed difficulty ("congestion") in responding to multiple points inline may relate to the software or screen requirements you may be using, leading you to start new threads and recopy only the text proposal and discuss only that and not the inline arguments. This would have greatly helped the smoothness of the discussion if I had guessed it earlier, as it explains a few of the behaviors I asked you to consider changing. However, if you're going to continue a heavy schedule of editing articles like this and deciding to hold tenaciously to certain insertions, that desire does require your overcoming any technical limitations. When you give me more than a screenful, sometimes I copy and paste the entire response and delete it line-by-line as I respond to it; you could try that, or an offline text editor. It is also, believe it or not, easier to respond when headings segregate the issues for shorter discussion, and you can always insert a "random break" subhead to continue conversation in the same thread without letting it get overly lengthy. And BRD is a great boon. Please keep these in mind as we finish up, thanks. JJB 15:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

2. Collar-rim jars & 4-room houses: need to bring into conformity with sources

"Certain features such as collar-rimmed jars and four-roomed houses were said to be intrinsically "Israelite," but are also said to belong to a commonly shared culture throughout Iron I Palestine excavations.[15]"

This isn't what Miller actually says, and that's hardly surprising, as it's not true. What Miller says is this: "Claims have been made that certain features of Iron I culture of western Palestine (note: Palestine, not Canaan) were specifically "Israelite" in origin. ... The two items which have been given most serious consideration as being distinctively Israelite are the so-called "collared-rim jars" and "four room houses". Yet there is nothing intrinsically "Israelite" about either of these features..." The authors go on to describe how the jars and houses have been found well outside the area of biblical Israel, and conclude: "Clearly these items belonged to a commonly shared culture throughout Iron I Palestine (note: Palestine, not Canaan) and therefore cannot be used to isolate particular sites. geographical areas or historical periods as Israelite." End of quotes. So, in short, we can't have wording like this "are also said", which implies that there may be some doubt. Miller expresses no doubt, and neither should we.

  • Edit: conform to what our source says by removing the weasel-wording, and rephrase to indicate that the jars and house-plans were once thought to indicate Israelite sites but are no longer so regarded (i.e., reflect our source). PiCo (talk) 13:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually, your "found" is weasel-wording, my "said" is not. Further, there IS doubt as per Miller, because he only debunks two features, not all the "certain features" like them that he is aware of. However, I don't mind adding "these two features" to the second clause, as follows:
Certain features such as collar-rimmed jars and four-roomed houses were said to be intrinsically "Israelite," but these two features are also said to belong to a commonly shared culture throughout Iron I Palestine excavations.[16]
Since this conforms to your request to remove weaseling and to indicate that the two specific features "debunked" are not in dispute but the others may be, you may insert the three words per BRD, as I did with your colon in your point #1 below. JJB 15:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Your proposal doesn't reflect Miller. We could have this: "Claims have been made that certain features of Iron I culture of western Palestine were specifically "Israelite" in origin, notably "collared-rim jars" and "four room houses", yet there is nothing intrinsically "Israelite" about either of these features and they cannot be used to isolate particular sites. geographical areas or historical periods as Israelite." That's essentially a summary of Miller, using his own words. PiCo (talk) 03:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Now we're getting warmer! My concern then would no longer be misstatement but only the redudancy in the strength with which Miller presents his opinion. How about shortening to: Certain features of Iron I Palestine excavations were said to be specifically "Israelite" in origin, notably collared-rim jars and four-room houses, yet neither of these features isolates particular sites, areas or periods as Israelite.[17] This of course assumes the successive balancing sentence from Killebrew is not deleted. JJB 04:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Fine except I'd use a slightly different wording near the beginning, reflecting Miller: Certain features ... have been said to be specifically "Israelite" in origin, notably collared-rim jars and four-room houses, yet neither of these features isolates particular sites, areas or periods as Israelite.[18] The phrase "of Iron I Palestine excavations" is excluded as redundant - easily inferred from the context. PiCo (talk) 06:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

PiCo has now reneged on this compromise by changing to the text, "some features once thought to be specifically Israelite, notably collared-rim jars and four-room houses, do not in fact isolate particular sites". The compromise text made clear that Miller said neither of two features were known to isolate sites, but the new version misstates Miller as saying that none of any similar features were known to isolate. I previously objected to this. PiCo also restores the "once thought" language not present in the compromise. Accordingly, I will abandon my condensed version and combine PiCo's new phrasing with PiCo's old phrasing in the paragraph just above, which yields: "some features have been said to be specifically Israelite, notably collared-rim jars and four-room houses, yet neither of these features isolates particular sites". JJB 07:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC) Oh, yes, this double renege had the summary "some edits so that the prose is more comprehensible", and this is not the first time PiCo has deleted my concerns with the facile statement that the unbalanced POV is somehow more comprehensible; res ipsa loquitur. JJB 07:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

3. Pottery repertoire

"Ceramic repertoire and agrarian settlement plans are also said to distinguish highland sites.[19]"

We'll leave the settlement plans aside for a moment and concentrate on the "ceramic repertoire". This phrase means the range of pottery types found in a site or group of sites (a group in this case - we're talking about the highland villages during the 200 years of Iron I). John, you seem to be convinced that Killebrew is saying this repertoire "distinguishes" the highland sites. I can't find any wording that indicates that meaning to me - so far as I can see she's simply saying that the highlands have a ceramic repertoire, which is of course true. Everywhere I look I find scholars saying that despite inevitable differences, the highland ceramics are a continuation of those of the Late Bronze (Canaanite) repertoire. The difference is that they're cruder and there are fewer of them - which is very understandable, given that they're being produced in villages instead of towns. Examples:

Given that Killebrew's language is a little abstruse, I'd suggest we use Dever. I'd suggest saying: "The pottery shows a direct and strong continuity." (We'll leave the settlement plans for now, since the case there isn't so simple). PiCo (talk) 11:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Killebrew's statement is, yet again, These small sites are distinguished by the limited number of ceramic forms and their relative percentages, while you look at this same page 13 and say, "I can't find any wording that indicates that" "Killebrew is saying this repertoire 'distinguishes' the highland sites." How much more obvious does the source need to be? She goes on, The differences between the limited repertoire of ceramic forms at these small hill-country hamlets and sites in the lowlands, often within walking distance from highland sites, are remarkable and do seem to designate a 'boundary'. If you're concerned that the continuity has not yet been emphasized well enough with the "more continuity" sentence already present, I suppose you can add a Dever cite to what is already present, although your gloss omits the distinction or difference or change or limitation mentioned by your sources (which you have such difficulty inserting even when you admit "inevitable differences"), and it omits the fact that Dever cites himself ("I would say") rather than a groupthink scholarly view. Both POVs need mention, the "remarkable differences" and the "marked similarity", and although they are both already mentioned in my draft and not yours, I don't mind adding another reference to Dever to mine. Thus you could have, e.g.:
Limited ceramic repertoire and agrarian settlement plans are also said to distinguish highland sites,<ref>Killebrew 2005, p. 13.</ref> although, according to William Dever, most individual ceramic forms indicate a strong and direct continuity from Bronze to Iron.<ref>Dever 2003, p. 121</ref>
I added the word "limited" to address your impoverishment concern, and supplied the qualifiers present in Dever 2003, as well as the page number. However, I'm not sure if even that works because it's so redundant with "more continuity" in Bright 2000; perhaps if both ceramics and settlement plans are elaborated on, we could delete Bright 2000 as the list of specifics, each counterpointed, wouldn't need a general summary. JJB 20:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm going back to p.13 of Killebrew to see what she says. She begins by drawing attention to the Jezreel valley and the way it divided northern and southern Canaan in the Late Bronze period. (This is page 12 through to the top of page 13, the section headed Canaanites). She says there's a "subtle but definable" difference in ceramic assemblages north and south of the valley. But I believe she's talking here about Canaanite ceramics, and so this is not relevant to us.
Then comes the section headed Israelites (page 13). She says: "The late 13th/12th century (villages) in the central hill country ... produced a ceramic assemblage that developed typologically out of the 13th century BCE repertoire of Canaan ... These small sites are distinguished by the limited number of ceramic forms and their relevant percentages ... The differences between the limited repertoire of ceramic forms in these small hill-country hamlets and sites in the lowlands, often within walking distance from highland sites, are remarkable ... (and) may have resulted from social, economic or ideological differences..." (I don't think I've cut anything important out).
So to summarise, she's saying that (A) hill pottery developed from Canaanite forms (which is what everyone else is saying), and (B) the number of forms is limited compared to lowland sites. So she's saying that what distinguishes the hill villages is not the repertoire per se, which she states is essentially Canaanite, but its impoverishment. This is ok to mention so long as we make the distinction: the highland ceramic repertoire developed out of Canaanite forms, but the highland villages display an impoverished ("limited number of") ceramic forms, and their relative percentages.
Based on this, I propose the following wording: I suggest the following wording: "The pottery of the highlands developed out of the 13th century Canaanite repertoire, although the highland villages are distinguished from nearby Canaanite lowland sites by a narrower range of forms and their relative percentages." Bear in mind that this might have to be changed slightly to accommodate the overall flow of the paragraph, but I think that manages to capture the essence of what Killebrew says. PiCo (talk) 03:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
OK thanks, that is a workable base. For correct contextualization, I modify it slightly as:
The late 13th–century pottery of the highlands developed typologically out of the 13th–century repertoire of Canaan, although the highland villages are distinguished from nearby lowland sites by a limited repertoire of forms and their relative percentages; highland villages are also distinguished by agrarian settlement plans.
If you agree it still captures the essence, or have only minor adjustments, we can move on to working on the last clause. JJB 17:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Settlement plans

I'd like to make a separate entry for settlement plans, since this is one area where there may really be differences between Canaanite (lowland) and Israelite (highland) sites. Unfortunately, Killebrew doesn't tell us much - she just says that the sites "are distinguished by...the agrarian nature of their settlement plans." Or if she says more than this, I can't find it.

But I know that she's basing this on Finkelstein, who "wrote the book" so to speak: you either agree with Finkelstein or you disagree, but he's the source. Killebrew evidently agrees. But it's a highly controversial area: have a look at Dever, "Who were the ancient Israelites?" He begins a refutation of Finkelstein on page 162, and though it's not for us to say who's right and wrong, we do have to be aware that we can't just quote Killebrew as if it's universally agreed.

So what I'd suggest is this: "Some archaeologists. notably Israel Finkelstein, have argued that the circular settlement plan of early high villages is an ethnic marker, but this has been controverted by William Dever and others." (and use Dever as the reference unless we can find someone more impartial - it seems a bit unfair to quote Dever and reference him at the same time). PiCo (talk) 03:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Just noting this comment. If it agrees with source and if we replace the argued and controverted with other words, it should be all right. Will look in again a bit later. JJB 06:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC) My first review of the sources would support:
... relative percentages.<ref name=killebrew13>Killebrew 2005, p. 13.</ref> [[Israel Finkelstein]] states that the circular settlement plan that distinguishes high villages reflects an agrarian cultural background, but Dever states this is speculative.<ref>Dever 2003, p. 162.</ref><ref name=killebrew13/>
And delete "Israel" before "Finkelstein" on second reference. Will try that now. JJB 07:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Re-pasting the existing sentence just to have it in front of us:

  • Israel Finkelstein states that the circular settlement plan that distinguishes high villages and the four-room houses reflect a pastoralist background, but Dever states this is speculative.[20][21]

Some very minor points: first, I already changed "agrarian" to "pastoral" since this is obviously a mistake - "agrarian" means farming, but Finkelstein's whole argument is that the settlers came from a background of herding animals, and the word for this is "pastoralism"; and second, the villages aren't "high", they're "highland" - presumably a typo.

More importantly, circular/oval settlement plan is only found in some villages, the earlier ones - it's quickly replaced by a more normal plan, and this normal plan dominates. The best statement I've found of Finkelstein's idea is here (Diana Edelman): "Israel Finkelstein has proposed that the haser-style layout of certain sites, in which housing units...form an ovoid or circular enclosure belted by buildings with open land in the centre, is a marker of Israelite settlement in the hills and proof of their builders' pastoral origins." That's page 45 - she goes on to outline Finkelstein's argument about how this plan developed over time in to a more normal village layout (pp.45-6).

Edelman then herself outlines the main argument against Finkelstein: the haser layout is a "common-sense approach to to living in the hill country" that could have been used by anyone with animals to protect, meaning that it can't be used as an ethnic marker.

I still want to avoid Dever: there's considerable personal animosity between him and Finkelstein, and I want to use someone without that kind of axe to grind. Edelman therefore seems ideal. So I propose this:

  • Archaeologist Israel Finkelstein has proposed that the ovoid or circular layout of certain early sites is a marker of Israelite settlement and proof of their builders' pastoral origins, but others have pointed out that this is a "common-sense approach to to living in the hill country" which "reveals nothing about the identity of the inhabitants." [22]

Most of this summarises the words Edelman uses, but I've inserted the adjective "early" to describe the sites in question - they are early, but Edelman doesn't say so.

The four-room houses are referred to in an earlier sentence. PiCo (talk) 08:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

This translates to me as:
Archaeologist [[Israel Finkelstein]] has proposed the ovoid or circular layout that distinguishes certain highland sites is a marker of Israelite settlement and proof of their builders' [[pastoralist]] origins, but Diana Edelman states this "is a common-sense approach to living in the hill country [that] reveals nothing about the origins of the inhabitants."<ref name=killebrew13/><ref>Edelman in Brett 2002, pp. 45–7.</ref>
*{{Cite book|last=Brett|first=Mark G.|title=Ethnicity and the Bible|publisher=Brill|year=2002|url=http://books.google.com.au/books?id=RfFRhC4FpZkC&pg=PA45&lpg=PA45&dq=Finkelstein+haser-style+layout&source=bl&ots=83TeMFDXIz&sig=lrKV5OCBHp4CMWJplb6x9O9J7Aw&hl=en&ei=OaT4TPO4O42-cdWXzL4D&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Finkelstein%20haser-style%20layout&f=false}} {{Cite book|last=Edelman|first=Diana|chapter=Ethnicity and Early Israel}}
JJB 09:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Pretty much - except (a) instead of Finklelstein proposing the layout "is a marker...", put him proposing it as a marker - this is because the whole point of all this scholarly discussion is to work out ways of deciding, when you dig a site, who it belongs to (even the bible has the countryside filled with Hittites and Perezites and all the rest); and (b) don't name Edelman, because the point she makes is made by many others, and she's merely repeating it - we quote from her book, and anyone who wants to follow this can look that up. (Finkelstein's argument is used by others too, of course, but he has authorship of it, whereas Edelman didn't invent the point she makes). PiCo (talk) 11:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Ministerially applying these two changes only, with "Diana Edelman states" becoming "it is stated", yields the text, "Archaeologist Israel Finkelstein has proposed the ovoid or circular layout that distinguishes certain highland sites as a marker of Israelite settlement and proof of their builders' pastoralist origins, but it is stated this "is a common-sense approach to living in the hill country [that] reveals nothing about the origins of the inhabitants." JJB 07:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

PiCo has now reneged on this compromise text, changing it to 'Finkelstein suggested in the 1990s that the oval or circular layout of some early highland villages could be used to distinguish Israelite sites,[20] but other archaeologists have described them as "a common-sense" adaptation to highland life not revelatory of origins.' This version reneges on the fact that Killebrew states the agrarian layout does still distinguish highland sites in 2005 (the new version makes it Finkelstein's view only), and reneges on the passive attribution (of the "common-sense" quote) that PiCo asked for, now attributing it to a new group of "other archaeologists", when in fact it is a quote of Edelman. Also new in this draft is the mention of the 1990s (which Killebrew 2005 moots), and the relegation of oval plans only to "early" sites. The double renege was summarized, "Edit so that the sentences hang together in a logical progression", again hiding the fact that the flaws PiCo already addressed via compromise were being reinstituted. The new data (the necessity of mentioning the 1990s, "early" villages rather than villages throughout Iron I, and the "other archaeologists") are not in either source, which is a WP:BURDEN for PiCo upon reinsertion. Accordingly, I am combining PiCo's old and new phrasing, as follows: 'Finkelstein has proposed the oval or circular layout that distinguishes some highland sites as a marker of Israelite settlement, but it is stated this is a "common-sense" adaptation to highland life not revelatory of origins.' JJB 07:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Closure

Recently PiCo has apparently discussed concerns materially, presented and accepted compromises, proposed sources and phrasings, and discussed rather than reverted; this yielded much apparent progress. Yet PiCo's documented past habits included reneging on prior discussion, declaring closure without seeking my agreement, and declining to respond to my requests for closure. These habits, as I've alluded, are hardly distinguishable from those of a disruptive editor, e.g., someone who asserts a status quo and consciously refuses to make the slightest move from that position except by unilateral assertion of newly triangulated position without respect to other parties. This last week PiCo has not edited like this, but the former habits had been reported, and narrowly avoided getting reported again; and I must mention them to speak of what to do next.

When one is uncertain one's negotiation partner can move sufficiently bilaterally, one also attempts other means, including unilateral moves of one's own and appeals to third parties (many such are now archived). Now that it's time to ask whether my corrections of the single edit set 2.5 months ago (primarily relating to Iron I) are now complete, I appear compelled to continue employing all methods available, direct and indirect. E.g., PiCo has recently indicated dissatisfaction with the current pig sentence, asked me to redraft it, then reverted my redraft even though it was almost exactly PiCo's own sentence about the subject (apparently good enough for Talk but not good enough for Main), and then declined to comment further even though the topic is technically open. Similar stalling has abounded. PiCo undid the Bava Batra sentence that stood for 1.5 months, and then went silent (after I pointed out the prior failure to object all that time), but without ever admitting that the sentence could be counted as consensus or satisfactory: thus it's open: thus it's "stalled".

So past behavior indicates the significant possibility that PiCo's latest apparent acceptances of sentences, exactly or nearly according to PiCo's own phrasing, combined with a trail-off just prior to a formal acceptance, might mean that the same or similar objection will blithely arise once again de novo as if the whole rationale needed repetition only to be ignored once again (and as if reneging is no fault). There is also the significant possibility that PiCo may never formally close the issue over these or related edits.

Accordingly, it seems I must continue overwordy explanations of position for documentation and tracking, despite their drawbacks. Since PiCo has let my latest issue list stand without cold reversion, and has proposed wordings and sourcings sufficient to create apparent consensus on most points, and has gone silent on whether any other points still need addressing, I find no alternative to making a unilateral declaration of consensus, yet with the simultaneous offer to a bilateral declaration. The current version has fully addressed my concerns about verification failure, and PiCo has not objected recently or meaningfully on any point of it, permitting the recognition of WP:SILENT consensus.

From that baseline of having satisfied V in Iron I, my next concerns are (1) to deal with any response to such a declaration of consensus, (2) to trim any overwordiness from the Iron I section (recognizing that the compromise process multiplies words and that it is presumably possible to trim perhaps 20% without losing any real compromise point or seriously hindering comprehension), and (3) to propose and obtain acceptance (silent or not) on additional matter for the sources section. From that point I anticipate continuing in this and other articles to deal with basic NPOV, V, NOR issues as I see fit, and to hope that the unequalled interaction I've observed at this article remains unequalled. If it should become obvious, as I've suggested is a risk factor, that PiCo has routinely inserted source verification failures in many other places (i.e., misrepresentations), I will much more likely present a community case than continue to make myself available for potential stall tactics. I have never in any internet forum dealt so long with such minutiae and such little advance of position from the discussion partner; even other WP editors who request seriatim discussion have been conscientious enough either to follow through or to abandon the argument, but never to keep up a discussion just actively enough to sound winsome and advancing yet without any real give. Even according the best faith in another person, one must sometimes explain to that person and to third parties that (for whatever reason) one must finally and conscientiously decline to continue the discussion norms that appear to be asked of one.

So, PiCo, I give you one chance to answer, just in case. Are the current lead section, source section, and Iron I section acceptable enough to you to count as the baseline for further discussion from this point (whether or not you agree with the content of the baseline)? And, would you state particularly, point-by-point, any objections you have to those three sections, so that your concerns can be dealt with from that baseline (rather than picking and choosing among the nonpareil number of competing drafts these 3 months)? My current concerns are, as above, (1) obtaining your agreement on baseline or dealing with any other response, and (2)-(3) fixing up matters of form in the loose ends relating to Iron I before moving on to fresh discussions; I hope that gives you an idea of what your list of concerns, if any, might look like. I must state for the record that I take you as having watchlisted the articles you have edited recently, and thus that I will consider it a default (i.e., a silent consensus) anytime I make a request on such a topic and you edit elsewhere without responding for more than 24 hours. Again, even the length of this section is believed necessary due to the past record. The issue of whether I will file a report (just as it stands for Dylan Flaherty, incidentally) remains dependent on whether I believe either editor's behavior warrants it (either present, or past uncorrected), not on whether the editor believes or argues that some other (time-consuming) procedure is more appropriate. We have a user warning that says, "Next time you will be blocked," and based on that I think it's fair for me to say, "Next time I find sufficient evidence you will be reported," and that (just as Dylan has had his) this is all the warning you need. JJB 08:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a novel-length violation of WP:AGF. Dylan Flaherty 08:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Dylan, have you read WP:WARN#Multi-level templates? JJB 09:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I can imagine the report from JJB's first Kindergarten: "Does not play well with other children." More seriously Dylan, I don't think he actually sets out to be offensive, it's just that he lacks social skills - what the Irish would call his "manner". I have some ideas for a re-write of the Iron Age I section, focusing more on the theories that have been put forward. I'll put the draft up here later when I have time. (John, you're included of course). PiCo (talk) 02:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I note that you have declined to comment on accepting the current draft as a baseline for discussion, and that you have declined to state particularly any point-by-point objections. As stated, I therefore consider myself free to seek my own closure unilaterally. JJB 03:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Pico, that's a fair point. We should not ascribe to malice what can be accounted for by error. Regardless, it's still an error, even though no malice is involved. Dylan Flaherty 03:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
JJB, according to WP:SILENT, silence is the very weakest form of consensus, broken the moment someone objects. I reserve the right to object to any of your changes at any time. I suspect that PiCo might, as well. Dylan Flaherty 03:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I proceeded with point (2), trimming the baseline text of superfluity, but PiCo did not respond by restoring only the text believed necessary for comprehension; PiCo is currently adding several new phrasings not previously discussed, some of which revert from "consensus" text to previously-objected text. This development was not unanticipated. Accordingly, I will continue to remove the nonconsensus phrasing (some of which continues the same unbalanced POVs I objected to nearly three months ago), and I will put the condensation task on hold; this will happen as soon as PiCo seems to be stopping for breath. JJB 07:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Please understand that not everyone necessarily shares your conception of what the consensus is, so your bold changes face the risk of being reverted. Dylan Flaherty 07:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Funny, I thought I was being quite conciliatory. Yes, John, Dylan is right, you do tend to be a little unilateral in deciding the concensus. Have a look at my edits - they're intended to preserve the sense of the section, to create readable prose, and to stick to the sources. And please, stay calm - nobody's out to get you. PiCo (talk) 07:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for backing out the later changes that involved what I characterized as reneges above. I will be happy to restore most of your changes, while adjusting other phrasings to the compromise texts you proposed above. I hope you won't object to these because I think you'd be arguing with yourself; maybe we can let them stand and see if any more condensing is necessary pretty quickly after all. JJB 08:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a fine example of those unilateral decisions about consensus that you're so fond of. As always, I reserve the right to disagree, so if you go too far, you can expect to be reverted partially or even wholly. Dylan Flaherty 08:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Edits

I've made some edits to the middle para, some to clarify the essential points, some to produce fluent prose. It's important to note that what's being discussed here is the ongoing search by archaeologists for "markers" (physical signs) by which specific villages/sites can be assigned to the Israelites. After all, Merneptah says they were there c.1207, so how do we know which villages are theirs? Archaeologists would like to know. But the search has been disappointing, even frustrating. First Albright identified four markers that he said were Israelite: 4-chambered houses, collar-rimmed pithoi, waterproof cisterns and terracing. So you could dig up a site and if you found these things you could say it was Israelite. Then it would found that none of them were unique to the area where the Israelites ought to be living, and a few had roots in earlier Canaanite sites. So it was back to the drawing board. Finkelstein said let's take circular village plans and absent pig-bones, since these really are unique to the highlands (or so far as is known at this time). Yet once again doubts have been raised: both these could be the result of adaptation to a particular environment, open to anyone, not just Israelites. So thew hunt for markers hasn't been too successful - which hardly undermines the fact that Merneptah says the Israelites were there in 1207, it just makes it impossible to identify them, archaeologically speaking. PiCo (talk) 10:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, the reason I adopt unilateral approaches as well as bilateral is stated in the essay-length start of this section: PiCo does not settle for (almost) anything, as I am about to show. PiCo, you are now undoing your own words and continuing to restore unsourced data that changes the sources' narratives into your own narrative as you embody again just above. I refer again to my first edit set to this page on 26 Sep, where I removed the OR, "It is impossible to differentiate these 'Israelite' villages from Canaanite sites of the same period on the basis of material culture". You are still arguing above on 10 Dec, without interruption, for a version of this OR observation. Specific source failures are as follows (indented points added JJB 21:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)):

  • You deleted the Bronze mention "25 villages in the Late Bronze" claiming it was redundant with "25 at the end of Late Bronze". Changing from "in" to "at the end of" is quite a difference for such a long period, but "in" is what the source says. This change has reneged on your admission of this text for so long. This may be an oversight, of course, so my restoring the sourced word "in" to the mention that you retained will show whether or not it was.
  • Miller p. 72 doesn't say waterproof cisterns, terracing, or any other Albright factors were "once thought" Israelite; he only speaks of 4-roomers and pithoi as having sufficient debunking to justify such a POV presentation, as I've said repeatedly and you keep acting as if you don't notice. Earlier you admitted "have been said" could be used in lieu of "once thought" (06:16, 26 November 2010) and you have thus again reneged on your compromise here.
    • You reneged again by deleting your own words "have been said", without saying your prior words were in error, or answering my objection just above; reinserting.
  • Miller p. 72 doesn't say any factors except the two he concentrates on were found outside of the highlands; in the same comment (06:16, 26 November 2010) you admitted we could summarize these two with "yet ... these"; but you switched "these" (two) to "features once thought" (all) and have reneged on the admission that only two features were reviewed by Miller. Your edit summary even admits you have two features in mind ("This is crucial - pithoi/4-room houses are no longer thought to be Israelite"), while you admit above there are at least four features, and yet you seem to want all four debunked, without a source, going on three months now. Sorry.
    • You reneged again by deleting your own words "yet these"; reinserting as in prior point.
  • You added to Miller p. 72 the unsourced "and in Late Bronze sites", which I will delete until you source it.
  • You deleted "late–13th–century" as the date of the highland pottery; you have admitted this date silently since I proposed adding it to your text (17:08, 29 November 2010) until now. If you think it's excessive detail, we can delete the other "13th–century" in that sentence, because it is clearly more relevant to this article to set the date of highland pottery than Bronze Canaanite. Your summary was only "clearer expression", as if deleting a date during other text changes makes it clearer.
    • You again deleted the time marker, as well as changing "can be distinguished ... by" to "show" without comment (which might be another renege, since it deletes the distinction as mentioned on Killebrew p. 13 that I thought you had admitted, without my trying to prove that right now). Since your objection is only the potential confusion from mentioning 13th century twice, I am restoring these, and changing the second "13th–century" to your words "that came before".
  • You added the unsourced phrases "In the 1990s", "on the basis of an exhaustive survey of Iron Age sites", and "early" sites not in Killebrew p. 13 or Brett p. 46. I will delete these until you source them.
    • You repeated the unsourced insertion; redeleting.
  • You changed "it is stated" to "subsequent scholars have pointed out", which reneged on your agreement (11:12, 3 December 2010) with my text as long as it didn't mention "Diana Edelman states". The minimum change necessary to effect your agreement was "it is stated". There is no "subsequent" in source (although it's a bit obvious that a respondent is subsequent), there are no plural "scholars" (weasely anyway), and "pointed out" is pure weaseling. If you think "it was stated" would reflect the subsequence better, that's fine too.
    • You again reneged on your agreement and reinserted the unsourced assertions; repeating this change. If you want to source the plural scholars or provide rationale for why the subsequence is not misweighted (it is in fact misweighted because Killebrew 2005 states Finkelstein's view is still held after Brett 2002), your burden.
  • You again deleted "Archaeologists like" Finkelstein when that is what Killebrew p. 176 says. Since you inserted this text into the article (02:51, 26 November 2010), preferring it to informal text you'd written on talk, you reneged on your position that this phrasing is the best of the options so far.
    • You again reneged on this wording. Your objection in favor of giving Finkelstein his "due" (when it fails to give the group of archaeologists their due) would be addressed by the version "Archaeologists (significantly Finkelstein)", which I am going to. You also deleted the source word "notable" re absence, which you appeared to have agreed with for some time; reinserting.
  • You changed a sentence in Hesse p. 25 to "in view of the biblical injunction against pigs", not in that source. Now I admit it may be a bit casuistic for me to continue insisting that the link between food taboos and the Bible has not been sourced yet, as common sense indicates it should be readily sourceable, so I will be happy to tag this with a cn instead of reverting to the sourced text, if you consider that a compromise. For completeness though I should point out that you reneged again on the phrase you inserted in the article as the best option (02:51, 26 November 2010), "the issue of food taboos has been discussed in detail".
    • You deleted the cn as if some source already in the article has linked the pig absence to the biblical injunction. This tag should stand until this is sourced.
  • You added the word "again" before "advised caution". This is not only completely unsourced, as Hesse says nothing about any of the rest of this paragraph, but it reinforces the narrative, as your comments make clear, that there is some repetition to alleged failures in the search for markers. That is classic OR. If you want to reinforce this narrative, source it rather than keep saying it on talk for three months.

All this is either repetition of old points or removal of new unsourced material. At the same time you make a few other changes to your own wording as if no phrasing will ever suit you, and you continue to use edit summaries that do not inform what you are actually doing (as documented just above, reinserting support for a narrative I have challenged unheard for 2.5 months). As often, your end result fails grammar standards (in this case you used a semicolon to set apart a fragment). In short, this behavior is reportable. I await your presentation of new sources if you wish to continue prosecuting any of the above points. JJB 14:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

John, first let me say that I think you're doing a good job of editing here, and I welcome your participation. But since you obviously object to some of my edits, I'll go though them here. I'll paste in the existing text and then explain why I'm changing it:

  • "features once said to be specifically Israelite..."
    • Yes, but "once said" has the force of "are no longer said"; this is known to anyone who's familiar with the subject, and we can't leave the impression that these old interpretations still stand.
  • "while highland villages can be distinguished from those in the nearby lowlands by virtue of a far more limited late–13th–century ceramic repertoire, it develops typologically out of 13th–century Canaanite pottery."
    • Unfortunately, this is gibberish. Sorry, but I can't express it any other way. A 13th century repertoire develops out of 13th century pottery? The 13th century has to develop out of the century that came before, it can't develop out of itself.
  • "Israel Finkelstein proposed that the oval or circular layout that distinguishes highland sites can be taken as a marker of ethnicity".
    • Indeed he did. He did it in the 1990s. And he did it in order to replace the collar-rimmed jars and so on that were by then clearly no longer useful as identifying "markers" of Israelite settlements. All this is worth telling our readers.
  • "Archaeologists like Finkelstein also interpreted the notable absence of pig bones from hill sites as an ethnic marker".
    • This is Finkelstein's argument, even if others subsequently took it up. Give the man his due.

I've also made some edits to the final paragraph - largely for stylistic reasons or to give the reader some additional context so he/she can better understand the significance of what we say. You are, of course, welcome to edit this yourself.PiCo (talk) 12:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Your apparent civility does not alter the fact that you are continuing to ignore the issues I already stated and to feel free to back out of your own proposed compromises.

  • Would you reference "are no longer said" please? What you've had for 3 months is Miller saying something about two features that might translate to that, while Miller admits there are other features (which you yourself listed from Albright) and Miller does not extend his comment to include those. You continue to act as if he does include all features despite my saying, how many different ways, that he mentions several features and then "debunks" only two, and my saying that you edit as if he's "debunked" them all. Your burden.
  • Source said that which you see as gibberish; and a late century can indeed develop out of (earlier in) the same century. We could make it, per your wording, "... limited late–13th–century ceramic repertoire, it develops typologically out of earlier Canaanite pottery." But I'll check source.
  • Would you reference "in the 1990s" and "in order to replace" if you think it's worth telling?
  • Source attributes the argument to "archaeologists" and "(see Finkelstein)", so this seems the most natural way to state that. Under the color of "giving him his due" you are deleting what is due to a group of archaeologists in the field. You also don't disagree with the source on the point that others were involved. If you think there is a misweighting issue, we could change it to "Archaeologists (notably Finkelstein)", but otherwise your argument is neither source-based nor proper weight, as deletion of other archaeologists based on your rationale would make it appear that Finkelstein is the only proponent. These issues will be addressed in due time, as will your other edits. JJB 20:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Use of the term Palestine

Throughout the article the term Palestine is brought out of context to describe an area which was not called Palestine back then. It is as dubious as using the term Roman Empire for Phoenicia at 1000BCE, or using the term Persia for Babylon of Hamurabbi. The few academic implementations of the term Palestine for Iron age or Classic period territories of Land of Israel, Judea, Samaria, Edomea, Pearea, Moab and Ammon are usually either a mistake (mixing the term Palestine for Levant) or simply speaking of Palestine during earlier period, when comparing data from later period, when it was called Palestine (or Palaestina), to earlier period. Using the term out of this context is not justified before 135 BCE, when it was first introduced. It is also incorrect to use it for:: entire Levantine area. To justify implementation of Palestine by historians / archeologists, editors should bring solid academic support that term Palestine was incorporated before Hadrian's conquest of Judea.Greyshark09 (talk) 10:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You have a source for that? PiCo (talk) 11:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Don't try the visa-versa approach - it is WP:UNDUE. This page is about ancient Israel and Judah, if you bring the term Palestine in other context than later Roman term for the country, you should justify it with a proper source, otherwise it is Original research.Greyshark09 (talk) 11:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd just like to know if you have a source for your statement that there are only a "few" academic uses of the term Palestine to describe the region. PiCo (talk) 11:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh dear, I see both the authors we use as references in that section use the term "Palestine", and quite a lot (here and here - would you like to write them a note and tell them to stop it at once? PiCo (talk) 12:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
This is really too distressing! I did a check, it seems we have 55 books by 41 different authors used as references for this article, all of them published by scholarly imprints whom one would have thought would know better (Brill, SBL, even Jewish Publication Society), and they ALL use the term "Palestine"! (Believe me, I checked, but you can go see for yourself). This is dreadful! Something must be done! PiCo (talk) 12:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Your own sources for the term Judah - [2], [3]So both Judah and Palestine are present in your sources in similar amounts. You might claim for Neutral Point of View, to mention both Palestine and Judea (or Judah), but again i wish to point out that it is logical to mention Palestine in context which includes a period 'post' 135CE. History of ancient Israel and Judah clearly is not a period after 135CE, unless you account modern Israel within. I see that the term Palestine is sometimes incorporated by author for the entire Southern Levant in your first source, though the geographic definition of Palestine is not constant. I think because of this incosistency and many different definitions for the geographical purposes we should use the term Southern Levant.Greyshark09 (talk) 12:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You can check in the books used in the bibliography - "Palestine" is the normal term used by modern historians and similar scholars for the geographic region between Egypt and Syria. "Judah" refers to the kingdom of that name. PiCo (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

PiCo, I share your concern that, prior to convincing Wikipedia, Greyshark09 is going to need to persuade the academic world to see things his way. This might take a while, and might even fail. So, in the interim, we should stick to the currently accepted term; Palestine. Dylan Flaherty 02:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues#Regional naming. JJB 19:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Palestine is a name of a Byzantine province, and later British Mandate area during 1921-1947. Not so much a geographic term more than Judah or Israel or Bilad-a-Sham. The meaning of Palestine is Conquered land (Palastu in Aramaic) - a term introduced by Roman Emperor Hadrian after conquest of Judea. This term had also been used for the Gaza area in the Period of Pentapolis. Indeed some historians use Palestine in geographic meaning, however this is not such a common scholar agreement as you claim, and other terms like Canaan, Levant, Land of Israel and others can be found in similar amounts as shown before. In addition, historians are not a source for geography, as they are not geographers.Greyshark09 (talk) 09:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Greyshark for that useful contribution. I wonder if our friend Whiteshark has something to say on this also? I have to say I have some doubts about your ideas on linguistics - the meaning of Palestine is 'conquered land'? Anyway, all this is irrelevant - the only relevant fact is that every single one of the 50 or so books in our bibliography uses the term. PiCo (talk) 01:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I was going to answer with a simple "[citation needed]", but your answer is better written. Dylan Flaherty 01:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I went through the first 13 books in the bibliography (in other words, those with authors starting with A and B): every one of them uses the term Palestine, and between them they rack up 582 uses of the term. I think Greyshark has a big task ahead of him, writing to all these people and telling them to please stop it. PiCo (talk) 05:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
If only he could split the load with Whiteshark! Alas, White is like Clark Kent to Gray's Superman: the two never seem to be around at the same time. It's inexplicable, I tell you, inexplicable. Dylan Flaherty 07:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Here I bring a suggestion for the solution of this discussion - in Towns in ancient Israel and in the Southern Levant by CHJ de Geus p.7 the author takes a stand on what is the correct term for the area which we call Canaan, Land of Israel, Holy land ,Palestine and Southern Levant. In his opinion, after looking into the issue, the correct term should be Southern Levant, even though other terms are sometimes applied. In addition, you can find a clear evidense for the incorporation of the geographic term Levant and Southern Levant within an article by Alexander Joffe The rise of secondary states in Iron Age Levant you can find no mention of Palestine term whatsover. The specific geographic term used is Southern Levant. I suggest you begin taking this conversation seriously.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Interesting paper by Joffe - he suggests that Jewishness (Jewish ethnicity) was a deliberate creation by the kings of Israel in order to differentiate themselves from their neighbours. Anyway, take a break, Metty Christmas. PiCo (talk) 22:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
After widely reviewing relevant academic works on the issue of regional naming - the conclusion is clear. I find a similar amount of citing both Palestine region and Israel region (slightly more of Palestine region). Yet, the term Southern Levant clearly dominates with more citations than both Palestine region and Israel region combined. Judean region and Judea region, as well as Samaria region are less relevant to the entire Southern Levant, even though are frequently used in literature (Samaria region is used more than Palestine region for example). Finally, Canaan region is less frequently used among the terms (significantly less), whereas Holy land region is almost not used at all. It seems to me the mainstream is quite clear and well advocated by de Geus. I will however seek another indipendent support for de Geus' claim before i change the geographical term to Southern Levant throughout the article (except quotes).Greyshark09 (talk) 20:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be betting the farm on De Geus - I wonder though if you've actually read him, since he uses the term "Palestine" quite a lot. Here's some examples:

  • "Palestine has been a transitional region since ancient times" (p.135)
  • "The material culture of Iron Age Palestine still has a relevance of its own" (p.6)
  • "...the tell of tell el-hesi in south-west Palestine..." (p.63)

And so on. PiCo (talk) 23:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

De Geus argues what is the best term, nor he or me deny the fact implementing Palestine for regional description. I see no concensus here among the sources, therefore i do not change Palestine region to Israel region or Southern Levant, since it is widely implemented in literature. I want to learn the extent of this practice further, until then no changes policy in article body are agreed by me. We will stick to each source's term, according to citation, whether Southern Levant, Palestine region or Israel region.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Section "Religion"

I just deleted almost all the section. This is because the references all seem to be bogus - not that the books cited don't exist (they do), but because the individual citations don't match up. Often there are no page numbers, and when there are they don't match our article. The part of the section I didn't delete I'm still working on - it has problems too. In case anyone thinks I'm trying to delete material or introduce bias, I can understand that, but I'm not - I'm just trying to write a good entry on this pretty important part of the article.PiCo (talk) 03:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal case

Hey! I noticed there is a case at the Mediation Cabal concerning this article. This was filed over two months ago, so if there is still a problem and you need someone to help mediate the situation, I'd be glad to volunteer!

Cheers! Lord Roem (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Judges Period

I see that the latest post inserts a quote from Smith on the "Judges Period". Is this accurate. My reading of Smith is that he avoids calling it the Judges Period referring instead to pre-monarchial. Given Alberto Soggin's critique of Judges, I suspect that pre-monarchial is better. There needs also to be reference to the fact that other divinities such as Reshef, and Mot were also present in Pre-monarchial times but not worshipped (who worships the God of Death and God of the Plague). They were to be placated however. Regards John D. Croft (talk) 09:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks John. The line from Smith is: "Israel's major deities in the period of the Judges were not numerous" - exactly as in our article. PiCo (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

A request for help

I know a lot of people are watching this article, but I seem to be the only one editing it. I'm pretty convinced that it's not quite so perfect as it could be. If you-all don't want to actually edit in it, perhaps you have some suggestions as to how it could be improved - new sections that could be added, existing ones slimmed down, emphasis shifted, etc etc? Please. PiCo (talk) 06:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

PiCo, I have deliberately held back from reopening our dispute while I was involved in an unrelated ArbCom case. With that winding down, I will be ready again to engage at length after reviewing your edits since last month, which will happen Real Soon Now. I suspect, based on past history, that the unreviewed edits will create many opportunities for comment and interaction. I think it would be wise for us to accept Lord Roem as mediator as per his comment above, and proceed apace. JJB 15:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Sure, if you feel there's some problem that needs to be resolved, go ahead. PiCo (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Biassed Perspective

I'm more than a little put off by the extremely biassed and frankly insulting language and references used in the sources section. The author appears to have chosen a cheeky quote form his favorite Bible critic and slapped it onto wikipedia as accepted fact. A vibrant variety of scholarly opinions, let alone the wealth of Jewish scholarship on the subject are ignored. This must be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bennyp (talk • contribs) 12:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Where does one even begin to comment on an article which so flagrantly dispenses with the Wikipedia dictum of neutral POV? Granted that the history of Israel and Judah is a controversial issue because of its religious and ethnic implications, the author does not even acknowledge the diversity of scholarly opinion on this issue, let alone acknowledge the possibility that the Biblical account may bear a closer resemblance to historical events than the guesswork of modern historians. The authorial style is clearly polemic. In any article on this subject, there is an editorial responsibility to acknowledge the diversity of opinion on the subject, including also that of the Copenhagen school as well as more conservative scholars. Instead there is repetitively a presentation of a supposed consensus with language such as "modern scholars see..." and "the new understanding is...", where this is only the consensus of minimalist opinion, e.g. Rendsberg, Grabbe, Lemche. Clearly, indulging in an edit war is pointless. However, the article is any case superfluous - the content has been covered already in the articles History of Israel and History of Palestine, both of which are much better at adopting a neutral POV. This article is better off deleted. MarcusCole12 (talk) 03:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The History of Israel and History of Palestine articles focus on the modern day places, and mention the past in quick summary. This article is focused on Ancient Israel and Judah and covers the early history in more detail and without the modern states in mind, so this article is not superfluous because of either of those wiki articles.
I agree there is a bit of a bias in this article (mainly toward the extreme-minimalist camp). If you see something standing out to you, feel free to try to clarify whose perspective it is and then add the other side('s|s') perspective. Where this article mainly strays from NPOV is in its lack of giving the opposing views and clarifying that many of the assertions are from a certain scholarly camp. I only tend to bother changing things when something is blatant POV, vandalism, or spelling/formatting/grammar errors; I'm not that vigilant on slight POV biases (especially when it could also be read as NPOV), nor for silence on opposing views. — al-Shimoni (talk) 21:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Tritomex

Can anyone who's familar with the rules and procedures explain to Tritomex that his editing is disruptive and what the consequences of that will be? Know the way, show the way and go the way and all that. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Tritomex is emotional, but he's sincere. The tricky bit is controlling one's emotional reactions and approaching the project (I mean Wikipedia) as one in which everyone shares, regardless of their personal perspective and background. I think Tritomex will do this if we treat him with respect.
I've had some exchanges with Tritomex on our respective personal Talk pages. I'll paste these here, as they relate to the article:
  • Me to Tritomex: Hi. Rather than edit-war, it would be better if you took you concerns to the Talk page. My problem, by the way, isn't the content of what you're trying to say, but a feeling that it's a level of detail we can't support in this article. PiCo (talk) 06:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Tritomex to me: Hi PiCo, I do not see any reason why basic archeological findings regarding ancient Israel and Judah shouldn't be mentioned at the site dedicated solely to this subject.Considering the claim that no or little archeological evidence was found regarding Judah,it is, as you know, an incorrect claim.The references given bellow,from two Israeli newspapers,do not support your assumption.Contrary, they are showing the opposite.I agree with you that we should not enter in to "edit-war",therefore maybe we should try to find solution,or to ask Wiki for mediation and for site protection.I do not have any problem with your editions and I would be happy if you continue to enrich the site.If you have any proposal,argument or suggestion please write me. All the best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tritomex (talk • contribs) 10:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Now a big confession from me: I'm finding it increasingly difficult to care what's written/posted on Wikipedia. So I won't appear on this article again. I'll just say that I think Tritomex is reacting to what he sees as an attack on the very existence of ancient Judah/Israel. Personally I'd agree with him: the kingdoms certainly existed. But we don't have to prove anything here, just write an informative article aimed, in my view, at the curious layperson seeking a broad overview of this subject.
My problem with Tritomex's additions (or proposed additions) isn't the factuality of them, but their suitability to the article. We're trying to cover 2,000 years of history here, we can't mention every artifact that's ever been dug up, nor deal at length with a king (Hezekiah) whose reign took up less than 1% of that period. We're forced to adopt a broad-brush approach. Personally I think the article already does that quite well. Not saying it's perfect, but at least it's balanced in terms of the number of words it devotes to each period of the 2,000 years.
But, as I said, I'm retiring from the article. I had a lot of input into it, I'm happy with it, but the nature of Wikipedia is that nothing is ever final, and there's already another editor waiting in the wings. :) Good luck PiCo (talk) 09:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your remarks PiCo and for all your good work on this article. You will be missed. I hope you stick around to see what's happening and for the occasional edit. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Abraham and Moses

I understand that this article is trying to cover a lot of ground, but I think that at least a mention of when these two patriarchs are believed to have been active, with a summary of their historicity, would be extremely helpful in connecting this article with Jewish and religious articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.26.151.16 (talk) 00:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Abraham and Moses are before the Conquest of Canaan, which was the land that would become "Israel" and "Judah". So they are part of Jewish History, but not part of the History of ancient Israel and Judah. 75.14.216.207 (talk) 19:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Accuracy of religion section

Under the "Second Temple" heading, the article notes: "It was at this time that the Torah was written, circumcision and Sabbath-observance became symbols of Jewish identity, and the institution of the synagogue became increasingly important." This doesn't seem to jive with the fact that diaspora Jewish communities dating from the first exile (in Babylonia/Iraq, Yemen, etc.) kept the same commandments and traditions, and had the same Biblical text, as other Jews in spite of being exiled prior to the period in question. Is this just a POV attempt to discredit Jews, or is there some explanation missing? 192.197.178.2 (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There was no "Biblical text" prior to the Septuagint, there were only vaguely related narratives at best. And what would "diaspora Jewish communities dating from the first exile" be? There was no Judaism proper before the exile. ♆ CUSH ♆ 18:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

removals of valid facts

Considering the site "History_of_ancient_Israel_and_Judah Iron Age I" The Khirbet Qeiyafa inscription seems to be the most important archeological finding from Iron Age I, regarding the history(and historicity) of ancient Israel and Judah. Therefore, I find important to mention it, in the section regarding that particular archeological period. Considering Iron Age II This is the ONLY site on Wikipedia where we can show what has been archeologically verified from ancient Israel, and what is not.There are no places at Wiki (and shouldn't be other places) to give the summary of archeological facts, ESPECIALLY if we are speaking about strictly archeological sections like Iron Age sections. We are speaking about the The History of Ancient Israel and Judah and we are speaking about IRON AGE=ARCHEOLOGY Definition of Iron age: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Age The Iron Age is the archaeological period generally occurring after the Bronze Age, marked by the prevalent use of iron. The early period of the age is characterized by the widespread use of iron or steel. The adoption of such material coincided with other changes in society, including differing agricultural practices, religious beliefs and artistic styles. The Iron Age as an archaeological term indicates the condition as to civilization and culture of a people using iron as the material for their cutting tools and weapons.[1] The Iron Age is the 3rd principal period of the three-age system created by Christian Jürgensen Thomsen for classifying ancient societies and prehistoric stages of progress

As you see, if we are speaking about Iron age, the definition of Iron age is SOLELY archeological. Therefore our arguments can be based primarily on archeological findings. That is the reason why it is NECESSARY to adhere to this fact. YHVH I agree that Wikipedia shouldn't be used to reflect any religious rhetoric. My addition is again based on valid archeological findings and has fundamental importance in understanding of the process of transformation of Canaanite-Israelite society from polytheism to monotheism.This addition is not supposed to give credibility to any religious arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tritomex (talk • contribs) 23:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing your concerns to the Talk page - this is the proper way to resolve disputes over editing, especially when editors are in good faith, as I'm sure you are.
I'll take your points one by one:
  • The Khirbet Qeiyafa inscription seems to be the most important archeological finding from Iron Age I, regarding the history(and historicity) of ancient Israel and Judah. Therefore, I find important to mention it... But the article does not cast any doubt on the historicity of ancient Israel and Judah - it treats these kingdoms as real ones, and traces their history. Therefore there's no need for a mention of this inscription, if the sole reason is to demonstrate that the kingdoms existed.
  • As you see, if we are speaking about Iron age, the definition of Iron age is SOLELY archeological. Therefore our arguments can be based primarily on archeological findings. The term Iron Age is defines a period of time, nothing more - in the case of the Levant, it's the period from about 1250 to 586 BCE. It doesn't follow that we can't use any evidence from the bible when we talk about the history of ancient Israel and Judah during the Iron Age. In fact our article does use evidence from the bible for this period - it mentions how both the bible and the Assyrian records agree about the destruction of Israel and the deportations that followed. This article uses both the bible AND archaeology.
  • YHVH I agree that Wikipedia shouldn't be used to reflect any religious rhetoric. My addition is again based on valid archeological findings and has fundamental importance in understanding of the process of transformation of Canaanite-Israelite society from polytheism to monotheism. This addition is not supposed to give credibility to any religious arguments. I'm afraid I wasn't able to follow this - what addition are you talking about?
PiCo (talk) 07:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for discussing this. And I don't think I have a bias for one argument or the other. The article currently does question whether Canaanite artifacts can be separated out from Israelite ones "for the earliest period". Does the new material help that argument? And while this argument may treat ancient Israeli kingdoms as "real", other "allied" articles do not, at least prior to certain kings. And let's face it. Nobody would be studying this stuff in meticulous detail if it weren't for the bible. Other ancient tiny kingdoms (that were often defeated due to size and located in somebody's way) don't get this kind of archeological attention or quantity of articles. Student7 (talk) 13:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
My post was for Tritomex - he's concerned that we should be mentioning far more archaeological detail than I think is necessary. Your own concerns are slightly different - I gather you want to include a general note to the effect that there's not much archaeological material available relating to Israel/Judah. I don't think this is actually true. For Iron I there's a fair amount in the form of surface surveys that have been used to chart changing demography and settlement patterns, and the material increases as we get closer to the end of Iron II. The statement that we wouldn't know that Judah existed if not for the bible is of course true (in that the only non-biblical mention of this name is in a Babylonian record telling about rations for the exiled king of Judah), but there are shelves of books by Dever, Finkelstein and others on Palestinian archaeology. I think we have about 50 titles at the bottom of the page, which makes it look strange to say that there's little evidence. PiCo (talk) 21:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


We had this discussion regarding this subject and our edits were examined by administrator who removed my contribution regarding Elah fortress, while the section regarding Iron Age II was left. I consider that arbitration as fair and I adhered to this suggestion. However, you further removed some basic facts reflecting the history of ancient Judah and Israel from iron age II, which were left standing after the arbitration. Removing whole section is not the way, we can find compromise fairly on this issue. If you think that any posts are problematic, reflect on that particular detail and do not remove the whole sections — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tritomex (talk • contribs) 21:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


21:06, 5 November 2011‎ PiCo (talk | contribs)‎ (60,122 bytes) (Undid revision 459109804 by Tritomex (talk)Noone doubts the accuracy of this, just the importance.) (undo) I think that this revision is problematic, as the site "History of ancient Israel and Judah" was already examined by User:Dougweller, and my contribution regarding the Elah fortress was removed,maybe some sections written by you too. Yet my edition in the section Iron age II was left to stand. I consider this arbitration a fair solution and a compromise. The archeological facts mentioned by me in this particular sections do not constitute involvement in too much details, as I mentioned only basic findings of fundamental importance. If you have any suggestion about any particular archeological findings regarding this section, than write me, and do not remove them altogether --Tritomex (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tritomex (talk • contribs)

I'll leave it to you to edit the article as you wish. Just a few points to bear in mind:

  • Don't include every single fact just ebcause it's a fact - there has to be a reason for mentioning it.
  • Try to create a narrative - meaning a story-line. History is story.
  • Don't try to prove anything - you don't need to. Just reflect the broad understanding of scholars.

Good luck :) PiCo (talk) 01:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

What? No. Please do NOT create a narrative. This is an encyclopedia and we do not reproduce stories but present facts and interpretations. If a reader wants stories, he is free to read the Bible himself.
And Tritomex, please learn how to indent and sign your contributions to talk pages. ♆ CUSH ♆ 01:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

severe lack of photos and illustrations in the article

if someone could add, please do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.64.4.118 (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


Reliability of claim on biblical historicity

Apologies if this is not the appropriate format in which to make such a claim, but in line with Wikipedia's policy on burden of proof and verifiability, I am removing the section that states that the biblical accounts are inaccurate as they were written after the fact. The given source (Golden, 2004b) makes said statement in passing and provides no backing evidence or research. Given that, it does not appear to meet the criteria of "reliable" or "burden of proof".

If I am mistaken in any way, please let me know, but the given source is weak and only seems to meet the criteria of being published, nothing more.--Ronin2040 (talk) 01:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm missing context here. I'm following the edits a bit distantly. The reference above seems to look okay. It does mention that bible chronology does not match archaeology very well.
Of course, biblical accounts (history) was written "after the fact." I agree that this, per se, does not make them inaccurate. They tend to be (in Wikipedia-ese) pov, though. I happen to believe that they are "inspired" as a personal belief. But constructing a history from them has sometimes proved "problematical".
If I followed the reference correctly, it seems to say that a Jewish Samaria (and therefore United Kingdom) existed. Student7 (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Whether or not someone believes the history to have been written after the fact or not doesnt seem relevant; it was stated in the article as if it were a point of contention that were being settled by a reliable source, but the source in question does not appear to fit the criteria in any way. If there is a source that backs up such a claim better, it should be used. If it IS supported in the source, the correct page numbers should be used.--98.218.151.42 (talk) 09:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I've put it back. The statement is from a reliable source, and therefore reliable. PiCo (talk) 15:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Reference to two steles deleted

Pico: A line read "except for the Mesha Stele and the Tel Dan Stele" can't show that David, etc. existed. Why did you delete those articles? It seems to me that they tend to refute the idea that the "House of David" never existed. Perhaps not indisputably and forever, but still...Student7 (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The two steles can't prove that David existed, just that the royal dynasty in about 850 had this name. The sections "Iron Age II" and "Babylonian Period" do assume that the royal house of Judah did call itself the House of David - I count three mentions. PiCo (talk) 10:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Let's say that 3,000 years from now, a book claims that, under the kingship of Millard Fillmore, the country built skyscrapers and ships to the moon. Later, someone digs up something, several somethings in fact, that indicates that someone named Millard Fillmore actually did run the country or area or tribe, as the case may be. Granted, this proves nothing about skyscrapers and moon ships, but it tends to indicate something IMO. Student7 (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Never really did finish this. It's okay to not believe the bible. It's okay not to believe the steles prove anything. Minimalist and all that. But the steles do exist. I don't think anyone is calling them fraudulent. They need to be accounted for and this is one "possible" accounting. It doesn't claim to be absolute proof. Student7 (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the steles, in themselves, are important to our article; what's important is what they can say about ancient Israel. What they say is that a kingdom called Israel existed in the 8th century (they both date from then), and that some entity called the "house of David" existed (royal house of Judah?). The word "david" isn't clearly present in the Mesha stele, by the way - an "altar of David" would be a very strange thing, since altars are always called for the god they're dedicated to, or the type of sacrifice made on them; for this reason it seems more likely that this is a "fire-altar". PiCo (talk) 05:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


PiCo

I think we already resolved our dispute, namely what is and what is not important. This is very subjective opinion and we had arbitration about this issue. Therefore I cant understand why you are keep coming back every year to remove this particular section of the article. I would remind you the current form of article was a CONSENSUS, which was revised by administrator and therefore any further removal will be violation of what was already agreed.Tritomex (talk) 20:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Josephus

An editor correctly (IMO) deleted the raw use of Josephus. There has to be a rather lengthy discussion or discussions somewhere about Josephus, specifically. I am sure it is covered by a policy statement as well. I would like to suggest including a statement about the use of "raw" Josephus as a "FAQ" in yellow above, and in any other article discussion pages where the issue pops up. The "FAQ" should be short.

For example: "Q. Why can't I used comments/quotes directly from Josephus? A. Josephus is a WP:PRIMARY source which has been analyzed by latter academic historians at length. Josephus often fails a WP:NPOV required by Wikipedia. These analysts have published WP:RS incorporating the observations by Josephus which can be used in their new context by the modern historian." Student7 (talk) 00:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Asherah.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Asherah.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Asherah.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Article's Default Era

Currently, within the article, some dates use the christian system, while some use the neutral CE/BCE system. I would suggest going to the BCE/CE system considering it is more neutral, and considering the people to whom this article relates. However, it should be noted that the era first introduced into this article (thus the one that is current considered the default per WP:ERA, unless there was some consensus lost in the archives that I did not see) is the christian system (introduced in the article's initial edit). Can we get a consensus to switch to the CE/BCE system? If not, we need someone to go through and change the dates in the article to conform with each other (I can't do it if remaining with the christian system). Thanks. :) — al-Shimoni (talk) 22:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I would strongly support the neutral BCE/CE system. Ancient Israel and Judah is not just of interest to Christian readers, but is also important for Jews and Muslims, so a neutral dating system that does not recognise Jesus and God is useful.John D. Croft (talk) 12:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Section "The archaeological record"

I think this section is on the wrong track - it's too much a discussion of various archaeological finds - those should be in the various chronological periods, lower down - what's needed here is a discussion of how archaeology is used to understand history, especially a statement that archaeology isn't neutral, but reflects the biases (often unconscious) of the archaeologists - in other words, that archaeology, like the biblical record, is subject to interpretation, and hence to change. But I don't feel like doing it myself - maybe someone else? PiCo (talk) 09:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

PiCo The current form of this section is the result of long standing consensus and administrative recension, as you know it well. This sections was much longer and as a result of administrator revision it was downsized to its current form. Therefore I do not understand why are you keep coming back every few months, to remove its content. Tritomex (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

This section has an obvious minimalist bias. The Rendsburg sections cited are only part of the introduction to the author's article. Here's the conclusion he reaches, in his own words:

"If we lay the Bible on top of this evidence, the match is truly remarkable. The only aspect of the Bible's tale that is not clearly recognizable in the picture we have presented is the United Monarchy under David and Solomon. This is not to say that that element of the Bible's narrative is fictional. Quite the contrary: since so much else of the biblical material is confirmed by our exercise, we have every reason to believe that the descriptions of David and Solomon in the books of Samuel and Kings also reflect actual history. In fact, one crucial text from the Bible illustrates this more than any other: 1 Kings 9:15, which informs us that Solomon built the three cities of Gezer, Hazor, and Megiddo. When we recall that it is specifically these three cities whose triple gates match so perfectly, all dated to the tenth century, it becomes nearly impossible to harbor any doubt about the historicity of the biblical material.[23]

Vovochka05 (talk)

References

  1. ^ a b c [1] Robert Draper, Kings of Controversy, National Geographic, December 2010.
  2. ^ Killebrew 2005, p. 13.
  3. ^ Killebrew 2005, p. 13.
  4. ^ Killebrew 2005, p. 176.
  5. ^ Hesse in Silberman 1997, pp. 25, 238.
  6. ^ McNutt 1999, pp. 35.
  7. ^ Pitkänen 2004, pp. 161–3.
  8. ^ Pitkänen 2004, pp. 163–5.
  9. ^ Bright 2000, p. 472.
  10. ^ Miller 1986, p. 72.
  11. ^ Killebrew 2005, p. 13.
  12. ^ Killebrew 2005, p. 176.
  13. ^ Hesse in Silberman 1997, pp. 25, 238.
  14. ^ Bright 2000, p. 472.
  15. ^ Miller 1986, p. 72.
  16. ^ Miller 1986, p. 72.
  17. ^ Miller 1986, p. 72.
  18. ^ Miller 1986, p. 72.
  19. ^ Killebrew 2005, p. 13.
  20. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference killebrew13 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  21. ^ Dever 2003, p. 162.
  22. ^ Diana Edelman, Ethnicity and early Israel, in Brett, Mark G., "Ethnicity and the Bible" (Brill, 2002) pages 45-47
  23. ^ Rendsburg, p.20

Archaeological record revisited

Guys, I was reading the cited piece by Rendsburg and I do not think this section is faithful to what he wrote. I think Rendsburg says that scholars are split over the historical veracity of the Torah/Old testament -- He explicitly states "I suppose the divide is probably about 50-50" -- However, this section seems to say that scholarly belief has almost universally turned against the thought that the Torah/Old Testament is historically accurate.

Rendsburg gives two detailed descriptions from both points of view -- The Maximalist view that believes archaeological evidence is sufficient to support the biblical narrative and the mininalist view that believes archaeological evidence contradicts the biblical narrative -- He then goes on to support the maximalist view. He claims that the minimalist view is an agenda! You are rather blatantly Breitbarting him if you hold up his attempt to present the minimalist view as if it were his thesis.

In order to be faithful to the cite (and, IMHO, NPOV) I would like to propose the following:


Scholars are split on whether the archaeological record supports the biblical narrative.

In the 1920s, the German scholar Albrecht Alt proposed that an Israelite conquest of Canaan - the story of the book of Joshua - was not supported by the archaeological record. Instead, it was proposed that the main biblical idea was still correct, but that the Israelites entered Canaan peacefully instead of through conquest. Later, this compromise was abandoned, and the Israelites were interpreted to be indigenous Canaanites. The revision of Israelite origins has implications for Israelite religion: whereas the Bible had depicted them as monotheists from the beginning, the new understanding is that they were polytheists that gave rise to a small and ultimately successful group of monotheistic revolutionaries.[1] Gary Rendsburg classifies this point of view as "minimalist," as opposed to a "maximalist" view, which he follows, that sees archaeological evidence as supporting the biblical narrative. [2]

Albrecht Alt's view, even if it recognized the Israelites as Canaanites by origin, still treated the post-Conquest biblical story as real history. But eventually that too was challenged. The most radical reconstruction states that the Jews originated as a "mixed multitude" of settlers sent to Jerusalem by the Persians, where they concocted a past for themselves. There are few scholars who now believe this, but it demonstrates how the paradigm shifts.[3]

--Bertrc (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I will make the change. --Bertrc (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
As far as I know, no scholar thinks that the immigrating Israelites, if any, were responsible for the destruction of Jericho. The walls appear to have been brought down during an earthquake which preceded the immigration by several hundred years according to carbon dating. See Timeline_of_Jewish_history#Biblical_period and Chronology_of_the_Bible#Abraham_to_United_Monarchy. If no Joshua at Jericho, where can we start trusting the bible for dates (and facts)? And who exactly is using the bible for history, outside of fundamentalist preachers? It's not that sort of a history. As another editor has noted, it would be like using "The Diary of Anne Frank" as a substitute for "The History of World War II!" They may both be "true", but one cannot be readily substituted for the other for most uses.
It would be a bit of a reach for anybody in those days to leap from paganism/local deity into worldwide monotheism. Neither did the Israelites. See El_(deity)#Hebrew_Bible, Yahweh, and Asherah#In_Israel_and_Judah. This should not be some local "voting" process, whereby one person decides the number of "scholars" on one side or the other! Particularly with only one person voting! Student7 (talk) 23:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I always find it funny when people say exactly the same things as are recorded in the bible while thinking that they are refuting it. The bible says that the Israelite's monotheism emerged out of paganism, that around 1200 BCE the Hebrews were nomads in the land of Canaan, and that they worshiped idols late into their history while sometimes treating god as if he were an idol. Yet people cite these facts as if they are proof the bible is false. The only troublesome thing I have encountered is the walls of Jericho. The rest appears to be agenda-driven speculation. So my contribution to this discussion is LOL.
As a side note I will add that the Bible does have an agenda - teaching morality, wisdom, and belief in god. It criticizes and praises practically everybody, recording sin and righteousness, success and failure of both the great and the small, and not even god is always right. Given that, I always find it strange how people automatically assume the historical records it contains are false and then, after making that assumption, set out to prove it. Shyisc (talk) 02:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Rendsburg, pp.3-5
  2. ^ Rendsburg, pp.6-7
  3. ^ Rendsburg, pp.5-6

"whereas the Bible had depicted them as monotheists from the beginning"

Really, the Bible presents the Israelites as a committed group of monotheists from the beginning? ROFL The golden calf, the constant rebuking for adopting foreign religions and gods, the threats of destruction... a large portion of the Tanakh is dedicated to addressing the fact that many of the Israelites were practicing pagans/polytheists. Can people not read anymore or what?

"the new thought was that they were polytheists who gave rise to a small and ultimately successful group of monotheistic revolutionaries"

New thought?! (face palm) That's exactly what anyone with any shred of sense reading the Bible would realize the text speaks of! So, the archaeological record provides confirmation of the text... ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.94.122 (talk) 07:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not that straightforward, the emic Bible story is that the Israelites were monotheists since Abraham and that polytheism was an aberration, relapse, dissent, fringe movement, felling into temptation, insanity, you name it. Of course the etic story is different. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Agree. Tried to amend the article accordingly. The subtitle "arcaelogy..etc" is appropriate for part of the paragraph but not all of it. Needs different subtitle IMO. Tried to add polytheistic gods which are mentioned in Genesis. Student7 (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The Tanakh does not present polytheism as a fringe movement, it actually presents the Hebrews as being somewhat of an unstable group as far as religion is concerned but with a small powerful group promoting the "true" monotheism while the "popular" religion of the people was constantly falling into polytheism. "They played the whore in Egypt; they played the whore in their youth; there their breasts were pressed and their virgin bosoms handled." (Ezekiel 23:3 ESV) So, the time in Egypt is characterized here with the strongest possible words. "In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes." (Judges 21:15 ESV) Here the period immediately following the Exodus is characterized as a time of lawlessness where godly men are raised up to restore order, not a period of monotheistic purity. And I don't think it necessary to quote the texts that point to Solomon (the wisest king) falling into idolatry and even building temples to foreign gods. The Tanakh shows the ancient Israelites as a group wherein monotheism was budding against constant attacks from within and without by pagan polytheism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.94.122 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Removal of section on sources

I've removed the section on sources, but because it's such a major edit I'm explaining here to open a discussion. The section is:

The sources for the history of ancient Israel and Judah can be broadly divided into the biblical narrative (the Hebrew Bible, Deuterocanonical and non-biblical works for the later period) and the archaeological record. The latter can again be divided between epigraphy (written inscriptions, both from Israel and other lands including Mesopotamia and Egypt) and the material record (i.e., physical objects from that period).
The Torah contains "sagas, heroic epics, oral traditions, annals, biographies, narrative histories, novellae, belles lettres, proverbs and wisdom-sayings, poetry, prophecy, apocalyptic, and much more ... the whole finally woven into a composite, highly complex literary fabric sometime in the Hellenistic era."[3]
In the 1920s, the German scholar Albrecht Alt proposed that an Israelite conquest of Canaan – the story of the book of Joshua – was not supported by the archaeological record. Instead, he proposed that the main biblical idea was still correct, but that the Israelites entered Canaan peacefully instead of through conquest. Later, this compromise was abandoned, and the Israelites were interpreted to be indigenous Canaanites. The revision of Israelite origins has implications for Israelite religion: whereas the Bible had depicted them as monotheists from the beginning, the new thought was that they were polytheists who gave rise to a small and ultimately successful group of monotheistic revolutionaries.[4] Gary Rendsburg classifies this point of view as "minimalist," as opposed to a "maximalist" view, which he follows, that sees archaeological evidence as supporting the biblical narrative.[5]
Though he recognized the Israelites as Canaanites by origin, Albrecht Alt still treated the post-Conquest biblical story as real history. But eventually that too was challenged. The most radical reconstruction states that the Jews originated as a "mixed multitude" of settlers sent to Jerusalem by the Persians, where they concocted a past for themselves. There are few scholars who now believe this.[6] Instead modern studies have revealed that the Israelites emerged from a dramatic social transformation of Canaanite nomads of the central hill country of Canaan around 1200 BCE, with no signs of violent invasion or even of peaceful infiltration of a clearly defined ethnic group from elsewhere.[7]

I removed this because I see many problems with the content. For example, the second para mentions the Torah (first five books of the Old Testament) without actually telling you how useful this is as history, and ignores everything else. The next two paras dwell at great length on Alt, ignore everyone else (though Rendsberg is mentioned), and is hopelessly out of date. Beyond this, the whole subject could be better covered by a link to the Historicity of the Bible article. Anyway, what are the views of other editors? PiCo (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

If something is out of date or not balanced, you should improve it, not just delete it. You seem to just be pushing your point of view. tahc chat 00:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
There's no point of view at all in deleting the section - my reason is that the subject is potentially huge and that the section doesn't adequately cover it. If you feel it should remain but be re-written, that's fine - though I'd like you to suggest some edits.PiCo (talk) 01:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
One problem the old section had was that it dwelt on the history of sources, that is, history of research. While some mention should be made somewhere about differing ideas over time, maybe not here?
The section seemed out of place compared to other like articles. It's one thing to present "External links" or "external references", but discussing them, and not seemingly arriving at any point seems unusual. Student7 (talk) 15:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Verification

This is about [4]. Does Grabbe say that? It is not ok to promote editor's own opinions as if they are claims made by WP:SOURCES. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Here's what he says:
A number of the contributors to the present volume discussed state formation in one context or another, often in relation to when Israel and/or Judah became a state. Finkelstcin, Fantalkin, and Piasetzky argue that the earliest evidence for state formation in Judah all dates to late Iron IIA: Beth-Shemesh Ila, Lachish IV. Arad XI. and Beer-sheba V. With regard to Jerusalem, the following seem to"IV. Arad XI. and Beer-sheba V. With regard lo Jerusalem, the following seem to relate lo an early phase of slate formation: first, the Stepped Slone Structure ean be dated to Iron IIA from the sherds found in it (late 9th or early 8th centuries).9 A second example is the massive building whose foundations have been dug up by Eilat Ma/.ar. In spile of her date (10th century), no floor is associated with the building. The latest pottery' in a fill probably laid in order to prepare for the construction of the building is Iron IIA (9th century).10 Finallv, the bullae found by Reich, Shukron, and Lemau near the Gihon Spring indicate some sort of advanced administration in Jerusalem about 800 B.C.E. These examples all point to the 9th century for the earliest public architecture, administrative apparatus, and significant growth. This is the period when Jerusalem was dominated by the prosperous Omride Dynasty.
Knauf suggests that Israelite state formation started in the Bcnjamin-Jcrusa-lcm area and spread to Shechem only later. Gibcon (and Jerusalem to a lesser degree) flourished while Shechem lay in total eclipse during the late 11th and early 10th centuries. Then general economic recovery began in the 10th century'," Doug Weller talk 09:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of ancient Israel and Judah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

"Hebraism"

I found the following bizarre thing stuck only in the lead. This is not discussed in the body, and fits with nothing in the body.

Per WP:LEAD, the lead only summarizes the body.

  • It was added in this diff on 10 July by User:Music314812813478 with no edit note.
  • I removed it here on 25 July, explaining the above
  • It was restored here by Music314812813478 with edit note ""Ancient Israel" redirects here, and I think this is basic enough to remain in the lead only"

That is not a valid reason to include this under the policies and guidelines. here is the content, in any case:

Hebraism is just as important a factor in the development of Western civilization as Hellenism, and Judaism, as the mother religion of Christianity, has considerably shaped Western ideals and morality since the Christian Era.[1]

References

  1. ^ Cambridge University Historical Series, An Essay on Western Civilization in Its Economic Aspects, p.40: Hebraism, like Hellenism, has been an all-important factor in the development of Western Civilization; Judaism, as the precursor of Christianity, has indirectly had had much to do with shaping the ideals and morality of western nations since the christian era.

The person edit warring this into this article (who has also added this to the Hebraism article. This is kind of dangerous territory.

-- Jytdog (talk) 00:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: What reason did you have to remove it from the Hebraism article? It is the Hebraism article after all, and according to WP:LEAD, the very policy which you cite, "basic facts" can be in the lead without being in the body.Music314812813478 (talk) 07:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
@Jytdog: Please respond.Music314812813478 (talk) 08:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Lets deal with something even more basic first. You didn't specify an edition of the ref, but this version is at the Internet Archive. The quoted sentence isn't there. The term "hebraism" doesn't even appear in the book. What is the actual source you are citing? Jytdog (talk) 08:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Probably from this, an 1898 edition. The author is William Cunningham (economist). I can't imagine why we'd use it even if it wasn't stated as fact, which is clearly unacceptable. Doug Weller talk 09:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


@Jytdog:, it is not there because it is the second volume-the second half-of Cunnigham's work, which speaks about different aspects than the first one! The first half of the same edition from same website you gave contains everything I added, so there is no reason to think the content is outdated.11:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: What exactly do you mean by "I can't imagine why we'd use it even if it wasn't stated as fact, which is clearly unacceptable."Music314812813478 (talk) 11:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
@Jytdog:, @Doug Weller:, please respond.Music314812813478 (talk) 12:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Yep people used to write that way didn't they. Hard to read. No way is that a reliable source for anything except what Cunningham thought and for that it is a primary source and would need to be used cautiously. This does not express accepted knowledge in 2017. Jytdog (talk) 00:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough.Music314812813478 (talk) 01:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Since it is a primary source, I will just supplement it with this secondary source:[1]. And as a sweet compromise, I will just put it in the body, and add a short summary instead on the lead. Cheers!

References

  1. ^ Marvin Perry (1 January 2012). Western Civilization: A Brief History, Volume I: To 1789. Cengage Learning. pp. 33–. ISBN 1-111-83720-1.
-- Music314812813478 (talk) 04:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
That is an infinitely better source. Please be sure you summarize it, neutrally. Something like a "cultural legacy" section might make sense at the end, sure. But be aware that people will come after you and flesh that out with negative stuff; there are people who think monotheism is a curse. Jytdog (talk) 07:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

August 20 edits

I get the impression that today's edits smack of original research. Please chime in. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

That claim is abusive with respect to probably 3/4 of the material, if you have a specific claim you think isn't reflected in all the other articles about this, state it. Meanwhile the following can be discussed for a few weeks. There is literally nothing original in either one: The form of scholarship regarding this time is to "suggest" things rather than conclude them, so the paragraph about Canaan is quite wrong to say that this did happen a particular way. Before about 500BCE the standard historical method would be to state dominant or consensus theories, except perhaps for very well documented people like the Egyptians. The earlier Bronze Age section is similarly just another way of saying exactly what the scholars say about this period. The article without these clarifications is POV for seeming to ignore the larger history of the Mediterranean, what the religious history of the time is, what the Egyptians actually say in Amarna letters, etc.
You need to learn a lot more about logic before wholesale reverting. For instance, when six heavily sourced articles about Osarseph and Flavius Josephus already say clearly that Josephus believed the story had enough merit to report, one does not need to 1. repeat all those in this article nor 2. find someone who said that him reporting it means he thought it noteworthy. Likewise, when there's a whole article on Late Bronze Age collapse and effects of Minoan eruption, the idea that Semitic peoples both in northeast and across Mediterranean expanded into the gap is a clear implication, not one that requires "original research" to conclude. Provide detailed feedback on the following sections and indicate what you think is dubious, but it's so heavily linked to other articles that you will have to go contest the point on those articles as well.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.94.233 (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
The diffs ...
  • here ending 15:57, 20 August 2017 had no sources at all.
  • here ending 16:49, 20 August 2017 had no sources at all
  • here ending 18:02, 20 August 2017 added unsourced content
  • here at 18:15, 20 August 2017 slapping POV tag because your unsourced edits have been removed.
... all of this is invalid editing. Jytdog (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

"peaceful" claim

This [peaceful claim] is contested by both Egyptian sources (Amarna letters) describing a violent "habiru" conquering Jericho and Hebrew account in the Torah which describes that and similar conquests. Egypt had several expulsions of foreigners, and several times disenfranchised practitioners of monolatrism and henotheism (which better describe early Judaism insofar as "no gods before me" does not mean "there are no other gods"). Many of these were made homeless after Amarna period and even polytheistic elites were disenfranchised by Horemheb's new priesthood. The story of Osarseph explicitly relates this period to a migration northeast and claims Osarseph's name was changed to Moses, which was credible enough to Flavius Josephus that he reported the story verbatim, claiming to have it from Manetho.

Thus the religious and political leadership of these new Semitic states could have emerged in many ways, but clearly had influence from both ancient Egyptian religion and Zoroastrianism which literate refugees after the Amarna period or Late Bronze Age collapse would have brought to this Egyptian hinterland. A conquering elite touting its own pure bloodlines with mythic history and setting up a militaristic state claiming spiritual destiny is not uncommon at this time, e.g. history of India in Vedic period. The collapse wiped out Mycenae & Minoan trade which created conditions elsewhere for the rise of more insular militarist states, e.g. ancient Sparta, and more generally for patriarchy to replace most meaningful traces of matriarchy other than in religion, elevating male gods generally over the female.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.94.233 (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are trying to accomplish here. Are you proposing new content, disputing existing content? Jytdog (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

"peaceful" and "internal"

these are in the current version because there's literally nothing said here that isn't in these other articles. however feel free to rewrite or use the version above, and if you think it's enough, remove the POV tag. Do not remove it though until both "peaceful" and "internal" have some balance, as those contradict literally every written record.

Archaeology alone cannot describe where elites, leadership & religious ideas come from. Egypt had complex relationships with foreigners, from time to time expelled them [1] and created other involuntary migrants. Waves of these left Egyptian cities during Late Bronze Age collapse (just as the highland communities rise), end of Amarna period monolatrism and displacement of an entrenched priestly class by Horemheb. Expansion of Semitic Phoenicia to encompass the Mediterranean Sea after Mycenae & Minoa lost their trade dominance connected Semitic peoples to the entire Med region.

Even if the religion and ethnicity mostly arose peacefully, there is strong literary evidence of elite conflict, and not just in the written Torah: The Amarna letters describe conquest of Jericho by "habiru", conquest of Shasu, wiping out the "seed" of "Israel" by 1209 BCE and other conflicts. This was however a long & slow process - the Israelites claimed it took 12 generations before the Temple of Solomon - in which conflict may have been exceptional & thus notable, and diplomacy & coexistence normal.

References

  1. ^ http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/people/foreigners.htm

--— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.94.233 (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are trying to accomplish here. Are you proposing new content, disputing existing content? Jytdog (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

POV claim falsely constructed from clear quote

The source cited (Robert Karl) states the theories " share in common the image of an Israelite community which arose peacefully and internally in the highlands of Palestine." [1]

That is absolutely not the same as saying "Israel" arose that way, i.e. that the organized state, or it's leadership or elites were chosen from those people, or that they had their own religious ideas. The use of the term "Israel" to ambiguously mean a lot of things in Zionism, Christianity and Judaism itself makes that statement utterly indefensible and so it's fixed to refers to the population/community not coming from Egypt. Phoenicia was a thassalocracy like Mycenaean Greece not theocracy like Egypt or Israel, so there is no reason to believe Semitic people would have chosen 600+ strict rules for living and death penalties for them, etc., without outside influences.

It should be obvious that any claim to "peaceful" anything is not defensible as history, regardless of what one finds archaeology (which does include walled cities & conflict). If the word "peaceful" remains in at all (it's ridiculous IMHO even just given what the Amarna letters say about Jericho and the 1209 BCE reference to wiping out Israel to the last seed).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.94.233 (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are trying to accomplish here. Are you proposing new content, disputing existing content? Jytdog (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposed content

re late Bronze Age

The Amarna letters are primarily concerned with this region and describe the conquest of Jericho, and feared loss of other cities, to "habiru" (wanderers, nomads, slaves, refugees) or "ibrw" (bowmen) during the Amarna period ending with Tutankhamun. Shasu including some associated with the term "Yhw" are described as prisoners.

Whatever the specific power struggles, religious claims or movements of people involved, archaeology consensus is the Canaanite city state system clearly broke down during the Late Bronze Age collapse,[2] and Canaanite culture was then gradually absorbed into that of the Philistines, Phoenicians and Israelites.[3] The process was gradual[4] and a strong Egyptian presence continued into the 12th century BCE, and, while some Canaanite cities were destroyed, others continued to exist in Iron Age I.[5]

References

  1. ^ Compare: Gnuse, Robert Karl (1997). No Other Gods: Emergent Monotheism in Israel. Journal for the study of the Old Testament: Supplement series. Vol. 241. Sheffield: A&C Black. p. 31. ISBN 9781850756576. Retrieved 2016-06-02. Out of the discussions a new model is beginning to emerge, which has been inspired, above all, by recent archaeological field research. There are several variations in this new theory, but they share in common the image of an Israelite community which arose peacefully and internally in the highlands of Palestine.
  2. ^ Killebrew 2005, pp. 10–6.
  3. ^ Golden 2004b, pp. 61–2.
  4. ^ McNutt 1999, p. 47.
  5. ^ Golden 2004a, p. 155.

--— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.94.233 (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Are you proposing new content? How does this differ from what is in the article now? Jytdog (talk) 18:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Monotheism from and to Egypt

Religion was a factor in migrations at this time. Archaeologists generally accept some migration of people, especially practitioners of monolatrism & monotheism, from and to Egypt but ultimately to Canaan. Mass migrations - although not necessarily to Canaan - occurred in the Amarna period when the new holy city at El Amarna was destroyed - polytheism was clearly re-established under a new military priestly hierarchy under Horemheb. Other aspects of this period (a large city built forcibly of mud-brick with little straw under Akhnaten, threats of specific plagues for not ejecting monotheists and resuming worship of old gods, name of finally exiled Tutmoses dynasty) may parallel Book of Exodus from the "other" polytheist side. There are overt similarities between Egyptian tomb goods of those born monolatrists such as Tutankhamun & descriptions of the earliest Tabernacle, such as winged cherubim & carrying handles, and between Temple of Solomon rituals and Egyptian - see Moses and Monotheism, Aten, Shai.

The issue is extremely controversial - whether monotheism originates with desert nomads or with urban Pharaohs who knew of Horus & Osiris is of religious significance. Whether the Book of Exodus story can be matched to a specific mass ethnic migration in Egyptian history is of interest to historians, especially in the modern state of Israel .— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.94.233 (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Are you proposing new content? How does this differ from what is in the article now? In any case this is entirely unsourced. Jytdog (talk) 18:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Israelite claims about this period ==

There is literally no archaeological evidence of a large single migration of an ethnically distinct people like Exodus. Stories written long after this period (Osarseph, Book of Exodus) were reported or relayed by only a narrow range of conflicted scholars. Amarna letters are the most significant source for this period as they are clearly politically motivated, contemporary, written in Akkadian script on fragile media (clay), and too extensive to be organized forgeries. The first clear Egyptian mention of anything called Israel is the Merneptah Stele claiming to have eradicated its "seed" by 1209BCE. This does not mean necessarily that they had emerged as a distinct people prior to the collapse. Leaders of nomads or bandits or refugees may have adopted a name known for being a thorn in Egypt's side, sought certain people out as leaders and adopted their ways, etc. Due to the unusual Hebrew prohibition against eating certain foods, especially pigs, lack of pig bones is useful archaeologically, but cannot be dated to Bronze Age.

While contemporary writings back monotheist & refugee migrations, there is no Egyptian account of any large single ethnically distinct monotheistic migration wholly out of Egyptian territory to resemble the Book of Exodus, though there are several references to expelling "hated foreigners". The written Torah (centuries later) would claim 12 generations passed between Exodus and founding the Temple of Solomon, thus admitting an extremely extended struggle to establish control, which would be strange for a vast single people against fragmented enemies. Unlike Egyptian accounts, the Torah lacks clear references to conflicts or relations with Egypt & other major empires once they entered Canaan. Egyptian towns or allies conquered may have been referred by more local or regional or tribal names to obscure that Egyptian control of the region was been ceded or seized during post-Amara chaos. Torah contains at least three clear prohibitions against Hebrews 'returning' to Egypt [1] which may have diplomatic as well as religious reasoning, but is claimed to be a very old prohibition. The Torah also may have served a diplomatic purpose with rising Babylon: claiming a clear paternity for a ruling family, a clear ethnic separation, refusing to admit any ongoing Egyptian involvement after Exodus are all consistent with a people presenting its written history to its neighbours denying that it seized land or people from Egypt. The claim that Hebrews were 'returning' to land they had not voluntarily abandoned, and were taking it from others (including Philistines) who had usurped it in their forced absence, was revived also by modern Zionism. Oral Torah history was not written until 2nd century BCE & likewise had anti-Rome motive.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.94.233 (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Are you proposing new content? How does this differ from what is in the article now? In any case this is entirely unsourced. Jytdog (talk) 18:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Religion, migration, disaster, diplomacy

The transition from late Bronze to early Iron age was extremely chaotic not least because of new weapons & military tactics, but emergence of new ideas, rivals & disasters like the Minoan eruption. Theocracy as a political structure was in decline, many gods having been discredited. Patriarchy displaced most remaining forms of matriarchy & matrilinealism, trade came fearfully associated with plague & pirates rather than prosperity, and many communities (including especially in Crete and Greece) withdrew from seacoasts. Late Bronze Age collapse eradicated two primary sea trading empires, Mycenae and Minoa, thus its alternate name "Mycenaean Palatial Civilization Collapse". Lower Egypt was devastated similarly, especially by the Thera tidal wave, which generally depopulated the area until the founding of Alexandra in 4th c BCE.

Phoenicia, a thalassocracy of ancient Semitic-speaking peoples, is a Greek name for city-states including the coastline of what is now Lebanon, Israel, Gaza, Syria, and south-west Turkey, during this same period (1500 BCE and 300 BCE) colonizes westward to eventually found Carthage) and trade into the Atlantic Ocean. Its major export was dye from the Murex mollusc (later associated with Tyre) which was a luxury good in demand from rising elites after the chaos - including in Rome. Semitic peoples, both by land and sea, expanded into the space left by the collapsing trade & military powers that had been devastated in the "collapse".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.94.233 (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Are you proposing new content? How does this differ from what is in the article now? In any case this is entirely unsourced. Jytdog (talk) 18:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Stricter social organization

Under such conditions, new stricter forms of social organization emerge if only for survival. Religious and intellectual history suggest Israel as a strong military patriarchy with strict rules for living, almost like Sparta crediting a single founding figure, but that really developed much more slowly under strong influence from Egypt and likely Zoroastrianism. Despite the lack of any clear single ethnic migration, Egypt's frequent expulsions of foreigners, and one-time diaspora of elites practicing monolatrism, henotheism and actual monotheism from Amarna would have swelled populations, possibly replacing those killed in war or natural disasters or plagues (such as after Thera). Osarseph's story suggest there were fewer refugees, they were outcasts or slaves, and led by an actual Egyptian priest who changed his name. This was treated so seriously by Flavius Josephus that at least some Jewish scholars must have been open to alternate histories like Manetho, despite questionable claims (name change).

Religious or elite refugees who had fled to these more remote northeast regions after Amarna period or were displaced by Horemheb's reforms would have known of any strict pious well-organized isolated highland communities. Literacy alone would have marked out these people and their children as leaders. Over a dozen or more generations a distinct people with a clear story of origins that those elites controlled could easily have emerged. Certain aspects of the story (Moses claimed to have Hebrew parentage but Egyptian status) strongly suggest such a process of legitimizing both to cement a domestic elite's claim to power, and present it as ancient and legitimate to neighbours and allies.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.94.233 (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Are you proposing new content? How does this differ from what is in the article now? In any case this is entirely unsourced. Jytdog (talk) 18:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Map - source added to map page doesn't match the map

i guess I'll have to take this to RSN, but I'll note now that the source now given for the map[5] doesn't match the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 19:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Sources

It might be good to have a section on the sources through which we know about ancient Israel and Judah. The article mentions Biblical and Assyrian sources but only in passing. --jftsang 12:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

"First Temple period" autolinks here, but there isn't a single mention of the term in the article

@Zero0000: ... and that's ridiculous. We can use several sources, for instance this: [2]

For now, an autolink to Solomon's Temple would be more useful, but far from ideal.

Sorry, no time to do it myself. Thanks and cheers! Arminden (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/976660/jewish/The-Prohibition-Against-Living-in-Egypt.htm
  2. ^ Jerusalem in the First Temple period (c.1000-586 B.C.E.), Ingeborg Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies, Bar-Ilan University, last modified 1997, accessed 11 February 2019

Many sections are myth

Much expressed in this page is mythical. We know for example that no ancient Israel ever existed. Israel is a name of the common people of Judea and Samaria, probably from "Sarah's descendants." They were differentiated from Kohenim and Levites. I hope an editor can flag some of this please. Canlawtictoc (talk) 20:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Canlawtictoc (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:SOURCES? Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Bibliography cleanup details

The bibliography cites specific chapters in some books with chapters by different authors. Previously to do that it used a {{Cite book}} with the fields for the book proper and then a {{Cite book}} on the same line with only chapter/author name parameters. At some point I guess that worked fine, but as of now it gives a big red error for each. Instead I replaced those with single cite template uses for each chapter with all the required fields and separate chapter author and editor parameters, as done in the examples in the template's documentation.

I noticed as I went through that a lot of the items in the bibliography are no longer used. I didn't check every single one that's not used in the citations section, but I did check most of them, and the ones I checked were all previously added in the history of the article for use with specific citations, and then were left in after the citations themselves were removed some time later. Given they were added for specific citations, it seems they aren't there as general references, so I cut out the ones that aren't presently cited.

In case anyone needs the removed items, I've copied them them here. Chapatsu (talk) 15:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Unused bibliography entries

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): History LaBuff, Cultofjunior.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_ancient_Israel_and_Judah/Archive_4&oldid=1198931098"