Jump to content

Talk:Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 16 October 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. As seen in the prior move discussion just above, some people object to the current title but agreement still can't be reached on a new name. EdJohnston (talk) 02:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy) → United Kingdom of Israel – Following the rejection of the WP:COMMONNAME for this topic, i.e. United Monarchy, at the previous discussion, the next best option is the alternative name sometimes used for the topic - one that also dispenses with the ghastly parenthetical disambiguation, and which, while only a distant runner up to United Monarchy in terms of actual scholarly usage, is also preferable, as a form of natural disambiguation, over the parenthetical disambiguation, per WP:NCDAB. Examples of the scholarly usage can be found here. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose The existing title has held tight for almost 20 years (minus the slight interregnum period where it was changed to just “United Monarchy”). There is no prevailing pressure to change this once again outside of a single-editor driven effort here.
That said, “United Kingdom of Israel” is definitely a less clunky title. Would need more editors to chime in here in terms of preference and general consensus on necessity on this proposed move.
Mistamystery (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NB: the page actually began at the title of "United Monarchy" (following the sources) before being moved to the present title without discussion in 2009 accompanied by a very muddled summary. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely accurate. Title edits between 2005 and 2009 were varied. (It held for a period as “The United Monarchy (United Kingdom of Israel and Judah or just Kingdom of Israel” Mistamystery (talk) Mistamystery (talk) 19:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about the actual page title, not just what was randomly written in the first sentence regardless of what was present in the page title. Lead changes aren't page moves. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Plenty of sources use the term, and it's much smoother than the current title. It might have been the same for a while now, but I don't think it would hurt anything to change it. Jacksonmcdonald3425 (talk) 00:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as the kingdom’s title was not “United Kingdom of Israel”, but simply “Kingdom of Israel”. Any qualifiers need to be in parentheses as elsewhere on Wikipedia 2600:100F:B096:C0F9:848B:76FC:8601:CC75 (talk) 23:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Palestine in infobox

[edit]

From recent edits, I see there's disagreement over the inclusion of Palestine in the "today" section of the infobox. This seems like a reasonable inclusion, since the point is to show what current jurisdictions have land that was once thought to be the Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy). Let me suggest discussing here rather than reverting etc. ProfGray (talk) 11:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anachronisms

[edit]

@Joseph Imperial: I don't know why Yiddish and Israelis would belong in the 10th century BCE. "Israeli" means a citizen of the modern state of Israel (i.e. 1948 or later). Yiddish originated in the 9th century CE, and it is a Germanic language. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yiddish is practically Hebrew, the language of the Jews, with Germanic influences. Thus it is a dialect of Hebrew. Bernard Stoltz (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yiddish is really the reverse of that. It's High German with Hebrew influences. Thus, Yiddish is a dialect of German. — Red XIV (talk) 09:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to what I have discovered linguistically, you make a fair point. Thank you for correcting me. On your concern with why Yiddish and Israelis are mentioned in the 10th century BC, I certainly agree with you. Somebody needs to correct that error. Bernard Stoltz (talk) 11:03, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

... and there was no Judaism there. Maybe there was polytheistic Yahwism, but Judaism appeared centuries later. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that Yahwism wasn't polytheistic in of itself. In its earliest form, and the form that we find it to be returned to from time to time by Israelite Judges, it was monotheistic, serve the great God Yahweh, and had its base of operations, its HQ if you will, in Shiloh. It was corrupted from time to time by the Israelites, taking influences from the Canaanite religions, particularly the cult of Baal and Astarte, but at its basis it was monotheistic.  Bernard Stoltz (talk) 11:07, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Israelites were Canaanites themselves. Per the main article: "In addition, it is unlikely that the Israelites overtook the southern Levant by force, according to archaeological evidence. Instead, they branched out of indigenous Canaanite peoples that long inhabited the region, which included Syria, ancient Israel, and the Transjordan region.[1][2][3] ... The Israelites used the Canaanite script and communicated in a Canaanite language known as Biblical Hebrew. The language's modern descendant is today the only surviving dialect of the Canaanite languages.[4][5]" Dimadick (talk) 12:17, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Tubb 1998, pp. 13–14.
  2. ^ McNutt 1999, p. 47.
  3. ^ K. L. Noll (2001). Canaan and Israel in Antiquity: An Introduction. Archived 1 July 2023 at the Wayback Machine A&C Black. p. 164: "It would seem that, in the eyes of Merneptah's artisans, Israel was a Canaanite group indistinguishable from all other Canaanite groups." "It is likely that Merneptah's Israel was a group of Canaanites located in the Jezreel Valley."
  4. ^ Moore Cross, Frank (1997). Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in History of the Religion of Israel. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. p. 62. ISBN 0-674-09176-0.
  5. ^ Kuzar, Ron (2001). Hebrew and Zionism: a discourse analytic cultural study. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. p. 235. ISBN 3-11-016993-2.

Why has the picture been changed? Without changing the caption or any discussion?

[edit]

Looks like vandalism Nohorizonss (talk) 08:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This picture is just a kingdom juxtaposed over the twelve tribes . If we were to go by the primary biblical sources that it would extended from Syria to the brook of egypt. I would like the older artistic picture to be restored. Nohorizonss (talk) 08:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you completely, Nohorizonss. In fact, may I add that I would like to see a map where the map of the 12 tribes of Israel in the time of the Judges, in the time of King Saul, and in the time of David and Solomon, with Moab, Edom, and Ammon shown as the vassals that they were, and the tributary territories that King David had installed shown as separate territories. Bernard Stoltz (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article Intro

[edit]

The article description correctly notes the state as a hypothetical one, but the article intro speaks as if the state definitively existed. The intro needs to be tweaked to read "proposed/hypothetical state," or something similar MS1745 (talk) 08:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It states "Whether the United Monarchy existed—and, if so, to what extent—is a matter of ongoing academic debate." I think this is enough for showing it's contested. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why the definitive language in the introduction? MS1745 (talk) 10:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only people who try to make the spineless argument for Palestine's existence would agree to these lies. It is sad to see just how anti-Semitic some editors here on Wikipedia, a site that promises to be neutral and unbiased as it gives information, really is. Despite the large amounts of archaeological proof of the United Monarchy's existence, people these days are willing to deliberately twist truth and history in order to be politically correct. I pray and hope that one day Wikipedia would get a CEO who will root out this anti-Semitic, anti-truth and biased-centred plague that infects this website. Bernard Stoltz (talk) 11:00, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no definitive archaeological evidence of the existence of a United Monarchy. There is evidence of the lack of such a polity (lack of documentation supporting it from the surrounding cultures). It is not antisemitic to challenge religious myth on scientific grounds. MS1745 (talk) 04:39, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Antisemitic" is WP:PA.
The Bible is a book of mythology rather than objective historiography. A lot of mainstream Israeli archaeologists agree with this, there is nothing antisemitic about it. See e.g. https://www.salon.com/2001/02/07/solomon/ and https://web.archive.org/web/20210811064225/http://websites.umich.edu/~proflame/neh/arch.htm
The maximum extent of 10th century BCE Jerusalem is described at Regev, Johanna; Gadot, Yuval; Uziel, Joe; Chalaf, Ortal; Shalev, Yiftah; Roth, Helena; Shalom, Nitsan; Szanton, Nahshon; Bocher, Efrat; Pearson, Charlotte L.; Brown, David M.; Mintz, Eugenia; Regev, Lior; Boaretto, Elisabetta (7 May 2024). "Radiocarbon chronology of Iron Age Jerusalem reveals calibration offsets and architectural developments". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 121 (19). doi:10.1073/pnas.2321024121. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 11087761. PMID 38683984.
The source says the archaeologically-proven Jerusalem was larger than Israel Finkelstein and Amihai Mazar contended, but the way it was occupied cannot be determined. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:26, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tgeorgescu: This source states that the Bible's depiction of the United Monarchy is history rather than mythology. Potatín5 (talk) 09:46, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The major Israeli universities are not married to a fundamentalist understanding of the Bible, so they actually teach the views I mentioned above, even if with some disagreements here and there. Tobolowsky, Andrew (2018). "Israelite and Judahite History in Contemporary Theoretical Approaches". Currents in Biblical Research. 17 (1): 33–58. doi:10.1177/1476993X18765117. ISSN 1476-993X. Second, Mazar and Finkelstein frequently agree, at least broadly speaking, on the hard facts, but disagree about their subjective interpretation.
And even if it is not WP:THETRUTH, it suffices to say that "the United Monarchy did not exist" is a mainstream academic POV. So, I don't have to plead it's the unvarnished truth. I just have to plead it is a major view in WP:SCHOLARSHIP.
See also David, Ariel (29 April 2024). "Archaeology". Haaretz.com. Retrieved 14 September 2024. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Potatín5 can you please quote the source to show evidence for your argument please?
I am honestly not anyone’s side here. I am here as an outside party.CycoMa2 (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CycoMa2: This link provides a useful summary of the book's argument. Basically, Faust & Farber argue that the United Monarchy was a historical entity and that Saul, David and Solomon were rulers of consequence. Of course, neither of them are biblical literalist, but they still think the Bible's depiction of the United Monarchy as a real (mini-)empire is historical. Potatín5 (talk) 09:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Tgeorgescu, The Salon isn’t an ideal source.CycoMa2 (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But it is good enough for showing that giving the lie to biblicism isn't antisemitism. I'm not even saying that Finkelstein is right. I'm just saying that many Israeli archaeologists agree with him, and many others don't. I'm afraid that for the coming several decades we won't know who is right in this dispute.
The claims made by Bernard Stoltz can be safely rejected according to the website guideline WP:FRINGE: biblicism is academically WP:FRINGE. Being against the fringe does not mean being anti-truth. It's not written in the stars that the Bible is true. Mainstream archaeology gave the lie to big chunks of the Bible. Not being aware that biblicism is the laughing stock of WP:CHOPSY is ignorance. I didn't read the book by Faust and Farber, but my two cents are that they don't endorse biblicism, either. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter 3 turns from the Bible to archaeology and can itself be subdivided into two parts. In the first part, after briefly summarizing what had been the scholarly consensus until some thirty years ago, we will explain why this consensus has faded away, taking with it much of the glory of David and Solomon, and why much more skeptical approaches are dominant today among biblical scholars. [...] the skeptical approach did not stand the test of time and most of the problems raised in the past have been disproved.

— Faust and Farber, p. 2
Faust and Farber say that today Bible scholars embrace this skepticism, but archaeologists don't. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kingdom_of_Israel_(united_monarchy)&oldid=1276431681"