Jump to content

Talk:Kingdom of Judah

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

Bible as source?[edit]

"According to the Hebrew Bible..." Clearly the Bible is full of myths and propaganda and in itself not a valid source for historical accuracy. Perhaps there should be a separate paragraph for what the Bible says about Judah, similar to how other topics have a paragraph about references in popular culture.--Tchoutoye 12:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the first place, while most historians recognize that the Deuteronomic History (i.e., the Book of Kings) is full of myths and propaganda, they also have generally felt that it also contains reliable historical information, and many have been fairly confident that they can decipher which parts are reliable history, and which parts are later myth. Furthermore, many of the prophetic books are actually considered to be at least partially written during the life of the Kingdom of Judah. If you think that the presence of myths and propaganda in a source makes it "not a valid source" for historical inquiry, then we would have to exclude just about the entirety of ancient historical writing, and conclude that we know nothing about ancient or medieval history at all. But, of course, you don't actually think that, you just dislike the Bible. The Bible is basically our only major source on the Kingdom of Judah, and most historians have been interested in figuring out what in it can be trusted, and what cannot. Your suggestion is ridiculous, in that I can't imagine what the "Main" part of the article would consist of if you took out material derived from the Bible. john k 12:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This artical doesn't meet the Wikipedia standards for neutrality, verifiability and it does not quote accepted sources. I've added the appropriate tags. Hopefully someone can rewrite the whole artical and present the material in a more appropriate manner. 00:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think there should be separated articles on the history of Judah (and Israel) as described in the Bible, and the history as "described" by archeological evidences. For the latter everyone just read The Bible unearthed by I. Finkelstein & N.A. Silberman. They are - as far as it makes sense - critical towards the history written in the Bible, based on evidences partially discovered by themselves (and to answer John K: yes, there are many clear evidences, that show, that the Bible is not always a valid source for history! It gives a very useful background for archeological research though), but again they point out cleary - and so do I - that the Bible isn't a history book at all!! It is an excellent work of literature (formally), and for two major religions The Source (spiritually) containing some historical information as well. We just have to know what to use it for (and how)!

all you who say the tanakh is not a credible source  : you're whole claim is childish , the jewish tanakh books are the only books from the ancient times which represent a nation which says the complete truth about even the most key people in its history , most respected and most loved people in their history, the tanakh is not "covering up" for no one , and to be honest , its the only ancient source who does so it seems none of you would ever claim such things on The assyrian and egyptian sources which are full of mistakes , blunt lies and glorification of their kings (which usually dont deserve it)

"For the latter everyone just read The Bible unearthed by I. Finkelstein etc "

oh , you mean the same i.finkelstien who decleared that the V||| layer in meggido is from the middle of the 14 century bc (against evidence proving its cannot be erlier then the end of the 14 century bc according to archeaological work using Mycenaean ceramic found in the layer, And a carbon 14 test) just so it would correspond to the historic knowlege reflected through the amarna letters. that finkelstein ? he's a joke , and that book is not founded, and is already contradicted by hundred of articles and books which proved how baseless are the claims of that pathetic book.

oh and btw - judah in the first temple period was usually much bigger then that map shows(try including edom which was most of the time a a subjact of judah) message by hebraic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hebraic (talkcontribs) 20:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hebraic, your argument shows extreme bias. In order to meet Wikipedia's quality standards, religious documents cannot be used as primary sources. Textual criticism and archaeology have established a conflicting picture of of historic Israel and Judah than what is offered in the bible, and have salient reasons to back that picture up. This material should be presented. I will flag the article until the issue is resolved. Let us please rework the article to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. entropyandvodka (talk — Preceding undated comment added 04:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"God's Worshipper's Kingdom"[edit]

The kingdom is named after the tribe Judah, which does not mean 'God's Worshipper', but is a name. The name originally meant 'Thank God'. I dont understand the translation.

No it means Thank Yahweh. "Thank God" would be Eldah! 14:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judah is this the house of David also ? Judahs child (talk) 06:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


If the Bible is the main source of information, the article needs more explanation of where the dates are derived from. I assume it is something more intelligent than the argument which leads some Christians to believe that the Earth and Universe are 6000 years old, but what is it in each case? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

First off, Biblical dates after the founding of the Israelite monarchy (ca. 1000 B.C.) are far more definite and least partially historically founded than Biblical dating references to periods before the founding of the Israelite monarchy. The Biblical information about the sequence and lengths of individual reigns is certainly used (since information on these matters is simply not available anywhere else), but great efforts are also made to synchronize with external chronologies wherever possible. Three different scholarly schemes are tabulated right in the table on the article page. AnonMoos 08:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no independent non-Biblical confirmation of any Biblical date before the reign of Ahab. So say that dates after the founding of the monarchy before that date is factually incorrect. 14:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Scriptural Citation[edit]

The main article references Joshua 18 which far predates post-Solomonic Israel. The first citation for Jerusalem being the capital of Southern Kingdom is most likely in 1 Kings 12 instead. Additionally, 2 Samuel 5:6-9 describes David conquering Jerusalem and making it his capital (Hebron served as his capital during the years he reigned over Judah alone).

Joshua 18:28 (NIV) reads "Zelah, Haeleph, the Jebusite city (that is, Jerusalem), Gibeah and Kiriath—fourteen towns and their villages. This was the inheritance of Benjamin for its clans." While this obviously mentions Jerusalem, it does not lay it out as the capital of the Kingdom of Judah.

The division of the Unified Kingdom occurs in 1 Kings 12, with Rehoboam driving off the Northern Kingdom (Israel) with his harsh demands.

Zamoose 12:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's all a bunch of BS anyways Zamoose, so why be bothered about minutea? The Fifth Column (talk) 08:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New lead[edit]

I've revised the lead quite radically ("edit boldly"). There were two problems with the existing lead: First, it was far too long - a lead has to be a brief guide to the subject, and the old one was far from brief; second, it was not really no more than a summary of the bible, which is not a reliable historical source. I recognise that the new lead has no citations - this is a fault, and perhaps I should supply some. PiCo (talk) 02:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Besides that. The introduction, as it currently stands, places more focus on the subsequent fate of the area rather than the Kingdom itself. Two centuries of archaelogical research and theories on this minor state are not even mentioned. Dimadick (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I've cut it back and it now deals with the birth and death of Judah as known from archaeology. It does need to be expanded, because more than this is known. PiCo (talk) 00:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Serious lack of photos and illustrations in the article[edit]

please do something about it, thanks.

This article is outdated[edit]

A serious deficiency in this entry: The author assumes that the Kingdom of Judah existed no earlier than the 9th century BCE, and the first Judean king he finds in external sources is Hezekiah. This claim is 16 years out of date. The Tel Dan Inscription, written by an Aramean king, Hazael II, mentions Ahaziah, King of Judah and contemporary of Jehoram, King of Israel, both of whom Hazael claims to have defeated and killed in battle - an event that occurred in the mid-9th century BCE. Moreover, he entitles Ahaziah as king of "the House of David", his term for the Kingdom of Judah. This is a typical usage of that period - naming the kingdom for the founder of the ruling dynasty. Similarly, Amos calls Aram Damascus "the House of Hazael", and Assyriaqn inscriptions of the period entitle Israel "bit Humri" - "the House of Omri". What this meaqns is that the ruling dynasty of Judah was founded by King David, and that this occurred at some time before King Ahaziah. Thus, there is no reason why we should not accept the list of Judean kings presented in Kings as historical, and date the founding of the dynasty back to the 10th century BCE (the regnal years of David and Solomon appear to be typological (40 years apiece), which is why I refrain from writing "early 10th century"). Why should anyone invent these kings? To fill in the gap between David and Ahaziah? Unacceptable. The most one can say is that not all words and deeds attributed to them by the Deuteronimistic redactor of Kings are historical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yonsaf (talkcontribs) 08:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We need a reliable source to make the sort of changes you suggest. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note, however, that the current sources are dated 2007 and 2011 (the last one by the media, and not as important). So it would be nearly impossible to present something discovered 16 years ago that would somehow contradict these reports. An editor would have to somehow demonstrate that these (newer) supposed experts had "overlooked" these "Ahaziah" discoveries made years before. There appears to be a gap here between an initial report made 16 years ago and subsequent analysis by other experts which may have placed the older findings into eclipse. It would be nice to demonstrate otherwise. I hope you are successful. Student7 (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


It is possible that we will need a "minimalist" vs "maximalist" article or statement in every article on pre-Alexandrian Israel/Judah/Jerusalem. Inserting it in one article alone seems insufficient, IMO. Student7 (talk) 01:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Here is a nice map for you guys if you find a place for it.

The Holy Land, or Palestine, showing not only the Ancient Kingdoms of Judah and Israel in which the 12 Tribes have been distinguished, but also their placement in different periods as indicated in the Holy Scriptures. Tobias Conrad Lotter, Geographer. Augsburg, Germany, 1759

Gsonnenf (talk) 11:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard to read. Too fussy and too colored. Even when magnified, but thanks for looking.
Also, have we ever found archeological evidence of the "ten northern tribes." Student7 (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Thirteen Tribes of Israel[edit]

In the order of birth the twelve sons of Jacob are Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Issachar, Zebulun, Joseph and Benjamin, and they become the ancestors of thirteen tribes, because Joseph has two sons, Mannasseh and Ephraim which become two tribes, leaving one Tribe upon the shepherd stone not numbered among the twelve tribes.

Genesis Chapter 35 Verses 22 to 26 Genesis Chapter 48 Verses 5 Genesis Chapter 49 Verse 24

During the days of Moses and shortly thereafter, the tribe of Levi stood upon the shepherd stone, not being numbered among the twelve numbered Tribes, and Levi was given no inheritance in the Promised Land, so that all Levi dwelt among the twelve numbered Tribes, as the only Priesthood in Israel, until the days of Samuel of the Tribe of Ephraim, which was given to Ephraim because the sons of Joseph obtained the birthright.

Number Chapter 1 1 Chronicles Chapter 5 Verses 1-2

The Levitical High Priest Eli, had sinned against Yahweh, and Samuel was raised up as a new High Priest placing the Tribe of Ephraim not numbered among the twelve Tribes, as a new Priesthood upon the shepherd stone unto this day, even though the Levitical Priesthood continues.

1 Samuel Chapters 1 to 3

Saul of the Tribe of Benjamin was anointed as King of Israel, but he sinned against Yahweh, and David of the Tribe of Judah was anointed as King in his place.

1 Samuel Chapter 9 1 Samuel Chapter 16

David’s son Solomon forsook Yahweh because of the influence of evil women, and even failed to mention the name Yahweh in his writings of Ecclesiastics and the Song of Solomon, (the only two scrolls of the twenty four scrolls of the Tanakh besides Ester, that do not contain the name Yahweh,) so in Solomon’s son’s days, the Kingdom was divided.

1 Kings Chapter 11 verse 4

The Tribe of Benjamin was given to the house of David and the Tribe of Judah as the southern Kingdom, the Kingdom of Judah made of just two Tribes, and ten Tribes including Levi were given unto the Tribe of Ephraim as the northern Kingdom Israel, leaving Ephraim not numbered among the twelve Tribes. JosephLoegering (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in both the map above and this contribution, 12-13 tribes are discussed. Yet the article is about the Kingdom of Judah, the 2-3 southern tribes. How would any of this be used to improve this article? Student7 (talk) 13:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganization of Headings?[edit]

I noticed that most of the article is under the heading "Biblical Narrative." However, the "Clash of Empires" and "Destruction and dispersion" subheadings appear to be more based on archaeology and research than on the biblical narrative. For example:

Necho then joined forces with the Assyrian Ashur-uballit II and together they crossed the Euphrates and lay siege to Harran. The combined forces failed to capture the city, and Necho retreated back to northern Syria. The event also marked the disintegration of the Assyrian Empire.

Although no citation is given, this assertion appears to be based on extra-biblical authority. So I'm wondering if these sections really belong under the "Biblical Narrative" umbrella, or if perhaps they can be combined with the "Archaeological Record" section for a complete discussion of scientific/historical inquiry into the actual history of the Kingdom of Judah.--BenEsq (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I agree that material that isn't sourced from biblical texts belongs outside the biblical-narrative section. However, IMO to move them there we'll need the extra-biblical sources. --Dailycare (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


It's not 100% clear: is this whole history based entirely on the Biblical record? If so< what about the historians side?.45Colt 08:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is the "Archaeological record" section with input from historians. There isn't much such input though, so most of the material is biblical. --Dailycare (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely confused. I've been trying to look up the history of ancient Judea, but all the articles fall into two irreconcilable camps. One says that Judah "emerged" (whatever that means) around 800 BCE and that Hezekiah was the first "known" king. The other talks about a King David who established a dynasty nearly a century earlier and was even the subject of a biography, the "Court History of David". How do historians reconcile this? Do they consider David a minor ruler whose dynasty didn't become important until Hezekiah's time? Is it possible that the archeological record begins with Hezekiah simply because the Assyrian invasion destroyed earlier artifacts? I wish I had more information. (talk) 22:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a problem with other articles too, where related articles disagree. The Court History of David doesn't exist and may never have existed. Doug Weller (talk) 08:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I should trust that article. See for instance this. Doug Weller (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very Inaccurate and Biased Introduction[edit]

To say that Judah begun in the 9th (or even 8th!) century BC is to completely disregard the archaeological evidence. The wars between Asa and Baasha (e.g. Aharoni and Avi-Yonah, MacMillan Bible Atlas) in the early 9th century BC already guarantee that the kingdom existed in the 10th century BC, in my very honest opinion. The Tel Dan and other inscriptions also support the existence of King David, as does the rapid urbanization of Palestine in the late 11th/early 10th centuries BCE (A. Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible pp.374-5). Cornelius (talk) 01:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need sources specifically dating an earlier Judah. Doug Weller talk 06:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller: Look at Renassault/Cornelius's other contributions over the last four years -- he/she appears to just be posting his/her personal opinions regarding various ancient near-eastern archaeological topics on article talk pages, without attempting to actually improve article content. Even the above, which claims to be about a "biased introduction" (an apparent misunderstanding that the lead is supposed to be something other than a summary of the body, mind you), is bizarre: "the existence of King David" is not touched on one way or the other at any point in this article. The user appears to be posting random opinions about biblical minimalist archaeology in whatever forum they can find. This is a long-term, but very minor, problem, and I am not entirely sure how it should be dealt with, as in all likelihood the account will be inactive until about a year after the above post... Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC) (edited 00:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Repinging User:Doug Weller in case they click the notification that I mentioned them and only read the initial diff rather than my (important) edit to my own post. Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Hijiri88: as the account hasn't been active since March there really isn't anything to do here. I don't see any warnings on their talk page either. You might want to put one there. I agree they seem more interested in using the talk pages as forums for their opinion than editing. Doug Weller talk 10:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kingdom of 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


This article needs to clearly differentiate mainstream archaeological methodology from biblical archaeology, the latter of which tries to make the historical record fit religious beliefs. It's confusing when someone is trying to figure out what material evidence exists for the Kingdom of Judah, and finds nothing but the Bible. Jan sewi (talk) 10:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a section on actual archaeological finds relating to Judah in the article. If you have good sources, this section could be expanded. --Dailycare (talk) 08:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting date of formation[edit]

I'm very confused how we use the sources and dates we use for the formation of Judah.

Firstly, the sources. The first source, used to cite a figure of the 9th century BCE, comes from Israel in Transition: From Late Bronze II to Iron IIa (c. 1250–850 B.C.E.), pages 225 & 226, found here.

The first source does indeed make use of the figure of 9th century BCE, but not for the formation of the independent kingdom. It mentions that there are signs of early activity in the 10th century BCE, with certain cities in Judah showing signs of inhabitance during Iron Age IIA. However, it makes no use of this date to say that Judah was formed during this period, just because activity is observed at a time period doesn't mean the kingdom was formed. That's like saying the Kingdom of Samaria was founded in the 9000s BCE because that's when Jericho showed the first signs of human life.

The second source, Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period, page 149, found here, has the exact same problem.

It presents evidence showing that there was some sort of human activity in the area of Hebron and some others - however, while it certainly mentions Judah, it makes a point that it these signs of human activity seem to be more of a disproof for the existence of an established Kingdom of Judah than a support:

"If Judah would have been a well integrated region in Iron Age I and IIA, one would expect that the line of the ranked sites would have been straight. One does not observe a straight line in either the Iron Age I or IIA."

Finally, the third source, used to support of a date of the 8th century BCE, The Last Labayu: King Saul and the Expansion of the First North Israelite Territorial Entity", page 171, found here.

The source doesn't even mention the 8th century BCE! It barely even mentions Judah! It mentions Solomon, but almost nothing else on the page cited!

Finally, and most glaring, the date for the independence of the northern kingdom is 930 BCE. How would Judah, the independent kingdom of Judah, that became independent when Samaria broke away, be founded during a time centuries before Samaria broke away, i.e. centuries before "the Kingdom of Judah" could actually exist, i.e. when there was no other independent Israeli kingdom??? Even without the sources provided, it makes. No. Sense.

BedrockPerson (talk) 14:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kingdom of 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 09:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Birth and death of minimalism[edit]

If minimalism ever was a single theory/POV, the mainstream is now minimalist:

Apart from the well-funded (and fundamentalist) “biblical archaeologists,” we are in fact nearly all “minimalists” now.

— Philip Davies, Beyond Labels: What Comes Next?

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Highly urbanized 10th century Judah[edit]

Highly urbanized? Coogan, Michael (2010). "4. Thou Shalt Not: Forbidden Sexual Relationships in the Bible". God and Sex. What the Bible Really Says (1st ed.). New York, Boston: Twelve. Hachette Book Group. p. 105. ISBN 978-0-446-54525-9. Retrieved 5 May 2011. Jerusalem was no exception, except that it was barely a city—by our standards, just a village. In David's time, its population was only a few thousand, who lived on about a dozen acres, roughly equal to two blocks in Midtown Manhattan. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:40, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Biblical Judah" and "Historical Judah"[edit]

The article probably needs to be divided into two sections, "Biblical Judah" (the story of the Book of Kings) and "Historical Judah" (the story from archaeology).PiCo (talk) 11:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are not entirely contradictory, at least for the 7th and 6th century BCE narratives. Go ahead, however. The article fails to distinguish between fact and fiction, and it could use more sources. Dimadick (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant source[edit]

One of the sources cited does not seem to be about the Kingdom of Judah at all.:

  • "an important group of archaeologists and biblical scholars formed the view that in reality the kingdom of David and Solomon bore little resemblance to the biblical portrait of an extensive, powerful, united monarchy. This view derives primarily from the fact that no 10th century BCE archaeological finds exist that could corroborate claims of the existence of a magnificent biblical kingdom extending from Be'er Sheva in the south to Dan in the north."

The source is talking about the apparent lackk of historicity for the Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy), which is associated with legendary monarchs David and Solomon. Neither of them is a King of Judah.

Also the quote mentions the findings concerning the 10th century BC. Yet the article's text extrapolates that the situation remained unchanged to the 8th century BC. That is not stated in the cited source. Dimadick (talk) 11:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Book of Helaman?[edit]

The articles says that probably one of Zedekiah's sons survive. The source for this, is the so called Book of Helaman. The book of Helaman, however, is part of the Book if Mormon, and can't be a source. Even though the Bible is a reliable source used with caution, because is an ancient text, the book of Mormon isn't and must be not used at all. If another source, epigraphical or textual, mentions that probably one of Zedekiah's sons remained alive, it's fine. Now the sentence is unfounded and must be erased. Gustavo Rubén (talk) 09:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LMLK Research website as a source for biblical archaeology - run by a Creationist with a B.Sc.[edit]

See WP:RSN#LMLK Research website as a source for biblical archaeology - run by a Creationist with a B.Sc.. @Greyshark09: you'll want to participate I think. Doug Weller talk 14:55, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is both highly inaccurate and highly biased[edit]

Within the Archeological section, the author makes a broad statement, "The legendary history of David and Solomon in the 10th century BCE tells little about the origins of Judah." This is footnoted as "(5) Katz). For the sake of the following point, I've interpreted "the legendary history of David and Solomon" to mean the biblical account. I believe this was the Wiki article author's meaning. I've read much of katz' book and conclude that the author of this Wiki page misunderstands or misstates Katz' conclusions. Katz says, in his opening paragraphs, ".. the kind of unqualified animosity toward the Jewish "religion of the law" (and toward all other forms of institutionalized religion) that emerged with Wellhausen and many others of his time and that, to some extent, continues even in the present must be renounced, of course. " Wellhauser was one of the first (1883 in his most famous work, "Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels" scholars to doubt the dating of David's kingdom. According to Wikipedia's article on Wellhauser, " It [Wellhausen's "Prolegomena" argues that the Torah (or Pentateuch) had its origins in a redaction of four originally-independent texts dating from several centuries after the time of Moses, their traditional author." Thus, Katz' entire book is written in refutation of this theory and can hardly be used as a footnote to support a later Davidic kingdom. Katz' book has an entire third of the book dedicated to the use of the Bible's exhaustive details concerning the 'origins of Judah'. Thus, the conclusion, along with the fallacious use of footnoted documentation, stating, "The legendary history of David and Solomon in the 10th century BCE tells little about the origins of Judah" must be removed- or rewritten to reflect the footnoted authors accurately.

This Wiki author also states, "There is no archaeological evidence of an extensive, powerful Kingdom of Judah before the late 8th century BCE; Nimrud Tablet K.3751, dated c. 733 BCE, is the earliest known record of the name Judah (written in Assyrian cuneiform as Yaudaya or KUR.ia-ú-da-a-a).[10] Footnote (10) is a source that speaks only of the first written (Cuneiform) mention of the kingdom. Of course, logically, many archeological events took place and existed before they were written about. The advent of written knowledge does not necessitate the advent of all that has ever existed. Hence, the debatable fact that the Davidic kingdom was not mentioned before the written evidence does not necessitate that the Davidic 10th century kingdom didn't exist beforehand. The footnote implies a scholarly source for this incredible conclusion and should be removed. Either that or the conclusion needs to be removed/rewritten.

The second part of his statement, "Prior to this the kingdom was no more than a small tribal entity which was limited to Jerusalem and its immediate surroundings.[11][4] is footnoted as "Shtull-Trauring, Asaf (6 May 2011). "The keys to the Kingdom". Haaretz."). The footnote implies that the source document supports the Wiki author's statements but it does not. Indeed, the quote used in the footnote is highly misrepresentative of the source article's intent. The Haartz article was simply stating the opposing view, which Professor Garfinkel's archeological dig has DISPROVED. The following paragraph, from the same Haartz article, immediately follows the isolated quote provided by this Wiki author:

"Against the ruins, which have overlooked the verdant valley below for the past 3,000 years, Garfinkel speaks with a great rush of words. According to him, this site, which he has been excavating for the past four years, constitutes the definitive proof for the existence of a city that was part of the Kingdom of David in the 10th century BCE.....According to Garfinkel, the kingdom that existed here in the 10th century BCE was something between the two versions: not tiny, but also not as large as the biblical account would suggest. It comprised at least three major cities: Jerusalem, Hebron and the settlement he is excavating. Even such a scale, he emphasizes, is larger than the humble village evoked by the minimalist archaeologists. At the same time, other archaeologists are recruiting Khirbet Qeiyafa in support of the claims for a large united kingdom." The article outlines Garfinkel's archeological finds that prove a 10th century Davidic kingdom. Thus, the use of the Haartz article to support the statement, "Prior to this the kingdom was no more than a small tribal entity which was limited to Jerusalem and its immediate surroundings" is entirely inaccurate. The source contradicts this statement. The statement should either be removed from this Wiki article- or the source. It should probably just be rewritten to provide a more accurate, neutral treatment of the archeological facts. Please see the following link: https://www.haaretz.com/1.5008984 to read the source article yourself.

The author of this article also uses (5 Mazar, Amihai. "Archaeology and the Biblical Narrative: The Case of the United Monarchy". ) to imply that a 10th century Jerusalem did not exist. He incorrectly states, "In the 10th and early 9th centuries BCE, the territory of Judah appears to have been sparsely populated, limited to small rural settlements, most of them unfortified.[5] Jerusalem, the kingdom's capital, likely did not emerge as a significant administrative center until the end of the 8th century; before this the archaeological evidence suggests its population was too small to sustain a viable kingdom." I've read Mazar's paper and have concluded that the author of this Wiki article misunderstood Mazar's entire intent as well as the entire body of evidence presented in his scholarly paper. His intent was to prove the existence of King David's kingdom in the 10th century, not to dispute it. Here is just one of Mazar's introductory conclusions: "The date of the transition from Iron I to Iron IIA is important fordefining the material culture of the alleged time of the United Monarchy in the 10th century BCE (based on inner biblical chronology). The results of radiocarbon dates relating to this transition can be interpreted in various ways: while Sharon et. al. insist on dating the transition to ca. 900 BCE, Finkelstein,who since 1996 dated the transition to Shoshenq’s time, now corrected his view (at least in relation to the end of Megiddo VIA) and claims an earlier date in the 10th century BCE for that violent destruction, which marks the end of the Iron Age I at Megiddo. Utilizing the data published by Sharon et al., Bronk Ramsey and myself calculated that the transition must have occurred during the first half of the 10th century BCE, which would fit with Finkelstein’s recent view. This enables us to determine the alleged date of the archaeological evidence related to the United Monarchy to the transition of Iron I/IIA and to the early part of Iron IIA."

Indeed, this Wiki author says, "Amihai Mazar contends that if the Iron I/Iron IIa dating of administrative structures in the City of David are correct, (as he believes) "Jerusalem was a rather small town with a mighty citadel, which could have been a center of a substantial regional polity."[5]" HOWEVER, Mazar goes on to CONTRADICT this conclusion.

Read Mazar's introductory statements on page 30, "Archaeology and the Biblical Narrative:The Case of the United Monarchy" and his "Summary of My Previous Views" on page 31 to understand Mazar's full intent. Thus, the footnote use of Mazar's paper is fallacious and should be rewritten. see https://www.academia.edu/2503754/Archaeology_and_the_Biblical_Narrative_the_Case_of_the_United_Monarchy.2010._0 to read for yourselves.

The author of this Wiki article also wrote, "The oldest part of Jerusalem and its original urban core is the City of David, which does not show evidence of significant Israelite residential activity until the 9th century.[12] " and uses the, "Biblical History and Israel S Past: The Changing Study of the Bible and History" by Megan Bishop Moore, Brad E. Kelle as his footnoted source. Again, his use is fallacious. Ms. Moore is not making a definitive statement concerning the historicity of a thriving Judean society in the 10th century BC. Instead, her book is merely presenting ALL the major archeologists and their conclusions, over time, concerning the historicity of King David's kingdom. She also references the prominent archeologists Faust (2000) and Finkelstein (1996), both of whom have presented scholarly works in favor of the 10th century kingdom of David. Yet, this viewpoint is not presented with this footnote. Therefore, the use of the footnote to promote a single, controversial idea is misleading to the public. Ms. Moore is merely shining a light on all the modern views concerning this very important time in history. Thus, the footnote should either be removed of this article needs revision in order to portray the true state of archeological finds. the following links show a search for Faust and Finkelstein from her book: (https://books.google.com/books?id=Qjkz_8EMoaUC&pg=PA19#v=snippet&q=Faust%20&f=false AND https://books.google.com/books?id=Qjkz_8EMoaUC&pg=PA302#v=onepage&q=Finkelstein&f=false).

This Wiki author fails to provide a source for the following statement: "On account of the apparent lack of settlement activity in the 10th century BCE, Israel Finkelstein argues that Jerusalem in that century was a small country village in the Judean hills, not a national capital, and Ussishkin argues that the city was entirely uninhabited. " While it is true that Finkelstein has been one of the fiercest proponents of an 8th or 9th century Davidic kingdom, he has since changed his mind. In 2011, at a Society of Biblical Literature Meeting, Finkelstein revised his dates for Iron Age I to Iron Age II. This was reported by the ASSOCIATES FOR BIBLICAL RESEARCH: https://biblearchaeology.org/research/contemporary-issues/3768-israel-finkelstein-revises-his-dating-is-the-indefatigable-minimalist-slipping?highlight=WyJmaW5rZWxzdGVpbiIsImZpbmtlbHN0ZWluJ3MiXQ== . Here is the excerpt:

'Two afternoon sessions at the Society of Biblical Literature Meeting were devoted to Archaeology and Text, and in particular to the dating problems associated with the transition from Iron Age I to Iron Age II. In these sessions Ayelet Gilboa spoke on Tel Dor, Amihai Mazar on Tel Rehov, Aren Maeir on Tell es-Safi, Israel Finkelstein on Megiddo, and David Ussishkin on Jezreel.

During his presentation, Israel Finkelstein revised his dating, and stated that he was now dating the transition from Iron Age I to IIA to about 950 BC. This was momentous. Based on their experiences in the Philistine areas and sites such as Lachish, Ussishkin and Finkelstein have been dating the start of Iron Age II to 920-900 BC and they, along with many others, have used this dating to argue that David and Solomon did not exist. Archaeologists working elsewhere in the southern Levant have found the comparatively short period of Iron Age II problematic because it was difficult to compress their Iron Age II levels into it. "

It is also mentioned in one of this Wiki article author's own sources, Mazar's paper. (this direct reference is quoted above). This recent re-dating by Finkelstein should be mentioned in this article as it has a direct impact on the 10th century Davidic kingdom, especially as he has been the predominant opposition to such.

Under the section called, "Partition of United Israelite Monarchy", this article also states, "The major theme of the Hebrew Bible's narrative is the loyalty of Judah, and especially its kings, to Yahweh, which it states is the God of Israel. Accordingly, all the kings of Israel and many of the kings of Judah were "bad", which in terms of Biblical narrative means that they failed to enforce monotheism. Of the "good" kings, Hezekiah (727–698 BCE) is noted for his efforts at stamping out idolatry (in this case, the worship of Baal and Asherah, among other traditional Near Eastern divinities),[14] but his successors, Manasseh of Judah (698–642 BCE) and Amon (642–640 BCE), revived idolatry, drawing down on the kingdom the anger of Yahweh. King Josiah (640–609 BCE) returned to the worship of Yahweh alone, but his efforts were too late and Israel's unfaithfulness caused God to permit the kingdom's destruction by the Neo-Babylonian Empire in the Siege of Jerusalem (587 BCE)." This text is highly prejudicial for several reasons.

The assertion, "The major theme of the Hebrew Bible's narrative is the loyalty of Judah, and especially its kings to Yahweh, which it states is the God of Israel. The use of the term, "Hebrew Bible" is misleading as the Christian Bible also includes the same texts. Perhaps the use of the word, "bible' would be sufficient- or a more accurate statement of facts. No source is given that supports the idea that THE major theme of the Hebrew Bible is the loyalty of Judah. It can be argued that the major theme of the Hebrew Bible is God's love or any number of other narratives. There are many major themes in the Hebrew Bible/ Christian Bible. Perhaps it should say, "A major theme" instead of "The major theme".

It uses quotation marks for 'good' and 'bad' kings of Judah, implying sarcasm and disdain. They should be removed to avoid prejudice. Furthermore, it is inaccurate to say that the biblical God considers anyone, let alone a king, to be 'good'. The Hebrew Bible states, "Ecclesiastes 7:20 New International Version (NIV) 20 Indeed, there is no one on earth who is righteous, no one who does what is right and never sins.." It also states in Psalm 53: 3 "Everyone has turned away, all have become corrupt;

   there is no one who does good,
   not even one., " 

The Christian Bible also includes verses from Mark 10 and Luke 18 which relate Jesus' statement: "“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone." which directly reflects these Old Testament verses. As the Bible does not connote the characteristic of 'good' to any human being, it is false to make that claim in this Wiki article.

The article states, "many of the kings of Judah were "bad", which in terms of Biblical narrative means that they failed to enforce monotheism." It also heavily implies that 'stamping out', "the worship of Baal and Asherah, among other traditional Near Eastern divinities" is what makes a biblical king, 'good'. The reference to 'other traditional Near Eastern divinities" is highly prejudicial. It implies that the worship of the biblical God is about 'stamping out' modern people of other faiths. Today's major faith beliefs were not the same as the ancient religions. The Hebrew Bible specifically mentions child sacrifice, massive sexual orgies, senseless drunkenness on the streets, rape, incest and other practices attributed to the ancient religions. None of these are included in today's major faith beliefs. The biblical God takes great exceptions of these practices. Furthermore, the statement 'stamping out ' other 'Near Eastern religions' implies that God expected the Israelites to go out of their kingdom to kill other of different faiths. Not true. The God of the Bible insisted on only the Israelites, his People, to worship him. He either condemned or praised various kings based on their ability to confront idolatry in Israel. This did not include the murder of these adherents. It did include the destruction of their temples in Israel, however. God also took issue with the fact that many (most) of the ancient Israeli kings, and/or their wives, practiced idolatry themselves. God expected obedience from his own people because they believed in his existence and understood all that he had done for them. He didn't expect worship from those who literally did not believe in him- or know him. He detested those who knew who he was and still worshipped the idols they had created instead. There is a heavy implication in the Bible that the reason these kings and their people wanted these idolatrous gods was specifically to practice the sex, drunkenness, lack of morality, etc inherent in them. There is no mention of God killing the Israelites because they didn't know who he was. Nor did the biblical God call on Israel to murder adherents to any other faith for that reason alone. Thus, these statements must be removed from this Wiki article.

It states, "King Josiah (640–609 BCE) returned to the worship of Yahweh alone, but his efforts were too late and Israel's unfaithfulness caused God to permit the kingdom's destruction by the Neo-Babylonian Empire in the Siege of Jerusalem", implying that God wasn't satisfied with Josiah's efforts and cruelly 'permitted' the destruction of the kingdom via the Babylonians. Again, this portion of the article is unsourced. The Bible states that God was in fact pleased with King Josiah and delayed Israel's punishment until Josiah died:

" Josiah was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned thirty and one years in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Jedidah, the daughter of Adaiah of Boscath.2 And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, and walked in all the way of David his father, and turned not aside to the right hand or to the left." 2 Kings 22 It also says, "16 ‘This is what the Lord says: I am going to bring disaster on this place and its people, according to everything written in the book the king of Judah has read. 17 Because they have forsaken me and burned incense to other gods and aroused my anger by all the idols their hands have made,[a] my anger will burn against this place and will not be quenched.’ 18 Tell the king of Judah, who sent you to inquire of the Lord, ‘This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says concerning the words you heard: 19 Because your heart was responsive and you humbled yourself before the Lord when you heard what I have spoken against this place and its people—that they would become a curse[b] and be laid waste—and because you tore your robes and wept in my presence, I also have heard you, declares the Lord. 20 Therefore I will gather you to your ancestors, and you will be buried in peace. Your eyes will not see all the disaster I am going to bring on this place.’

This shows that God approved of King Josiah and didn't bring his anger against Israel until after Josiah's death. The implication that Josiah's efforts 'were too late' and that this was the reason for the destruction of Israel is not biblically accurate. These verses show that it is an accumulation of hundreds of years of violent, immoral idolatry that caused God to lose patience. He had already decided on the destruction of Israel as a punishment for their idolatry (which included prostitution, rape, child murder, drunken senselessness and massive orgies, most of which would be against the law today) before Josiah's birth. That being said, the Bible clearly attributes God's goodness and mercy with the way he honored Josiah's loyalty. It caused him to wait for Josiah's sake.

The article states, "However it is now fairly well established among academic scholars that the Biblical narrative is not an accurate reflection of religious views in either Judah or particularly Israel during this period.[15]" This is a gross misstatement of the source material, "The Triumph of Elohim" by Diana Edelman, specifically the short essay, "The Appearance of Pantheon in Judea" Lowell Handy.

Mr. Handy writes, "It is fairly well established by now that the narrative of the book of Kings cannot be taken as an accurate reflection of the religious world of the nations of Judah and Israel." This has a footnote which reads:

"The historicity of certain sections of the narrative has been questioned for a long time within scholarly circles, even though the majority of the text is accepted to be historically trustworthy; this is particularly true of aspects of the depiction of the northern kingdom, Israel."

This points to several errors in the Wiki article: first, that the source questions the entire Bible's account of religious views in Judea and Israel. It doesn't. It only questions 'certain sections' of the book of Kings. That is very specific. Second, the source article actually states that the book of Kings is accurate of Israel, the Northern kingdom.

While the book is a complex tome on the topic, the Ms. Edelman asserts clearly that the book is not representative of mainstream scholars. She writes on page 15, "The process leading to the emergence of monotheistic belief systems in the ancient Near East and the time frame in which this development took place continue to be topics of debate and concern. The present volume is dedicated to a fresh look at both issues by a group of scholars who do not espouse standard views and answers."

Thus, the wiki author's assertion that, "it is now fairly well established among academic scholars that the Biblical narrative is not an accurate reflection of religious views in either Judah or particularly Israel during this period" with Ms. Edelman as the source material is incogent.

I am not finished with my critique but I believe I have presented enough information to question the entire quality of this article. I believe it must be re-written by someone who actually reads the source material and without a religious bias. Archeological data does support the 10th century Davidic narrative. And there are other archeological studies which doubt it. Both sides must be presented. The Bible must be sourced in order to make general conclusions as to its meaning and intent. It can't just be the author's opinion about the Bible. I hope this has been a helpful review of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:907F:C6D0:B09D:3193:E1BF:8F0B (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Herzog laid out many of the theories Finkelstein and Silberman present in their book: "the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land [of Canaan] in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the twelve tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united kingdom of David and Solomon, described in the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom." The new theories envision this modest chiefdom as based in a Jerusalem that was essentially a cow town, not the glorious capital of an empire.

    Although, as Herzog notes, some of these findings have been accepted by the majority of biblical scholars and archaeologists for years and even decades, they are just now making a dent in the awareness of the Israeli public -- a very painful dent.

    — Laura Miller, King David was a nebbish
  • Let me reinforce this claim in respect to my own work. The mainstream view of critical biblical scholarship accepts that Genesis-Joshua (perhaps Judges) is substantially devoid of reliable history and that it was in the Persian period that the bulk of Hebrew Bible literature was either composed or achieved its canonical shape. I thus find attempts to push me out onto the margin of scholarship laughable.

    — Philip Davies, Minimalism, "Ancient Israel," and Anti-Semitism
  • The last quarter of the 20th century has also seen the development of a crisis in the historiography of ancient Israel, which shows no sign of abating in the early years of the 21st. This crisis takes the form of a progressive loss of confidence in the historical value of the biblical narratives. In the middle of the 20th century, English language scholarship on ancient Israel was dominated by the Albright school, which placed great confidence in the archeology as a a means by which to affirm the essential reliability of the biblical text, beginning in the time of Abraham. This approach found its classic expression in John Bright's History of Israel, an impressive attempt to contextualize the biblical story by interweaving it with what we know of ancient Near Eastern history. Even when Bright wrote, a more skeptical view prevailed in German scholarship, at least with regard to the early books of the Bible. But the scene has changed drastically in the last quarter century. In a book originally published in 1992, Philip Davies claimed that "biblical scholars actually know - and write - that most of the 'biblical period' consists not only of unhistorical persons and events, but even of tracts of time that do no belong in history at all.

    — John J. Collins, The Bible after Babel. Historical Criticism in a Postmodern Age.
  • He cites the fact—now accepted by most archaeologists—that many of the cities Joshua is supposed to have sacked in the late 13th century b.c. had ceased to exist by that time. Hazor was destroyed in the middle of that century, and Ai was abandoned before 2000 b.c. Even Jericho, where Joshua is said to have brought the walls tumbling down by circling the city seven times with blaring trumpets, was destroyed in 1500 b.c. Now controlled by the Palestinian Authority, the Jericho site consists of crumbling pits and trenches that testify to a century of fruitless digging.

    — Jennifer Wallace, „Shifting Ground in the Holy Land” Smithsonian Magazine
  • The fact is that we are all minimalists -- at least, when it comes to the patriarchal period and the settlement. When I began my PhD studies more than three decades ago in the USA, the 'substantial historicity' of the patriarchs was widely accepted as was the unified conquest of the land. These days it is quite difficult to find anyone who takes this view.

    In fact, until recently I could find no 'maximalist' history of Israel since Wellhausen. ... In fact, though, 'maximalist' has been widely defined as someone who accepts the the biblical text unless it can be proven wrong. If so, very few are willing to operate like this, not even John Bright (1980) whose history is not a maximalist one according to the definition just given.

  • I am certainly not insisting that authors of Western Civilization texts for university classes should agree with the suggestions made about ancient Israel in recent decades by scholars such as those whom I have cited. What I am saying is that it is bad scholarship, and bad pedagogy, simply to ignore an important body of recent work, offering adult students a literalist-leaning account that is by scholarly standards probably twenty years out of date. At the very least, textbook authors should include more critical scholars' works and some minimalist works in their recommended readings, so that students would have a chance to confront such arguments on their own.

    The Hebrew Bible is simply not a reliable source for the history of ancient Israel, and the authors of the textbooks surveyed seem largely unaware of this fact. Writers of textbooks for undergraduates need to ask themselves: If we are content to provide students with mythical, legendary, uncritical histories of ancient Israel, how can we have any legitimate grounds for complaint or criticism when others are willing to provide mythologized, fictionalized histories of other peoples and places?

  • Amihai Mazar affirmed in 2008 for Icarus Films that David's Jerusalem was a very little town, but a powerful little town in the political vacuum of the country. "Background on Scholars". icarusfilms.com. 20 July 2009. Archived from the original on 20 July 2009. Retrieved 18 July 2019.
  • Selig, Abe (23 February 2010). "'J'lem city wall dates back to King Solomon'". The Jerusalem Post | JPost.com. Retrieved 18 July 2019. Nonetheless, other archeologists posit that the biblical narrative reflecting the existence of a powerful monarchy in Jerusalem is largely mythical and that there was no strong government to speak of in that era.

    Aren Maeir, an archeology professor at Bar Ilan University, said he has yet to see evidence that the fortifications are as old as Mazar claims. There are remains from the 10th century in Jerusalem, he said, but proof of a strong, centralized kingdom at that time remains "tenuous."
  • Coogan, Michael (2010). "4. Thou Shalt Not: Forbidden Sexual Relationships in the Bible". God and Sex. What the Bible Really Says (1st ed.). New York, Boston: Twelve. Hachette Book Group. p. 105. ISBN 978-0-446-54525-9. Jerusalem was no exception, except that it was barely a city—by our standards, just a village. In David's time, its population was only a few thousand, who lived on about a dozen acres, roughly equal to two blocks in Midtown Manhattan. My own comment: Yup, that's a surface of less than five rugby fields (=12.45 acres).
  • Lipschits, Oded (2014). "The history of Israel in the biblical period". In Berlin, Adele; Brettler, Marc Zvi (eds.). The Jewish Study Bible (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-997846-5. As this essay will show, however, the premonarchic period long ago became a literary description of the mythological roots, the early beginnings of the nation and the way to describe the right of Israel on its land. The archeological evidence also does not support the existence of a united monarchy under David and Solomon as described in the Bible, so the rubric of "united monarchy" is best abandoned, although it remains useful for discussing how the Bible views the Israelite past.
  • GBRV: "there wasn't any archaeological evidence to confirm the existence of Bablyon, Nineveh, Asshur, or other cities mentioned in the Bible". That's right, until there was evidence, there wasn't any evidence. (And it is misleading to suggest that references to contemporary cities at or near the time of writing confirm the veracity of tales that supposedly happened in a much earlier period.) If at some point there is evidence for the Exodus, then the article will say there is evidence. It is not a violation of WP:NPOV to say there is no evidence for something for which there is no evidence. It isn't even an assertion that something didn't happen. It's just a statement indicating that there isn't a good reason for believing that it did, especially for claims that are extraordinary.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

    — [1]
These are just a few quotes I could quickly find. As for your Christian apologetics: it is ludicrous that you try to pass it for mainstream history. Germane WP:RULES: WP:NOTTHEOCRACY and WP:CRYBLASPHEMY. If you consider the Bible historically accurate or objectively true, learn that we don't. In disputes between faith and science/scholarship, Wikipedia always sides with mainstream science and mainstream scholarship. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TfD Notice[edit]

There are currently two open discussions on whether templates Template:Kings of Israel & Template:Kings of Judah should be deleted or not. Both discussions can be found at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 April 27. Jerm (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Except for Constantine the Great's rule, all Ancient countries were theocracies. They did not knew separation between church and state. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Year Notion to Common Era[edit]

The dates within the article should be changed from BC->BCE and AD->CE to reflect neutral academic terminology of the Common Era that does not carry with it any religious or ethnocentric bias.

As this article has nothing to do with Christianity or Christian-influenced Western culture, there is no reason for the date notion to ve based around the birth of Christ (BC meaning Before Christ and AD Anno Domini, Latin for "in the year of our Lord.").

Also because this article is related to other religions, Monotheistic Yahwism and early Judaism, I believe it is extra important for there to be religious objectivity, making Before the Common Era/Common Era the appropriate choice.

According to the Wikipedia Manual of Style, chronological notation can be changed when it makes sense for the article. While it gives specific examples of when to use to Julian or Gregorian calendar, early societies in the Near East are not explicitly stated.[1] Using BCE/CE also follows the standards set by the majority of leading manuals of style including those for Encyclopædia Britannica, American National Biography, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, MLA, Chicago Manual of Style, AP Stylebook, and more.

My previous edits reflect this change in date format in the article.

016bells (talk) 22:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have WP:RULES for it, i.e. WP:ERA. The point is that AD/CE choice is arbitrary, so who wants to change the choice loses by default. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  1. ^ "For dates in early Egyptian and Mesopotamian history, Julian or Gregorian equivalents are often uncertain. Follow the consensus of reliable sources, or indicate their divergence." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Julian_and_Gregorian_calendars

Edit war[edit]

@Karma1998: the text is available at [2], and if Maeir posits anything:

  1. extreme scarcity of evidence about the United Monarchy;
  2. lack of consensus about UM among archaeologists.

This is being discussed at WP:FTN. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You replied: Things have not changed much since 2014. If that's the case, I win by default. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's Maeir's opinion. I added the opinions of other scholars like William G. Dever and Amihai Mazar. They are both recent. -Karma1998 (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, you have deleted Mazar's opinion just because you did not like it. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I actually stated what Mazar actually said.-Karma1998 (talk) 20:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He stated stuff you like; he also stated stuff you dislike, and you have removed it from the article. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because he didn't say it. He said that Jerusalem was a small, but fortified town, with monumental architecture. That's what he said. -Karma1998 (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He stated that Jerusalem was more like a burg. He stated that the whole population of the United Monarchy was some 20 thousand people. That's about the number of people from Wijhe. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment- If the goal is to determine what parts of the Tanakh narrative are supported by material evidence, the Northern kingdom (house of Jeroboam) is supported, the Southern kingdom (house of David) is supported, but the united monarchy and the house of Saul are not supported. I haven't seen any recent scholarship that contradicts this. Newimpartial (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I chose Maeir rather than Lipschitz, because Maeir works for a conservative Israeli university, while Lipschitz can be accused that he is in cahoots with Finkelstein.
I'm willing to accommodate what William Dever and Amihai Mazar say, that's not the problem. The problem is that neither side of the dispute has prevailed, and that real evidence is extremely hard to come by.
So, as long as you do not state Dever and Mazar as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, I am willing to re-add their views to the article. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For my part, I am uncomfortable with the bothsidesism of the version I reverted. The "biblical maximalist" position that the united monarchy existed much as described in the Tanakh may have been credible in the 20th century, but it is simply unsupported by the rencent, published evidence. Even Mazar doesn't really argue that there is any support for the biblical account of the united monarchy, merely that it is not entirely disproven, and he has to involve the "great man" theory of history to do so. (I haven't yet read Dever, though.) Newimpartial (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For Dever, Finkelstein is the boogeyman who removed the United Monarchy from public record. Anyway, when scholars like Dever, Mazar, and Faust say the UM existed, we have to make sure what they mean by UM. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From what I gather, a lot of this "debate" uses the size of settlements in the region of Judah as a kind of proxy war about whether the "united monarchy" was possible or not. Regardless of whether or not there was enough urbanization in the south to offer a plausible united capital, however, the absence of evidence that any southern kingdom ruled the north in the 10th century is rather deafening. Newimpartial (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu: @Newimpartial: I've made a "compromise edit": now the article states both opinions of the side. I also think that your opinion about Dever is quite unfair: he is a respected archaeologist, a self-declared atheist and he openly dislikes fundamentalists. As for Mazar, he openly supports the United Monarchy, although he is not as virulent as Dever in his opinions. --Karma1998 (talk) 20:57, 30 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

@Newimpartial: Listen, we can't just ignore the recent archaeological findings in Khirbet el-Qeyiafa and Jerusalem. How can we insert both opinions?--Karma1998 (talk) 20:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do think we need to include those findings, preferably from secondary sources. I do not think the article can reach conclusions beyond what the actual evidence allows, however. I am all in favor of nuance about the question of urbanization in Judah around the 10th century, but that evidence does not - and cannot - make the Tanakh historical for this place and time. Not even Mazar pretends that it can. Newimpartial (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Newimpartial: I don't think the Tanakh is historically true, it gives a "larger-than-life" portrait of David and Solomon. In any case, I've modified the page again stating that the new discoveries "might change" the opinion. Is that OK?--Karma1998 (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. Please stop edit-warring and present draft text here first.
My main problem with each of your versions is structural, as it shifts the basic structure of the article to imply that the archaeology supports the "united monarchy" origin story for the House of David - which it simply does not. But you don't seem to recognize this issue, which is why it needs to be discussed. Newimpartial (talk) 21:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Newimpartial: Listen, I don't know what to do. I'm trying to include both sides, but you keep reversing my edits. How can I do it? The Israeli Antiquities Authority has clearly stated that urbanisation in Judah had already begun by the 10th century. Even Finkelstein now speaks of a polity in the 10th century BCE. Please, how can we state both opinions? --Karma1998 (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment above. I am less interested in the hypothesis of a 10th century polity, and more interested in the question of evidence for the "united monarchy" narrative. The existence of a polity may be a necessary condition for the united monarchy to be potentially historical, but it really isn't a sufficient condition, and no good scholarship says that it is (or even reaches that conclusion, AFAICT). Newimpartial (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Newimpartial: I'm not saying that the United Monarchy was as big as the Bible say. But it is true that recent archaeological discoveries have shown that urbanisation had begun in Judah in the 10th century. And most scholars support Amihai Mazar's Modified Conventional Chronology, which supports the existance of UM. The article, as it was before, was very one-sided: it didn't mention recent archaeological findings and presented only one opinion as if it were dominant. --Karma1998 (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Newimpartial: Please, don't cancel my edit. I'm not doing this because I'm a fundamentalist or something, I'm just doing this because it's important to include all sides.--Karma1998 (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not fine. I am not going to go over 3RR on this, but please self-revert so we can discuss. Also please read WP:BRD and think about how you could take a different approach in your future interactions with other editors- what you are doing is pretty much the opposite of a best practice. Newimpartial (talk) 21:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What's the problem with it? It simply states the new archaeological discoveries. I don't understand why you want so badly to hide such findings. I even added that such discoveries are disputed by others.--Karma1998 (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Newimpartial: and Finkelstein's opinions are not dominant. His Low Chronology has received fierce criticism by the majority of scholars (who now use Mazar's Modified Conventional Chronology) and recent archaeological findings have demostrated that Judah was urbanised in the 10th century.--Karma1998 (talk) 21:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FFS I am not defending the low chronology. But the MCC cannot be used to imply that the united monarchy existed historically, which was the argument you literally just made.
Also, the edits you made to the lede are incoherent: by removing what you disagree with and leaving the rest, it no longer makes sense. But per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, the correct thing to do would be to fix the WP:BALANCE of the archaeology section first, and then write the lede accordingly. You are not helping with this, IMO: you are just edit-warring and only using the Talk page to explain/defend your position. Newimpartial (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Newimpartial: Why is it inchoherent? It states Finkelstein's position and others' position. Then it states archeological discoveries, which can't be ignored. Anyway, please don't reverse it, I beg you. Let's discuss here and I'll make the edits we find fit.--Karma1998 (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is incoherent because it doesn't flow properly. If you don't self-revert to the stable version, I expect that you will be sanctioned at WP:3RRN for your disruptive edits. Newimpartial (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Newimpartial: But the version of before did not states the facts as they were: it was overtly relying on minimalist theories and completely ignored recent discoveries? Please, let's find a compromise before destroying everything.--Karma1998 (talk) 22:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Newimpartial: we can't write that Jerusalem was a small inhabited village because archeological findings point in the opposite way. We can't say that Judah was not urbanized, because excavations in Khirbet Qeyiafa point into the exact opposite way. We can't simply state one thing because Finkelstein states it. And threatening me with sanctions won't solve the problem --Karma1998 (talk) 22:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BRD. What we are supposed to do in a dispute like this is to revert to the stable version (which I did, three times) and reach a consensus version on Talk before changing the article. That is what I am trying to do. I am not saying that we should ignore the archaeology of the southern kingdom since 2005 or whatever; I am saying that your approach is making a hash of the article text so that, rather than fighting over the article, we need to agree on changes here on Talk, then make them on the article.

By insisting on editing the article directly you aren't making it any more likely that your preferred version will be maintained; you are just making it more likely that you will be (temporarily) blocked from editing for edit-warring. Which is why I suggest that you revert to the stable version - so you can continue to participate in the discussion and resulting consensus. Newimpartial (talk) 22:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Newimpartial: OK, please revert my edits and then let's discuss it here.--Karma1998 (talk) 22:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Newimpartial: meanwhile I will explain my point: the old version stated three things: 1) that Judah was sparsely populated and wasn't urbanized in the 10th century BCE. However, recent archaeological discoveries at Khirbet Qeiyafa by Yosef Garfinkel demonstrate that Judah was urbanised in the 10th century BCE, as it has been explicitely stated by the Israeli Antiquities Authority; 2) that Jerusalem was a small village, perhaps uninhabited. However, recent discoveries at Jerusalem by Eilat Mazar have demonstrated that Jerusalem was a fortified small city with monumental buildings; 3) that the biblical narrative about David and Solomon is wrong. While the biblical narrative can't surely be taken verbatim, it is important to underline that the majority of scholars still maintain that the UM existed, while not as big as in the Bible.--Karma1998 (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to underline that the idea that the United Monarchy is a fiction and later construction wholly depends on acceptance of Israel Finkelstein's Low Chronology which backdates all the archaeological evidence for one to the next century, but only a minority of Levantine archaeologists accept this scheme. Consequently, the existence of a United Monarchy is accepted by most, although on a smaller scale that in the Bible. -Karma1998 (talk)

I won't be tricked into defending the low chronology. I don't care which chronology is used, consensually accepted evidence for UM is extremely scarce regardless of chronology. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intention of reverting today, because I have reached three reverts and will not violate WP:3RR. I have therefore asked you to self-revert pending discussion.
While I have opinions about the language to use on all of these issues, my main concern is about your point (3) and the additional comment you added after that. Perhaps, as tgeorgescu suggested much earlier, the problem largely concerns what is meant by a "united monarchy". It seems to me that the phrase implies a kingdom with a capital in Jerusalem that preceded - and incorporated the territory that would subsequently become - the northern kingdom, and I have not seen Mazar or anyone else present evidence for this. But perhaps some of those using the phrase simply mean "a kingdom ruled by the house of David in the 10th century" which - although there is no evidence for it - there may not be any evidence precluding it according to the MCC. The biblical narrative of David and Solomon, even if it is not wrong, is certainly unsupported by material evidence outside of inscriptions referring to the "house of David", which lend support neither to Solomon nor to the rest of the story in the Tanakh. Newimpartial (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Newimpartial: I think that Karma1998 conflates claims about the urbanization of Jerusalem with claims about the urbanization of Judah. Amihai Mazar is content with a very small Jerusalem (from David's time). tgeorgescu (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tgeorgescu: @Newimpartial: in fact, the existence of a United Monarchy is supported by abundant evidence, although of course not in the dimension of the biblical narrative. The only way to deny that evidence is by using the Low Chronology, which nobody uses. Therefore, the evidence stands. As for the second claim, I'm not conflating anything, the urbanisation of Jerusalem is supported by Eilat Mazar's discoveries and the urbanisation of Judah is supported by Yosef Garfinkel's discoveries at Khirbet Qeyiafa. In any case, this isn't the page of the United Monarchy, here we talk of the Kingdom of Judah; that urbanisation had begun in Judah by the 10th century BCE is clear and has even been stated by the Israeli Antiquities Authority. -Karma1998 (talk)
Please pretend I don't know anything, and answer this question: what evidence is there for a "united monarchy", that is, a monarchy with a capital in the south but whose territory extended into what is historically the northern kingdom? Newimpartial (talk) 11:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, there is no smoking gun tying Khirbet Qeiyafa to David. So, archaeologists do not know anything about Khirbet Qeiyafa being a Davidic site, that's all guessiology. They may speculate it's tied to him because they have freedom of speech and academic freedom, but not because they would have evidence about that. It's called guessiology not because they lie, but because they have no evidence for the claims they're making. If I claimed they lie, the WP:BURDEN would be upon me to produce evidence for showing them wrong. And that's precisely the problem: there is no direct evidence for any of those claims, nor for their refutations. Neither the thesis, nor the antithesis can be falsified right now. And that's the problem of the three chronologies: none of those are falsifiable.
The gist: Hitchens's razor says What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to use/cite sources[edit]

I don't want to get involved in the edit war going on here, but I want to make some points about how to cite and use sources.

Sources 4 to 8 in the lead at the moment of writing have NO page numbers. Sources have to be verifiable, and if you don't give page numbers you make your sources essentially unverifiable.

Sources 9 to 11 also have no page numbers. They have quotes, but without the page numbers no one can check that the quotes are accurate. (Nothing wrong with quotes, but the page numbers are needed).

Source 12 has a page number and a quote. That's what's needed, but the quote from the source, "Sargon's heir, Sennacherib (705–681), could not deal with Hezekiah's revolt until he gained control of Babylon in 702 BCE", does not support the passage in the article to which it's attached: "In the 7th century BCE its population increased greatly, prospering under Assyrian vassalage (despite Hezekiah's revolt against the Assyrian king Sennacherib)." (There's nothing in the source about an increase in Judah's population or its growing prosperity - I guess the source is meant to show that Hezekiah revolted, but it doesn't quite work out). Achar Sva (talk) 10:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Technical observation: Google Books will say quote found/not found, if found in which source, even if it does not display that page. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:23, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re-opening discussion[edit]

@Tgeorgescu:, @CycoMa:, @Apaugasma: Now that things have boiled down a bit, I think it is worth re-opening the discussion about this page. I have not radically edited this page, because I first want to reach a consensus.

  • The only way to deny the development of Judah in the 10th century is by applying Israel Finkelstein's Low Chronology. But the Low Chronology is rejected by most scholars, who continue to use the Traditional Chronology or Amihai Mazar's Modified Conventional Chronology and still date those artifacts to the 10th century;
  • Archaeological discoveries in Jerusalem and Khirbet Qeiyafa have been certified by the Israel Antiquities Authority and, therefore, cannot be dismissed simply because Finkelstein thinks otherwise;
  • Appealing to Hitchens's razor is quite out of place. On Wikipedia, we follow the view of scholars, not epistemological razors.
  • That doesn't mean that the United Monarchy was a superpower as the Bible tells us. I am not a biblical literalist, I simply follow archaeology.

Therefore, I believe we should modify this page. Let the debate begin.--Karma1998 (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query - what recent, reliable sources - if any - support the existence of Judah as a kingdom in any way similar to the "United Monarchy" of Hebrew scripture? Newimpartial (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Newimpartial: As I said already, I don't believe there was a United Monarchy like the one described in the Bible. What I mean is that there was a polity that extended from Dan to Beersheba: its existence is proved by the structures at Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer (which most scholars date to the 10th century BCE), by findings in Khirbet Qeiyafa (which the IAA dates to the 10th century BCE) and findings in Jerusalem, which are usually dated to the 10th century BCE.--Karma1998 (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no smoking gun. If there were a smoking gun we would have the mainstream consensus vs. the denialist fringe. But that is not the case. Mainstream opinions remain divided because there is no conclusive evidence one way or the other. Nothing at Khirbet Qeiyafa shouts This belonged to David! So, the assumption that Khirbet Qeiyafa was a Davidic site is just guessiology, it is not based upon any real evidence. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Karma, what is the evidence that Hazor, Meggido and Gezer belonged to the same polity? Newimpartial (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well @Tgeorgescu:, I don't really understand what you mean by "smoking gun", AFAIK most scholars believe Qeiyafa to be Israelite. @Newimpartial:, the structures at Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer are basically identical and this is assumed to mean they were built by the same polity.--Karma1998 (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As they say, Assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups. See e.g. https://www.asor.org/blog/2013/08/16/the-so-called-solomonic-city-gate-at-megiddo/ tgeorgescu (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, most scholars state this, so I guess we should consider their views, shouldn't we?--Karma1998 (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:RS/AC most scholars should be WP:Verifiable verbatim in a reputable, relatively recent WP:RS. Israel Finkelstein; Neil Asher Silberman (3 April 2007). David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible's Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition. Simon and Schuster. p. 160. ISBN 978-0-7432-4363-6. The supposedly Solomonic gates date to different periods of time, in the ninth and eighth centuries bce, and strikingly similar city gates have been found outside the borders of the kingdom of Solomon, even according to a territorially maximalist view. Israel Finkelstein; Neil Asher Silberman (3 April 2007). David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible's Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition. Simon and Schuster. p. 279. ISBN 978-1-4165-5688-6. In addition, similar gates were found in much later periods and at clearly non-Israelite sites, among them Philistine Ashdod. On the importance of Ussishkin's and Finkelstein's views in regard to Solomonic gates: Lowell K. Handy (1 January 1997). The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium. BRILL. p. 10. ISBN 90-04-10476-3.
So now it is clear that appealing to the Solomonic gates is shoddy scholarship and the argument has been debunked (mismatch in time is at least plausible, while mismatch in space is a hard fact). That even without having to endorse the Low Chronology.
Knight confirms that the argument has been debunked in Douglas A. Knight (1 January 2011). Law, Power, and Justice in Ancient Israel. Westminster John Knox Press. p. 166. ISBN 978-0-664-22144-7. He also states that Megiddo had less than 500 permanent inhabitants at that time.
Lawrence E. Stager; Joseph A. Greene; Michael D. Coogan (17 July 2018). The Archaeology of Jordan and Beyond: Essays in Memory of James A. Sauer. BRILL. p. 271. ISBN 978-90-04-36980-1. Cities with six-chambered gates included Megiddo, Hazor, Gezer, Ashdod, Lachish, and Tel 'Ira.
Francesca Stavrakopoulou (24 October 2012). King Manasseh and Child Sacrifice: Biblical Distortions of Historical Realities. Walter de Gruyter. pp. 79–80. ISBN 978-3-11-089964-1. states that the supposed evidence for the United Monarchy is now (2012) disputed, and the bedrock of archaeological evidence supporting the united monarchy therefore does not appear as firm as previously thought.
This is not a level playing field: the Yadin-Dever camp needs certainty in order to win the dispute, while the Ussishkin-Finkelstein camp scores a victory just by relegating the Solomonic gates to doubt. If it remains to some extent uncertain that those gates are really Solomonic, Ussishkin and Finkelstein win by default. They don't even need to be proven right in order to win the dispute. So long as it is not patently manifest that Dever is right, he lost the dispute. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:41, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

tgeorgescu I’m just gonna throw this discussion here. [right here] even you admitted that the existence of the United Monarchy is a majority view.CycoMa (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also pay attention to the dates of your sources. [This book] was originally published in 2004 and the one you presented was a updated version in 2012.

Also I don’t understand the argument you are trying to present with [this book]. What does Megiddo, Israel have to do with anything? Nobody mentioned it.

Also I’m gonna throw out [this discussion]. In that discussion I mentioned a reliable said that only a minority of scholars think the United Monarchy was a small polity.CycoMa (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that is by no means settled. Why? Because one needs a smoking gun in order to positively affirm the existence of the United Monarchy. If you claim that United Monarchy meant a loose confederation of tribes with no practical consequences for governing the land from Jerusalem to Shfela by a state, then OK, I will grant you the point that the United Monarchy did exist. But if you mean that there were a fully developed state, in the form of a kingdom, there is no evidence for that. So, you will count scholars in favor of the United Monarchy when they totally reject the existence of a fully developed state ruled by king David. E.g. Amihai Mazar affirmed in 2008 for Icarus Films that David's Jerusalem was a very little town, but a powerful little town in the political vacuum of the country. "Background on Scholars". icarusfilms.com. 20 July 2009. Archived from the original on 20 July 2009. Retrieved 18 July 2019.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
About that book, do you think that Solomon built the gates at Megiddo, Hazor, Gezer, Ashdod, Lachish, and Tel 'Ira? I.e. was he doing corvee work for the Philistines or what?
Mazar at Video on YouTube. Transcript: it doesn't mean that he had a huge city around him the city was quite small but he probably gained a lot of political power and somehow succeeded to control the entire country in a time when there was a gap there was a kind of a vacuum political vacuum in this country there was no Egyptian Empire anymore the Canaanites were very poor and probably he took advantage of this situation. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
tgeorgeacu I remember you mentioned to me you weren’t a historian. And honestly I’m not a historian either but, I do have some knowledge on the topic of history in general. (Although not Israelite history)
Keep in mind the time United Monarchy formed. It formed during the Greek dark ages, the Greek dark ages was a time when there was no writing. Also the United Monarchy didn’t even last that long.CycoMa (talk) 22:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I am mentioning this is because the one United monarchy formed is a time where there are little written records. This is also the case from other civilizations around that time.CycoMa (talk) 22:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The common wisdom in the academia is that there is no state without writing. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do research on and edit articles on Japanese history. Historians think Japan most likely formed around the 2nd or 4th century AD. However, there are no written records from ancient Japan around that time. Most of the written records on ancient around that time are from Chinese records.
Also I never said there aren’t any written records on anything relating to the United Monarchy. We have some written records on King David outside of the Bible. However, there aren’t many sources on him.
Little written records aren’t the same thing as no written records.CycoMa (talk) 23:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CycoMa, the statement that the Greek dark ages was a time when there was no writing has to be one of the most preposterous (and ethnocentric) unsourced statements I have ever seen in a Talk page discussion. Congratulations. Newimpartial (talk) 23:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Newimpartial[This source] says this for this reason, we have no first-hand written documents of any kind for this period.CycoMa (talk) 23:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Newimpartial so does [this source] on page 64.CycoMa (talk) 23:26, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My main concern is not whether most scholars support the existence of the United Monarchy, but what do they mean by it? Do they mean a fully developed state or just a gang from Jerusalem who looted other towns? What do they mean by state? tgeorgescu (talk) 23:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a reason to think these sources are making claims beyond the Greek cultural sphere? It would be surprising if the Phoenecian colonies, for example, experienced the "Greek Dark Ages". Literal ethnocentrism. Newimpartial (talk) 23:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And it is quite possible that David was a chieftain of Hebron, not Jerusalem. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Newimpartial my point is that if Ancient Greeks at that time had contacted with ancient Israelites we would have zero records from Greeks confirming this.CycoMa (talk) 23:43, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then why didn't you say so? Also please follow the WP:TPG and WP:LISTGAP. Thanks. Newimpartial (talk) 23:46, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry @Tgeorgescu:, but even you admit that most scholars argue in favour of a United Monarchy. Why do you want so much to defy the view of the majority of scholars? On Wikipedia we follow what most scholars believe, not what we think is correct because of our subjective ideas. Finkelstein and Stavrakopoulou May well be right, but their views are in the minority. We aren't historians here, we simply write what scholars think is right, not what we deem right. If the majority of scholars believe those structures to be Solomonic, then we should simply write it, without engaging in disputes with them.-Karma1998 (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karma, where are the on-topic Reliable Sources that conclude that a single polity occupied the territory you described above? I don't recall you providing any. Newimpartial (talk) 23:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Text and History: Reassessing the Relationship between the Bible and Archaeological Findings: A Review Essay of Jennie Ebeling, J. Edward Wright, Mark Elliott, and Paul V. M. Flesher eds., The Old Testament in Archaeology and History (Waco: Baylor, 2017), chapter 13 by Baruch Halpern
  • Has archaeology Buried the Bible? (2020) by William G. Dever
  • Beyond the Texts (2018) by William G. Dever
  • Routledge Encyclopedia of Ancient Mediterranean Religions (2015) by Eric Orlin, quote: "the majority of scholars accept the existence of a polity ruled by David and Solomon, albeit on a more modest scale than described in the Bible".--Karma1998 (talk) 23:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • So that last quote provides no support that I can see for the territorial claims you made earlier. Do any of the other sources go beyond the existence of a polity ruled by David and Solomon to anything like the frontiers you asserted before? If so, I'd appreciate seeing the quotes. Newimpartial (talk) 23:44, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, all books I've quoted support those frontiers.--Karma1998 (talk) 14:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • You assert this, but offer no quotations that actually support it. Newimpartial (talk) 14:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yup, what does state mean? What does polity mean? What does United Monarchy mean? I get the feeling from Thomas Szasz's Second Sin: the second grave sin of humanity is speaking clearly. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, "polity" means, in this case, a State led by a leader with a capital, however small that may have been.--Karma1998 (talk) 14:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I wasn't asking for your own definition. It seems that scholars use pretty different definitions of each of those terms. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But any way I merely just Greek dark ages as an example. During the time of the United Monarchy other empires and countries suffered. Egypt was suffering around that time too. Just look at [[3]] Egypt in a way feel and didn’t reunite until 945 BC. So it’s not like the ancient Egyptian would care what the Israelites around that time were doing, the ancient Egyptians were busing fixing their empire.CycoMa (talk) 05:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But anyway I don’t know much about Israelite of Judah history. But, I’m gonna try and research and see what I can do.CycoMa (talk) 06:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this video gives a interesting view on the topic and may give insight. [[4]].CycoMa (talk) 06:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not saying this YouTube video should be used as a source by the way. However, I do believe the sources the guys uses may be helpful.CycoMa (talk) 06:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tgeorgescu polity means A polity is an identifiable political entity—any group of people who have a collective identity, who are organized by some form of institutionalized social relations, and have a capacity to mobilize resources.
So the United Monarchy may have been a confederation ruled under a single head monarchy like ancient Japan.
Like the Bible mentions a lot about twelve tribes of Israel or ancient Israel having various tribes.
I can’t confirm this because I haven’t found any sources on this yet.CycoMa (talk) 19:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which is highly plausible, considering that reliable sources pointing to the existence of a United Monarchy are largely non-existent; at this point it is rather a minority view. Newimpartial (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Newimpartial hey thanks for ignoring the information we have presented in this discussion. Also I suggest you read Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy).CycoMa (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but there is a lot of POV silliness in that other article, and Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The current version of the present article does not imply a large United Monarchy with borders similar to the ones Karma has cited, and when I ask them for quotations or precise citations to support their view, I get nothing (the one quotation they offered did not in fact support the territorial claims they had made). I have read many of the available sources on this topic, and the best evidence I've seen in support of the United Monarchy amounts to, "you can't prove it didn't exist." Which doesn't make its existence a mainstream, well-supported hypothesis. Newimpartial (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, there is no empirical evidence that David ruled over Shfela, just stories from the Bible. If an archaeologist does find such evidence, they directly get the Dan David Prize. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me for failing to provide a quotation @Newimpartial:, but I had an exam at my University these days and I was quite occupied. I will provide the quotes you need; until then, I won't edit the page.-Karma1998 (talk) 10:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Newimpartial: In his forthcoming summative book, called Beyond the Texts, the Syro-Palestinian archaeologist William G. Dever summarizes what is presently known about ancient Israel and Judah based primarily on the artifacts—the material culture that includes textual sources. One example is Dever’s portrait of the historical King David. He offers the following seven propositions about David that are inferred from archaeology and also converge with what is attested in biblical texts.

  • “David did exist as a king, the head of at least a nascent 10th-century B.C.E. state (cf. the well-known Tel Dan Stela …).

He founded a dynasty, well known to his neighbors (cf. the Tel Dan Stela and possibly also the Mesha Stela from Transjordan…). [See photos below.]

  • He embellished his capital in Jerusalem (the Stepped Stone Structure and the ‘Citadel’ recently excavated by Eilat Mazar). [For further discussion and photographs of these structures, see my earlier blog post.]
  • His reign saw an expanding population and an increasing urbanism (settlement patterns).

He fortified the borders of the kingdom (Khirbet Qeiyafa as an early-10th-century B.C.E. well-planned barracks-town on the border with Philistia). [See photos below.]

  • He was successful in his wars against the Philistines (comparative stratigraphy of Judahite and Philistine sites, showing the weakening of the latter).
  • His national dynasty and ‘Israelite self-identity’ lasted from the 10th to the early sixth century B.C.E. (continuity of a distinctive material culture).” -

Excerpted from Dever’s recent article in Biblical Archaeology Review (43.3 [2017] p. 47).-Karma1998 (talk) 10:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't see anything in Dever that supports what you said above, except possibly the border with Philistia at Khirbet Qeiyafa, which is fairly weak sauce. Certainly the last point about Israelite self-identity could only be included in this article with in-text attribution.
We are also talking about a forthcoming book by an 87-year-old scholar, which is not normally the most promising candidate to express the current consensus of scholarship. Newimpartial (talk) 11:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Newimpartial: Is that a joke? Dever is a leading archaeologist, who's been active for more then 40 years and is widely regarded as the greatest archaeologist of North America. The fact that he's old is irrelevant: Finkelstein is 72, should we dismiss him too?-Karma1998 (talk) 12:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While it is probably true that Finkelstein is also "fighting the last war", I don't think we should elide the difference between 87 and 72 any more than the difference between 72 and 57. The fact remains that most scholars become entrenched in their views as they get older, so the consensus (or best exemplars, even) of current scholarship - which is what WP:RS policy directs us towards - are seldom composed by authors over 85 years of age.
Anyway, you did not address my main point, which is that Dever does not provide any extra-scriptural evidence for extended borders of a "United Monarchy" - even his bald assertions (such as "David"'s success in wars with the Philistines - do not go that far, and his evidence that "David" defeated the Philistines amounts once again to "you can't prove it isn't true!". Newimpartial (talk) 12:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Text and History: Reassessing the Relationship between the Bible and Archaeological Findings: A Review Essay of Jennie Ebeling, J. Edward Wright, Mark Elliott, and Paul V. M. Flesher eds., The Old Testament in Archaeology and History (Waco: Baylor, 2017), chapter 13 by Baruch Halpern.

"Baruch Halpern writes ch. 13, “The United Monarchy: David between Saul and Solomon.” Halpern summarizes and updates his arguments which focus on an evaluation of the biblical text, rather than a modern critical redaction of it. The presentation is a creative application of archaeology, textual witnesses, and geopolitical theory to the period. He notes that David ruled from Dan to Beersheba, with some domination of Ammon and official ties to other areas. As various times he defeats Arameans and he garrisons Edom. The plain of Philistia retains a culture distinct from Israel at this time. Halpern notes that David’s good relations with Achish of Gath continued after he became king. While Saul’s base was in Benjamin and stretched northward, David appears to move about Benjamin and central Judah, where the archaeology of the period reveals few settlements and thus plenty of room for movement independent of Saul’s control. David’s attacks on nomadic gangs (Amalekites) in the Negev provided a basis for the loyalty of local towns and residences that served him well in his initial rule from Hebron. David’s garrisoning of this area and of Edom to the south and east corresponds to the Negev settlements that Shishak claims to have destroyed c. 925 BC. The disappearance of the Negev settlements after this and the settling of the Judean hills create a world unknown to the accounts of 1 and 2 Samuel. On the basis of the pottery, Halpern dates to David’s time the Stepped Stone Structure and Eilat Mazar’s discovery of a public building in Jerusalem that is larger than what would be expected for a small regional center. Contemporary Qeiyafa (on the Philistine border) was a ring fortress, that is a barracks with parallels to Tell Beit Mirsim and other Judean cities. This large-scale construction gives evidence of central state planning and execution. Davidic period (or earlier) inscriptions from Qeiyafa, Izbet Sartah, and Jerusalem share the same scribal tradition and suggest for Halpern “a state-supported administration” (p. 348). I would agree and, in light of a writing exercise at a small village such as Izbet Sartah, believe that it suggests more widespread reading and writing. The Negev forts also imply the central planning of a larger state. Finally, the Tel Dan inscription demonstrates beyond doubt the presence of a Davidic dynasty in Judah. Its discovery “struck a major blow to the school of minimalists who argued that David was no more historic than King Arthur” (p. 349)."-Karma1998 (talk) 11:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To present anything from Halpern, we would need in-text attribution and an account of his methodology, the creative application of archaeology, textual witnesses, and geopolitical theory to the period - note the key term witnesses, which implies a particularly credulous reading of ancient textual sources - that abandons not only modern critical redaction but indeed any historical-critival assessment of the stories about David in the Tanakh. Anything he opines based on this methodology can only be included as an expression of his opinion. Newimpartial (talk) 11:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Newimpartial: Well, I can't quote an entire chapter, that's quite long. Also, I think you're greatly misunderstanding Halpern, he's hardly a biblical literalist (he said that proving The Exodus is like proving a unicorn and he described David as a brutal and homicide tyrant). He simply believes that there are historical informations in the Bible.-Karma1998 (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are certainly historical informations in some scriptures written in Hebrew; the relevant question is how to best disentangle the historical from the mythic. As far as I can tell, Halpern simply abandons this task for the "Unified Monarchy period" - if he describes David as a brutal and homicidal tyrant that historically existed as such, then that is far closer to a biblical literalist approach than any scholar ought to have, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 12:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Newimpartial:I honestly find your point of view incredible: I provide you one scholar (Dever) and you dismiss his view because he's old (ageism), I provide you a younger one and you baselessly accuse him of biblical literalism. The victories of David against the Philistines are not proved by the Bible, but by the fact that Philistine cities in the area show signs of destructions in the 10th century exactly in the areas the Bible deacribes. What are we supposed to do? Not use to the Bible because it's a religious biased text? Well, in this case we should throw away most of the texts of the Levant, since they're all pretty biased and religious. Should I quote other scholars? Amihai Mazar is young enough for you? Avraham Faust is OK? Yosef Garfinkel? André Lemaire is good? Are they all religious extremists? Are they old senile fools?-Karma1998 (talk) 13:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, it's clear that we're going nowhere here: let's just write in the article that there's a debate and present both sides and that's it.-Karma1998 (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to WP:AGF here, but you are going to have to follow a bit more closely what I actually say rather than what you wish (or fear) me to have said. WP:RS policy on recent, reliable sources is not "ageist", it is a policy-based preference for current rather than older scholarship. When people publish the same story for decades, at some point it ceases to he current scholarship even if they find new publishers - that isn't ageism, nor was that the basis for my detailed dismissal of your Dever-based claims. And I did not say that Halpern is a biblical literalist, either: I said that his reading it biblical David as being simply an historical figure is not supported by evidence or critical scholarship. Not the same thing.
How can I put this simply? The destruction of Philistine cities is not evidence of victories of David against the Philistines - hell, it isn't even evidence of victories of Israelites against the Philistines. Your argument that {tq|the victories of David against the Philistines}} have been proved simply shows that your standards of evidence in this area are not to be trusted, regardless of how far Dever, for example, might be willing to walk with you down that road.
It is precisely what you referred to in your paraphrase of Halpern as modern critical redaction (as opposed to his creative application of evidence of all kinds) that allows scholars to use the ancient Hebrew texts as historical sources, but Halpern (and you, by extension) refuse to do this because you don't like where it would lead you. I would never throw away those texts as sources, but for scholarly purposes they must be used critically - your belief that archeology has proved that David conquered the Philistines, so the United Monarchy is a historical reality, shows a degree of credulity that simply cannot be reflected in this article based on the currently-available sourcing. Newimpartial (talk) 13:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Newimpartial: Saying the same things for years is called "coherence"; and it's incredible that you're trying to dismiss the opinions of the leading archaeologist of North America (whose books are currently used in universities) with such ridiculous arguments. But I see that this debate is futile: whatever source I provide will be dismissed. Even if I brought a photo of David himself (I'm ironic, of course), you'd still reject my arguments for whatever reason. So let's just write that there's a debate on the issue (can we say that there's a debate? Or should we measured the debate by the age of the participants?) and let's end this.-Karma1998 (talk) 13:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there is a debate, and the debate should be reflected both in this article and in the (currently rather credulous) Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy) article. Let's fix them both.
Also, if the photo of David himself turned out to be a nude, I would be very much interested. Even more so, a video of David and Jonathan. Newimpartial (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Newimpartial: since I'm gay, I agree on the last one :-D -Karma1998 (talk)

P.S. @Tgeorgescu: the Bible is often unreliable, that's true. But so is Herodotus. Should we stop using Herodotus as a source?-Karma1998 (talk)

@Newimpartial: I've just checked the Solomon page. I think that's a good example of an equilibrated page.-Karma1998 (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that Solomon#Historicity does a good job of balancing different perspectives. Newimpartial (talk) 14:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Newimpartial: BTW, I agree with the "middle way" view: I performed believe that there were kings called Saul, David and Solomon and that they probably reigned over current Israel (except the south, which was under the control of the Philistines). But the Bible's accounts are definitely larger-than-life and legendary.-Karma1998 (talk)
Ok, here is a recent video from Robert R. Cargill, https://clas.uiowa.edu/religion/people/robert-r-cargill who also is User:XKV8R: The Tel Dan Inscription - Extended Version with Jehu's Rebellion on YouTube. He states there is circumstantial evidence for David, so the scholarly consensus is that David existed. It is not a consensus that he was a king or a bandit leader, just that he was a historical person. He also states there is no direct archaeological evidence for either David or Solomon. So, if Newimpartial claims that David was not a historical person, they are fighting against the scholarly consensus. About the United Monarchy: Israeli archaeologists drill plausible scenarios which claim that it existed, but again, there is zero direct archaeological evidence that it did. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tgeorgescu: Cargill doesn't represent the current scholarly consensus about David (if there is a consensus).He is a minor scholar who often endorsed fringe academic positions, like stating that the references to Jesus in Josephus and Tacitus are later forgeries, while the overwhelming consensus of scholars is that they are authentic (Ehrman also believes they are authentic). He even went so far to quote Richard Carrier to support his claims, which pretty puts him in the "fringe status". And the fact that he was briefly editor of BAR doesn't make him the consensus, otherwise the same could have been said for Hershel Shanks.--Karma1998 (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the record. I am questioning the historicity of "King David who defeated the Philistines". I see no evidence that the "House of David" in archaeology is based on "the same person" as that biblical narrative. The same legend, maybe, and circumstantial evidence for David, whether king or bandit leader, is pretty weak sauce from a scholar.
But anyway, my own speculations are irrelevant to this article. What I have said is that Wikipedia cannot present the "United Monarchy" as factual, outside of Hebrew textual traditions and the opinion of certain scholars. This article should not be altered to present that view in wikivoice, and the Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy) should not do so either, since there is no consensus about the "united monarchy" in recent RS. Newimpartial (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Newimpartial: I don't really care about Cargill (he's a minor scholar whose views are pretty irrelevant), but I agree with you that there's no consensus about the UM and both sides of the debate are supported by major scholars. Therefore, we should simply state that there's a debate, like the page Solomon does.--Karma1998 (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Newimpartial: I must say, it's very difficult to understand the debate on the United Monarchy. To understand it, someone should have knowledge on matters such as C14, archaeological Chronologies and other things we honestly lack (I'm a law student).-Karma1998 (talk) 09:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu:, @CycoMa:, @Newimpartial: I've found another quote on the matter: "Although most scholars accept the historicity of the united monarchy (although not in the scale and form described in the Bible; see Dever 1996; Na'aman 1996; Fritz 1996, and bibliography there), its existence has been questioned by other scholars (see Whitelam 1996b; see also Grabbe 1997, and bibliography there). The scenario described below suggests that some important changes did take place at the time." from Israel's Ethnogenesis: Settlement, Interaction, Expansion and Resistance of Avraham Faust, pag. 172, 2008 -Karma1998 (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my looks like the tables have turned. I guess my suspicion was correct many scholars do think the United Monarchy existed just not in the exact same way the Bible says.CycoMa (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Karma1998 and CycoMa: I take it for granted that most scholars accept the existence of a United Monarchy (whatever that means). But if does not follow that a Davidic-Solomonic Empire ever existed. So, probably they mean something completely different by the words United Monarchy. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I’m just gonna throw this little common sense detail out there. Countries are obviously man made. I assume when scholars say the United monarchy existed they mean some kind of polity covering all of what is modern day Israel and other near by areas exist. And that the kingdom of Judah and Israel emerged from this United monarchy.CycoMa (talk) 17:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion does not matter (same as mine). Selig, Abe (23 February 2010). "'J'lem city wall dates back to King Solomon'". The Jerusalem Post | JPost.com. Retrieved 18 July 2019. There are remains from the 10th century in Jerusalem, he said, but proof of a strong, centralized kingdom at that time remains "tenuous." tgeorgescu (talk) 17:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cyco, do you have any evidence for that or is it something you're, y'know, just sayin'? Newimpartial (talk)
Lipschits, Oded (2014). "The history of Israel in the biblical period". In Berlin, Adele; Brettler, Marc Zvi (eds.). The Jewish Study Bible (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. pp. 2107–2119. ISBN 978-0-19-997846-5. As this essay will show, however, the premonarchic period long ago became a literary description of the mythological roots, the early beginnings of the nation and the way to describe the right of Israel on its land. The archeological evidence also does not support the existence of a united monarchy under David and Solomon as described in the Bible, so the rubric of "united monarchy" is best abandoned, although it remains useful for discussing how the Bible views the Israelite past. [...] Although the kingdom of Judah is mentioned in some ancient inscriptions, they never suggest that it was part of a unit comprised of Israel and Judah. There are no extrabiblical indications of a united monarchy called "Israel."
Maeir, Aren M. (2014). "Archeology and the Hebrew Bible". In Berlin, Adele; Brettler, Marc Zvi (eds.). The Jewish Study Bible (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 2125. ISBN 978-0-19-997846-5. Archeological evidence for the early stages of the monarchy is minimal at best. [...] In any case, the lack of substantive epigraphic materials from this early stage of the Iron Age II (after 1000 BCE), and other extensive archeological evidence, indicate that even if an early united monarchy existed, its level of political and bureaucratic complexity was not as developed as the biblical text suggests. The mention of the "House of David" in the Tel Dan inscription, which dates to the mid/late 9th c. BCE, does not prove the existence of an extensive Davidic kingdom in the early 10th c. BCE, but does indicate a Judean polity during the 9th c. that even then associated its origin with David. [...] Although there is archeological and historical evidence (from extra biblical documents) supporting various events of the monarchical period (esp. the later period) recorded in the Bible, there is little, if any evidence corroborating the biblical depiction of early Israelite or Judean history.
Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
tgeorgescu thanks for providing all that but, you accidentally cited the same book.CycoMa (talk) 17:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have cited two reputable Israeli scholars, and their work was checked by two reputable editors. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Buddy check your links, they both lead to the same source. It’s hard tell where you got your information from.CycoMa (talk) 17:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, yeah, I have cited from the same book. Why would that be accidental? tgeorgescu (talk) 17:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, they are from the same book just different parts in the book.CycoMa (talk) 17:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I have the book as EPUB, so page numbers are approximate. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I yeah forgot to mention this but at [this discussion] the source cited there says on [page 462] (although the version has no page numbers) it says The historicity of the United Monarchy is currently debated. The majority of scholars accept the existence of a polity that was ruled by David and Solomon, although on a more modest scale than described in the Bible. The exact boundaries, however, are debated. A few scholars view this polity as ruling only small parts sections of the central highlands, but most scholars view it as a larger polity that ruled some large parts of Cisjordan and probably even parts of Transjordan. Here are links to Transjordan (region) and West Bank. Just throwing this out there to make sure no one missed anything.CycoMa (talk) 17:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, that doesn't support

some kind of polity covering all of what is modern day Israel and other near by areas, which was your claim. Newimpartial (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paleo Spelling[edit]

@Zhomron Is there an attested Paleo spelling? I don't know of one so I'd sooner just remove the whole thing. I also imagine it wouldn't have a waw but not our job. GordonGlottal (talk) 04:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Few and far between, but yes. King Ahaz's seal and the King Hezekiah bulla, for instance. Zhomron (talk) 11:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I was aware of the first (in general terms) but not the second. Looking at the Hezekiah bulla, I can only see a yod and a he and then a (?) which could certainly be a dalet, but I see that others have reconstructed it that way based probably on the Ahaz bulla. I wish I could be sure the Ahaz bulla was real -- it really looks way too convenient. Anyway thanks, I'm satisfied. GordonGlottal (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Under the Religion tab, follows this sentence:

"It is now widely agreed among academic scholars that the Books of Kings are not an accurate portrayal of religious attitudes in Judah or Israel of the time."

To portray this sentence as something that's "widely agreed" there needs to be more than two references or two references where scholars are mentioned to be widely agreeing. "Widely agreeing brings to mind a large majority; something irrevocably decided by most. "It came to me in a dream" seems like a more plausible defense for this quote's portrayal.

It also seems dodgy to not include this statement found in one of the references, "...even though the majority of the text is accepted to be historically trustworthy".

Are half-truths considered unbiased, unemotional information as Wikipedia claims, or at least is supposed to? SeleneMarie (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SeleneMarie: We have WP:RULES for writing articles, in this case WP:RS/AC. And WP:UNDUE. And WP:GEVAL. And WP:FRINGE. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


With talking about a biblical kingdom why can’t BC be used instead of BCE? 2600:6C5E:4000:3F5C:1581:D9E2:EF41:FDBC (talk) 11:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because Anno Domini is insulting to Jews. Dimadick (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]