Talk:Israelites/Archive 1

The Tel Dan inscription

Danny, you said you insist that David was a myth, unless proof is offered. What do you make of the Tel Dan inscription, which dates to within about 200 years of the biblical date for David, and which explicitly mentions the "House of David"? Also, what are your credentials for speaking as an authority here? You may indeed be one, but you have presented no basis for supposing that you have the right to speak quite so pontifically on this subject. --Len

Actually, the Tel Dan inscription was the first piece of somewhat contemporary written evidence confirming the biblical account, but as you say, it is about 200 years (actually, I remember a bit more, but I could be wrong) off the date. The mi-Beit David shard confirms that there was a dynasty that attributed itself to David, but that in itself is meaningless. It could just as well have been a legendary history--200 years is a very long time, particularly in the ancient world. The question then becomes is there any corroborative evidence for the empire he supposedly ruled. There are structures, etc. that have been attributed to Solomon's era, though the more contemporary theories claim these to later kings of Israel (not the United Monarchy), Omri at the earliest, possibly even post-Assyrian (by these I mean Gezer, Megiddo, Hazor, etc.). If you would like, I have an (as yet) unpublished manuscript here that summarizes many of the reasons for this, and I can probably dig it out. While David may have been a warrior chieftain, the biblical account of his empire has not been corroborated by evidence from the region or from neighboring kingdoms (Aram, etc.). Other than that, contemporary views are fairly anachronistic. You will find no one who will give a population of more than a couple of thousand for David's capital of Jerusalem, and that was apparently the largest city in the supposed empire. I don't claim sole expertise, but my background is Jewish history, particularly the biblical period. Hebrew University and various religious seminaries. I've published on it, edited materials on it (hence the unpublished manuscript) and worked extensively with Geoffrey Wigoder, who took over from Cecil Roth at the Encyclopedia Judaica. As for writing pontifically, I do take exception to RK's comments that he was "reading all my claims charitably." One thing I have always taken offense to is people who spend a year in Israel post-college, learn three words of Hebrew, read the Oxford Companion to Judaism, and consider themselves experts in a field I have spent 20 years studying, virtually all of it on location. Man, I'm beginning to sound like Julie. Danny

I started an article on this a while back. See Tel Dan Stele--Josiah 05:23, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Israelites as pregnators of the Jews

Wait a minute, why was this removed? "The Israelites were the progenitors of rabbinic Judaism, and today are known as Jews." This isn't controversial at all, except among the biblical minimalists, who view the Bible not only as historically unreliable, but as a total non-fiction and a true story. Their view, however, is new, radical, and just as unsupportable what they claim in unsupportable. Are we really going to say that there was no Biblical kingdom of Israel, no Israelites, and that the Jews are some grpup that popped out of nowhere? I have to reject this deletion. While I agree that we can not rely on the Bible alone for historical accuracy, to imply that everything in it is false has no support whatsoever. RK

No one is implying that, HA. It is factually wrong.

1. Several subgroups of the historic peoples called Israelites were ancestors of the contemporary Jews.

I don't get it; here you agree that the Israelites were ancestors of the contemporary Jews. You just deny here that all of them were ancestors of the Jews. Well, of course. This article explicitly states that most Israelites were carried away as slaves and whose descendents became assimilated away and did not become Jews. In fact, I was the one who originally added this point. You are arguing that the article should say something, when it already does. I agree with you, Ok? RK

1. The association of Israelite religion with rabbinic Judaism is both tenuous and debatable. Genealogical ancestry does not imply religious ancestry. You can just as easily argue that they were the progenitors of Christianity and Islam. Danny

I think you do not understand. Point One: The vast majority of Israelites are not ancestors of Jews--a subset of them may be/are. I would not have the problem if you were to say that Jews were descended from the tribe of Judah. Danny

I do understand point one. In fact, I agree with you. Months ago I added information on this right in this entry. I will rewrite in accord with what you propsoe abive; however (as described in the entry) today's Jews are not only from the tribe of Judah; rather, they are descendents from all the Israelites in the Kingdom of Judah, which included some refugees from all of the other Israelite tribes. RK

Point two: You are mixing apples and oranges here, combining genealogical and religious lineage. It would be more correct if you were to say that the Israelites (or tribe of Judah, Levi, and whatnot) were ancestors of the people today who adhere to rabbinic Judaism. Yes, rabbinic Judaism is an offshoot of the ancient Israelite religion, but so are Christianity and Islam. Religious lineage does not imply genealogical lineage. Oh, and the statement is totally like me. Danny

I agree with thi; perhaps you were reading a bit more than I meant into what I had previously written. My previous comments were trying to say the same thing. In this netry I was concerned here with geneology, and not at all concerned with religious claims. Muslims and Christians are not biological descendents of the tribe of Judah and the various other Israelite refugees; the people alive today that fit this definition are the Jews. So I don't disagree with what you say here; I think we misinterpreted each other's words.RK

HA,HA,HA I really don't want this to turn into a ice war. I do know a little something about this topic though, based on a number of long years studying it. Unfortunately for you, I do not need you to read my claims "charitably," and this is not your topic for you to agree to work with me. I wrote "Jews claim descent." I stand by that. I did not write, as you seem to think, that "Jews are not really descendents of the tribe of Judah, but that they only "claim" to be so." There is a difference between what I wrote and that statement. Call me a minimalist if you will, but I would argue that Jews are descended from clans that inhabited what is now Israel/Palestine in biblical times, established kingdoms there, and were defeated by various regional powers at different points in history. I would also argue that these clans shared common myths of origin, including common ancestry. At the same time, these clans also absorbed other indigenous peoples in the region, with whom they shared no common descent: Araunah the Jebusite and Doeg the Edomite, two prominent individuals named in the mythological history of David (and until there is proof he actually existed, I stick by that claim) are iindicative of the absorption of local peoples. You might want to read the book of Ezra to see how widespread the phenomenon was by early Second Temple times. Skipping ahead a few centuries to the era immediately preceding the birth of Christ, we find an interesting phenomenon in Roman society. Many educated Romans were disillusioned with their ancient gods and sought alternative philosophies to fill their religious needs. These included Mithraism, Manichaeism, and indeed Judaism. Some converted completely; other adopted the belief system but not the rigid practices of Jewish ritual law (a very important distinction, which had an impact on the later spread of Budism). Some estimates claim that up to 10 percent of the Roman Empire at that time claimed its belief system as Jewish, and, indeed, certain concessions were made to the Jewish people as a result (mostly in terms of Temple ritual). Slightly later, some of the most prominent Jewish leaders were of non-Jewish origin, including Herod, Onkelos, Akiva, and Meir. Conversion was not frowned upon then. In fact, it was somewhat common. Onias IV in Alexandria, Queen Helena of Abiadne, the garrison at Elephantine (Yeb) are just a few more examples. In other words, there was a major influx of peoples, who identified themselves as Jews. While I do not agree that the Khazars form the basis of Ashkenazi Jewry, the collapse of Khazaria several centuries later certainly did lead to a group of Turkic refugees seeking shelter among their coreligionists in Eastern Europe. Then there were the Cossacks, a band of galloping rapists if there ever was one. One of the reasons that Judaism is so strict on issues of matrilineal descent is because of the Cossacks. At least you can tell who the mother was, and what do you do with all those babies? (some Rishonim actually discuss the possibility of patrilineal descent). In other words, Jews are descended from a clan of ancient people known as the Tribe of Judah, but they also have other, diverse origins. As for your sources, I was taught to go with primary sources, not populist encyclopedic definitions (tertiary sources). It makes you at least sound more scholarly.

Another thing, no less important. RK, I know a lot about anti-Semitism. Really. It is my line of work, quite literally. I develop curricula about the Holocaust and other manifestations of racism and genocide. I don't buy into anti-Semitic lines. I will concede that there have been some manifestations of anti-Semitism in Wikipedia, though I disagree with your assessment of many, many comments too (I, for instance, have a lot of serious problems with Zionism. Does that make me anti-Semitic? Before you even begin to answer, let me tell you that you know nothing about my problems with Zionism, so don't even start guessing what they are.) In most cases, I do not think remarks that really could be interpreted as anti-Semitic were made maliciously. They may be misinformed, but that does not make them anti-Semitic. On the other hand, even if they are (and I believe that some of Helga's remarks were), I try to work with those people and show them through actions and words that their preconceptions about Jews are misinformed. It seems to work for me (I was very flattered to get a holiday greeting from Helga), and I invite you to try it too. Finally, please apologize to the Ramban (the Hebrew acronym for Moses ben Nachman). If you step back a moment, you may see how your response could be seen as being over the top. Danny

RK was slandering Rabbi Moses ben Nachman? Where? RK accused you of being anti-Semitic? Where? JeMa 17:28, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)

More on Israelites as progenitors of Jews

Here is a proposed addition to the beginning of this entry: RK

The Jews are the direct descendents of the tribes of Judah, as well as refugees from other tribes (see below). The historical origin of the various tribes of Israel, it must be noted, are not fully agreed upon. Most biblical scholars now agree that the Biblical history of the Israelite tribes conflates history with mythology. To what extent this occurs, however, is still being debated. Some scholars hold that the Israelite tribes that inhabited what is now Israel/Palestine in biblical times, established kingdoms there, and were defeated by various regional powers at different points in history. They hold that these clans shared common myths of origin, including a common ancestry. At the same time, these clans also absorbed other indigenous peoples in the region, with whom they shared no common descent. Thus, although Jews are descendents of Israelites, the origin of the Israelites may need to be looked at in a different light than is commonly held. Other scholars hold that a more traditional reading of the Bible's origin story for the Israelite tribes is historically justifiable.

RK, you have just misread and misrepresented everything I just wrote. Your suggestion is filled to the brim with errors. I really suggest you just leave it, instead of misrepresenting the material so brazenly. Danny

I generally don't agree with RK as he often seems biased, but the above paragraph doesn't seem that bad, except for being somewhat long-winded and more of a disclaimer than a source of information, however I hardly would say it is misrepresentative or error-ridden. If you are at all serious Danny, you are going to have to explain what is so bad about the above paragraph. Vera Cruz

No problems. My remarks will be in bold:

RK wrote The Jews are the direct descendents of the tribes of Judah, as well as refugees from other tribes (see below). [No, the Jews are not direct descendants from any one single ethnic group. See what I wrote above. The predominant ethnic group may be some biblical tribe of Judah, but in 3,500 years there was sufficient intermarriage and intermingling with other ethnic groups to make this claim meaningless. On the other hand, Jews do claim descent from Judah and often tend to ignore any absorption of other groups.] The historical origin of the various tribes of Israel, it must be noted, are not fully agreed upon. Most biblical scholars now agree that the Biblical history of the Israelite tribes conflates history with mythology. [Find me a serious scholar that doesn't] To what extent this occurs, however, is still being debated. Some scholars hold that the Israelite tribes that inhabited what is now Israel/Palestine in biblical times, established kingdoms there, and were defeated by various regional powers at different points in history. [No, every scholar holds that.] They hold that these clans shared common myths of origin, including a common ancestry. [Ditto.] At the same time, these clans also absorbed other indigenous peoples in the region, with whom they shared no common descent. Thus, although Jews are descendents of Israelites, the origin of the Israelites may need to be looked at in a different light than is commonly held. [Judah or Israelites--decide.] Other scholars hold that a more traditional reading of the Bible's origin story for the Israelite tribes is historically justifiable. [Such as? Finally, see my comments above for 2,500 years of Jewish history that is ignored here in stating this claim.]

P.S. I feel very uncomfortable in general about this whole race-based origin hypothesis. It's playing with fire. Danny

---

I believe the key disagreement than is The Jews are the direct descendents of the tribes of Judah, as well as refugees from other tribes (see below). [No, the Jews are not direct descendants from any one single ethnic group. See what I wrote above. The predominant ethnic group may be some biblical tribe of Judah, but in 3,500 years there was sufficient intermarriage and intermingling with other ethnic groups to make this claim meaningless. On the other hand, Jews do claim descent from Judah and often tend to ignore any absorption of other groups.]

Danny, you seem to be confusing the tribe of Judah and the tribes, i.e., the Kingdom of Judah. In other words, the statement "The Jews are direct descendents of the tribes making up the kingdom of Judah, together with many refugees from the kingdom of Israel, together with foreigners who intermarried with the Jews," would seem to be quite consistent with your viewpoint. You seem to be taking a needlessly harsh view of this statement suggested by RK. I recognize that "Jews" are more an ethnic group than a "race", or a distinct gene pool. That they are generally descended from the people of the kingdom of Judah, however, does not seem like such a radical statement to be making.

Good morning, Len. I don't think I am confusing the two if only because most of those refugees absorbed by Judah came to identify themselves with the tribe/kingdom of Judah. In other words, individual tribal identities disappeared. No Jew today will claim descent from any other than two tribes, Judah and Levi, and the same was true for a very long time, possibly even late biblical times (based on a possible interpretation of Ezekiel concerning the redistribution of tribal lands). I also agree with the basic statement you give from RK to a point, though it ignores that same 2,500 years of history. For more on that, see below.

Also, you seem to be putting a lot of weight on supposed intermarriage during the diaspora; I would be very carefuly with this unless the degree of intermarriage is actually known. There are strong arguments that it was not as prevalent as you seem to suppose: (1) Jewish customs against exogamy, (2) laws in most diaspora countries forbidding marriage with Jews, (3) the fact that Jews who intermarry often assimilate, leaving the population of "Jews", and (4) genetic arguments such as the prevalence of Tay-Sachs disease among Jews.

This is below. While we cannot be sure of the exact rate of intermarriage, at certain period it may also have been high. While Jewish custom frowns on exogamy, under certain conditions it is quite prevalent. Look at the U.S. and Western Europe today. There is evidence that the rates were similarly high at other, more remote times and in other, more remote communities (meaning outside of Poland and the Pale). Laws forbidding marriage with Jews and Jewish assimilation into the dominant culture are also factors, but these were not universal throughout Jewish history. As far as I remember, Tay Sachs is exclusively an Ashkenazic disease, which has no bearing on Middle Eastern, North African and other key communities. I don't deny Jewish descent from ancient Israelites either. I just claim that its scope is exaggerated and that people who enter the Jewish community tend to assume that origin for themselves too. Over 2,500 years, however, there has been a lot of mixing and mingling.

The fact that many people have converted to Judaism is not being contested. But this does not mean that I deserve your harsh comments about being totally wrong; it only means that we should be careful in how we phrase things. RK

Finally, I like your section about the "Myth of the 10 Lost Tribes", but it seems needlessly argumentative. Your principle objection seems to be that "10" is a miscount; that seems a piddling objection. The kingdom of Judah is referred to in scripture as "one tribe", when in fact it contained members of at least three tribes. Can you say, "figure of speech"? However, the substance of the section is useful. You also appear to ignore the scriptural claims of at least three separate waves of emigration from the north kingdom, accounting for almost all of the 12 tribes plus Levi. This textual evidence would suggest that all 12 tribes were represented in the Babylonian diaspora, and presumably in the return. --Len.

As for the 10 tribes, sure the term is a figure of speech. I was simply trying to clarify what the count was. As for the Babylonian diaspora, while all tribes may have been represented, they seem to have abandoned their individual identities by then. See Ezra, for example, where there are long list of returnees, identified as subclans of Judah and Levi. Even then, the rate of exogamy was extremely high--it is one of the central themes of the book--and this is among what may be supposed to be a highly identified group. In fact, many (most?) Jews did not return at that time. Danny

The loss of self-identification as "Assherites", for example, does not imply that nobody is descended from that tribe, nor that the tribe became extinct. So how does that observation affect the assertion that modern jews are descended from various of these tribes? --Len.

First off, one should note that there are Jews who are NOT descendents of the tribes of Judah, as in, they converted to Judaism. However, surely many Jews probably are direct descendents of the tribes of Judah, of course, I am dubious as to what that has to do with Israelites since Israel is a term defining citizens of Israel regardless of whether they are Judaic or notVera Cruz

To clarifiy, there are not any Jews who are descended from converts alone. There is no second Jewish people composed of converts, who exist in parallel with Jews descended from the Israelites. Rather, over time a few people at a time joined the Jewish people, and married with people who were Israelite descendents. The number of converts is not trivial, but it also is not so large as to swamp out the origin. It is fair to say that Jews today are still basically descendents of those Israelites who lived in the Sourthen Kingdom of Judah. RK

My .02

1. Genetic testing supports the contention that modern Jews have had very little intermarriage with Non-Jewish neighbors with the sole exception of Eithiopian Jews and perhaps this last generation in certain places. So, I (and many) would argue that modern Jews ARE descendents of the Tribes, (specifically Benjamin, Levites, and Judah, the ones that weren't lost).

2. There is one community of Jews who are convert descendents. They lived in Soviet Georgia and because they were converts, they had no Kohens and used to invite Kohens to come visit for the holidays each year.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.68.130.101 (talk • contribs) 21 August 2006.

Jews as a people versus Jews as a race

Yeah, that's pretty much it. It is very doubtful that any Jew today is descended exclusively from the Israelites. This paragraph only covers the biblical (Old Testament) period. There are 2,500 years to go after that. As for your second point, Israelite is the ancient people. Citizens of Israel are Israelis. Danny

I think arguing that a, say, Hasidic Jew, is a purebred Jew, is about as false as arguing that a blond-blue-eyed German is a purebred Aryan. Of course, it should be noted that some Jews do think they are the master race.Vera Cruz 05:27 Dec 16, 2002 (UTC)

This true. Yet who here is making claims that Jewish people are some sort of racially pure ethnic group? Why is Danny going on about race issues? I honestly don't understand this at all. Perhaps Danny has been reading between the lines so much that he has ended up conflating my argument with some others he may have heard, and that he may have had legitimate reason to disagree with? RK

Only as much as it should be noted that members of any other ethnic group think that too. Then again, race is a construct that does not exist in Jewish culture. Danny

---

Please see the new section on The Bible and History in the article on the History of ancient Israel and Judah. Thoughtful comments and constructive criticisms are welcome. Danny, this includes you. RK

This is better, RK, but please answer me a couple of questions: a) what is meant by descent--patrilineal, matrilineal, a majority of ancestors? b) Is there any individual Jew alive today who can state with no compunctions that he or she is descended in any of those aforementioned ways from the original Tribes of Israel mentioned in the Bible? I am not changing the text, but I would really like you to understand my concerns regarding the text.

Extremely good questions, and obviously something that needs clarifying in the articles. (A) I am presently using the term descent in the biological, and not halakhic context. Thus, people later identified as Jews may be descended from people in Judah the solely from patrilineal descent, solely from matrilineal descent, or both. I do not agree with the traditional Jewisg view that matrilineal descent must have been the legal standard since the time of King David and before. (It may have been, but we have no proof of this.) Rather, I agree with the view of Robert Gordis (a Conservative Jewish Bible scholar and rabbi) who held that we can only prove that matrilineal descent pre-dated the time of Hillel and Shammai, but not much before then. (B) I think the mainstream view is that pretty much all Jews today are in great part direct descendents of the peoples of the nation of Judah, along with a small but steady stream of converts and people who unofficially intermarried in with the Jews. However, I also have been trying to find a way to say that the Israelite tribes in Judah are not necessarilly the same as the 12 tribes mentioned in the Torah itself, and that many historians doubt the historical existence of the patriarch Jacob and his 12 sons. So I am saying that Israelite tribes historically existed at some time...but the popular conception of the origin of these tribes with Jacob himself is not considered historically relibale. (My personal view is that the Biblical patriarchs were probably real people, but that the tales and legends passed down about them are not historically relibale, and that the early Biblical geneologies are especially unrelibale, if not mythical.)

Many historians doubt the historical existence of the patriarch Jacob and his 12 sons on what basis do they doubt? Is is a sincere question. OneVoice 15:24, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The basis is the complete absence of any reliable and non-circumstantial evidence. The real question is: on what basis does anyone believe this Jewish tale? I tell you why: because 54% (or so) of the world population adheres to an abrahamic faith, and they depend on accepting the Jewish tales as accurate. I mean, hey, they believe in an nonexistent god, so why not in nonexistent history? Cush (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there any individual Jew alive today who can state with no compunctions that he or she is descended in any of those aforementioned ways from the original Tribes of Israel mentioned in the Bible? Can any of us state with certainity who our parents are? While we were each present at our birth; we dont remember much. We each rely upon the statements of others as to who our parents are. Maternity may have serveral witnesses, though baby-swaps in hospitals are not unknown. (As an aside, complete sequencing of mitochondrial DNA in both mother and child might well give us a certainly of relationship.) Paternity is an even more difficult issue. Genetic testing can tell us the probability of blood relationship, but not a certainity. Nonetheless we often state without compunction who are our parents, grandparents, etc. With this understanding there are a large number of individuals that can state without compunction that they are direct patrilinear descendents of at least one of the 12 children of Jacob. These people are the Kohanim (Priests). What genetic studies have been done are consistent with this statement. Remarkable indication of the accuracy of tradition transmitted from parent to child over ~2,600 years (time per the article referenced). OneVoice 15:24, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Oh, and while I'm add it, the bit about biblical minimalism et al is incredibly simplistic for my taste. I generally believe that opinions fall on a spectrum, rather than in two (or more) distinct camps. The latter view can lead to inaccurate understanding of the differences and can even lead to false attributions of opinion (i.e., if he is a biblical minimalist, he must believe that David never existed). Can you please clarify that there is a wide range of opinions regarding the Bible that traverses the two camp (not including fundies--I will say no more about them out of politeness and propriety). I will not get into an argument about Shanks either, but I am sure you know that his qualifications to speak about archeology are questioned by many archeologists. The distinction I would make is that BAR is a popular work and not some high-falutin', peer-reviewed archeological journal. Wikipedia is also a popular work, but we lose something if our sources are also popular works rather than the more "serious" (note the quotation marks) scholarly works. Danny

This issue, like most mature (or beginning to mature) historical fields of study, is developing into a spectrum of positions, and so must be noted. Agreed on all your points. RK

I wonder what the case is that the British Israelite movement is antisemitic. It is clear that some organizations which derived some of their theory from the British Israelites have also adopted antisemitic themes, but what about the main branch which is represented today by the British-Israel-World Federation? I have no special interest in them, I just think that we should not introduce an organization as antisemitic without a strong case. --zero 10:59, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I wonder if all this name-calling would be akin to saying that current American are of British decent even when it is clear that this is not so. Who were the Jews originally? Who exatly made up the Jews in the Exodus? Who was Moses? et al. The Jewish people were never the hemogunous society that they would like to think they were, even though they tried to ensure this even to this day. What racial attributes do Jews have? It would seem that they were heavily integrated with local peoples as per the Books of the Prophets. What say you here? --Numerousfalx 18:53, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Membership in a tribe

This page has at least two serious problems. The first is that membership in a particular tribe is determined by ones father. If one's father was from the tribe of Asher, all the children are of the tribe of Asher. There is no reason to believe that the tribes did not intermarry. In fact there are numerous examples of women from one tribe marrying men from another. It is reasonable to assume that each tribe is represented in some portion of the present Jews through their mothers, grandmothers, etc.

Ok. So what is the problem? RK

The problem is that the page gives the impression that the 10 tribes were completely lost to rest of the Jews. This is clearly not the case. In addition the use of the word tribe is horribly inaccurate due to the connotations that the work carries in English. Clans might be a better choice...too late for that though.

If you read further down into the article, you will see that this is not so. This article explicitly states that some of the other ten tribes were not lost to the Jews, and that the so-called tribe of Judah included people from all the tribes of Israel! Here is the precise quote:

'In 722 BC the Assyrians, under Shalmaneser, and then under Sargon II, conquered Israel (the northern Kingdom), destroyed its capital Samaria, and sent the Israelites into exile and captivity. Much of the nine landed tribes of the northern kingdom become "lost." However, what is less commonly known is that many people from the conquered northern kingdom fled south to safety in Judea, the Southern Kingdom, which maintained its independence.

Thus, Judah then was populated with Israelites from Judah, Benjamin, Shimeon, some of Levi, and many from all of the other tribes as well. Today's Jews are descended from the inhabitants of this kingdom.

Material moved to the LDS Church article

JeMa your revision of the LDS section on this article has mistated Mormonism in several respects. Further, why censor relevant material by deletion and moving especially without discussing it first? B 21:57, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)

Without commenting on anyone's additions or deletions of particular points, I can support the moving of this material. This article is not the proper place to give a detailed discussion of how to convert to LDS Mormonism, or what being a LDS Mormon means to Mormons. That is off-topic. AKAIK, nothing is being censored. Information is merely being discussed in the proper article. As an aside, I find it incomprehensible that Mormons teach that one can literally become an ethnic Israelite by converting to Mormonism. Can someone also become Asian, or Arab at will? How can a religion teach this, unless it teaches that such conversion produces an actual biological change? And wouldn't this be in the realm of testable science, rather than theology? RK 01:36, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)

By the way, RK, you're actually wrong about people not being able to become Arab at will, at least historically. Most of the Arab world are not genetically descended from original Arabs, but were arabized through centuries of conquest and cultural assimilation when the original caliphate was established. That point is not immediately relevant to discussion about Israelites though. And BoNoMoJo is right; the LDS Israel paradigm is not strictly an ethnic distinction, but also sometimes implies adoption into a particular tribe. The LDS Israelite paradigm is described in detail in the Allegory of the Tame and Wild Olive Trees, found at Jacob chapter 5 in the Book of Mormon. Gilgamesh 03:14, Apr 17, 2004 (U.S. MST)

No one will disagree with the truism that off topic material shouldn't be included and that "convert to LDS Mormonism, or what being a LDS Mormon means to Mormons" is off topic. JeMa mischaracterized the material some which is about how Mormons believe they become Israelites and is relevant to this article. Looking back at the deleted/moved material most of it (the last four paragraphs in particular) is stuff written by Danny and some of it has nothing to do with Mormonism at all but is about the Manmasseh people of India...how is Manmasseh material on Israelites supposed to be irrelevant to this article but somehow relevant to the article on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It's not...that was just stupid and sloppy to move that stuff there. I could care less about what happens to that material in this article...I've got other articles I'm more interested in. I only happily reviewed/added the Mormon doctrine on Israelites at Danny's request. At any rate most of the deleted/moved material that was included in the first and now only two remaining paragraphs was relevant and the revision is now a mistatement. As to your literally comment, it's not spelled out what is meant by literally and does not necessarily mean ethnicity in Mormonism. (This is part of the mistatement going on in the current revision.) So, despite your disposition to criticize Mormonism, you shouldn't be so anxious to find it incomprehensible...not yet any ways. Also many Mormons don't divide the world between science and theology; i.e., if the claim (whether religious or not) is empirically testable (at least in practice) then test away. Indeed Mormonism tends to be very antagonistic to metaphysical entities like the mainstream Christian concept of God precisely because it is not empirically verfiable/falsifiable, etc. B 03:23, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)

I would hardly label my conservative edits as "stupid". The long discursion was off-topic. No one was censoring you. JeMa 17:28, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I'm just especially cranky lately because of a slew of edits that irritated me on various articles . Please overlook any insults. Maybe I'll come back later and try to work out any unsettled issues in this article in which I was involved. B 20:50, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)

No problem. And feel free to move back some of the material if you really think that it is relevant. JeMa

I wrote a lot of the LDS Israelite material mostly before I registered a user name at Wikipedia, and I must say that I fully appreciate everyone's views and interests on this subject, and wish to work with them to resolve perceived conflicts of relevancy. Since this is a Wikipedia article and Wikipedia is for everyone, I think every established tradition here is valid and no one tradition should be marginalized in preference to anyone else's tradition, regardless of mutual controversy. We can do this together. But please, let's read and discuss issues what should be here and what shouldn't be here before anyone goes ahead on their own and moves content from here to other articles without thought as to keeping other articles as neat and tidy as this one. Thank you. Gilgamesh 18:53, Apr 16, 2004 (U.S. MST)

"Mainstream" Judaism

Ok, what are we defining as mainstream Judaism people? Nearly 90% of Jews are Reform. Does this mean that Orthodoxy, Masorti, Reconstructionist, and Karaite Judaism should be in there?--Josiah 05:26, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

You are conflating two different topics. There is no such thing as a mainstream "Judaism people". There is Judaism - as a religion, and Jews, as a people. They historically have been one and the same (except for those lost to conquest, assimilation, etc.) Today this identity is no longer taken for granted. There are many people in my own family who are 100% Jewish, yet they do not affiliate with Judaism as a religion (they are agnostics.) RK 04:06, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

1. This is the article Israelite, not Jew or Who is a Jew?. This is basically off topic.
2. The statement about 90% of Jews being Reform is simply false. Israel has about 5 million Jews, almost all of whom are either Orthodox or simply secular.
3. The only sense in which there is such a thing as "mainstream" Judaism is that there are matters where Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform (and possibly others) are in agreement with one another. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:56, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

linking

The following was recently added in the midst of the article: [http://scriptures.lds.org/gsi/israel guide to LDS scriptural references on Israel], resulting in a link guide to LDS scriptural references on Israel. Normally, we don't put external links with text in the middle of the article; on the other hand it looks like a relevant citation. It probably belongs either in a "references" or "external links" section, appropriately cited from the body of the article. Could someone possibly sort this out (I'm just looking at this on a 10 minute break, don't have time to get it right myself right now). -- Jmabel | Talk 20:05, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Desmond Dekker

As I'm reading the lyrics to Israelites, I am wondering how they work as metaphors for the Rasta experience. Is this really a song about the Rastafari movement or perhaps something lesser to make a quick buck? Are there better examples to use to exemplify the movement?

Or - am I way off the mark? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.235.233.139 (talk • contribs) 28 May 2006.

British Israelism

British Israelitism was not originally anti-Semitic, even though its successor ideology today forms the basis of Christian Identity. In some sense, early British Israelites could be regarded as philo-Semitic, and even today, other, similar ideologies are at least neutral. For example, the Mormons incorporate some principles of British Israelitism in their ideology as well. Danny

Hi All, I happened on this page doing some research. I was doing some research on this subject last night. Have you ever heard of the Behistun Rock Inscription that listed the nations that Darius the Great defeated? It is listed in three languages. The fascinating thing is that the Scythians are listed and refered to at the Saka in Persian, the Gimiri in Babylonian and the Khumri in Assyrian. The Khumri are referred to in other Assyrian monuments and clay tablets as the Bit-Khumri and Bet-Omri. The Hebrew translation would be house of Omri - Beth Omri. However, the other referrals to the Khumri, well these refer to the captivity of the Israelites. The Scyths were called Saka by many nations. Interestingly, Romans and Greeks called the Saka, Saxons. I would imagine when someone was piecing this all together in the early 1800s, they must of had an epiphany. I have a book here signed by Eleanor Roosevelt written in the 1920s about the subject. The author even states that the two day weekend favored in Great Britain was such because of the respect for the Sabbath that the Jews and Jesus kept. This man was a 'British Israelite' nicknamed "The Roadbuilder."

So, if the above is true, the Saka - Scythians - Saxons were Israelites who were taken captive by the Assyrians who eventually migrated to the Northwestern European areas of the world. When the Behistun Rock, (Also known as Bisitun or Bahistun) was deciphered, I think it created excitement in England. Sadly, the doctrine today has racist adherants. Herbert Armstrong, however, was not a racist neither was he an anti-Semite. In fact he went to Israel often and met with and ate dinner with dignataries and others in Jerusalem. Some of his top executives were also of Jewish descent. The majority of his writing of the US and Britain in Prophecy came from the book; Judah's Septer and Joseph's Birthright written by J.H. Allen in the early 1900s. More on that later.

Joe

Joe, I am reading a book in Spanish which translated its title reads: The Origin of the Development and Destruction of the Political Government written by Javier Medina Pacheco. It deals with the theological and human conquest of the world. I heard the author speak in Lima, Peru a few years ago and he stated that the Israelites migrated into Britain through europe. I thank you for the references you have given. I like the idea that the British weekend is a compromise of the Sunday Pagan/Catholic day and the Jewish/early Christian Sabbath. What are the racist connections? Is it politically correct to assume that anti-semetism may be God's punishment? This is purely from an advocate's viewpoint I should state.Swordedge 16:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The term "Israelite" is not offensive

Second, the term Israelite is itself offensive to Jews. The Jews do not recognize a distinct worthy of a different term to refer to the Jews of one historical period vs another. Christians have often used words such as Hebrews and Israelites to refer to Jews that lived before Jesus . This distinction is important to Christian theology. Due to the implied difference in Christian theology the term is offensive. How can this be addressed within the framework of the Wikipedia?

The term Israelite is not offensive to Jews. In fact, Jews still sometimes refer to themselves as Israelites! This was especially common in the 1800s and early 1900s. Where did you hear otherwise? RK 00:26, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)

Zangwille (sp?) in addition to others have embraced the term Israelite much as some American Blacks have embraced the term nigger. I am surprised to hear that there are Jews that refer to themselves as Israelites (though in America, nothing should be a source of surprise ;) The term is a Christian term coined to differentiate between the good Hebrews (Abraham, etc), and good Israelites (David, etc) and the evil, deicide Jews.

I'm with RK on this (miracles happen). I would need proof of this claim that "Israelite" is a perjorative invention. I doubt it very much. Originally it was intended with a wider meaning than "Jew" (which refered to the tribe of Judah only) but the meanings of both words evolved like with all words. One can compare this with the use of "Israel" to mean Jews collectively (esp. pre-1948). The word "Hebrews" is not offensive until proven otherwise. It certainly was not regarded offensive by the several political movements within Zionism that adopted it to distinguish themselves from the diaspora. Of course all of these words can be found in perjorative contexts but that's just because there is so much perjorative literature; it doesn't prove the words are specifically perjorative. --Zero 03:03, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The Term "Israelite" is not in any way offensive to Jews. The term is used in the most popular Jewish translations. I'm a Jew, and I'm not offended by the term.--Yoshiah ap 22:02, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

How can Christians deem the term Israelite to apply only to pre-Jesus Jews when it appears 4 times in the New Testament, each time it is a positive statement? See below:

Joh 1:47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!

Rom 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

Rom 9:4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

2Co 11:22 Are they Hebrews? so am I. Are they Israelites? so am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? so am I.

Paul therefore, was clearly an Israelite and also an apostle of Christ. swordedge 17:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Expansion of non-Jewish Israelite section

There's been quite a bit of argument as to whether it's relevant to mention Mormon Israelite traditions on this page. And then I remembered that there are even more groups with strong Israelite traditions that also differ from Judaism. So, I thought that maybe the best way to revise the non-Jewish Israelite segment was to dedicate a brief paragraph to each group (and it can easily be expanded to include more), with a short description of who the group is, where they live, what they believe in differently, and how they relate bilaterally to Jewish religion and Jewish society and (if relevant) multilaterally to other Israelite traditions in general. This way, every group (Rabbinic Jews, Samaritans, Karaites, Mormons, and others) can get a concise mention with introductory information in equal parity with other groups, regardless of their numbers large or small. And if someone wants to learn more about any one group, they can follow wiki links to other articles with a more detailed explanation on that group. I've already added a brief paragraph about the Samaritans and the Karaites. I also modified the Mormon paragraph again, and endeavoured to keep it as brief as I could while still portraying the same elements of information as the other paragraphs. One could conceivably see information being added about Manmasseh and other people as well, but to be honest, I know almost nothing about them other than the briefest information from the Flags of the World website. Gilgamesh 04:18, Apr 20, 2004 (U.S. MST)

---

Could I include some information on the Israelites of the New Universal Covenant, started in Peru please? Swordedge 17:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Khazars

There is no mention of the hypothesis (by Arthur Koestler?) that the Ashkenazim descend mainly from Jewish Khazars. -- Error 00:52, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

from what i've heard, the khazars originally spoke a language known as khazar, but adopted the hebrew language when they converted to judaism.

i'm pretty sure that there are a lot of jews that aren't of even partial khazar ancestry. (anon 5 April 2005)

• No serious historians give credibility to the "Khazar" origins of the Jews of Ashkenaz; it is a myth promoted by antisemites to attack the historical connection between the European Jews and the Land of Israel. Koestler's was an amateur attempt to exculpate Jews from the Christian false accusation of deicide; an accusation that is also a myth. Koestler's work is not based on fact or evidence.--Lance ^talk 07:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Lance, here are the sources you should check to get your story straight. I presume you just have not read these and are misinformed, so here they are...

From the New Jewish Encyclopedia:

• KHAZARS: A Turkish or Finnish tribe which settled in the lower Volga region...In the 8th century, a powerful Judaizing movement manifested itself among the K. [Khazars]. Ultimately, about 786-809, their king Bulan and 4,000 of his nobles accepted Judaism, the prince Obadiah being active in securing their Judaization.

From the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia:

• KHAZARS, a midieval people, probably related to the Volga Bulgars, whose ruling class adopted Judaism during the 8th cent.

From the Jewish Encyclopedia under Chazars (alternate spelling):

• CHAZARS: A people of Turkish origin whose life and history are interwoven with the very beginnings of the history of the Jews in Russia.

From the 1980 Jewish Almanac (this is the first sentence of the first chapter entitled "Identity Crisis"):

• Strictly speaking, it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a "Jew" or to call a contmporary Jew an "Israelite" or a "Hebrew".

From Dr. Benjamin Freedman's letter published by the National Economic Council (Oct. 15, 1947):

• The Khazars were a non-Semitic, Turko-Finn, Mongolian tribal people who, about the 1st century AD, emigrated from Middle Asia to Eastern Europe...about the 7th century AD, the King of the Khazars adopted Judaism as the state religion, and the majority of inhabitants joined him in the new allegiance...These Eastern European, Yiddish-speaking Jews have no historic or racial connection with Palestine.

Lance, I challenge you or your historians to come up with evidence to support your position. If you have any, I'd like to read it. 71.132.230.169 07:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Rastafari

Didn't the Rastafari believe that Black people were the lost tribes? -- Error 00:52, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

there is a rastafarian sect known as the 12 tribes of israel.

i don't know much about it so far, though i'm trying to learn more.

i'm under the impression that rastafarianism teaches that blacks are all 12 of the tribes of israel. (anon 5 April 2005)

Most definitely. Is there a mistake here? There was on another page a whikle back the inaccuracy that they believe they are only one which I changed, --SqueakBox 16:17, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Israelite in Category:Mormonism

Upon careful consideration, I do not dispute the removal of Israelite from Category:Mormonism, considering that it is also not in Category:Judaism, nor in Category:Samaritan, etc., but only in indirectly-related categories such as Jewish history. However, if Israelite were to be added to such categories at a future time, then it would only be fair to add it all the categories who have similar self-associative sacred beliefs regarding the Israelites. - User:Gilgamesh 11:26, 14 June 2004 (UTC)

What constitutes a "Gentile" and to whom

The following essay on this thought is a bit long, but I hope it makes you, me and everyone else a better Wikipedian and thinker of NPOV-concern issues. :) I've given this subject a lot more thought on this issue. Consider this: How would an Orthodox Jew define a "Gentile"? And how would a secular Jew? A Reform Jew? And a Karaite Jew? And a Samaritan? And a Falasha? It would seem to me that each different school of Jewish thought has different approaches to what defines a Gentile, and what defines a non-Gentile. (Like, for instance, would Samaritans consider Jews to be Gentiles because they are not Samaritans? Rhetorical question, though I don't know the answer if it were a non-rhetorical question anyway. :P) Now, while labels are very rude sometimes, in the context of Wikipedia we need a good collection NPOV terms (preferably not too long-winded) to represent a person who constitutes a "member" or a "Gentile" in each philosophy. In regards to Jewish perceptions of what constitutes a Gentile, I read up on the issue, including the Law of Moses, which seems to be the most fundamental law in this case (correct me if I'm wrong). So I thought, maybe "non-Mosaic" is a good term for this. On the other hand, Christians and Muslims (and LDS) believe that the Law of Moses is (or was) the law, but believe it has been amended, whether by Jesus of Nazareth as believed to be the Messiah or by Muhammad as believed to be the Prophet of God. Once originally a sect of Judaism, the followers of Jesus adopted new beliefs and abandoned some older rites in favor of new ones, making them no longer considered to be Jews (again, correct me if I'm wrong). And in most cases, these religions are in agreement and call themselves "Gentiles". But a few (such as the mentioned LDS religion) hold on to many traditions common in both Judaism (Priests of the Rite of Aaron, Holy Temples believed to be after the manner of Solomon's Temple, the 12 Tribes, etc.) and in Christianity (such as Jesus, the Christian Atonement, etc.), and believe in a sacred role of Israel, and call themselves "Israelite", and recognize Jews, Samaritans, etc. also as Israelites, but call everyone else "Gentile". But since "Gentile" has already been suggested as NPOV and ambiguous (not to mention politically-charged in some cases), then what could be a NPOV term everyone adopt that defines a person who does not believe themselves to be part of Israel? "Non-Israelite" may not work, because it would seem to imply POV that LDS are attested as part of Israel in a perceived fact that no one would dispute, which is not (and will probably never) be the case. At times like these, I wish I knew more Greek and Latin prefixes so I can coin new technical terms for complex+wide distinctions such as these. :) The key here being, while everyone can dispute who is a Gentile and who is not, there has to be NPOV terms that imply who BELIEVE they are not Gentiles. We're not all "in the clear" here anyway; a lot of skeptical thinkers question whether there was originally an "Israel" to begin with, or whether they were merely an invention of myth and legend (obviously I don't believe it's a myth though). Thank you for your attention, and I apologize for my complete failure in structuring coherent paragraphs, and I hope you have thoughts on this matter. ^_^;; - Gilgamesh 05:16, 17 June 2004 (UTC)

Who is a Jew?

The definition of a Jew, within Rabbinism,Karaism,Samaritanism,and Falasha are all the same, the difference being controversies of paternal vs. maternal lineage. Actually, the Shomerim (Samaritans) don't consider themselves to be Jews, but Israelites, as they believe they are from the tribe of Joseph. As to Mormons, how many do you know who go around claiming to be "Jews"? They all claim to be Ephraimites (also a trend within "Hebrew Christianity"). All of the LDS people I know use the term "Jews" to refer to people who practice Judaism, and the rest of the world generally does also.

Well, it's true that the majority claim to be Ephrathites or Manassites. But every single tribe is believed to varying degree, either by descent or adoption (as with people like the Biblical Ruth). And yes, Mormons usually use "Jew" to apply to "Judaism", but there are Mormons who believe they are part of Judah, without necessarily even recorded Jewish ancestors (such as my brother's wife, who is believed to be Tribe of Judah). However, there are "Jewish Mormons", but there are not many of them. The only remotely famous Jewish Mormons I know of are Daniel Rona and Marvin Goldstein, and they both Ashkenazic. And as for "Hebrew Christianity", I've honestly never heard that term before. :P LDS don't regard Israel as strictly ethnic, but more like a sacred role of faithful gathering and family sealing and stuff... - Gilgamesh 01:51, 18 June 2004 (UTC)

In the kindest of ways, your priests and temples are entirely different than Jewish priests and temples. Any male can become a priest in Mormonism, whereas it is determined by lineage according to the Torah. As far as I know, none of the ceremonies and requirments outlined in the Torah are carried out in your temples.

You're right, and yes you were very kind. ^_^ Actually, the LDS believe the Aaronic Priesthood to be a special divine restoration to faithful non-Levites to fill the niche until the Levitical Cohanim can make a sacrifice in the Temple again (or something like that, I'd have to read up again). And many traditions are different because LDS believe (whether anyone else agrees or not; this isn't an argument and I'm not trying to convince anyone on theological points ^^) that doctrine is amended throughout time through divine prophesy, as it was with Abraham, and Moses, and Isaiah and the other OT Prophets, and with the belief in Jesus Christ as the Messiah and with the belief Joseph Smith Jr. as a Prophet, Seer and Revelator. - Gilgamesh 01:51, 18 June 2004 (UTC)

However, I do see your point about the word "gentile". Perhaps the different definitions could be listed on a page somewhere?--Yoshiah ap 21:55, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, there's already a fairly simple explanation at Gentile, but only the esoteric religious definitions. We still seem to be short of NPOV alternatives that-don't-require-lots-of-words-and-dashes. :P - Gilgamesh 01:51, 18 June 2004 (UTC)

Would non-God-fearing be suitably applicable to everyone, in the search for a safe Gentile term? Swordedge 18:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Lost tribes

I removed the following two paragraphs:

Most people believe that the southern Kingdom was only populated by the tribe of Judah and Benjamin, but this is not exactly so. Prior to King Saul, Israel was divided by its tribes with certain leaders from various tribes becoming judges of the tribe or surrounding tribes to fight the enemies of Israel. This is reflected in the book of Judges. Saul was selected as king, but after he acted rashly, the Bible says that God rejected his kingship and sought one who would replace him. David was then selected to be king, and his descendants were to rule over the House of Israel. For two generations, Israel had been united first under David for 33 years and remained so under Solomon for 40 more years.

Eventually, Israel suffered a civil war in 922 BC which split it into two parts. Jeroboam, Solomon's assistant, rejected the leadership of Solomon's son Rehoboam who wanted to tax the people heavily and this led to the revolt of the northern tribes and to the establishment of the (northern) Kingdom of Israel. It consisted of nine landed tribes: Zebulun, Issachar, Asher, Naphtali, Dan, Manasseh, Ephraim, Reuben and Gad, and some of Levi (which had no land allocation). This makes ten tribes, which later became known in the Jewish mind as "the lost ten tribes". However, Manasseh and Ephraim technically count as just one full tribe, so there were really eight full landed tribes, and part of one tribe without land. Samaria was its capital.

and the following text

However, what is less commonly known is that many people from the conquered northern kingdom fled south to safety in Judea, the Southern Kingdom, which maintained its independence.

For the following reasons:

• This is a retelling of the stories of the Bible as if they were history (thinly guised with sporadic "according to..."). I find the reference to the precise year 922 BC particularly POV.
• This is against the standard counting of the tribes of Israel which does not include Simeon and considers Ephraim and Menasseh to be separate tribes (as the author openly admits).
• The allegation that some of the lost tribes fled etc. requires some proof.
• This feels strongly like wishful thinking (oh no, they were not really lost were they?)

For historical reasons let me note that these ideas were incorporated into the text by RK around May 2002. I replaced it with a more NPOV text. Gadykozma 13:59, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Will the real Children of Israel please stand up?

I suggest we pick one page and make it the location of these silly discussions, and make other pages point to it. I had in mind Children of Israel (currenty this is what most of this page is about), but I don't have any particular preference. What do people say? Should I put the question in Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible? Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism? Both? Gadykozma 00:42, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Levite subtribes

The tribe of Levi (Levites) is divided into 3 subtribes: Gershon (Gershonites), Kohath (Kohathites), and Merari (Merarites).Gringo300 22:09, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

At the time of Moses they were. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:20, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

if levi himself was considered a levite, he obviously wasn't either a gershonite, kohathite, and merarite.

thus, the gershonites, kohathites, and mererites wouldn't have been the sum total of the levites, even if gershon himself was a gershonite, kohath himself was a kohathite, and merari himself was a merarite. levi would apparently have been in a unique position.

jacob/israel and joseph would have been in similar unique positions.

Gringo300 10:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

repetition of info

If you compare the first paragraph after the table of tribes with the 3rd section (Jews as Israelites), the same information is presented almost verbatim (in other words, redundancy); can these be merged into one section? User:FeanorStar7

This is now the third paragraph in "Israelites In Biblical Times" AFTER the long table. The same text is duplicated in the "Jews as Israelites" section only a little bit later. I have no idea where to perform the operation. All MY edits get reversed...Aspie 05:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

wondering

would jacob/israel, his 12 sons, the 2 sons of his son joseph, and the 3 sons of his son levi have been considered israelites?

obviously, jacob/israel wouldn't have been a member of any of the tribes and subtribes, joseph wouldn't have been either a manassehite or an ephraimite, and levi wouldn't have been either a gershonite, kohathite, or a merarite.

Gringo300 10:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

"Messianic Judaism"

Cut from article:

[begin cut material]

• • • It is important to note that messianic Judaism is not seen as any form of Judaism as these people have accepted Jesus Christ into their hearts, making it an oxymoron to believe they are true Jews.

[end cut material]

Obviously, talk page stuff rather than article stuff. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:44, 20 December 2005 (UT

The Twelve Tribes should be mentioned

The Twelve Tribes should be mentioned to avoid confusion. Izak may think it is petty, though I disagree, but it is certainly not nonsense as s/he wrote in the edit summary. There are people who do not care about Israelite but care a lot about the The Twelve Tribes. Andries 19:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Andries: Firstly, someone has already added a link to the The Church in Island Pond at the head of this article. Secondly, to do as you do here by creating a weird "disambig" that conjoins [[The Church in Island Pond|The Twelve Tribes]] is as misleading as creating a "disambig" that would say [[The Church in Island Pond|State of Israel]] ...which would look totally ridiculous and devious. Thirdly, "The Twelve Tribes" are mentioned many times in the Hebrew Bible, they were the TWELVE sons of Jacob who was also known as "Israel", which is why "The Twelve Tribes" redirects to "Israelite". This has been true for well over three thousand years as anyone familiar with the Bible knows. Finally, why on Earth should the world at large assume to follow the latter-day very-modern The Church in Island Pond church group that has now decided to "take over" an ancient and still valid label and name that does not belong to them? Not even the Roman Catholic Church aspires to be officially called the "New Israel" on the Internet even though it may want to believe, and teach, that it is. Please avoid crass Supersessionism. Thank you. IZAK 06:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It might be offensive for them to use this name, but they do. Lots of groups name themselves things offensive to others. However I moved them to The Twelve Tribes (New religious movement) which is not something you'd type in if you were looking for Israelites as as Israelites are in no way an NRM. If you are still offended that I'd call the article by the name they use I'm not sure what to say. Although I can remove any reference to them here if there is one here.--T. Anthony 12:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I will create an article The Twelve Tribes (disambiguation) and replace the mentioning at the head of the article that I inserted. I think that will make all parties involved happy. Andries 16:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC) 16:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)n (amended)

External links

At a quick browse, all of the external links here are a bit… fringy. And POV. Given that, none of them seem sufficiently described to be of much use. Nor are they organized in any useful ways. As it is, they are little more than an assembly of links. Perhaps they all merit a link from this article, or perhaps none do, it's hard to tell. Would someone be interested in taking this on? - Jmabel | Talk 03:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I moved some of them to Ten Lost Tribes. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 04:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

12 tribes, How do you know your ancestrial tribe?

I hope the learned people here can help me with this issue. My family belongs to the Iraelites tribe. When I look up the 12 tribes, I do not see Israelites as one of them. I do not understand what tribe my family could have been from. My last name is from the phrase"fruit of the vine". Ha Guffin.

Where there Israelites that didn't belong to one of the 12 tribes? I thank anyone for assistance. Dan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neffag (talk • contribs) 2 April 2006.

To answer part of what you've asked, as far as I know, no Jews except the kohanim have any even vaguely reliable sense of their ancestry back to biblical times, and I'm sure that there are plenty of mis-identified kohanim. - Jmabel | Talk 20:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

"Cohen" Gene

Can someone explain the "Cohen" gene to me? How was it discovered and how is it used to tell who is and isn't descended from the Ancient Israelites? IMHO, mixing religion and genetics is like mixing oil and water...they don't go well together. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Koola (talk • contribs) 17 April 2006.

Religion and genetics: generally agree, but this is about ethnicity, and only coincides with religion. Since Judaism doesn't particularly encourage conversion, disrourages intermarriage, and encourages those with Jewish mothers to remain Jews, populations of Jews have tended to remain relatively distinct genetically even when living geographically mixed in with others.

I'm not sure on the "Cohen" gene, and someone else can probably follow up better, but it makes sense that a tradition of priestly descent in the male line would be somewhat genetically trackable. - Jmabel | Talk 06:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

My .02. You seem to ask 2 questions. One is about the Cohen gene, the other is about genetic testing to identify descendants of Israelites. These are actually two different (but overlapping questions). Jews consider themselves descendents of the Israelites. Within Jews, we also keep track of our Tribal lineage. (In Traditional Judaism, Jewish-ness is Matrilinial; tribe is Patrilineal.) Of the 12 Tribes, the Levites worked in the Temple instead of having a portion of land. The Levites were further split into 2 groups, those who track their male line lineage to Aaron, Moses' brother, the Kohen's or Cohen's; and everyone else. Teh Kohen's worked in the Temple as priests. The others were the Levites, assisstants and musicians in the Temple. If Kohen's really do share a direct male line back to the same man, Aaron, one might wonder if they share a gene on their male chromosome. And it looks like the majority do. The majority of those who believe themselves to be Kohenim (plural of Kohen) do show a shared male genetic marker that suggests a single common male ancestor dated from about the time we think Aaron lived. The issue of genetics and Jews in general is another issue and can be found, I believe, in the Israel and Judaism pages. The short answer is that genetic testing tends to confirm that Jews from around the world (with the exception of Eithiopian Jews) tend to show very little genetic relation to their local Non-Jewish neighbors but ARE strongly related to other Jews and also Arabs (who trace their linage to Ishmael, Abraham's other son). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.68.130.101 (talk • contribs) 21 August 2006.

continued below

Roth quotation

Cut from article by User:Lance6968:

Jewish religious texts from the first century BCE to the present time consistently refer to Jews as "Yisrael", or "Israelites", rather than "Yehudi", the more specific Hebrew term for "Jew". This usage was adopted in secular Jewish writing of Hungary in the 1920s and 1930s; Stephen Roth writes, "The word 'Israelite' denoted only religious affiliation and was free from the ethnic or national connotation attached to the word 'Jew', which Jews in Hungary therefore regarded almost as a derogatory term."

Given the cut, I am removing Roth from the references, since this is the only reason he was there.

• Roth, Stephen, "Memories of Hungary", in Riff, Michael, The Face of Survival: Jewish Life in Eastern Europe Past and Present. Valentine Mitchell, London, 1992, 125-141, ISBN 0-85303-220-3.

For what it's worth, I have no view either way on the first sentence of the cut paragraph, but I think the Roth quotation, which I added, belongs. It was removed with the summary "A single writer in respect of 20th Century Hungary is heavily POV; its mere presense is evidently to argue an opinion; and is not relevant to 'Israelites.'" I don't know why User:Lance6968 thinks I put it there to argue an opinion: by ancestry, I'm a secular Jew of Lithuanian Jewish descent, not a Hungarian Jew, and I call myself a "Jew", certainly not an "Israelite". I put it there precisely to record an aspect of the history and connotation of the term Israelite.

Also, for what it's worth, it is hard for me to imagine who would be more citable than Roth, the man after whom the Stephen Roth Institute was named.

As for citing only a single author: I'm the only person here who has bothered to cite anything in this article! If you are applying the standard of multiple independent citation, then there is not a word of this article that should remain. - Jmabel | Talk 23:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course, all claims need to be sourced. As to this particular one, it reminded me the Russian Jewish history. In general, I don't think Jewish life in 20th c. E.Europe is very relevant here. (My POV) ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The rise and development of the Haskalah, or Jewish enlightenment, was different in Western Europe and Eastern Europe. In the West, an attempt was made to strip Judaism of its national character, and label it merely a "religion." The motivation behind this was to defend recently acquired political rights; and in particular, the new idea that Jews were citizens of the European "states" in which they resided. In retrospect the giving of political rights to Western European Jewish residents was contingent on their ceasing to be Jews in the traditional sense; or in any sense at all. The “reform” movement, started in Germany, was an attempt to give religious imprimatur to these developments; including rejecting the re-establishment of the Holy Temple in Jerusalem; and thus naming synagogues “temples.” In the East, the Haskalah led to secular Jewish nationalism (e.g., Chaim Zhitlowsky's ideas); of which Zionism was just the most successful and consequential. However, even in the East, there were assimilationists who wanted to dissociate themselves from their heritage to gain approval of gentiles. The “Jew” that is the subject of antisemitism is an artificial construct of the Roman Catholic church; and has no connection to flesh and blood Jews. It was an attempt by Jews to distance themselves from the chimera of Christian theology that later morphed into racism, (invented to attack newly acquired Jewish political rights in Europe), that Jews were attempting, perhaps understandably, to distance themselves from. Even in America, there were references to “Hebrews” instead of “Jews”; in an effort to seek approbation from gentiles; and distance Jews from Christian mythology. (It should be noted that America’s, (i.e., the United States, but not Canada’s), offer of citizenship was genuine and not a quid pro quo.) So your reference to 20th century Hungary was out of context, unexplained, un-encyclopedic; and therefore, inappropriate. That is why I deleted it.--Lance ^talk 04:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Telling the reader what to do

Why does part of the lead tell the reader to "Please read this entry in conjunction with…"? This seems to me to go very much against Wikipedia style. We don't normally tell the reader what to do. - Jmabel | Talk 01:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Five days, no response, I have removed it. - 02:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleting this sentence: "In 722 BCE the Assyrians under Shalmaneser V and then under Sargon II conquered the northern Kingdom of Israel, destroyed its capital Samaria and sent the Israelites into exile and captivity in Khorason, now part of eastern Iran and western Afghanistan." Specifically, I'm deleting the reference to Khorasan - Assyria never controlled that particular part of the world. Or if someone thinks they did, I'd like to see where they discovered this fact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PiCo (talk • contribs) 24 November 2006.

very buggy sentence

This passage was either edited and corrupted in the process, or else the original writer went off the rails  : The reasoning being that if the ancient Egyptians were a dark skinned race and believing that the Moses and Joseph were both mistaken for Egyptians therefore the Israelites must have been black as well. I do not understand the logical link with the subsequent however, so I prefer not to change the the into a more logical if. --Anne97432 (talk) 08:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Shevet?

Doesn't shevet come from the same root as yeshiva? In shevet achim and shvitat shevet, the word seems to convey "a sitting" (though an argument could also be made for "a support"). NJGW (talk) 15:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Text cleaned up

I made some major edits to the text in order to clarify it. A lot more cleanup is needed. For example, most of the historical criticism portion should be parceled out into the corresponding Tribe articles. I also added a very short paragraph explaining the difference between Israelite and Jew; it needs to be expanded. Emmanuelm (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the paragraph on Israelite vs Jew to better reflect the reality of the usage of these terms in English as opposed to how you seem to personally want people to use them.

The article currently is stuffed with minority historical revisionist views of the likes of Finkelstein and early 20th century pseudo-scholars, these should indeed be parceled out to corresponding articles and not given undue weight. The mainstream history should be expanded and the revisionist innuendo title "Biblical narrative" dropped. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice job, thanks. You deleted the sentence explaining the alternative methods of counting the tribes (In parts of the Bible, Ephraim and Manasseh are treated as together constituting the House of Joseph. Hence, either Ephraim and Manasseh were counted as one tribe, or Levi wasn't counted, so that together the tribes were twelve ). I think it belongs in the article. As for the lengthy historical discussion, I think it can be cut& pasted to the article for each tribe. Don't let me do it! Emmanuelm (talk) 13:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The critical view section still needs a drastic clean up, it is full of minority opinions and distorted interpretations stated as if they are universally agreed fact. Perhaps it should all be moved to an article dealing specifically with the school of thought these opinions represent with only a summary paragraph in the article and a link to main article. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 09:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Ghost, this would be a WP:FORK. Wrong answer. On the other hand, the critiques about specific tribes could be moved to the corresponding article. Emmanuelm (talk) 18:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

No it would be an article on critical schools of thought regarding Israelite origins that were popular in the early 20th century, not another article on Israelites that promotes a different view. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 07:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Flagged religious, not historical

User:Cush flagged the article as non-historical. He is partially right but, frankly, I do not like people telling other what to do. Cush, be bold, edit the article yourself. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Being bold on certain issues gets one bashed. Cush (talk) 14:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Cush, I created a new section about archeology, almost entirely composed of text from two other Wikipedia articles. Since this new section brings some balance and objectivity to the article (as did my previous section on genetics, which you ignored when you flagged the article), I removed your flag. I do not mind being bashed, but please do so constructively, following the various guidelines. For a start, this section is in need of sources. Emmanuelm (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I see what you have done. :-) However, the problem is inherent in the issue. There is one occurrence of the name "Israel" on one Egyptian stela. But there is no record of some offspring of Jacob/Israel in Egypt and no confirmation of the entire Sojourn/Exodus/Conquest/Judges/Monarchy story of the bible, and also no confirmation of the biblical events surrounding Abraham and his journey from Haran into Egypt (it would have been nice having the bible giving the names of the involved Egyptian kings). The archeological and independent historical record there is exactly zero (which you call just a 'discrepancy'), and there are major problems with chronology also. As it stands right now, the biblical account of the Israelites is pure fiction. Even more so when it comes to the beliefs allegedly held by the ancient entity named Israel. After all, the biblical history of Israel comes with a deity attached to it, which makes the evaluation of the historicity even worse. There are so many articles on Wikipedia that render Judeochristian doctrine as fact (in-universe) that it seems insufficient to just add the sentence "according to the bible" to them. Cush (talk) 19:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

If you think its fiction you clearly don't know what fiction means. The majority view is that the Biblical account is history, albeit told through the eyes of people who are superstitious by modern standards. The so called "Biblical minimalist" view that the Bible is fiction is at best described as maverick or fringe (= polite term for crank). Wikipedia should reflect majority view not push minority views as fact. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm reverting back to before the insertion of information discussing minimalism etc which is already covered in The Bible and history and Biblical Minimalism and others. We don't need to polute every Jewish history related artice with long rejected views of early 20th century modernist pseudo-scholars even when given a fresh coat of paint by a handful of anti-Israel humanities "scholars" from Copenhagen. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 00:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW what archaelogical evidence do you have of the 9/11 attack? Zero (video doesn't count as it can be faked) so should we flag that as non-historical too? ;) Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 00:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That is not even worth commenting. There are many sources for the occurrence of the 9/11 attacks, but there is still but one source for the existence of ancient Israelites as the Tanakh/Bible describes them: the Tanakh/Bible itself. It is somewhat strange that in 2500 years no non-biblical source has emerged to confirm any of the claims made by the Bible and its authors. There is no confirmation of the Israelites' existence and none of their alleged beliefs and none that the biblical god had been worshiped in ancient times at all. And I do not really care what the majority view is as long as that majority cannot come up with any real evidence. The factuality of something does not depend on the number of people believing in it. Cush (talk) 12:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

There is continous evidence of Israelites from the 13th century BCE onwards, so I am afraid you are very mistaken. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Most of human history lacks archaeological evidence and it is not logical to expect archaeological evidence to exist for every detail of history. To treat Israelite history differently to the history of say ancient Greece, China, Britain, pre-colonial southern Africa (all oral tradition) or Denmark, simply because it is related to religions which you don't happen to follow, is a form of unjustified bias and intellectual dishonesty. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 14:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no such continuous evidence. All there is is the biblical account. Otherwise, show me. Cush (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Read On the Reliability of the Old Testament by Kitchen for a start, as well as The Archaeology of Ancient Israel by Ben-Tor. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I see that you are a fan of Rohl. Rohl's views are also fringe he promotes the claim that there is "no evidence of Israelites" to advance the idea that a radical redating of history is needed that suddenly makes evidence appear. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 15:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You have no clue what Rohl claims or not, as he actually adheres to the biblical account. But that is of no relevance here, because the issue at hand is the clutter-up of articles with biblical doctrine instead of solid facts. The facts are that there is no other source than the bible that informs us about the alleged history of the ancient Israelites. Neither about who they really were nor what their setup of state was nor what their customs were. All we have is later writings of people who had an ideological (and political?) interest in historizing their own current beliefs. The assumed history of the Israelites spans at least 600 years and all there is is the word "Israel" for a geographic location on one Egyptian stele?? The connection between archeological findings and the biblical account has not been made yet, and wiki articles should reflect that. Cush (talk) 11:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

And my point is that the same can be said about the history of any nation known from written or oral accounts as opposed to being merely guessed at from scraps of archaeological evidence. Why treat Israelite history differently to British or French history? Most history like Israelite history is unconfirmed by archaeology and indeed archaeology is completely incapable of either confirming or contradicting most history - provide me with a piece of archaeological evidence say that a meeting was held to decide whether Harold of England should be the next king? Provide me with evidance that Harold of England actually existed - no one has found his grave. Applying ridiculuous standards to Israelite history which no one applies to any other history is irrational and intellectually dishonest. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 13:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I tell you why: because the only source for the Israelites is a religious work, the purpose of which is different from other sources describing historical events. The Tanakh was written to boast an ancient history, so you may understand why I would require independent confirmation for the claims made there. That's why the "Flagged religious, not historical" is justified. Cush (talk) 13:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Virtually all ancient accounts make reference to gods etc, take Egyptian monument texta and Roman accounts for example, modern academic standards for presenting history with separation of religious or other interpretations from objective events didn't exist before the 20th century - duh. If you think the OT was written to boast about anything you probably haven't sat down and read it! One of its key features is that it does not glorify or glamorize the past but shows the good the bad and the ugly. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Cush & Ghost, you bias is showing. I like how the chapter has been shortened by Ghost. As it stands, it is enough to prevent further flagging, which was my aim.

As for the core of the debate, I know nothing about it, but a search for "archeology israelites" in Amazon returned several recent books on the subject. Without having read them, it seems to me that Cush's assertion that independent historical record there is exactly zero is exagerated. Certainly, there are experts that are willing to debate this, as stated in the synopsis to this book. Emmanuelm (talk) 12:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, if there were real archeological confirmation of the biblical tale, why is it not already referenced in the article? Where are the artifacts from the Exodus, Conquest, Judges-era, Kingdom-era, bearing the names of Israel, Yhvh, Solomon, or any other that would establish a real connection between the core of the biblical narrative and actual history? Of all the alleged splendor of the Solomonic court nothing has remained in stone, wood or papyrus? Where are the Phoenician trade records refering to Israel or its inhabitants? Where are the Egyptian records? After 200 years of thoroughly reviewing all material dug up in Palestine/Israel and surrounding countries all that "biblical archeologists" (which is already a funny term) have to show is vague, dubious, circumstantial at best. The complete lack of substantial evidence makes it hard to believe in the biblical narrative. So wikipedia has to decide whether this article is supposed to be one about a religious tale, or one about reality. And my position is that as it stands right now the entire thing is a wishful historization of later Jewish (and subsequently Christian) beliefs. We just don't know who the real "Israelites", "Proto-Israelites", or whatever one may call them, were, what they did and especially what they believed in, and that is why the article is rather speculation than encyclopedic knowledge. Cush (talk) 07:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Cush, I removed your second flagging of the article. This article already had a section on Genetics (did you read it?). I added last week a section on Archeology and removed your flag. I & Ghost did our part to please you, now do you part and leave this article alone. Emmanuelm (talk) 12:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Save your threats. You have provided nothing that confirms the biblical account and makes it factual history. Genetics don't tell anything about the existence of Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Deborah & Barak, Gideon, David, Solomon, etc, do they? Or about actual worship practices in the respective timeframe, or the deities worshiped, do they? This article remains a religious statement, and it far from reflecting a neutral view on the archeology and history of the southern Levant in the respective period. The Bible is POV. Cush (talk) 13:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Cush, let me rephrase my comment. Ghost & I added a section on Archeology to satisfy the WP:NPOV guidelines, not you. As clearly stated, there are several main articles where these issues are debated.

As for genetics, the answer is Yes, the discovery of the Cohen modal haplotype is undeniable proof of a common paternal descent of 85% of currently living Cohens, confirming their historical claim of descent from Aaron. Believe me, a PhD in Genetics and an avid reader of archeology magazines, this proof is much more solid than any archeological find. Of course, it is only a partial confirmation of written history, but it is rock solid. Emmanuelm (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The existence of a real person named Aaron is not even proven, so how can one claim descent from that person? There were no large numbers of Hebrews in Egypt at the time that the Exodus is currently placed at (18th/19th Dyn), there is no trace of an exodus, no trace of a conquest of Canaan, no trace of the Judges or Monarchy periods. That is what "Israelites" means: a group of people that did and were what the Bible claims. But without evidence that is just fake religious historization of later beliefs, but not history. And if this article is supposed to be about a real group of ancient people it better have reliable evidence, not religiously motivated speculations (=POV). Cush (talk) 09:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Cush, genetics provides an objective proof of common paternal descent. Of course, it does not provide the name of that ancestor; the Bible does. If you are not satisfied with this proof of the existence of Aaron, you will never be satisfied with anything.

This being said, it is true that the body of non-Biblical evidences of the Israelites is thin. But why do you insist on excluding the Bible? What is the non-Biblical evidence of the existence of Jesus? Emmanuelm (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

How does common paternal descent confirm the Biblical narrative about the Exodus, Conquest, Judges and Monarchy periods?? I just do not get what the point of this genetic stuff is. "Israelites" is a term that derives entirely from the Biblical story of a number of Hebrews (apparently orignating somewhere in Upper Mesopotamia) in Egypt and their subsequent fate in the Sinai and Canaan. It spans a period of at least 600 years, and it renders a pretty specific "history" for the Israelites. Yet all details of the story are unconfirmed by excavations or textual sources from the respective time frame. The Biblical texts were all written many centuries after the events they describe and they were written by people who were religiously interpreting and amending history according to their own beliefs. Excuse me, but that is not a reliable source when it comes to history. It may be used for describing the Biblical story as mythology, but not as an accurate historical account where it is the only source. Btw I find the different standard on Wikipedia to tag ancient religions as myth (cf. Set, Mars, Venus) while not applying the same to Yhvh-worshiping questionable. Cush (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Israelites are a group defined by genetic lineage. Genetics is central here. As I suspected, you will not be satisfied by scientific facts. I'm done arguing. Emmanuelm (talk) 01:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Israelites are NOT a group defined by genetic lineage. And you seem to confuse Israelites with later or even modern Jews. There are no genetic samples available from people who lived in the southern Levant between, say, 1400 and 700 BCE, so stop telling me about genetic evidence. And if you cannot show me buildings, artifacts, or texts from that period that confirm the biblical narrative, I have no reason nor intention to believe any of the claims made in the Bible. I want to see the remains of Solomon's temple and palace, or his correspondence on paper or clay with other rulers in the region. Anything. I want to see the destruction layers in the stratigraphy of the cities attacked by Joshua that fit the chronological framework. If that cannot be shown the Bible will remain myth and religion and has subsequently no place in Wikipedia articles about (f)actual history. Cush (talk) 11:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Cush, give it a rest, the claim that something is not historical unless confirmed by archaeology is crank and not how history works nor what archaeology is about. There have been zero archaeological investigations of 9/11 and zero published findings in archaeology journals on the World Trade Center, that doesn't make 9/11 non-historical. Archaeology can tell us nothing about events that either leave no physical evidence or for which evidence has been removed, destroyed, not found yet or inaccessible. Thats the way all history works, again why single out Israelite history and apply absurd standards to it that are not applied to any other history. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 12:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

For 9/11 confirmation exists. Non-religious confirmation, I should add. There are millions of artifacts and writings for the ancient history of Egypt, Mesopotamia, Anatolia, etc. But all we have for the "history" of the southern Levant is the writing of religiously motivated persons who projected their own beliefs into the past many centuries after the events they describe. That's not reliable. For every other historical claim independent confirmation is required to accept it as factual (to a degree), but why single out Israelite history and leave it to the religionists to create history as they wish it to be? Cush (talk) 15:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hebrews ≠ Israelites

I have just removed the sentence "The term Hebrews, derived from Eber, is used in the Bible and elsewhere as a synonym for Israelites, but also occasionally to designate the descendants of Abraham." from the lead. In the Bible there is a pretty clear distinction between Hebrews and Israelites. In the Bible Israelites are exclusively those Hebrews who are descended from Jacob and his sons, and who shared a common "history" in Egypt, while other Hebrews remained in Canaan. And after the Exodus the Bible only uses the term Hebrews when Israelites themselves refer to those who are not Israelites (e.g David's marauding Hebrew mercenaries) or when foreigners use the term and do not care to make the distinction. Israelites ⊊ Hebrews. Cush (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Cush, WP is about verifiability, not truth. The Encyclopedia Britannica starts its [1] entry with : any member of an ancient northern Semitic people that were the ancestors of the Jews. Historians use the term Hebrews to designate the descendants of the patriarchs of the Old Testament (i.e., Abraham, Isaac, and so on) from that period until their conquest of Canaan (Palestine) in the late 2nd millennium bc. Thenceforth these people are referred to as Israelites until their return from the Babylonian Exile in the late 6th century bc, from which time on they became known as Jews. The Jewish Encyclopedia starts its Hebrews entry with : In the Bible "Israel" is the national name of the people who are known racially as "Hebrews." I understand from this that they consider Hebrews and Israelites to be two names for the same people.

Again, I am not saying you are untrue. I'm saying you have to find sources, ideally secondary sources, to support your text. I did. Please expand the section with additional sources and add a sentence in the lead to replace the one you deleted. Emmanuelm (talk) 02:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Children of Israel deleted, redirected here

I salvage what I thought was useful from the Children of Israel article, dumped it in one section. Please help me clean up. Emmanuelm (talk) 02:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Cohen gene -- revisited

(cut& pasted from above) How is it possible to attach a biblical figure to the possible "common descent"? All that the "Cohen gene" seems to confirm is a geographical origin, but there is certainly no hard evidence to link any culture, faith or even single named persons to this blurry lineage. Israelites are virtually absent in the historical and archeological record of the period in question, how can someone seriously pinpoint one Aaron without reverting to religious doctrine? Cush (talk) 21:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Very true, Cush. All the genetic data is saying is that 65% of Cohens share a common paternal ancestor. Everything else is extrapolation. Do not, however, underestimate the importance of this scientific observation. It proved that Ashkenazi Cohens were as "kosher" as Sephardi Cohens. It proved that the Lemba were right. But, most importantly, it showed that they carry a rather rare variant of the Y-chromosome that allowed for all these conclusions. This scenario is improbable enough to force the most atheist geneticist to think. Emmanuelm (talk) 02:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

How is the scenario improbable? It only says that the caste system in classical Jewish society works (i.e. since the Babylonian episode). However, there is still no connection to the biblical characters in Exodus and the Israelites as such. Cush (talk) 06:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Cush, I was talking about genetics, not history. Given the very low rate of Y-chromosome mutation, it is very improbable that a given patriarchal group would enjoy its own gene variant. For example, I've never heard of a royal family claiming its own "blue" gene. The narrow distribution of the Cohen Modal Haplotype is unique so far. And, again, no, there is no gene spelled A-a-r-o-n. Emmanuelm (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Then what does this have to do with the Israelites? What does it have to do with the Jewish (and subsequently Christian) claim that Israelites had existed as the Tanakh narrates? And is this an article about a religious issue or about real history? Cush (talk) 17:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Cush, I see you are very persistent. This article is about the patriarchal clan called the Israelites. It covers all aspects, Biblical or not. You may think that non-biblical evidences are non-existent but others will disagree. You may think that genetics provides a very narrow type of evidence, but it is no less informative than pottery chards.

Cush, I note that the Jesus and Muhammad article are not flagged, yet fail to provide non-religious evidences for the existence of these guys. Why do you care so much about proving the existence of Israelites? Emmanuelm (talk) 20:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this article is about the patriarchal clan called the Israelites. That is, what later Jews have claimed past existence for. But that is all. The name Israel appears a few times on ancient artifacts or in texts, but there is NOTHING that confirms the biblical tale that comes with that name. And your genetic evidence is irreleavnt to the veracity of the biblical tale as well. It simply does not prove an Exodus, a Conquest, a Judges or Monarchy period, and definitely not the existence of single biblical characters such as Aaron. It just narrows the region, but not the ancient ethnic group. And if ever a people named Israel existed it is definitely nothing like the Israelites of the Bible. Everything that has ever been written about the history of ancient Israel, in connection with surrounding nations, fails to add up to a coherent historical panaomrama, and you know that pretty well. Egyptians, Mesopotamians, Anatolians, and even other Levantine states were excellent record keepers and yet NO sources match what the Tanakh renders as history. Bits and pieces may fit somehow, but there is no overall picture. The range of theorized Exodus dates spans almost 400 years (from the Hyksos to poor Ramesses2, in other words unknown)!!! And why? Because none of the dates really fits into Egyptian and Levantine chronology without negating subsequent biblical tales. And because no Hebrews were present in Egypt in any of the dates proposed for the Exodus in the currently held chronology (great numbers of Aamu were only present in Egypt prior to the Hyksos). The only logical conclusion out of this mess is that it is all just religious wishful historization by later adherents of Judaism (and then Christianity and Islam). Or the currently held chronology is fundametally flawed (being based on the Shoshenq-Shishak identification). Cush (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Cush, I'm curious if you have a source for this line of reasoning, or if it is just wp:SYN. I also would like to know your thoughts about Jesus and Muhammad. NJGW (talk) 03:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

From the latest issue of Biblical Archeology Review (Sept/Oct 2008)p.18 : How many kings of ancient Israel and Judah have been securely identified in sources outside the Bible? Answer : 16. They mention royal cuneiform inscriptions of the neo-Assyrian empire, a Babylonian ration text, the Moabite stone of Mesha and the Aramean Tel Dan stela.

Cush, we are not knowledgeable enough (nor interested enough?) to follow your argument. Like most people, we believe that the Hebrew Bible is, at least in part, a reliable historical source. Please argue your point at Archaeology of Israel, Biblical archaeology or The Bible and history. Emmanuelm (talk) 20:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with Cush entirely, but I wouldn't take BAR at face value either as you probably know that not every archaeologist in the subject takes BAR's line. I'm puzzled by this fron the article The discovery of the Cohen Modal Haplotype gives more weight to the Biblical and priestly claim of descent from a unique ancestor, namely Aaron, and also provides an objective test of claims of Israelite origin, as for example with the Lemba people. I presume it is a paraphrase of some scientific article and not WP:SYN? And I'm also puzzled by the emphasis on genetics and yet no archaeology. The article seems unbalanced. Doug Weller (talk) 20:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Doug, I agree, the archeology vs genetics is unbalanced. I shortened the genetics section and added more sources to support my text. For the archeology, I am still waiting for someone to be bold and write instead of flagging. Will it be you? Emmanuelm (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Waiting. Emmanuelm (talk) 03:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you expect anyone to pull archeology to support the biblical claims out of a hat? As far as serious archeology goes, biblical Israelites did not exist. Of course, one could put a list here with digs that have disproved the biblical tales about the history of Canaan and its alleged invaders (e.g. Kenyon, Bietak, Petrie, Finkelstein). Cush (talk) 05:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

From you we're waiting on sources claiming what you keep saying. NJGW (talk) 05:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Meieimatai's edits

Man, Cush is going to have a field day with this... Meieimatai, maybe you should come discuss why you think all this is necessary, especially in the lead. NJGW (talk) 03:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there a problem?--Meieimatai 04:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meieimatai (talk • contribs)

Well, seeing as there are several sections immediately preceding this one which discuss ways to make this article more archeologically accurate, it seems a bit strange that you are making such a huge push to fill in details which are only referencable from the Book. You should probably read through what's been going on here over the past couple of months and see how you can work your changes in with the issues raised above. NJGW (talk) 05:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not making a push for anything. If something is stated, it may as well have a citation, even if from the Bible. Considering Cush says that archaeologically Israelites may as well have not existed, maybe we should delete the entire article and everything connected with the subject....that's Israel, Bible, etc.?--Meieimatai 05:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meieimatai (talk • contribs)

It's not so much what Cush says (he's got his POV agenda of course, which you seem to have a good idea of), but the points others are making about the wording. Also, your changes add up to more than a few citations... please don't be obtuse on that point. NJGW (talk) 05:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you see as a problem specifically? I have barely begun to read the article--Meieimatai? 05:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Better you should start with the talk page, and comment where you see fit. Then you can read the article (as you probably have a very good idea of what the article could/would/should say anyway). NJGW (talk) 05:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hm. That's quite the response. Care to elaborate? NJGW (talk) 05:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything controversial with that. The entire tribe of Levi is in many ways set apart, as are the Kohanim, but all are included in the term Israelites by the virtue of being part of the descendants of Israel, and after the union of tribes, members of the kingdom. Only for ritual identified in the text are they considered not Israelites, in fact to this day--Meieimatai? 06:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality and differing points of view

As it stands, the article reads as though the Bible is literally true. A lot of people hold this viewpoint, but most people who know anything about the subject realise that there are other significant views. The archaeology 'section' in particular is pathetic at the moment (and has a weird non-archaeological sentence about certain Jews in south Asia. Until the article properly reflects other significant points of view, it should be tagged as I've tagged it. Doug Weller (talk) 17:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, agreed, but I have only just started.

However, you own sense of neutrality is showing. Archaeology as we well know can not and never will disprove the Bible, nor does the Bible need substantiation from physical evidence, it being more than a few stories to some. The two are, so far as cultural histories are concerned, mutually exclusive. :This is supposed to be an article about Israelites, not archaeology of Ancient Israel. It seems to me that as yet the article doesn't even properly define Israelites--Meieimatai? 03:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The bible DOES need substantiation from physical evidence when it comes to claims about the alleged history of peoples described in the bible. Or are you distinguishing between fictional biblical Israelites and actual whoever-lived-in-Canaan-Israelites?? After all, there is evidence for the existence of something called Israel, just nothing to confirm what Jewish lore makes of it. If this article is only about fictional biblical Israelites then all dates for any events that would connect the biblical tale with actual history of the Levant MUST be removed from the article (dates for the Exodus, the Conquest, the Kingdoms). In fact, I somewhat agree with you, as I maintain the position the the bible is no more actual history than the Silmarillion, at least not in the conventionally held chronology for ancient Egypt and the Levant. Cush (talk) 03:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Our policy on neutrality requires that articles represent "significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias". Please read WP:NPOV. The article clearly doesn't do this. Doug Weller (talk) 06:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Short of finding tablets etched in stone with "Israelites were here", archaeologists only make statements tantamount to best guess as to who was where.

Given that we are looking for a group of Semitic peoples in a Semitic region, who tended to borrow and who were borrowed from others widely, any "proof" is at best subjective. Whatever you or other academics may say, fictional or not, the Israelites did manage to document their history better than some, and preserve it and their religion, so they are pretty much reality.

If we are going to discuss NPOV, than dates used in the Jewish sources have as much right to be in the article as any other dates given they are a part of their cultural history, written and oral. Do you think that any written or oral cultural histories should be removed from Wikipedia until they are confirmed by academics? I think that is a fairly unscientific approach to take given if the records did not exist, archaeologists would not have the many ideas as to where to conduct research i.e. dig, or to correlate their findings in the first place. In many ways modern archaeology was born of the Bible, so lets not get overly judgemental on the merits of other people's culture, ok?

I'm happy to hear where you think the article is biased. Please be specific. If citations are required, I will try to obtain them for the university library as best as it allows me if I can't find something online. If you disagree on the wording, that too can be discussed.

I think in the first place the article lacked structure, defined parameters and a defined historical process all of which led to significant amounts of irrelevant content included. I think the best policy is to stick to evidential approach where statements can be substantiated with explicit rather than implied evidence.

I would prefer if the "spiritual" claims were kept to other more "spiritually" focused articles. I'm happy to collaborate and learn from others, but what I do not appreciate is when as soon as someone starts improving an article when all of a sudden critics jump out of nowhere that had not done any substantial contributing, but are all to eager to put down the contributing editor. This is not a "critics anonymous". If someone has ideas for improving an article, voice them and provide cited references, or go and contribute to articles that correspond to abilities. Just because anyone can edit, doesn't mean anyone should

I'm not going to work in a sandbox on this, but edit to content as I go, so it will be a work in progress--Meieimatai? 10:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

This article is biased in so far that it treats the biblical account as accurate history, just because it is old and because it is the foundation of religion and weltanschauung. But the fact of the matter is that there is no evidence that the bible is any different than, say, the Book of Mormon, which creates an alternative history. Any article about ancient history that starts with "according to the bible" is worthless, as the "source" might as well be entirely fictional, and most likely is. Religious sources are dangerous, because their purpose never was to render accurate descriptions of what happened, but of what the faithful (often fanatically) would like to have happened. That is far far away from a neutral presentation, and if you just copy what the Tanakh says, there will never be a neutral article on the matter. Oh, and claiming oral traditions as source is just a convenient way to say that faith overrides facts. Cush (talk) 15:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I am addressing this article as having a textual history, that is, the narrative, whatever the source, seeks to portray events that span a historical period as a process, regardless of availability of external proof. Given that academic proof did not become a requirement until the Industrial Revolution, you can hardly fault them for being short-sighted in omitting it for your convenience.

But this is not "accurate history"...if there ever was such a thing. This article is named "Israelites". As such they are mostly documented in the Tanach. I am trying to put order to the treatment of this documentation in the article so the subject can be expanded and treated in an encyclopaedic way.

What do you have a problem with, my methodology? My references (I have yet to start citing sources though)?

Religious sources are not "dangerous" since I have never seen one used as a weapon. They are just sources. The degree to which the Bible is verifiable is not the subject of this article; "Israelites" is.

Do you have any other contemporary sources about Israelites? Saying there are no appreciable physical evidence as you see it does not eliminate the notability of the subject. That is not "representing significant views fairly" because you are simply denying the other point of view!

I'm claiming that oral tradition as a source is a valid method of research in anthropology. It says nothing about facts, but only about cultural memories.

It seems to me based on your comments that your problem with this article and my edits is not based in any suggestions of me being neutral, but rather with your own attitude to religion. This is not an article about religion, but about a people who source their cultural knowledge from a religious text. I hope you can see the difference--Meieimatai? 23:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits to be mass-reverted

I'll soon revert this page to version 17:46, October 9, 2008 by Ewawer. Here is your chance to explain & justify your recent changes. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a problem with anything? If you do, please address them specifically here first rather than starting edit conflicts. Threats of reversions are probably not the most civil approach to editing, right?--Meieimatai? 23:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit ironic Meieimatai that you say such things given the extent of discussion already ignored by you above. Perhaps you'd like to join the group instead of taking ownership of the article and completely changing its direction. Before you began editing the article was on the way to becoming a verifiable exploration of all groups who identify with the religion of Israel, but you are changing it to an overview of the bible's 12/13 tribes. NJGW (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

And here-in lies the problem. The article is about "Israelites". As such they are defined by the sources in which they are mentioned, which is primarily the Tanach. An encyclopaedic article is not about cramming all possible issues and points of view into a single text, but focusing on the subject.

All groups who might self-identify as Israelites in the modern world, or with the Jewish religion, which is arguably all monotheists, are not by definition Israelites because they want to be, though I note that there are various claims to this end. There is an article Groups claiming an affiliation with the ancient Israelites. These claims represents, for the most part, highly original (not in the Wikipedia sense) research which is usually not accepted by either the major Jewish communities or academic communities, or both in many cases.

Your claims of me taking ownership are unwarranted. However, I note that the group as you call it is mostly you (now by self-identification), Cush and Emmanuelm, with Cush being primarily anti-textual. Cush contributed by pasting from other articles and mostly arguing with Emmanuelm, while Ewawer also contributed to editing without participating in the discussion.

As I see there is a group of people in the Tanach called Israelites in English. Tanach happens to be their cultural history record. At several stages in their history, which is uniquely recorded both in the oral and written tradition, the people fracture and some loose their identity. This is not unprecedented in history, even European history. In fact it was Cush who added the "According to the Tanakh" to the introduction.

The article made several mistakes:

1. Not clearly defining the subject fo the article
2. Not having a clear article structure
3. Changing editing focus from the subject to editors' editorial preferences
4. Lacking reliable and verifiable sources and not using citations
5. Letting editorial passions get in the way of editing

I'd be happy to discuss anything you have a problem with in my editing, but do not fling general accusations at me such as taking ownership or ignoring prior discussion. Just because I have not mentioned every previously discussed subject or mentioned everyone by name does not mean I have not read Talk (the first thing I did) or ignored others.--Meieimatai? 00:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The biggest problem is your translation. Ebri/Evri/etc... is not 'Israelite' but 'Hebrew'. Nowhere in the bible does the word 'Israelim' come up. It's a modern word with a modern context. Why should this article and Hebrews be the same topic anyway? Actually it looks like Hebrews is becoming Jew. I think that all the stuff you're pushing here should be moved to Hebrews, this page should be restored to what it was before you started editing it (an exploration of the modern groups associated with Israel as a concept--whether culturally, archialogically, genetically, or by choice), with the change that a seperate article take up the Tribes of Israel. NJGW (talk) 01:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the Biblical Bnei Israel, the Hellenic and Roman period Hebrews and the modern Jews are not one and the same? As I understand it the three categorisations of individuals that could be admitted to the Temple, and these days to the Torah reading in a synagogue, are Kohen, Levi and Israel (Yisrael), not Israelite, so shall we just AfD the whole article?

"Israelim" is not even in the article.

There are theories that suggest Biblical Israel and Hebrews are not one and the same, and I will deal with this, but don't expect an instant FA article.

I strongly object to your use of "pushing", and in fact I find it insulting.

"Israelites" is not a modern concept, but only a modern English rendering of Bnei Israel, at once inhabitants of ancient Israel and the people of the same name; modern groups that claim association, do so to as claimants to populations which have lost this identity during a historical process.

Claim to modern association are invariably based in religious practice of some sort, or oral memory.

Archaeological links between modern populations and ancient populations are at best academic.

Genetic affiliation is only a testament to intermarriage, and does not define someone as Jewish by default. There are for example members of Orthodox priestly families with very long recorded traditions that do not have the genetic marker which identifies them as such.

Identification by choice is altogether unacceptable for inclusion here. Consider for example adding section in the article USA such as Groups that consider themselves American. I think the range of articles on Europeans reflect this:

• Citizen of the European Union
• Demography of Europe
• European culture
• Genetic history of Europe
• Indo-European
• European ethnic groups

With "Israelites" we do not have this problem. We have a text which clearly identifies them. We have records of their history, evolution of their society and culture, and we have some substantiation of this from archaeological evidence. As any other demographic groups, they have standards and parameters of self-identity and inclusion. Many groups did and still do.

While I can self-identify as a Roman, and trust me, I have a good justification for doing so, group inclusion does not work "by Wikipedia". See for example the Enlargement of the European Union.

As it happens, Israelites are synonymous with the Tribes of Israel by virtue of the Ephod on which the names were inscribed

It seems to me that you are pursuing an agenda altogether different from editing an encyclopaedic article, and accuse me of doing same with no evidence so far. Please stop. If you are unwilling to cooperate, or to contribute without slinging empty accusations and criticism based on a semi-finished article because I have not accepted your point of view on the subject, it is because it is not commonly accepted across a range of cultures and groups, and I see no reason why Jews should be made exceptions to the rule--Meieimatai? 04:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Them's some loaded terms... but moving past your rhetoric, would you care to explain how you will prove that the sources you mention are NPOV and V? NJGW (talk) 04:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You think its rhetoric? And what you said is what?

I don't understand your question--Meieimatai? 09:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You rely heavily in your initial analysis on sources such as Seder Olam, Genesis, and apparently the Ephod. What makes you believe that these sources are any more wp:NPOV and wp:V than the Book of Mormon? I think you would be better off starting an article entitled Children of Israel, as that is the main nomenclature of your sources, and frame that article as a brief overview of a history built upon religious and semi-religios texts. NJGW (talk) 10:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The examples and perspective in this article or section may not include all significant viewpoints.

As of 13 October 2008
Would someone like to say what this template is aimed at?--Meieimatai? 09:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

There's a discussion just above that you've participated in that should deal with this, but for starters, how about the viewpoint that Israelites are basically Canaanites? Doug Weller (talk) 10:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to find out what prompted the template

I think firstly this contradicts the primary source that is the Tanach, basically. If not for that, Canaan would not be identified at all until deciphering of the Egyptian sources

Do you mean in the same way that current residents of US states of Georgia and South Carolina are basically San Miguel de Guadalupeans?

The statement that they are Canaanites is of course correct if one considers that they conquered Canaan, or that Abraham clearly at various stages of his life processed land in the area. Mind you we are talking in therms of hundreds of years in demographic change. Similarly, in reference to later periods we can say that Israelites are basically Babylonians, East Europeans, and indeed, Americans

However, are you suggesting I need to represent the point of view of the ancient Canaanites other than Israelites, or the theories that Israelites are just rebranded Canaanites?--Meieimatai? 09:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I am suggesting that the article needs to represent other significant views, including the view that the Israelites (or at least most of them) are Canaanites whose religion changed over time. Doug Weller (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Using the Bible as a primary source, without referring to secondary sources that critically analyze the biblical texts

As of 13 October 2008
What sort of critical analysis is expected?--Meieimatai? 09:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? We don't do critical analysis here. Doug Weller (talk) 10:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The template says, "referring to secondary sources that critically analyze the biblical texts". So we don't do critical analysis here, but we do cite sources that do so? That mean we do indeed reflect critical analysis here, so exactly what is it that you want to see voiced?--Meieimatai? 22:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No, we report the critical analysis of others in a neutral way. Doug Weller (talk) 05:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Lead -- quite funny now really, but I think the Bible was written before there was an English language

I just read the revised lead. [2]. Somehow I don't think that the Bible says that 'Israelites' is an English language name. In fact, it was my impression that all the books of the Bible were written before English even existed. I haven't kept up with all of these rapid edits, but if this is typical, a mass revert is desperately required. Doug Weller (talk) 10:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I was just going to make the same point about the lead sentence. But given how controversial this article probably is, I'm not going to be bold about changing it right now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The article has now been turned into a dog's breakfast - with apologies to dogs.Ewawer (talk) 09:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Israelites is an English word. Some people are not aware that this is only the English term for referring to a people about whom most of the Bible is written. Do you not think this should be clarified?--Meieimatai? 22:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what your dog eats, but my dog prefers dog food served on her plate--Meieimatai? 22:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

What's the verse in the Bible where it says that Israelites is an English language name? The Bible doesn't say that. Doug Weller (talk) 05:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The Bible doesn't say that Egypt is an English language name either, and yet it is. What's your point? Cush (talk) 07:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Mass revertion and Request for protection

I reverted the article to its Oct 9th version, and posted a Request for full protection on WP:RFPP. We all need to calm down and ponder what Wikipedia is and is not. Emmanuelm (talk) 12:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Protected

Due to the recent edit warring this page has been protected for 1 week. Please use the time to discuss the matter here and come to a consensus on what should and shouldn't be included on the page. If an urgent edit needs to be made during the protection, please place the template {{editprotected}} here with details of the edit that needs to be made and justification for the edit, and an administrator will come by to make the edit. If you have agreed and resolved the dispute before the expiry of the protection, please make a listing at requests for unprotection. While it is also possible to make such requests on my talk page, it would be quicker for you to use those previous methods. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, lets ponder what Wikipedia is. Its a reference work. It consists of articles. Each article is about a specific subject. The content of the article reflects the subject. Does the current content of this article reflect its subject?

Most articles start with an introduction that defines the subject for the reader, and then summarises the content. So what do we have here?

According to the Bible, the Israelites were the dominant group living in the Land of Israel from the time of the conquest of the territory by Joshua until they were conquered by the Babylonians in c.586 BCE and taken into exile. They were divided in twelve tribes, each claiming descent from one of twelve sons and grandsons of Jacob.

In fact this is not true. Israelites are so known from the name change by Jacob to Israel, and he lived in Canaan BEFORE it was conquered by the tribes under Joshua's leadership.

The term Israelite derives from Israel (Hebrew: ישראל (Standard Yisraʾel Tiberian Yiśrāʾēl)), the name given to the biblical patriarch Jacob after he struggled with an angel ( Genesis 32:28-29). His descendants are called the House of Jacob, the Children of Israel, the People of Israel, or the Israelites.

Of course this ignores the Jewish texts that say the name Israel was also accorded to Abraham and Isaac because that would be recognising the right of the Jews to actually interpret their cultural texts. However, what is the point of retelling the whole "struggle with the angel" story in the intro here? Is this not about the Israelites? Is it not enough to just hyperlink the Jacob article?

The Hebrew Bible is mainly concerned with the Israelites. According to it, the Land of Israel (previously called Canaan) was promised to them by their god. Jerusalem was their capital and the site of the temple at the center of their faith.

Hey, where did the Hebrew Bible come from? How is it relevant to the Israelites? Oh wait, its their main religious text and the basis of their religion! And here is an interesting thing, a bit of modern politics thrown in:

• a) religious politics by saying "Land of Israel (previously called Canaan) was promised to them by their god" although "God is the principal or sole deity in religions and other belief systems that worship one deity.[1] The singular, capitalized God of monotheistic religions is commonly contrasted with the gods of polytheistic religions."
• b) conflict in Israel by saying "Jerusalem was their capital" although the article on Jerusalem says "Jerusalem (Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם‎, Yerushaláyim; Arabic: القُدس, al-Quds)[ii] is the capital[iii] of Israel and its largest city[2]"
• c) a bit more religious bias "the site of the temple at the center of their faith" although being the only such structure, it has a proper name the Temple in Jerusalem or Holy Temple in that article, and not any temple.
• And of course it Hebrew because they are Hebrews "an ancient people defined as descendants of biblical Patriarch Eber (Hebrew עברי (ʿIḇrî) "traverse or pass over"), a great-grandson of Noah."! That must be the Eber that is mentioned what 2-3 times in the "Ebrew Bible", right?

I beg for some logic and inter-article continuity as a start

The Israelites became a major political power with the United Monarchy of Kings Saul, David and Solomon, from c. 1025 BCE. Zedekiah, king of Judah (597-586 BCE), is considered the last king from the house of David.

And for the rest of the article, this statement which at once misinforms, and fails utterly to inform. Political power is what one calls garnering domestic popular support in a democracy. A United Monarchy was clearly not that since Saul was anointed by a prophet. A regional power is another thing, but that would be embarrassing, right?

And of course the Israelites who have a calendar of their own (the Eber calendar?!), which figures importantly in their system of dating is replaced with another calendar system.

Nothing is said about their historical process as Israelites, and how their descendants see it, at all. What is ensured though, is that an attempt is made to disassociate modern Jews from the Israelites by stating that "Zedekiah, king of Judah (597-586 BCE), is considered the last king from the house of David.", which is of course not true in terms of Jewish messianic tradition and eschatology, where the term came to refer to a future Jewish King from the Davidic line which is also at at the center of their faith.

Instead, the article has a curious structure "deliberated" on by editors who think they know what an article should look like

1. 1 Terminology

This short quip does more to confuse, and in fact misinforms. Curiously although I was asked to prove that Egyptians had a name for Israelites, in this section this is taken as a given.

1. 2 The Twelve Tribes

Here few citations are given, Jacob suddenly has 4 wives instead of two, the changes to the order of the tribes in the Bible are not elaborated on at all, and the opening sentence to division of land is pure fiction "The tribes were assigned territories following the conquests of land under Moses and Joshua." since Moses is well known not to have participated in the conquests.

• 2.1 Jacob's sons
• 2.2 Camps following the exodus
• 2.3 The division of the land

1. 3 Israelite kingdoms

Starts with the divided kingdoms, and adds a line pasted from the introduction. The section is entirely lacking in citations.

Apparently at this stage the reader is meant to make the independent cognitive leap from 586 BC? (not even BCE) to 1960s when genetic testing became available. The entire continuity of Jewish history is completely ignored. In all the discussions, someone forgot 2500 years I guess. It happens.

1. 4 Genetic evidence of common descent

Yet more religious politics. No mention is made that the Israelites had a non-genetic determinants of inclusion. Is that reflecting editor's ideology on Who is a Jew?

1. 5 Archeology of Israelites

This little section does not even deserve to be here because it simply fails to inform!

1. 6 Other groups claiming descent

There is of course an article Groups claiming an affiliation with the ancient Israelites, but even if there wasn't, the most obvious question is, what is the criteria for making these claims? There ought to be an introduction to a section lest one think that all these groups are making the claims based on genetic testing, or documented lineage to the tribes, or sharing of religion, or something

• 6.1 Samaritans
• 6.2 Karaites
• 6.3 Beta Israel
• 6.4 Bnei Menashe
• 6.5 Hebrew Israelites
• 6.6 Rastafari
• 6.7 Messianic Judaism
• 6.8 Latter-day Saints
• 6.9 Christian Identity

1. 7 Children of Israel

This is entirely out of the subject focus. "Bnei Israel" is an expression used in the Bible. What any one group believes about their claims on the subject says nothing about Israelites, or Jews. What Christians believe is already covered in many Christian articles. The section on Islam simply confirms that Islam is aware of the expression. How unreferenced claims by the Pashtun are related is a mystery to me. However, had the previous editors actually made a serious effort at dealing with this, they would have at least bothered to link the exposition to the relevant article in Wikipedia. Of course theories are grand, but how about some theories about Israelites? The Ten Lost Tribes, a consistently important subject throughout Jewish history, is a brief mention in a sentence!

• 7.1 In Christianity
• 7.2 In Islam
• 7.3 Others

However, consider for example that Jewish religion is mentioned but once, in the Karaite section, although the article is a subject of THREE religion-based WikiProjects; faith is mentioned twice.

The above is just some of the reasons I started editing here. I simply could not reconcile the lack of continuity and contradiction within the Wikipedia articles, never mind between Wikipedia and common, very common, basic awareness one would gain from reading even general works on Israelite/Jewish history. Having read the discussion in the article Talk page, and compared it with the existing version, I simply decided that editors were pursuing own agendas, are lacking in commitment to cite authoritative sources and, based on previous comments, would not be very interested in a discussion. This action of reversion and protection by User:Emmanuelm just proved me right! User:Emmanuelm completely failed to participate in ANY discussion, but seems to think that Wikipedia works by ultimatums. Given he was allowed to both revert and slap a protection on, it seems others share this belief.

If one reads the Hebrews article, one would think it should be removed from the Jewish History Project and moved to Eberites History Project!

Now, someone wants to discuss what Whikipedia is and is not?--Meieimatai? 00:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'll discuss it with you.

In the first place "Israelite" refers to a historic people, a group or a nation. If you want to discuss religion, and whether something was promised and by whom, that is a matter for religion - to be discussed under "Judaism" or "The Promised Land".

It is fair for groups who claim descent from the "Israelites" to get a mention, though their religious beliefs can be left to their own articles.

To throw everything into the one article makes it lose any relevance to a property understanding of the subject matter.

On the other hand, no claim is made that the reinstated article is 100% accurate, which I know it's not, and still needs work to be done to it, but not to extent of transforming it into an analysis of religious claims to the land, etc. On the other hand, turning it into a history of the ancient Kingdom of Israel is also a waste of an effort.

In short, the Israelite period of Jewish history is the period between the conquest of Canaan and the Babylonian Exile. And, the Israelites were the Jews (in a general sense) who lived in that period. The name was not used in any other period.Ewawer (talk) 02:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Revert the title to "Children of Israel", which is definable in terms of its usage in the Bible. "Israelite" isn't really definable - the Israelites were not, for example, a historic people (the old kingdom of Israel didn't actually call itself by that name - it was Samaria or Beit Omri), and the use of "Israel" to refer to the peoples of Judah and Israel together dates from the post-Exilic period. PiCo (talk) 02:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest a split into at least two articles: Children of Israel (defined in biblical terms, would include the 12 tribes as well as the POV fork Meimeitai cut out of this article), Israelites (perhaps not an historical term, but is the common phrase used now to describe a historic people... an anthropological/genetic/etc. article). NJGW (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Defining "Israelites"

Well, actually I would like to hear for the individual who thinks in terms of ultimatums.

If he wants to contribute to an article, any article, it is best to start by defining the subject.

So, define "Israelites"--Meieimatai? 09:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ultimatum - noun, a final demand or statement of terms, the rejection of which will result in retaliation or a breakdown in relations. So you want some specific person to put their foot down, and demand something of you, otherwise they'll throw a hissy-fit? Weird. Who is this person you're referring to? By the way, if you read the previous sections instead of just starting new ones every few hours you'll see that this question has come up before several times... just to be ignored by you. Propose this section be removed per wp:TALK ("Deleting material not relevant to improving the article (per the above subsection #How to use article talk pages)" is permitted). Stop creating new discussion sections with new topics as soon as someone replies to you. NJGW (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

NJGW, please be respectful. Mei, why are you asking? Don't you have a Torah at home? Look for "House of Jacob", "House of Israel", "People of Israel", "Children of Israel", "Sons of Israel", "Daughters of Israel". Israelites is the English word most often used to designate these people, but the other names are mentioned in the introduction. Additionally, here is a list of Encyclopedia definitions, none of them clear :

• People of Israel entry in the Jewish Encyclopedia.
• Israelite entry in the Enclopedia Britannica.
• Israel in the Bible entry in the Columbia Encyclopedia.

This Wikipedia article attempts to unify these definitions with the Bible and to clarify the whole thing. It was rather good... until you started undoing it. Emmanuelm (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

NJGW - what I read, and what I found in the article did not correspond to what article standards in Wikipedia suggest it should be.

This "I'll soon revert this page to version 17:46, October 9, 2008 by Ewawer. Here is your chance to explain & justify your recent changes. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)" was an ultimatum

Given someone didn't like my editing of the introduction, and this included definition, and there was not another section in talk dedicated to the defining of the article subject, I started it.

I started the previous sections because others who attached the template's did not. The accepted practice in Wikipedia is to start a discussion if a template is attached, explaining what the issue is. I waited, and these did not appear, so I started them

How is this "Israelites is the English word most often used to designate these people" different from my introduction sentence that was removed?

Here is my idea on Wikipedia - it does not regurgitate other encyclopaedias. However, if you are so limited in sources at to only use online sources, why pick those that date from the 19th century?

In reply to the issue of religion here, the answer is rather obvious to me. The Israelites are the source of the first enduring monotheistic religion in the the world, and the primary written text is also the source of everything that others claim affiliation through. To write an article without going into the subject of Israelite religion what defines who is an Israelite, is like describing a car without mentioning that it's primary design purpose is for transportation, and that things which need rails or wings need not apply. Sort of like "Well, its this mechanical design with wheels and engine, and you pour petrol here, oh and by the way, some suggest that the Boeing 747 is also a descendant of the car via this thing called a bus."

What I am also suggesting is that the "Israelites", known in post-Renaissance English as Hebrews, and in modern English as Jews have a cultural heritage. This includes texts and text analysis as sources. On the other hand there are academics who think they have the right to reinterpret these because they are academics, and discard completely. So, there is this sort of "discard anything we don't like" attitude. However, this is a really bias (speaking of neutrality) point of view. The approach that logic suggests is

• Say what the original sources of identity are
• Say what the Israelites think about themselves and their history
• Say where the questions about Israelite identity originate

The above is the approach taken in anthropology with other populations groups, but seemingly Jews are up for academic "target practice" because there are so many people who have so many problems with them, and mostly with their religion because it is the antithesis of science (supposedly) and therefore a threat to academia(?)

In any case, as it happens a project came up at work, and another in my personal life. I will have no time to spend on this article until March next year at the earliest unfortunately, but I will be back, and look in from time to time.I will also bring this article and Hebrews (which is utter OR) to the notice of Judaism Project, and will return next year--Meieimatai? 01:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Meieimatai?, you asked for a definition of Israelite, which I think is a very good idea. I said above that I have a concern about this article precisely because the word is so difficult to define. Therefore, thanks for poitning us to the Encyclopedia Britannica and others. I looked up the EB and this is what it gives for its definition of Israelite (I'm summarising):

• A Jew, a descendant of the Biblical Patriarch Jacob/Israel
• Originally, all members of the 12 tribes; later, peoples of the northern kingdom of Israel; and after 721, peoples of the kingdom of Judah;
• liturgically, a Jew who is neither a cohen nor a levite.

The EB expresses my concerns perfectly, although I'm sure the authors never had such an outcome in mind. The problem is that it takes the Biblical narrative at face value - it accepts the historical existence of Jacob/Israel and the 12 tribes and the history outlined in Samuel/Kings. It also describes the peoples of Iron Age Israel/Judah as Jews, and their religion, by implication, as Judaism, which is not the usual scholarly language. In short, the EB isn't up to date with the scholarly consensus.

My point is that Israel is a meaningful term in the context of the Bible, but Israelite is too diffuse. For Israel, you can talk about such things as the emergence of the two kingdoms and their ongoing cultural differentiation from the surrounding kingdoms (in the case of Israel, very little - Israel's culture was entirely Canaanite, even to the worship of the god El in his guise as a bull), the emergence of Yahwistic monolatry and eventual monotheism in Judah and the Exile, and the post-Exilic tension between narratives of ethnic inclusion and exclusion in which the term "Israel" was used to create a national and religious identity. PiCo (talk) 07:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

And Mei's approach seems essentially an OR one, using logic to construct an argument. Doug Weller (talk) 09:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Mei, your version was mass-reverted because you blurred the distinction between Israelite and Jew. An Israelite is not a Jew. Genetically, less than 20% of modern Jews descend from an Israelite male. The current Jewish religion is different from the religion of Israelites; it evolved in exile. This distinction is one of the main goal of this article. Therefore, your edits were perceived as biased and, therefore, unacceptable. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Given all of the excellent points made above, what's to be done with the article? I think we're agreed that it needs to be completely overhauled, and that it should not be, as it is at present, an attempt to prove that modern Israel is the direct descendant of its ancient namesake. I would suggest that we begin with a new set of section heads, which would need to include at least the following:

• Biblical Israel: A discussion of what the name Israel means in the Tanakh. It actually means quite a number of things: the patriarch Jacob/Israel, a people (usual meaning of the word in the Torah), a kingdom, an ethnicity, and a few more as well.
• The 12 tribes of Israel: There was once a whole article on this subject, and it was quite a good one, discussing such things as the way the make-up of the list changed over time, the question of whether it was always fictive, the question of whether an amphytiony ever actually existed (Noth's idea), and so on.
• Israel and ethnicity: At some point the article needs to discuss the was the concept of Israel was used in the Second Temple period to construct the Jewish identity, and this sems as good a place as any.

PiCo (talk) 03:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Pico, as it stands now, the article does a rather good job of discussing your first two points. Can it be improved? Yes!, but by incremental changes, respecting the chapter headings and all the WP policies. The 12 tribes article was redirected to this one because... it is the same thing. The missing content you mention was not deleted; it was transferred to the articles about individual tribes -- yes, there are 14 separate articles! The third topic belongs to Jew, Jewish history and Who is a Jew? because, again, an Israelite is not a Jew. This clarification is, in my mind, the most important goal of this article. Once this is clarified, the scope of this article become very narrow.

Looking forward to unlocking the article so that you and all respectful editors can continue to improve this article, which has taken years to write. Emmanuelm (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Dougweller, you are aware that the Encyclopedia Britannica and others represent 19th century points of view given it is from the 1911 version?

Consider this statement "liturgically, a Jew who is neither a cohen nor a levite". In order to make the distinction, one has to realise that liturgy is a part of religious practice. However, that statement is completely wrong, because a Jew is not defined in terms of citizenship anywhere! If the Kingdom of Judah had existed today, all its citizens would be Judahites, and some would be Cohanim and Levites because those at the same time denote tribal affiliation and special social position, not a claim to separate citizenship identity. Hence all citizens of Israel today are Israeli, no matter the tribal claims, although some claim descent from tribes other than the Judah or Levi

The problem that I took the Biblical narrative at face value is yours, not mine. This is how modern descendants of Israelites take it. You can posit questions as to the reliability or verifiability of these claims, but you can hardly ignore several million representatives of this thinking. Many millions of British citizens for example believe themselves to be British although the large proportion probably has no claim to the Iron Age Celtic populations. So what?

Which excellent points are they?

I can see some other irrelevant points.

An Israelite is not a Jew (an Israelite is not a Jew. This clarification is, in my mind, the most important goal of this article - User:Emmanuelm) - as it happens an Israelite is an English term that refers to those descended from Jacob who's name was changed to Israel. During the history of his descendants, one part of the territory that remained independent was used by outsiders to refer to all those living there, i.e. Judah -> Juden (German) -> Jews. This rather presupposed that all those found living there were exclusively from the tribe of Judah, which is as much an assumption as to say that all those living in the US state of Alaska were born there, i.e. that the population of Judah was monolithic and immobile!

Even if that is not a consideration, in linguistics there is an agreement on the etymology from c.1175 (in plural, giwis), from Anglo-Fr. iuw, from O.Fr. giu, from L. Judaeum (nom. Judaeus), from Gk. Ioudaios, from Aramaic jehudhai (Heb. y'hudi "Jew," from Y'hudah "Judah," lit. "celebrated," name of Jacob's fourth son and of the tribe descended from him. Replaced O.E. Iudeas "the Jews." Originally, "Hebrew of the kingdom of Judah."

However, exactly what makes User:Emmanuelm's opinion the defining one? Moreover, the article was not about how to define what an Israelite is not!

Genetically, less than 20% of modern Jews descend from an Israelite male - and? Did I see this definition of an Israelite anywhere in the Hebrew Bible? Please don't confuse Genesis with genetics.

The current Jewish religion is different from the religion of Israelites; it evolved in exile - and? Is there a law imposed by User:Emmanuelm that says no religion shall evolve beyond its literal initial interpretation? However, it seem that the parts which identify someone as Jewish have not changed all that much, and are derived from and based on the original text.

" This distinction is one of the main goal of this article." What distinction is that? That I accept dynamics of cultural and social development as part of a historical process and User:Emmanuelm doesn't? That's bias and grounds for reversion? Where in Wikipedia is personal attitudes to historiographic methodology a cause for reversion of editing?--Meieimatai? 10:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Meimatai, one of the main goal of this article is to clarify the distinction between Jew and Israelite. Please read Who is a Jew? for details.

I'll discuss only one point: Please don't confuse Genesis with genetics. You must know that many scholars, especially archeologists, are openly doubting the very existence of Israelites, calling the Torah a fiction. We discussed this with Cush earlier in this page. Genetics brings a non-Biblical evidence that Jews -- actually, Cohanim -- indeed descend from a single man (see Y-chromosomal Aaron). Hence, genetics is very relevant in this article about a patriarchal clan.

Meimatai, Wikipedia is not Kosher. It covers all relevant sources about a subject, including secular or scientific sources. Please stop trying to "clean up" WP. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Archeology of Israelites

Hey hey hey, Y-chromosomal-Aaron ≠ biblical-Aaron. There is still no connection established between possible historical/archeological Israelites and biblical Israelites, and definitely none with Jews of later times. The entire problem with this article comes down to the question, whether it is about the biblical Israelites (where no vain attempt to link them to actual history should be made in the article), or about a people or tribe called Israel that inhabited Canaan once and that left almost no traces of its existence and completely no traces of being in any way similar or even identical to the biblical Israelites as described in later Jewish legends. Cush (talk) 15:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello Cush, how have you been? Anyhoo, is this article about the Bible or Archeology? It is about both, and everything else called Israelites. That's the whole idea behind WP:NPOV. Admittedly, the archeology section is lame -- I am still waiting for you to expand it. Emmanuelm (talk) 22:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem really is that Israelites are absent from the archeological record. As I have said, countless digs in Egypt and the Levant have produced nothing that would solidify the stories told by Jews of later ages. But I will see what I can do once I find motivation. Cush (talk) 06:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

"The archeology section is lame" (Emmanuelm). You're not joking! "The problem really is that Israelites are absent from the archeological record" (Cush). In the interests of advancing our discussion, here is the very basic evidence of Israel from the archaeological record:

• The very first appearance of the name is from one of the Ebla tablets, c.1500 BC - the name of a chariot warrior. (Note that I'm just listing facts, not interpreting them).
• Next is the Merneptah stele, c.1200 BC, listing Israel as a people (I think that's agreed in the literature) in north-inland Palestine (the future area of the kingdom of Israel, but I'm drawing no conclusions).
• Finally, a set of Assyrian, Moabite and related inscriptions from the 9th and 8th centuries mentioning a political entity sometimes identified explicitly as Israel, sometimes under other names:
  • The Khurk stele, c.853 BC, referring to king Ahab of "sir-il-la-a-a", presumed to be Israel;
  • The Black Obelisk, only slightly later, mentioning Jehu of the House of Omri;
  • The Tel Dan inscription, mentioning a king of Israel and of the House of Omri (the same individual);
  • The Mesha Stele, which I think also explicitly mentions Israel as a kingdom;
  • The Nimrud Slab, mentioning the Land of Omri;
  • The Rimah stele, mentioning Joash of Samaria;
  • An inscription of Tiglath-pileser III listing King Menahem of Samaria;
  • Sargon II's record of his conquest of Samaria and the House of Omri, c.722 BC.

And that concludes explicit mentions of Israel in the archaeological record. Note that there are no mentions of Israelites, only of Israel, meaning a man (our Eblite warrior), a people (the Merneptah stele), and a kingdom that existed in the 9th and 8th centuries - tho far more commonly it's called Omri or Samaria. So if you want a paragraph on Israelites and archaeology, that's the very minimum.PiCo (talk) 06:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

What about archeological digs at sites that are biblically connected to the Israelites? E.g. Kenyon digging up Jericho/Tell-es-Sultan and dating its destruction to a time shortly after the Asiatic pharaoh Maaibre Sheshi? Cush (talk) 10:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello Pico, this looks like the info mention in the latest issue of BAR (Sept/Oct 2008 p.18). Please summarize it in the "Archeology" section of the article. Cush, do the same. We might end up with a stub of a stub! (finally). Emmanuelm (talk) 02:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Cush, I wasn't proposing that this list of inscriptions shld be the entire section on archaeology, just that it's the irreducible minimum. Emmanuelm, that's a very good article in BAR and we shld use it, but it also seems to be only one pov in a rather contentious field - we need to find the range of views and identify the majority/minority positions so that we can give due weight. I'm not sure how we can do that. Anyway, I've written a paragraph in the Archaeology section setting out the inscriptions which mention Israel and its variants. The basic point, although I don't make it explicit, is that the word Israel is seldom used in inscriptions from the 9th-8th centuries, and always refers to a kingdom rather than a people - in contrast to the 13th century Merneptah stele, where it refers to a people, and the Ebla example, where it's a personal name. Somehow we have to get that into the paragraph as well. And then another paragraph on the aspects Cush mentions his post in this thread. PiCo (talk) 07:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

There are already several full blown articles that cover the subject, we don't need all of them repeated in this article, especially not the overstuffed sections pushing the minority Biblical Minimalist POV or cranky old Finkelstein with his non-sequiteur conclusions. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 01:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like you want to stop a significant POV from being represented in the article, I hope I'm wrong. Doug Weller (talk) 06:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in the edit I made is pov, it's a simple tour of the epigraphic occurrences of the words Israelite (zero, but worth mentioning) and Israel (a total of ten, with three different meanings). So far as I know it's complete, but if anyone knows of other instances we should be open to mentioning them. Kuratowski's Ghost has a good point, that we shouldn't be rehashing information that's already in other articles - but we should have brief overview with hyperlinks to those articles. Doug Weller is also correct to note that we shouldn't be suppressing notable povs - Finkelstein is certainly notable. At this stage I'd like to expand the section a little further with an overview of attempts to identify "Israelite" material culture - this relates to the argument of the origins of biblical Israel, which is certainly germane to our article. PiCo (talk) 07:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Extra-biblical mentions of Israel

A-ha-ab-bu KUR sir-'a-la-a-a (Ahab the Israelite) is mentioned in an inscription of Shalmaneser III as having had the largest presence at the Battle of Qarqar ([3]). -LisaLiel (talk) 16:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Some sources for 'Israel' [4] [5] [6] [7]. However, I don't think the text should have been reverted, only amended.

The effort is being made to create a meaningful archeology section in the article. The contentless section that you restored is to be removed. Cush (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The section seems to be solely about the occurence of the name "Israel" in the archaological record which is hardly the same as archaeology of the Israelites which includes pages and pages of artifacts recognized by mainstream archaeologists as being Israelite. I don't want to see nonsense POV pushing that they weren't Israelites because only a dozen or so artifacts mention the name. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The section is to be expanded. And there is simply no such thing as Israelites (as the Bible describes them) in the archeological information available. Existing artifacts all date to the late Divided Monarchy period (e.g. Jeroboam 2). In the entire time span from the Exodus through the Judges and United Monarchy periods the "Israelites" apparently left no traces of their existence, that includes all the magnificent architecture attributed to such fantastic figures as kings David and Solomon. There exist no sources that confirm a culture of Israel as described in the Tanakh/Bible, including the whole Yhvh stuff. Cush (talk) 21:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

People like you simply shouldn't be editing this article. You're clearly uninformed on the subject. As a primer, you could try reading the following:

• 'What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?: What Archaeology Can Tell Us About the Reality of Ancient Israel', William Dever (2001)
• 'Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?', William Dever (2006)
• 'Did God Have a Wife?: Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel', William Dever (2008)
• 'A History of Ancient Israel and Judah', James Miller and John Hayes (2006)
• 'The Social History of Ancient Israel: An Introduction', Rainer Kessler (2008)
• 'Life in Biblical Israel', Philip King and Lawrence Stager (2002)
• 'On the Reliability of the Old Testament', Kenneth Kitchen (2006)
• 'Ancient Israel: From Abraham to the Roman Destruction of the Temple', Hershel Shanks (1999)
• 'Texts and Archaeology: Weighing the Evidence. The Case for King Solomon', Alan Millard, (1991)

I could double this list in another 10 minutes. Just how familiar are you with the relevant scholarly literature? --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

This simply is not the case. There are artifacts dating back to the period you describe, no they don't have "Made in Israel" written on them but they belong to the people known as Israelites. Who do you think the people of that era were? And obviously buildings which have been destroyed and the remains cleared cannot be found. One only finds archaeological evidence of buildings when those buildings have been abandoned or partially destroyed and remains never cleared - duh. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 00:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not the way it works. If the artifacts do not have "Made in Israel" written on them, or anything that would establish the connection to the biblical myths, then they cannot be used as evidence for the existence of Israelites in any form. To maintain the position that the Israelites existed and subsequently the artifacts must be assigned to them, means to start out with what you want to prove. There were quite a number of people who lived in the southern Levant, Amalekites, Amorites, Hurrites, Canaanites, Hebrews. There is no need for biblical Israelites to explain the artifacts. Cush (talk) 07:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Would you like to address the scholarly literature I have cited? The fact is that there is a great deal of evidence which establishes a connection to the Biblical records. It is not a matter of assuming that the Israelites existed and therefore the artifacts must be attributed to them. If you believe that 'There is no need for biblical Israelites to explain the artifacts', please explain your reasons for disagreeing with the relevant scholarly literature. --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Earliest Hebrew text

"The chronology and geography of Khirbet Qeiyafa create a unique meeting point between the mythology, history, historiography and archaeology of King David," [8] This quote is from a news story I came across the other day that I thought might point in the direction of useful information for this article. I may be wrong but the earliest Hebrew writing seems important to the Israelite archeological record, as it shows that the culture was stable and established enough 3000 years ago to have developed it's own written language. The quote seems to express very well the goal of this article, as discussed above. Of course the source below isn't on par with those in the article, but I'm sure those of you with closer connections to the literature can find something that is. NJGW (talk) 07:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

"So far, just four percent of the site has been excavated". I think it says it all. Emmanuelm (talk) 20:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

What do you think that says? --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It says that it's still a bit premature to be drawing conclusions. Please, let's stick to the point: NJGW has suggested, in good faith and very courteously, that this might be relevant to our article. Let's keep our replies equally courteous. (Taiwanboi, that means don't go picking quarrels with other editors). PiCo (talk) 08:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Archaeology section

I reverted to the version of the Archaeology section that existed yesterday. Please, can everyone calm down - if we all make rapid-fire edits like this we'll be in a mess again. Discuss suggestions here first, please. Now, regarding various edits made yesterday:

• Ahab of Israel or Ahab the Israelite: I've seen both. If Lisa can point me to an authoritative source for Israelite as against Israel, I'm happy to put it in.

Ok Lisa, I've only now read the links you provided in the thread above this one, and it seems there's sufficient support for "Ahab the Israelite" - I'll change the section accordingly. PiCo (talk) 08:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted again because that version comes across as weaseling aimed at trivializing the evidence that the name Israel is indeed found in the archaeological record. I'll put back Ahab and the mention of the use as a name. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Israel from Ebla: It's relevant because it establishes "Israel" as a personal name within the Northwest Semitic language family. No, he's not the biblical Israel, but it means that the biblical Israel is plausible as an individual - a point made rather forcefully by Albright.
• Roman-era Israelite(s): Are you sure? Surely the Romans would have called the people of the province Judeans (or the Latin equivalent). What's the exact context for this occurrence of the word?

I repeat, let's all calm down and discuss things here - I'm open to all proposals, as we all should be. 08:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

A Roman era reference to Israelite may refer to the Samaritans. They chose for a time to call themselves that. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh please these are recognized as coins minted by Bar Kochba, "Shim'on nasi Yisrael", "l'cherut Yisrael". Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Also from the first revolt, "shekel Yisrael" Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I put the Eblaite Israel back as it's the first use of the name - and it's important, as it establishes Israel as a personal name from the 2nd millenium, about the time of the Patriarch. It's unreasonable to expect to find any trace of the biblical Israel, but this is close. I'm happy to have the mention of coin in. Can we agree to this now?PiCo (talk) 07:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I gather we're all happy with that first paragraph, or at least can live with it. It establishes the existence of the name Israel in the epigraphic record, and therefore of the derived name Israelite (even though that word occurs only once). I've now added the stub for a second paragraph, which seeks to establish the link between "Israelites" and material culture. I'm aware of only two such markers, the collar-rimmed jars identified by Albright as a marker for the Israelites, and the house-type identified more recently (I'm not sure by whom). Do you like this approach? Are there more markers to be added? PiCo (talk) 08:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Dever ('Who Were The Early Israelites And Where Did They Come From?', 2003), identifies several:

• Absence of pig bones: unique to Israelite culture, and the complete opposite of Canaanite culture, in which pigs were common ('A number of scholars who are otherwise skeptical about determining ethnic identity from material culture remans in this case acknowledge the obvious: that here we seem to have at least one ethnic trait of later, biblical Israel that can safely be projected back to its earliest days', page 108)
• Destruction of religious artifacts: Dever makes the point 'The temples and their elaborate paraphernalia that are so typical of Late Bronze Age Canaanite society simply disappear by the end of the 13th century' (page 126), and that at Hazor there were 'six or seven Egyptian statues that must have been deliberately mutilated. Heads and arms were chopped off, the chisel marks still visible on the torsos. Everywhere in the debris there are signs of what Ben-Tor describes as rage' (page 67), adding that Ben-Tor suggests the Israelites were responsible, and that 'there are currently no better candidates' (page 67)
• The four room house with distinctive characteristics: these include an unusually large number of water cisterns surrounding the house, and evidence of multi-generational use. On the houses, Dever says 'Many scholars have considered them to be "type-fossils" of ancient Israel - that is, uniquely characteristic and thus a reliable ethnic indicator' (page 103), and of the cisterns 'It is only in the Iron Age, when the dense settlement of the hill country began, that we encounter the first large-scale intensive use of cisterns' (page 117).

He also identifies evidence in the ceramic assemblage, and I can post that up later if necessary. --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

TB, you might like to expand the stub to take these in. I'd leave out the damaged Egyptian statues tho - the point of the paragraph is to identify cultural markers within the archaeological record, and the destruction of the statues isn't such a marker. (I have no idea what the "Earliest Hebrew Text" thread below this one has to do with Israelites - perhaps the person who added it could tell us why he thinks it's relevant). PiCo (talk) 06:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Destruction of Canaanite and Egyptian cult images is a cultural marker within the archaeological record. Ben-Tor has written on this extensively. See for example 'The Sad Fate of Statues and the Mutilated Statues of Hazor', in 'Confronting the Past' (1997), pages 3-16:

• 'Such acts in the Armana period were clearly religiously motivated, and, as such, are an isolated phenomenon in the Bronze Age. They are exceptional in terms of this early date, since they reflect a monotheistic concept of only one God, to the exclusion of all others. As a rule, religiously motivated iconoclasm makes its appearance only with the establishment of nation-states in the first millennium BCE and the introduction of monotheism, whose adherents believe that there is only one "true" God. (page 13)
• 'This practice brings to mind the description of the fate of the statue of Dagon in his Temple at Ashdod in 1 Samuel 5:4: "Dagon's head and both his hands were broken off upon the threshold; only his trunk was left intact." This account of the struggle between the god of Israel and the god of the Philistines was composed much later than the period of the Hazor statues, and was religiously motivated. It does, however, echo practices common in much earlier times.' (page 14)

See also Ben-Tor's article 'Excavating Hazor, Part Two: Did the Israelites Destroy the Canaanite City?', BAR, May/Jun 1999:

• 'Only four groups active at the time could have destroyed Hazor: (1) one of the Sea Peoples, such as the Philistines, (2) a rival Canaanite city, (3) the Egyptians or (4) the early Israelites. As noted above, the mutilated statues were Egyptian and Canaanite. It is extremely unlikely that Egyptian and Caananite marauders would have detroyed staturary depicting their own gods and kings. In addition, as to another Canaanite city, the Bible tells us Hazor "was the head of all those kingdoms," and archaeology corroborates that the city was simply too wealthy and powerful to have fallen to a minor Canaanite rival city. So the Egyptians and the Canaanites are eliminated. As far as the Sea Peoples are concerned, Hazor is located too far inland to be of any interest to those maritime traders. Further, among the hundreds of potsherds recoverd at Hazor, not a single one can be attributed to the well-known repertory of the Sea Peoples. That leaves us with the Israelites.' --Taiwan boi (talk) 13:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not a marker in the same sense that an archaeologist digging a site can hold up a potsherd or look at a four-chambered house and say, "Aha! This site is Israelite!" PiCo (talk) 06:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is. That's Ben-Tor's entire point. How many monotheistic ethnic groups were destroying Canaanite statuary in the Bronze Age? --Taiwan boi (talk) 09:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

None, as there were no monotheistic ethnic groups in Canaan in the Bronze Age. The conclusion that Israelites must have existed because some statues were mutilated is pure speculation based solely on the biblical narrative . Cush (talk) 17:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

On the one hand we have professional archaeologists such as Dever and Ben-Tor. On the other hand we have Cush, random Internet guy. Who to believe? It's not a difficult choice. Elsewhere on Wikipedia you've said 'The Bible can indeed be a valuable historical document. But only if the claims made in the Bible can be verified by other historical sources and archeological findings'. Yet when such archaeological findings are discovered, you dismiss them out of hand.

Please list the archeological findings right here. And establish why they require Israelites to have existed as the Bible describes their history. Right here. I foretell you that the only way to achieve this is to simply believe what the Bible says, which means you will end up with circular reasoning. Academia has been doing that that for the past 150 years or so without producing anything solid. If there were anything reliable, there would be no positions like that of Finkelstein who has access to all excavation results (and no, he is not fringe). No thanks. Cush (talk) 07:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

To say that if there were anything reliable there would be no positions like that of Finkelstein is a logical fallacy. Others, such as Dever, have demonstrated that despite having access to all excavation results Finkelstein does not take them all into account. Finkelstein himself acknowledges that his model doesn't account for all available data. And although Finkelstein's views on Israel are not fringe insofar as he identifies them as Canaanite in origin, his 'new chronology' certainly is fringe and so are some of his other views on Israelite origins. I'm not even sure why you're appealing to Finkelstein anyway, given that you claim 'In the entire time span from the Exodus through the Judges and United Monarchy periods the "Israelites" apparently left no traces of their existence', whereas Finkelstein does not agree with this in the least. It's another example of you simply believing your own opinion and rejecting the professional scholarship. --Taiwan boi (talk) 06:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, in case you need to know, I don't feel any need to prove 'Israelites to have existed as the Bible describes their history'. That is not the subject of this article. Please read the actual article so you understand what its subject is. --Taiwan boi (talk) 06:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I have already listed the archaeological findings here, right here. Twice now. Predictably, you have ignored them (you're not alone, PiCO also has no time for professional archaeologists, arguing that Biblical scholars such as Thompson and Lemche are to be preferred). This is not a matter of circular reasoning. As I have said, elsewhere on Wikipedia you've said 'The Bible can indeed be a valuable historical document. But only if the claims made in the Bible can be verified by other historical sources and archeological findings'. Yet when such archaeological findings are discovered, you dismiss them out of hand. This is not what professional archaeologists do. Professional archaeologists consider convergences between archaeological evidence and Biblical texts to be evidence substantiating the account in the Biblical text. This is exactly how they treat other ancient texts. You don't do this. You claim a priori that the Biblical texts are completely non-factual, and that therefore any apparent convergence between archaeological evidence and the Biblical text must necessarily be false. --Taiwan boi (talk) 06:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

You've already demonstrated your complete ignorance of the archaeology of Israel and your intention to carry out agenda motivated edits, so what are you still doing in this article? You have nothing to contribute, please leave. --Taiwan boi (talk) 06:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Jew-ish monotheism came into existence in the 7th and 6th centuries BCE, during and after the period of the so called "Babylonian Captivity". Before that Yah was still worshiped along with a wife and son, so save your conclusions that are rather based on modern beliefs than on knowledge about the Bronze Age. Cush (talk) 07:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I note once more a complete lack of any reference to the relevant scholarly literature. Jewish monotheism did not emerge in the 7th and 6th centuries. Do you want quotes from the relevant literature? --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) TB - Curious why you don't quote Ben-Tor himself - he edited a standard introduction to the subject in 1994. Anyway, you seem to misunderstand Dever. When he talks about the end of LB Canaanite culture he's simply refering to a well-known fact - the Canaanite city=based culture collapsed at about the end of the 12th century. That's not a marker of Israelites or anyone else. As for the destruction of Egyptian (not Canaanite) statues at Hazoe, that's again impossible to trace to any particular group - and especially impossible to trace to the "rage" of monotheists. (The destruction of Egyptian cult statues is probably - in fact just about definitely - a product of someone's desire to destroy the divine power they represent. It's interesting that we see the same thing here in Cambodia - the Thais, who were Buddhists, destroyed the Buddha images of the kings of Angkor, who were also Buddhists - they hadn't suddenly turned apostate, they were simply destroying the Angkorian kings' connections to divine favour). And of course, Cush is quite right in saying that monotheism doesn't appear in Palestine/Israel until the post-Exilic period - as I'm sure you know, having read your Dever. PiCo (talk) 10:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

PiCo, why didn't you read what I wrote. I did quote Ben-Tor himself. See above, where I quoted Ben-Tor's 'The Sad Fate of Statues and the Mutilated Statues of Hazor', in 'Confronting the Past' (1997), pages 3-16:

• 'Such acts in the Armana period were clearly religiously motivated, and, as such, are an isolated phenomenon in the Bronze Age. They are exceptional in terms of this early date, since they reflect a monotheistic concept of only one God, to the exclusion of all others. As a rule, religiously motivated iconoclasm makes its appearance only with the establishment of nation-states in the first millennium BCE and the introduction of monotheism, whose adherents believe that there is only one "true" God. (page 13)
• 'This practice brings to mind the description of the fate of the statue of Dagon in his Temple at Ashdod in 1 Samuel 5:4: "Dagon's head and both his hands were broken off upon the threshold; only his trunk was left intact." This account of the struggle between the god of Israel and the god of the Philistines was composed much later than the period of the Hazor statues, and was religiously motivated. It does, however, echo practices common in much earlier times.' (page 14)

See above, where I also quoted Ben-Tor's article 'Excavating Hazor, Part Two: Did the Israelites Destroy the Canaanite City?', BAR, May/Jun 1999:

• 'Only four groups active at the time could have destroyed Hazor: (1) one of the Sea Peoples, such as the Philistines, (2) a rival Canaanite city, (3) the Egyptians or (4) the early Israelites. As noted above, the mutilated statues were Egyptian and Canaanite. It is extremely unlikely that Egyptian and Caananite marauders would have destroyed staturary depicting their own gods and kings. In addition, as to another Canaanite city, the Bible tells us Hazor "was the head of all those kingdoms," and archaeology corroborates that the city was simply too wealthy and powerful to have fallen to a minor Canaanite rival city. So the Egyptians and the Canaanites are eliminated. As far as the Sea Peoples are concerned, Hazor is located too far inland to be of any interest to those maritime traders. Further, among the hundreds of potsherds recoverd at Hazor, not a single one can be attributed to the well-known repertory of the Sea Peoples. That leaves us with the Israelites.'

And yes I have read my Dever, and he makes a distinction between 'folk' and 'elite' religion, arguing that Jewish religion was 'not strictly monotheistic' at this stage on account of the differences in belief which prevailed among the common people and the higher classes. Having said which, Dever's is not the only viewpoint out there. The Migdol Temple is understood to be the earliest archaeological evidence of Jewish monotheism, in Iron I, and Hosea is understood to be the absolute monotheistic Hebrew text (dated without dispute to around 750 BC). As noted, Ben-Tor places Jewish monotheism in the Bronze Age, Morton-Smith identifies absolute monotheism in Israel in the pre-exilic era, and even Mark Smith dates Jewish absolute monotheism to the 9th century (Tigay and Fowler similarly early, 9th-8th centuries). None of these can be dismissed as Christian apologists, or 'conservative' scholars. Indeed, the view that Jewish monotheism emerged only in the exilic or post-exilic era remains the minority view, held typically by the well known 'Minimalists' (such as Lemche, Thompson, Niehr, and Davies), almost none of whom are even archaeologists. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hosea, monotheistic? It hardly seems worth arguing with someone who misunderstands his books so completely. Anyway, you're welcome to add the pig-bones to the paragrpah, but leave the stateues out, they're not part of any ässemblage". PiCo (talk) 07:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

PiCo, your posts are just too predictable. Once more you offer one line rhetoric and a complete lack of any reference to the relevant scholarly literature. You need to explain why Dever, Ben-Tor and others include the Hazor statuary in their assessment of what constitutes the assemblage. I am going to write up all this material and include it. Neither you nor Cush ever make any reference to the relevant scholarly literature, you both just dispute its value whenever it disagrees with your personal views. I can see that I'm going to have to be the one to clean up this article. --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Jerusalem and the Israelites

I know nothing about archeology but I think that Jerusalem is where one should look for Israelites, no? Emmanuelm (talk) 20:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It depends. An Israelite can be one of the descendants of the patriarch srael, in which case you might look for sign of them in Egypt and the Sinai (the story of Moses and the wanderings in the wilderness); or it might be one of the people of Merneptah's "Israel" and the "Israel" of the Assyrian and Moabite and suchlike inscriptions (i.e, the Israel of the archaeologists), in which case you look in the northern highlands rather than in the south; or it might be the Israel of the Deuteronomistic History, in which case you look both north and south of the border between the two kingdoms; or if you want to be really cheeky, it might be the Israelites of biblical scholars, in which case you look in books, because that's the only place these Israelites exist. I fear thart in this article, we're in the hands of sel-educated zealots, and no real Israelites will be found. PiCo (talk) 10:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The only 'self educated zealots' I see here are you and Cush. I've been quoting the standard academic literature without fear or favour, right across the entire spectrum of views. That's what needs to be in this article, and that's what will be in this article. The simple fact is that neither you nor Cush are familiar with the relevant literature, and you're both in disagreement with the conclusions of most scholars. --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to be ashamed about being self-educated - I'm sure there were good reasons that prevented your getting a degree. PiCo (talk) 08:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That was predictable also. Every time you're proved wrong over an issue, you start with the personal attacks. You know I have a degree, you know what it is, and you know what my second degree is also, so this was simply gratuitous abuse. Nor are you contributing effectively to this article. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Easy with the sarcasm, PiCo, and careful with the spelling in your comments.

My point was, some archeologists doubt the grandeur of Israelites as described in the Bible because they do not find big palaces and temples. But these would all be under Jerusalem. If one cannot dig under a shopping mall or a mosque, how can one be confident that there is nothing to be found? Emmanuelm (talk) 20:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This thread was getting monstrously long, so I broke this part off as a subsection to make it more easily editable. Anyway, Emmanuelm, it's kind of you to think I might know the answer to your question. For what my opinion is worth, I think what you actually mean is that some archaeologists and historians doubt the grandeur of David and Solomon, rather than of all the Israelites from the 12th century onwards. Could there be finds as yet undiscovered beneath sites that simply can't be touched? Undoubtedly. Herod is supposed to have scraped the hill bare to build his temple, but he had to put the rubbish somewhere, and one could expect to find those fragments. Just where they might be is anyone's guess, but probably not too far away. How nice it would be to find inscriptions from the original First Temple, in archaic Hebrew script. Not impossible, but there's no point speculating.

But the remains of David and Solomon's Jerusalem aren't the only clues pointing to a 10th century kingdom rather less grand than the depiction in Kings. Surveys of the surrounding countryside point to a very sparse population for Judah at that time. Jerusalem itself seems to have been rather small, in terms of surface area covered. And there have been no signs of the inscriptions that kings with large kingdoms usually leave behind to inform future generations of their greatness - not just under the present-day Temple Mount, but anywhere else within the supposed borders of the kingdom. Maybe they're out there somewhere, but so far no sign.

Of course, the kingdom of David and Solomon isn't what this article means by "Israelites". So far as I can tell, it's talking about the people described in the Bible, an ethnic history, not a political one. But just to stay on political history: The doubting scholars (I'm thinking Finkelstein) say that the dominant power in the 10th century was Israel (the northern kingdom, Samaria, the one actually called Israel by its neighbours), and that Judah (the southern kingdom, called House of David, never Israel, in the one certain, one probable, and one speculative inscriptions that mention it) was too small and insignificant to ever be a regional power. Finkelstein and others believe that after 722 Judah was flooded with refugees from Israel, and that it was only then that Judah and Israel become synonymous. (This isn't the Minimalist position - that theory holds that "Israel" was a creation of the Persian period, or even the Hellenistic period, when the Jerusalem elite were trying to unify an ethnically and religiously diverse Persian province). Personally, I'm not so sure. After all, if in the next three thousand years almost all records of our times were destroyed, would anyone believe that England once conquered and ruled India? How absurd...! But history is full of such absurdities. Macedonia conquered the Persian Empire, Rome grew from a city-state you could walk across in a morning to an empire in the blink of an eye, and Israel reappeared on the map after an absence of two thousand years. History, as the great man said, has many cunning passages. (By the way, Taiwanboi really has read all those books, he just doesn't get the big picture, being blinkered by his somewhat oddball religious heritage - he believes that Genesis 1 is an accurate record of the creation of the world, and that some day we're all going to get Ruptured. He knows the trees, but not the forest).PiCo (talk) 05:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes I have really read all those books, but you haven't. Not only that, but you protest repeatedly against scholarly conclusions being included in this and other articles on the Bible, except where those conclusions support your personal bias. You say I believe 'Genesis 1 is an accurate record of the creation of the world', which is absolutely false. I have told you repeatedly that I am not a Creationist. Furthermore, I do not believe in the 'Rapture'. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

One needs to look at the mainstream view and not give undue weight to the handful of sensationalist modernist scholars like Finkelstein who typically make historical interpretations that do not logically follow from the archaeological evidence. Mainstream scholars of Jewish history consider the Bible to be a fairly accurate depiction of the situation and have not been convinced otherwise by the small but vocal minority who use bizarre interpretations of archaeological evidence or more often lack of evidence to say otherwise. Finkelstein only gets some respect because he is a good field worker in archaeology, but he is nevertheless a regarded as crank historian. The usual problem with these modernist scholars is that they base their arguments entirely the logical fallacy that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. They just don't get it that if buildings are cleared then no archaeological evidence will be found. How much archaeological evidence remains of the Twin Towers having been 110 floors? None nor will such archaeological evidence ever be found. According to Finkelsten and Copenhagen minimalist logic, the Twin Towers were obviously a myth invented in the Obama era and in reality were never more than two spotlights a few feet high. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 03:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

One also needs to avoid straw man arguments against David and Solomon's kingdom and the Bible's description of the vast area that it describes them as ruling. The Bible makes no claim that this was an organized empire with direct rule by David and Solomon merely that kings from far and wide sent tribute to them. It only potrays direct rule over the 12 tribes and even this was very loosely organized. None of the archaeological evidence disproves this picture it is in fact consistent with it. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 03:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Israelite concept irrelevant today?

I created a new subsection called "dispersal of Israelites" because the article lacked an ending. I then spent an hour looking for a source stating that the concept of patriarchal descent from Jacob is irrelevant (or relevant) today but found nothing, aside from a speech by Sarah Palin referring to current US Christians as "Israelites". Your opinion? Emmanuelm (talk) 03:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin? US Christians?? That was a joke, right? Cush (talk) 04:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. It was not Palin, it was her preacher, and he probably meant the Jews. Here is a clearer story with video. Back to the question, are there people who claim descent from Jacob? And do they matter? Emmanuelm (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Since all Jews (bar converts?) are supposedly descended from Jacob/Israel, I guess the answer is yes. Then there are groups like the British Israelites, who (I think) claim that the Jews have got it all wrong, and they (the BI) are the true children if Israel. And finally, getting a bit off-topic, have you ever come across that strange factoid to the effect that if you count back the generations - you know, 2 parents, 4 g/parents, 8 gg/parents, etc - then by the time of William the Conquerer, let alone Jacob, you have far more putative contemporaneous ancestors than the entire population of the globe? The arithmetic works, it's obviously wrong somehow, but I don't know how. PiCo (talk) 08:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Genetically, less than 20% of current Jews descend from a Middle Eastern male, and this male could also be a convert. Except for carriers of the Cohen modal haplotype, there is no one who can prove descent from Jacob. And the Cohanim do not use this evidence to claim sole ownership of the Land of Israel -- for now. Current Jewish authorities state, without much Biblical backing, that the promises to the sons of Jacob apply to all Jews. As for British Israelites, Black Hebrew Israelites, Rastafari and other crazy claims, are they relevant? If not, can someone find a source saying "the Israelite nation is extinct"? Emmanuelm (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you didn't understood genetic information. Of Ashkenazim Jews, for example, 23% have J2,and 19% have J1 Y-chromosomes, so, about 42% of Ashkenazim Jews have J haplogroup Y-chromosomes, that is thought to have originated in Levant. If you check Y-DNA haplogroups by ethnic groups, you will see, that their genetic information is far more similar to Palestinian, Lebanese and Syrian Arabs, then to Poles, Germans, Russians and Ukrainians. Same goes for Sephardi Jews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igorb2008 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

How does genetic evidence correlate with historical and archaeological evidence?

I would like to see somebody take the DNA evidence (Haplogroup J) and overlay it on a map and connect all this. Why? Because the image that transpires is a remarkable and precise map of the Hellenistic world. There is no consensus on where the word Hellenes had it's beginnings, but my hypothetical guess based on it's spelling and pronounciation in Greek, EL-een-es, it could literally translate in ancient Greek as "people of El" or "people belonging to El". One of God's names in Hebrew? More importantly, the specific areas where Haplogroup J is predominant is intriguing. Southern Greece, for example, where Sparta is found and a passage in 1 Maccabees where the writer says, "...in a work concerning the Spartans and Jews there is a statement that they are brothers and that they are descended from Abraham" seem to be too much of a coincidence. Another location where Haplogroup J is predominant is in central and south eastern Turkey (Anatolia,Asia). The people of Ur, in SE Turkey, have long held it in their traditions as the birthplace of Abraham and modern archaeology seems to affirm this. Biblical archaeologist Cyrus Gordon's book "The Common Background of Greek and Hebrew Civilizations" might make a good start in answering these questions. Clues in biblical texts such as "northwest to the isles" (there are 2,000 Greek islands northwest of Israel), or Jesus' order to his disciples to preach the gospel "to the lost sheep of Israel" (Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Antioch, Ephesus, etc) make a good beginning too. There are other ancient writings, which I don't remember off hand right now, that place specific tribes on specific islands in Greece such as Crete and Rhodes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.62.212 (talk) 23:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hellenes are Indoeuropeans and not Semites. Greeks do not descend from any "people of El" and certainly not from Hebrews. The Jewish and Evangelical urge to forcefully base everything on biblical characters and people is ridiculous. The influence of Aegean/Greek culture on the Levant and Egypt was through the Pelasgians/Philistines. Cush (talk) 07:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

In any case, the only way we could use such a map is if it had been published in an academic journal. The article should only reflect what scholars have published (and not our interpretations of that either). Quotes from Jesus, etc shouldn't be used unless they have been published in connection with argument that there is a link between Israel and Greece. dougweller (talk) 07:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Frequency of Y-DNA Haplogroup J2 among Hellenes(Greeks) is 23%. Sephardic Jews 29%. Ashkenazi Jews 23%. The hard facts as evidenced in modern DNA science do not suggest that these groups are biologically related. They in fact are related. These groups have a common paternal ancestor. There is no question about it. I wasn't suggesting that all Hellenes are the descendants of "Jacob" because that would be ridiculous when you view it in the context of history and migration patterns of people. But certainly, 1/4 of Hellenes from Greece are related to Jews. Take into consideration that the Hellenic world extended into Anatolia(modern Turkey)and other areas as well and you will see the same frequency rates. My suggestion to you is look at the early history of Christianity and what it's stated mission was and what it accomplished. The first Christians were Hebrew converts who lived in the Levant, Anatolia, and throughout the ancient Hellenic speaking world. Eventually, through the likes of Paul, gentiles were brought into this belief system and altered it to fit their own style. But, the early church certainly was very Jewish in origin. Some 300 years into its history, the eastern churches and western churches were in major conflict over such issues as the Sabbath day and when to keep the Passover; with the eastern churches(Hellenic)preferring Saturday over Sunday, and preferring to keep "Easter" on the Passover with the Jews, whatever day of the week it fell on, instead of Sunday. That tradition is reflected today. Hellenes still use the word "Savato" for Saturday, and the word Easter is non-existent, with the word "Pascha"(Passover)in its place. After so many centuries national and religious identities become lost. I consider myself an American because I was born in America, but my parents were born in Greece, and consider themselves as such. Their parents were born in Russia. Their parents, in turn, were born in Turkey, but considered themselves Pontians and not Turks. This all happened in only three generations. What has happened over millenia? So what am I? Can anyone really answer this question for themselves? I know this, that I am a Greek Orthodox Christian with a Greek name, yet 12 marker Y-DNA analysis has so far linked me to 3 men from Turkey who have Turkish names and are Muslim! 99.9% positive result that all four of us share a common paternal ancestor.DNA analysis has shown me that my particular Haplogroups have very high frequencies in east Asia and India. The point is: History and archaeology only go so far. There is much more to the equation than cultural history and linguistics. Perhaps modern scholarship hasn't had time to view these facts with regard to DNA and write about them to the degree we see in other fields. After all, it is a relatively new science. Understanding the human genome and how it works is bringing together many different fields of science and helping us understand where we all come from.70.19.135.200

(talk) 15:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC) The statement, "Hellenes are Indoeuropeans and not Semites" is pretty remarkable when you consider the extent of Hellenism and its inherent idea. Let's look at the United States of America which was established only 233 years ago by several groups of English speaking people from Britain. Can you really say that America is British today? After only two and a half centuries? There are no Italians, Germans, French, Mexicans, Portuguese, Chinese, Brazilian, Greeks, Jews here today? Add another 2,500 years or more to this equation and tell me then "Americans are British and not (whatever)". And that doesn't even bring into question the idea that millions of Native Americans were here long before we were. Hellenism was akin to what we call today American capitalism, for lack of a better word. Hellenism, like America, spread its sphere of influence throughout the known world. It possessed lands not its own. It incorporated its ideas, politics, philosophies, arts, sciences, and religion everywhere it could. In so doing, those people, whoever they were before, became Hellenes in heart and mind and in IDENTITY. Of course, we cannot make a blanket statement and say they were all this, or that. To assume through archaeological research, etc. that the modern nation of Hellas (Greece) and those that call themselves Hellenes (Greeks) are descended from Indoeuropeans or Pelasgians is flat out wrong. Look at the DNA. I'm one example.70.19.135.200 (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Black Hebrews

I am not sure how useful it is to quote Tacitus, since his "history" of the Jews is basically an anti-semitic diatribe. If we are talking about Roman times, I think we have a contemporaneous description in the Mishna, written around 300 (if I have my dates right). It tells us that the Jews were, in general, darker than the Germans but lighter than the Cushim (Ethiopeans or Nubians). Interestingly, the same source proves that a Jew can be of any race.84.228.25.197 (talk) 18:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Bible says Jacob was named "Israel" after wrestled and defeated Yhwh

NO word מלאך or word בני אלוהים in the text that indicate for an Angel

It says Jacob Struggle with god "שָׂריתָ עִם אֱלהים Gen 32:28.And Jacob Would NOT release this DEFEATED god till this DEFEATED god surrender by blessing Jacob Gen 32:27.

Next Verse Gen 32:31 state :- that Jacob called the name of the place Peniel פְּנִיאֵל : FOR I HAVE SEEN GOD FACE TO FACE, כִּי-רָאִיתִי אֱלֹהִים פָּנִים אֶל-פָּנִים, וַתִּנָּצֵל נַפְשִׁיmeaning That jacob Indeed wrestled &shaft biblical god.

And what about this

יְהוָה, אִישׁ מִלְחָמָה {YHWH is a MAN of war } Exodus 15:3 ????

How come you worship a CRIMINAL man אִישׁ name yhwh"יְהוה?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.211.184.161 (talk) 15:32 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Cush, this is a place for discussing the article, not for answering challenges in general, especially mean-spirited ones. If you don't think "There never were Jewish people." or "How come you worship a CRIMINAL man אִישׁ name yhwh"יְהוה?" are defamatory, you are encouraging vandalism. Thanks for your "help". Hertz1888 (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

For the record, my statement above was in response to Cush's reinstating an IP post I had deleted, telling me I'd "better answer the challenge". An admin. then blocked the IP with the comment, "IP's edits basically just rants attacking various religions on talk pages, no attempt to build the encyclopedia". Hertz1888 (talk) 07:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, Yhwh indeed is an extremely violent and "criminal" concept of god. And "Jewish people" is a highly problematic designation as it is based on some weird religio-racist concept. Defamatory means to be spreading rumors (from Latin fama: talk, report, rumor, tradition), but if you say something true, you don't necessarily defame anyone. Those who claim Jews are somehow connected to Israelites are committing the real vandalism, as they wreak havoc in young minds who believe such misinformation. · CUSH · 19:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Then, if he was the real victor, and the opponent not just faked the loss, they should exchange roles so that YHWH became the earth based forefather of a people, and Israel ascended to be the new YHWH. If everything went fair, that is... Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 14:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)