Talk:Israelites/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2020

Request to modify section, "Judahite, Judaean, Jew": The Greek term "Ioudaios" does NOT refer to members of the Tribe of Judah, but to the the people from Kingdom of Judah, and later, the region of Judea. Literally, "Ioudaios" means "Judean" (i.e. from "Ioudaia", meaning "Judea" in Greek). There were, of course, several tribes in the Kingdom of Judah (Judah, Benjamin, Simeon, part of Levi, and numerous refugees from the northern tribes of Israel after the Assyrian destruction). In the Bible, members of Judah are referred to either as "Sons of Judah" or simply "Judah" ("Ἰούδα" in the Greek Septuagint"), not as "Yehudim"/"Judeans"/Ioudaioi". 62.0.34.134 (talk) 10:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Jacob D 62.0.34.134 (talk) 10:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

But still, that is where the word "Jews" comes from. Debresser (talk) 12:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

"But still, that is where the word "Jews" comes from."

The tribe of Judah (יהודה) is the Biblical origin of for the word "Jew" (יהודי). However, in the Hebrew Bible itself, the word יהודי was applied to those who were members of the Kingdom of Judah (2 Kings 16:6 and 25:25), and after the exile of the northern Israelite tribes, to any Israelite. See the dictionaries of Gesenius, Klein, and Jastrow. 62.0.34.134 (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Jacob D

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ~ Amkgp 💬 10:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

This subject is addressed in the article Ioudaios, citing references such as the highly respected Bauer Lexicon (of Biblical Greek) as well as a 2007 article by Steve Mason and other references, indicating that the translation "Judean" is widely regarded as the preferred one. 62.0.34.134 (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Jacob D

What you say is well known, and not relevant. As I said: 'But still, that is where the word "Jews" comes from.' Debresser (talk) 19:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

How is not relevant when I was specifically referring to this sentence in the article?

"The Greek term Ioudaioi (Jews) was an exonym originally referring to members of the Tribe of Judah, which formed the nucleus of the kingdom of Judah". Actually the references provided to this sentence in the article all support the original appoint I made, i.e. that the Greek term "Ioudaioi" essentially means "Judean".

Jacob D (talk) 09:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Jacob D

You keep repeating yourself. You already received an explanation. Nothing more I can do for you. I see no consensus for your proposed edit. Try asking editors at WT:JUDAISM perhaps. Debresser (talk) 10:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

It appears my modification has been accepted by the editors, with minor editing. It now reads:

"The Greek term Ioudaioi (Jews) was an exonym originally referring to members of the Tribe of Judah, and per extension the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Judah and the Judean region, and was later adopted as a self-designation by people in the diaspora who identified themselves as loyal to the God of Israel and the Temple in Jerusalem."

212.235.98.140 (talk) 12:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Jacob D

Yeah, that was me who edited your addition. Debresser (talk) 12:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

"largely shown"; "impossible"

I stumbled across this article today. The lead has the sentence

Modern archaeology has largely shown that determining the historicity of the religious narrative is impossible.

Consider rephrasing, as something which merely "largely shows" cannot imply impossibility. If, according to the relevant citations, modern archaeology does in fact demonstrate said impossibility, then remove the word largely from the sentence. If, on the other hand, we are in an unsure state, then opt for replacing impossible with a representation of the difficulty of the exercise. For example,

Modern archaeology has demonstrated difficulty in determining the historicity of the religious narrative.

I am not watching this article or talk page. — TheJJJunk ^{(say hello)} 17:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with TheJJJunk that the paraphrasing here distorts the source. Furthermore, it is easy to overlook the phrase "determining the historicity of" and splice the rest of the sentence together to an entirely different assertion. An alternative wording might be: "Efforts to confirm the religious texts through archaeology, once widespread, have been abandoned as unproductive and misguided.[ref] Many scholars now consider …" 73.71.251.64 (talk) 17:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I am not completely happy with the proposal, since the quotation talks about the forefathers, Moses and the Exodus, not "the religious texts" in general. I do agree with both editors that the present text must be changed, since it is even farther from the quoted text than the new proposal. Debresser (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

religious texts -> Israelites' biblical origins? 73.71.251.64 (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

C I've declined the edit request for the moment, as it appears as though consensus hasn't yet been reached on how to edit this part of the article. Both Debresser and TheJJJunk are able to edit this page themselves once consensus has been reached. Seagull123 Φ 22:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

"Efforts to confirm the Israelites' biblical origins through archaeology, once widespread, have been abandoned as unproductive and misguided." is fine with me. @TheJJJunk:, what do you say? Debresser (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@73.71.251.64 @Debresser: I would strip "and misguided" from your version. Also, with this new version, unless all "efforts" have ceased (with which I am unfamiliar and am not reviewing sources at this time), we can recover "largely": "Efforts to confirm the Israelites' biblical origins through archaeology, once widespread, have been largely abandoned as unproductive." For the purposes of consensus, I defer to the other editors' judgement. Like I said, I just stumbled onto this article and noticed the text in question. Thanks for the consideration. — TheJJJunk ^{(say hello)} 19:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with both your points and the version you proposed. Debresser (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Babylonian exile in Galilee leading to an increased Jewish population

"After the destruction of the kingdom of Israel and kingdom of Judah in 720 and 586 BCE respectively,[95][96] the concepts of Jew and Samaritan gradually replaced Judahite and Israelite.^{[citation needed]}"

I tried to find a source for this but the only ones I can find are Catholic related webpages. Would this still be acceptable to use as a citation or would it be seen as too biased? --MNML48 (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Spelling error

It has been speculated by some scholars that the cult of Yahweh may have been brouth into Israel by a group of Caananite slaves fleeing from Egypt, who later merged with the Israelites

---

Should read

It has been speculated by some scholars that the cult of Yahweh may have been brought into Israel by a group of Caananite slaves fleeing from Egypt, who later merged with the Israelites

Fixed, thanks. Zero^talk 05:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Language

There used to be a recently removed section, but that was suboptimal. The lead has a remnant that also now lacks supporting citations in the body. A better subsection should probably be rewritten, —PaleoNeonate – 22:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Mandaeans

Mcvti thinks that Mandaeans should be referenced or linked as "See also" from this article. Here is a copy of what they wrote on my talk page:

The information in Mandaeans#Origin states "Scholars such as Kurt Rudolph, Rudolf Macúch, Ethel S. Drower and Jorunn J. Buckley connect the early Mandaeans with the Nasaraeans described by Epiphanius, a division of the Essenes according to Joseph Lightfoot." Also, in Mandaeism#Scholarship, "Scholars specializing in Mandaeism such as Kurt Rudolph, Mark Lidzbarski, Rudolf Macúch, Ethel S. Drower, James F. McGrath, Charles G. Häberl, Jorunn Jacobsen Buckley, and Şinasi Gündüz argue for a Palestinian origin. The majority of these scholars believe that the Mandaeans likely have a historical connection with John the Baptist's inner circle of disciples. Charles Häberl, who is also a linguist specializing in Mandaic, finds Palestinian and Samaritan Aramaic influence on Mandaic and accepts Mandaeans having a "shared Palestinian history with Jews". In addition, scholars such as G. R. S. Mead, Andrew Phillip Smith, Samuel Zinner, Richard Thomas, J. C. Reeves, G. Quispel and K. Beyer also argue for a Judea/Palestine or Jordan Valley origin for the Mandaeans. James McGrath and Richard Thomas believe there is a direct connection between Mandaeism and pre-exilic traditional Israelite religion."

I dont know anything about the subject, but I did not see any mention of connection to Israelites in Mandaeans, so it seems to me that in order to include this connection here it must be justified on the other article. Opinions? “WarKosign” 19:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you. If all this information above is reliably sourced, than all of it should be first added to the "Mandaeans" article. I don't understand why it was not added there to begin with? Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 21:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both for pointing this out. I agree with you the information should also be in the Mandaeans article so I have copied it from the Mandaeism article since it pertains to both. Mcvti (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Quotation needed for "for the rest of his life"

Regarding for the rest of his life &diff=1072673581&oldid=1072670399 is required a Bible narration quotation.

The old text states: light emanates from the face of Moses for the rest of his life, causing him to wear a veil so he does not frighten people.

This addition for the rest of his life is only a deduction of someone that did not read the so called New Testament were the apostle comments Shemoth or Exodus 34:34: Now if the ministry (ministration) of death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at the face of Moses because of its fleeting glory, (quoted from NKJV)

A better narration would be: light emanates from the face of Moses, causing him to wear a veil so he does not frighten the children of Israel.

So, we do not force the reader to be against the apostle that was also a rabbi. --FlorinCB (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

The interpretation you refer to comes from the New Testament (2 Corinthians 3:7), so therefore is the Christian interpretation. I should note, though, that there is Jewish interpretation of the passage which sees it as continuing for all of Moses' life. (Off the top of my head, I know that at least ibn Ezra gives this interpretation in his commentary.) So this is a matter of different religious interpretations.

However, I suppose it may be a good idea to remove the phrase "for the rest of his life" from the sentence, if only to render this all a non-issue by evoking neither interpretation. Jamie Eilat (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

the Ten Commandments and the finger of God in the Bible narration

Moses descends from the mountain forty days later with the Sefer Torah he wrote, and with two rectangular lapis lazuli< ref>Shemoth; Exodus 24< /ref> tablets, into which Yahweh had carved the Ten Commandments. There is no literal mention when the second set of commandments were given of two things: 1). the Ten Commandments; 2). the finger of God;

The proposed addition to the narrative will allow the reader to see both of these two: Moses descends from the mountain forty days later with the Sefer Torah he wrote, and with two rectangular lapis lazuli< ref>Shemoth; Exodus 24< /ref> tablets, into which Yahweh had carved the Ten Commandments with the finger of God.< ref>Shemoth; Exodus, 31, 18< /ref> --FlorinCB (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm having some trouble following what you're saying. Are you referring to Shemot (parashah)? The details you're trying to add definitely aren't in my Bible. We can't use primary religious sources to discuss the narrative of the Bible. We aren't even supposed to cite the Bible itself, see WP:RSPSCRIPTURE.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I used the first translation that was in query after doing Google Search on BibleHub:
Deuteronomy chapter 9
9When I went up on the mountain to receive the tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant that the LORD made with you, I stayed on the mountain forty days and forty nights. I ate no bread and drank no water. 10Then the LORD gave me the two stone tablets, inscribed by the finger of God with the exact words that the LORD spoke to you out of the fire on the mountain on the day of the assembly. 11And at the end of forty days and forty nights, the LORD gave me the two stone tablets, the tablets of the covenant.
Exodus chapter 31
18And when He had made an end of speaking with him on Mount Sinai, He gave Moses two tablets of the Testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God.
For witch of these two You said "aren't in my Bible". ?
It's not about that we aren't supposed to cite the Bible itself but we should be able to contribute to the article, specially because has too few sources and the way is phrased is under the lowest grammar level. So, to have the finger of God there were can be added I have to add this here were people have trouble following what I'm saying. --FlorinCB (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2022

Modern archaeology and modern scholars seem to seek to poke holes in the Biblical account of anything and make this article bias. 174.240.67.249 (talk) 11:53, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Not done. Please note that requests must be of the form "please change X to Y". But please also note that modern evidence and analysis not agreeing with ancient chronicles is nothing new, and empirical information poking holes in tall tales is not likely to be a trend that ends any time soon. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:13, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

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

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

• Israelite depictions.png

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

Please revert unsourced edit

Could this edit please be reverted, the sources do not state anything about the scholars beliefs and comes across as trying to discount the info by trying to insinuate about them. 2001:8003:34A3:800:8860:9F35:24D0:A44C (talk) 22:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 22:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

summary suggestions for clarity

The term "Israelites" (/ˈɪzrəlaɪts, -riə-/; Hebrew: בני ישראל, Bnei Yisra'el, Sons of Israel; or עם ישראל, Am Yisra'el, Nation of Israel) generally refers to the confederation of Hebrew-speaking tribes who inhabited the area of Israel during tribal and monarchic phases in the late Bronze Age and Iron Age, who are the progenitors of Jews and Samaritans and are central to the narratives of Abrahamic religions. 67.80.53.15 (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

The terms Bnei Yisrael and Am Yisrael are still used by both Jews and Samaritans, only in English there's such "distinction" to my knowledge Kindofaveragejew (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

The article should be in the present tense. 2600:1017:B822:A9ED:0:4E:EDF8:D901 (talk) 20:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed and concur on the present tense usage by both active Israelite communities.Mistamystery (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Some missing things from the DNA study .

I'll quote from the conclusion section :

"Nevertheless, the data in Tables 3 and 4 indicate that the Samaritan and Jewish Y-chromosomes have a much greater affinity than do those of the Samaritans and their longtime geographical neighbors, the Palestinians.

However, this is not the case for the mtDNA haplotypes. In fact, Table 4 shows that distances of Samaritans to Jews and Palestinians for mtDNA are about the same" .

The problem with the current text is it doesn't properly explain the results of the study , instead directly quoting from the abstract .

The study performed a PCA analysis on approximately 6 or so population samples . In terms of Y-Chromosomes (Patrilineal decent) : Jews and Samaritans are closest to each other . In terms of mtDNA (Matrilineal decent) : affinity of Sarmatians to Jews and Palestinians is of similar levels.

Such detail should ideally be included so readers be aware of some form of continuity in other Levantine non-Jewish/Samaritan populations . 2.88.119.229 (talk) 13:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Merger Proposal: Ancient Israelite Religion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge "Ancient Israelite religion" into "Yahwism", with it being argued that the subject and content of Ancient Israelite religion duplicates that of the already-existing Yahwism article. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

---

A page was recently created for Ancient Israelite Religion. Upon realizing that the Israelite page does not currently have a section covering either religion, or the religious evolution of the Israelites from earlier Canaanite systems to early modern and modern Jewish and Samaritan practice, it probably makes more sense to begin a section on this page. If there is an over-abundance, we can always revisit the kick off of a separate page down the line.Mistamystery (talk) 22:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

How is Ancient Israelite Religion distinct from Yahwism? Is it distinct? Hist9600 (talk) 23:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Ancient Israelite Religion should probably just be redirected to Yahwism, given that there's not really any distinction. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 04:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the latter. This article simply duplicates existing content. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see any distinction, and Yahwism is already the much longer and more well-developed article. Hist9600 (talk) 01:26, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I oppose the proposal. These are not the same thing. Andre🚐 23:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I believe the article should actually be Canaanite religion. It seems that there is a conflation with Yahwism, which is more monolatristic, with the polytheistic religion that I think the other article is about. Andre🚐 01:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it depends on exactly what Ancient Israelite Religion is referring to. It seems to include some coverage of the polytheistic Canaanite religion, but also the more monolatristic Yahwism that developed out of that. But there is really so little content in the Ancient Israelite Religion article, that anything relevant probably already exists in one of those two articles, or could be copied over if it would be beneficial. Hist9600 (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

That's true, there's not much to salvage in the other article. Andre🚐 19:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

It should probably be merged with Yahwism instead as they cover the same subject. The monolatristic worship of Yahweh is what seperated "ancient Israelite religion" from Canaanite religion. I find the term "Yahwism" a bit unfortunate though as it suggests that the religion had already changed into a monotheistic one. "Ancient Israelite religion" would be less misleading and clearer. --Glennznl (talk) 06:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Supporting merge (or redirect) to Yahwism. I'd made the redirect myself – somehow completely missing that there was an active merge discussion. Emolu (talk) 14:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Phrasing needs clarity

“through the development of Yahwism, a distinct monolatristic—and later monotheistic—religion centred on the national god Yahweh.”

It doesn’t seem like there’s an academic consensus that the religious beliefs were the primary driver of the branching off from the Canaanites (as “through the development of” implies). There are multiple theories.

See Frevel’s new SBL textbook for multiple views:

https://cart.sbl-site.org/books/061737C 2600:100C:B037:E65A:98DB:828:D2AF:B870 (talk) 13:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The Are/Were problem…

We have a particular semantic issue that requires ready resolution.

“Israelites” in English is commonly used solely in a historical context to refer to the Levantine ethno-religious groups that were successors to Canaanites and (depending on your source) Hebrews, and the predecessors to modern day Jews and Samaritans.

The problem is that both modern Jewish and Samaritan populations still refer to themselves - especially in a religious capacity - in Hebrew as B’nai Israel (Children of Israel) or Am Israel (People/Nation of Israel).

English usage skews differently. Most Jews refer to themselves as Jews in English (and other western languages), and Samaritans refer to themselves as Samaritan Israelites.

Rarely will either group refer to themselves as solely “Israelites” in English. As stated above, the Samaritans have recently come around to referring to themselves as “Samaritan Israelites”, but this is merely because if they were to only go by “Israelites”, there would be confusion. Numerous Samaritan community representatives have rejected (and on occasion taken great offense to) the appellation of Samaritan and take great pain to publicly clarify that their community self-identifies as B’nei Israel, or - alternately - “Shamerim” (Watchers/Keepers).

This article seems to insist that the Hebrew translation of “Israelite” is “B’nei Israel”, and consigns it only to a historical population. That isn’t remotely the fact in historical or contemporary usage.

Either this article needs to change to reflect both the term’s historical and contemporary usage, or a separate “Children of Israel”, “B’nai Israel”, “Am Israel” etc page needs to be created to reflect the terms contemporary usage status. Mistamystery (talk) 01:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

absolutely correct and obvious. writing the article mainly about the ancient Israelites is fine, pretending israelites don't currently exist is not. the french language has "israelites" in common usage for jews btw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.36.42 (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

English usage skews differently. Most Jews refer to themselves as Jews in English (and other western languages), and Samaritans refer to themselves as Samaritan Israelites. We follow English usage on Wikipedia- the only place where any other usage needs to be noted might be in a terminology section.—-Ermenrich (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, with all due respect to the Samaritans, most people call them the Samaritans, even though they still refer to themselves as the Israelites. They have an equal claim to that name as the Jewish claimants do, but I think the Wikipedia article handles it appropriately by using Israelite to refer to the Ancient Israelites and not the modern Israelis, Samaritans, or Jews. Andre🚐 01:23, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

The issue is not the usage, the issue is the tense of the article. The Israelite article only refers to the historical designation in english, while insisting the hebrew is also solely a historical term.

Again, is the answer to expand the definition on this page to both a historical as well as a contemporary term? Or do we start a new page to cover the contemporary usage?Mistamystery (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Israelite in English IS a purely historical term, so there’s no reason to change the tense in the article.—Ermenrich (talk) 01:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. So conventionally, we use WP:COMMONNAME, so the goal is to try to ascertain how things are most commonly referred to. Israelite, as far as I know, and Hebrew people (as opposed to the Modern Hebrew language) is usually used in a historical anthropological or paleoarcheological sense. And yeah, there are some groups that do use it in self-descriptive way in a contemporary way like the "Black Hebrew Israelites" that are actually not Jewish, Hebrew, or Israelite (though they are black). Unlike Samaritans, who are I guess equal if not greater to Jews in terms of their descriptiveness to be "Israelites" or "Hebrew people" given they still use Samaritan Hebrew which is Paleo-Hebrew, but we don't get into all of that. We just use their most common appellation. So Samaritans are Samaritans, Jews are Jews, Hebrew is a language (liturgical or modern or classical), etc. Andre🚐 01:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I know it’s convoluted, so let me try and make this as simple as possible:

Hebrew is a language. It is also the name used to describe the Canaanite and nomadic West Semitic speaking groups that later came to be known as the Israelites (“the Hebrews”). Because Israelites are said to have descended from the Hebrews (and Hebrew has been maintained as the liturgical language of both Jews and Samaritans, as well as the daily language of modern Israelis) the term has also retained contemporary usage for Israelite groups today, particularly Jewish ones, especially in the US. (See YWHA, Hebrew National, HIAS, Washington Hebrew Congregation, etc.)

Both Jews and Samaritans are Israelite sub-groups. While there is Biblical claim that all Israelites are descendants from Biblical patriarch Jacob/Israel, more literally (and historically) both Jews and Samaritans claim descent from a once unified single religious community (as well as a kingdom) called “Israel”. It’s important to know that this is the exact order of importance and priority that this term is used and maintained within these communities. “Israel” is used to denote first and foremost a religious family and community, hence “B’nai Israel” or “Children of Israel” being the literal translation of the Hebrew term claiming to be the appropriate source word for “Israelite”. Communally, it is rarely used in regard to membership of a former Iron Age nation state called “Israel.” The ethno-religious community informed the name of the country, and not vice versa.

“Jew” is fundamentally an ethno-national term before it is an ethno-religious term, and has, over time, gained a (sometimes confusing) mixed usage, more so in English and other Western languages than within the Jewish community itself. As the ethno-religious term “Israel” (as in “nation/people of”) precedes the creation of the distinct ethno-national term “Jew” (as in an Israelite citizen of Judah), historic and contemporary community usage of the terms tends to skew as outlined above: ethno-national self-identification skews “Jew”, and ethno-religious self-idenfication (espeically in religious settings) skews “Israel” (the term “Jew” is rarely used in Jewish religious practice, and communal self-identification in Jewish religious ceremony and invocation is almost exclusively “Israel” (see: Shema, Priestly Blessing, Kol Nidre, etc.)

Samaritan is a term popularized in the west almost solely by the New Testament, which was authored at a time where there was significant hostility toward the Samaritan community by both Jews and - later - Christians. It should be no surprise that very little attention was paid to how the Samaritan community self-identified. They have only ever identified as “B’nai Israel” (Children of Israel), and only it seems generated their secondary appellation of “Shamerim” (Watchers/Keepers) in response to “Shomromin” (Eng, Samaritans, from Hebrew Shomron, Eng: Samaria) an exonym applied to them that they never asked for in the first place.

It should also be noted that the small but vocal contemporary community of Samaritans in Israel & Palestine take moderate offense at the term “Samaritan” and consider it pejorative. This is not as bad as calling Roma “Gypsy”, but is on the same spectrum, not too far off, and is fundamentally considered a false and inappropriate exonym.

The issue here is that the Western academic tradition, largely guided by a Christian academic system that by-and-large excluded Jewish academics until the 19th century, decided that the appropriate translation for “B’nai Israel” was “Israelite”. This would not be a problem by itself if it weren’t for the secondary issue that these same academics, pursuing a Christian Supersessionist agenda, also decided to apply usage of the term “Israelite” solely for historical analysis of obsolete Iron Age communities and practices prior to the Second Temple period.

This is fundamentally problematic and not in line with the usage of the original Hebrew term by the two still very much active Israelite communities. And given the fact that the proper direct Hebrew translation for Israelite is - quite literally - “Israeli”, (and does not appear (for obvious reasons) will replace “Israelite” as the direct translation o choice any time soon), it seems more than prudent to address the issue of contemporaneous usage of the term in a sensitive but reasonable fashion in this article and elsewhere.

We can very easily revise the page to say that the term “Israelite” is used to discuss both historical and contemporary populations, but to relegate this page to only historical discussion not only gives sway to a one-sided colonialist and supremacistic interpretation of the term, it just plainly isn’t factual to the daily usage of its Hebrew counterpart.

To recap for ultra-simplicity:

This article insists that the English term “Israelite” is derived from “B’nai Israel” in Hebrew.

This article insists that “Israelite” is only a historic term, but “B’nai Israel” is still used today as a self-identifier for both Jewish and Samaritan Israelite communities (and, in fact, never stopped being a self-identifier for these communities since antiquity).

We should probably address this, if not try and find a place to address both usages in the article.

Mistamystery (talk) Mistamystery (talk) 02:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

the term “Jew” is rarely used in Jewish religious practice, and communal self-identification in Jewish religious ceremony and invocation is almost exclusively “Israel” (see: Shema, Priestly Blessing, Kol Nidre, etc.) That was not my experience growing up in Reform Judaism. "A rabbi is a special kind of Jew." That is what my Hebrew School (there's that Hebrew again) taught me. The issue here is that the Western academic tradition, largely guided by a Christian academic system that by-and-large excluded Jewish academics until the 19th century, decided that the appropriate translation for “B’nai Israel” was “Israelite”. My understanding that "b'nai" means "family of," or "house of," particularly a house of worship. So "Family of Israel" or "House of Israel" or "Children of Israel" are reasonable translations. Many Jewish synagogues are called similar things. Andre🚐 03:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh, totally. For clarity, I meant prayers and scripture. The word “Jew” (Heb, “Yehudi”) is effectively non-existent so far as scripture and prayer are concerned. So far as the Tanakh and all Jewish religious scriptures and holy books are concerned, ethno-religious community and national identification is almost exclusively “Israel”.

Your Synagogue anecdote - if anything - reinforces my earlier point about (sometimes confusing) mixed usage, specifically amongst the Jewish community. Jews will frequently alternate usage of “Israel” and “Jew” freely, but as stated above, there definitely is a preference when it comes to ethno-national identification (“Jew”).Mistamystery (talk) 03:22, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

The use of terms translated "Israelite" in modern Judaism and Samaritanism is already mentioned in the etymology section, so there is no reason for any further change to the article.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

It’s not sufficient. On the terms of this article’s insistence that Israelite and B’nai Israel are of direct translated value (which I think is problematic on its own merits) there is an issue that needs to be resolved by one of the following avenues:

1. Make clear on this page (and in the article intro) that the term “Israelite” refers both to ancient and contemporary descendant groups (Jews, Samaritans, and claimants), not just historical groups.

2. Render this page solely as a historical analysis of Iron Age Israelite groups, remove the insistence that B’nai Israel and “Israelite” are of direct translative connection, rewrite the etymology section to go into the genesis of the English term, and then creating a separate page “Children of Israel” (the direct translation of the Hebrew term) that then goes into historical and modern Israelite identity and community identification separately.

Modern Jews and Samaritans connect their descent from Ancient Israelites through the same prominent usage of the same Hebrew term they have used since the Iron Age - “B’nei Israel (בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל )

The issue here is the English term Israelite and its supposed hebrew counterpart have wildly differential usage depending on the community. Israelite communities either rarely or reluctantly use the term in English, and have a doctrinal emphasis on usage of the Hebrew term exclusively. Western academia almost exclusively uses the English term on a solely historical basis, has vague relationship with the historical and contemporary intra-communal usage of the Hebrew term, and - on these grounds - renders contemporary connection to “Israelite” via its supposed Hebrew counterpart identity to be a footnote.

As stated above, this is a Decoloniality issue. We are dealing with western exonyms and definitions that have been reinforced by predominantly western powers and institutions. Sensitivity and space must be applied to pry these two terms apart and give appropriate context without insisting on one-sided view because of western historical and academic precedent.

Happy to take a stab at appropriate re-drafts for review and commentary.

Mistamystery (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I think you just need some reliable sources to cite rather than just our opinions. Andre🚐 17:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but are you arguing that Judaism is not "Western"? You need reliable secondary sources, as Andrevan states, not just your opinions. We aren't here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Like it or not, Israelite is here used to refer to a historical people group, in accordance with general scholarly usage. Other usage is already noted in the etymology section.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:24, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

You misread Andrevan’s reply. He’s saying I don’t need to keep on relying this talk page’s opinions and just rely on the sources if there are revisions needed. The sources are abundant; I just think it’s important to have awareness on the talk page before changes are instituted.

I’m not sure where your interpretation or response is even coming from. We are talking about a culture that does not share roots in either the academic tradition being cited, or the language being used. We don’t use the words “Gypsy” or “Bombay” anymore for these same reasons.

Israelite can reasonably be attested as a historical signifier. The translation indicated on this page is not. This needs to be reconciled and suggestions or ideas on how to do that would be welcome, because this page fundamentally is insufficient. Mistamystery (talk) 17:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, I think for all of us, why don't we start referencing sources. I agree that gypsy is an anachronism and a misnomer. "Israelite" is a bit more complicated, since people do use it today as you say, and if you have reliable sources it would be fine to expand the article to include information on the contemporary usage. But why don't we start a discussion specifically about those sources which I'm sure will be more productive. Andre🚐 19:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

We are WP:NOTADICTIONARY - the fact that the word "Israelite" has multiple potential meanings is not a problem when the primary meaning is the ancient Israelites. If there are other common meanings, we have disambiguation links and we give some information on them in the article already. This is true even if you can show sources documenting different usage.

In other words: There is no reason to change the topic of this page from the ancient Israelites to include discussion of other groups claiming Israelite heritage or other usages of Israelite based on the fact that such usage exists.

And many of the scholars who write on the Israelites in English are Jewish or even Israeli, so I really have no idea how you can claim that We are talking about a culture that does not share roots in either the academic tradition being cited, or the language being used.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, if minority self-definitions were allowed to intrude on primary definitions, all manner of things would intrude, including New Israelites, British Israelism, etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Proposing archiving this talk chain and starting a new one to discuss contemporary vs historical usage of term “Israelite” based on sources, and how it may be appropriately applied to the article - particularly the introductory sections.

Recommend all parties provide abundant sources based on assertions going forward, withhold from any railroading, and maintain civility as we proceed.

Mistamystery (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

“B’nai Israel” literally translates to “Sons of Israel” (Heb: Ben - “son”), but has attained common usage as “Children” as well)Mistamystery (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Use of Retracted Material

Please note, the following study was retracted by its authors and is no longer suitable for citation: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11543891/#:~:text=Archaeologic%20and%20genetic%20data%20support,but%20not%20in%20genetic,%20differences. Mistamystery (talk) 14:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Unelaborated tag

Modern archaeology suggests that the Israelites branched out from the Canaanites through the development of Yahwism, a distinct monolatristic—and later monotheistic—religion centred on the national god Yahweh.[7][8][9][10][11][improper synthesis?]

Hi CycoMa1. It is not enough to drop such a tag w/o explaining within the tag or on the talk-page what you mean. It's too much to expect from fellow editors to go through 5 (!) different sources to figure out what you might be protesting against, or at least doubting. So please elaborate, or else the tag must go. Thank you. Arminden (talk) 09:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)