Talk:Khirbet Beit Lei

User:Das Baz added:

Untitled

A name may replace another of similar sound even though coming from an entirely different root. For example, in England the sunflower is called "Jerusalem artichoke" because of the phonetic similarity of the Italian girasol (sunflower) to "Jerusalem." There is no etymological connection whatsoever between the roots, but nevertheless a connection exists.

More a propos, the root yerusha (inheritance) in Yerushalayim and the root hieros (holy, sacred) in Hierosolyma are definitely not related, and yet no one doubts or denies that Yerushalayim and Hierosolyma are the same city.

The cave was used presumably by Nephi and his brothers when fleeing from hostile armed men in Jerusalem, not when traveling towards the Red Sea.

Thanks for your editing Das Baz, but the latter point is already addressed (I removed the Red Sea reference), and the article already states that some believe there is a linguistic connection. I'm not sure if there is a way to include this specific point of etymology without elaborating every point and counter-point of the argument. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 17:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Some other points that have been removed from the main page but belong here on the discussion page include the following:

"Local traditions support this interpretation: the inhabitants of Khirbet Beit Lei maintain that their village was in ancient times the home of a prophet and judge named Lei, who eventually left the village and disappeared into Saudi Arabia."

"There are other criticisms as well, notably that 'the people who now inhabit the area are not connected in any way with the people who lived near Lehi in his day. This means that the story would not have been transmitted from the Israelites to the current inhabitants.' This criticism, however, is totally fallacious and not based on any scientific evidence. Quite on the contrary: 'In recent years, many genetic surveys have suggested that - at least paternally - the various Jewish ethnic divisions and Palestinians ... are genetically closer to each other than either is to the Arabs (of Arabia) or to non-Jewish Europeans...' (Quote from the Wikipedia article on Palestinian people, section on 'The Ancestry of Palestinians.' See also the five External Links provided.) Very far from being 'not connected in any way,' the people of rural Palestine, including the inhabitants of Khirbet Beit Lei, are very close genetically to Israelites."

Overall, I'm very happy with the civilized and constructive way this discussion is progressing. We are all learning something here. Das Baz, 25 May 2006, 10:39 AM.

Hi Das Baz,

I removed the above because it is essentially a list taken off the Berret article, and attached to a blatantly "pro-connection" POV. I believe that some of the claims are irrelevant, such as the Jewish/Palestinian ethnicity part, and so removed both the claim and counter-claim. I tried to include others in an NPOV and easily readable form.

In terms of the "local traditions," no one has lived at the site since at least 1948, perhaps much earlier. The only source I could find was one person the archaeologist (Naveh) mentions he was told about, though I don't remember where I saw it.

P.S. If you log on, your IP won't be revealed and it will be easier to keep track of your edits. Also, you can automatically sign your name and timestamp with four ~, like so [Cheers] Tewfik^Talk 17:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip on the signature. The DNA connection is very relevant, since the claim was made that Palestinians were "not connected in any way" to ancient Israelites, while in fact all the genetic studies show a very strong connection. Modern Israelis are closer kin to Palestinians than to Gentile Europeans. Palestinians are more closely related to Israelis than to Saudis.Das Baz 15:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Wow, it works. Thanks, Tewfik! Ya Rais!Das Baz 15:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC) On maps of the West Bank, Khirbet Beit Lei is marked as an inhabited village, not just as an archaeological site.Das Baz 15:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know the location is not in the West Bank, rather it's in the vicinity of Beit Guvrin near the junction of Hwy 35 (modern trans-Judea) and Hwy 38 (to Beit Shemesh) [further evidenced by the fact that Israeli crews were doing the roadwork, in 1961]. There is certainly no village by that name today, and I checked the British survey map from 1944/46, and was unable to find such a village anywhere. My feeling is that it is a khirbeh like dozens of others, a place were settlement existed long ago, but left only ruined buildings as evidence.

As far as the DNA, I don't contest that there is a genetic relationship between the Arabs of Palestine and Jews in general, but I also don't believe the initial claim of no connection is most relevant to the discussion, which is why it was removed. It would only make the article confusing to include anything but the most central arguments, and to those counter-claims are included. Tewfik^Talk 17:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it would be a good idea to include some maps in this article and establish exactly where Khirbet Beit Lei and Beit Lei are located. I have heard from a very reliable and trustworthy source (whom I am trying to get involved in the discussion) that Beit Lei was certainly an inhabited village in the early 70's. I think maybe the village is Beit Lei, the archaeological site is Khirbet Beit Lei. Please check up on this on your map. Thank you very much. Das Baz 17:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I searched maps new and old and couldn't find such a place. Then I found this, which confirms, among other things, that the khirbeh is a khirbeh - merely a place that was noted for long gone settlement (ctr-f for lehi - the article is midway down the page; it notes that the khirbeh consists of an "oak tree on a hill surrounded by a wall"). As far as the claims and counter-claims, I appreciate that you're being flexible - my aim is to phrase them in such a way as to summarise the content while avoiding a fleshing out of the whole discussion. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 07:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Linguistic connection

Hi Das Baz, The Jerusalem artichoke article attributes the Jerusalem/Girasole connection to folk etymology. While I'd be willing to post that if you like, you should understand that it would only undermine the pro-"connection" point of view. Jerusalem's Hebrew and Greek names aren't linked because they sound alike, but rather because each is identified with the same place. That they sound similar is a coincidence, but it isn't logical to induce that the Greek referred to Jerusalem just based on the verbal similarity. I'm committed to presenting the most NPOV article we can, so if you discover a different way to get your point across without having the article devolve into two lists of competing arguments, I would be more than glad to help. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 02:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Right now, I think the most important thing is to gather all the facts. Is there any way you can download some good detailed maps of the area into this article? Thanks. Das Baz 16:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the Greek and Hebrew names for Jerusalem arose quite independently of each other, and their similarity is pure coincidence. Far more likely, the Greeks named the city with a name that sounded like the Hebrew name, and was chosen accordingly, even if the meaning of the roots was totally unrelated. A similar thing may have happened with Beit Lehi and Beit Lei. Das Baz 16:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Das Baz,

If you can find a source that documents this type of phenomena, we could then discuss it. Otherwise, I'm afraid its original research. In terms of maps, the only digitalised modern map I'm aware of is in Hebrew, though you may be able to find something detailing the Lachish region online. You can see the 1944/1946 British survey map I'm looking at here, which includes many Arab villages subsequently destroyed/evacuated during the 1948-9 Israeli war of independence. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 18:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think that the Yerushalayim-Hierosolyma connection should be filed not under "original research" but under "Common Sense" and "Common Knowledge" - or is common sense also banned from Wikipedia? Das Baz 15:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Tree and Wall

I'm glad to hear that the Tree of Lei and its protective wall exist after all. And here's some more common sense: If they exist, then there must be people living nearby to keep the tree alive and the wall in good repair. I have no objection to including a map in Hebrew in this article. Why not? Das Baz 15:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Das Baz, I assure you that common sense is not banned on Wikipedia, however all arguments must be verifiable. In terms of the khirbeh, what I understood from the passage was that there is only a tree and a barrier, and no permanent settlement. People living nearby may or may not tend to it (there are dozens of ancient tree untended for centuries in the surrounding areas), but they surely don't live in Beit Lehi. Whats more, there are no nearby Arab settlements at least since 1948-1949. My search in the maps (Hebrew included) turned up nothing. If you find something or have any questions, please let me know. I would like to commend you for participating in this civilised discussion, and hope to continue the dialogue. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 23:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey Tewfik, thank you. For now, I shall not be adding any more arguments until I have some solid facts to put in, as I believe facts are far more important than theories in these cases. Das Baz 15:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC) Well, I found a few more facts - in the article "Lessons from the Lehi Cave," by William Johnson, Sunstone July 1985, in a link you, Tewfik, provided. Johnson is skeptical of LDS claims about the Cave, but he does point out that local Bedouin - from at least two different villages - have traditions of an ancient prophet, Lei, who is connected to that tree and wall. Das Baz 23:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Das Baz, here's the passage in question:

Ginat has also talked to a Bedouin who directed him to a nearby oak tree on a hill surrounded by a wall. This place was called Khirbet Beit Lei, according to the Bedouin, because an ancient prophet named Lei lived there. Subsequently, LaMar Berrett recorded the same Bedouin's account and found his story to be only partially consistent with that given by Joseph Ginat. He also found an old man in another village who told essentially the same story as the Bedouin.

I should point out that Berret found the Bedouin's story "only partially consistent" with what Ginat claimed he said. Ginat claimed he was told two things: the name (Khirbet Beit Lei), and the reason for the name (because an ancient prophet named Lei lived there). Hence the old man from another village didn't tell the story Ginat told, but essentially the same story as the Bedouin, that is the story that was "only partially consistent" with what Ginat claimed, whatever the differences may be.

On to the edits. I merged the Bedouin statements into the claim and counter claim sections, and removed the s from the section heading since there is one connection debated - I did this as a matter of grammar and not content. I reinserted the ship claim according to the Sunstone article which argues that Nephi is only told about the ships once they reach Bountiful (1 Ne. 17:8 And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto me, saying: Thou shalt construct a ship, after the manner which I shall shew thee, that I may carry thy people across these waters.). I appreciate that you invested the time to research sources, and that you used an NPOV phrasing of the claim. Keep up the good work, Tewfik^Talk 05:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Many Waters

It is true that Nephi is only commanded to build a ship after reaching Bountiful, but he knew his descendants would be living on the other side of "many waters" before he had left the vicinity of Jerusalem. See I Nephi 13. As an intelligent man with common sense, surely he would have realized he needed to build a ship to cross the many waters even before he was implicitly commanded to do so. Das Baz 17:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Das Baz, I posted an argument already made at the Sunstone article. If you can find a source for the "many waters" argument, by all means it should be included. Otherwise it would be WP:OR Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 22:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Das Baz, like I said above, the "many waters" quote is only relevant if we can find a documented interpretation, otherwise we would be constructing original research. While it makes sense that someone would present such an argument, I wasn't able to find an example. Perhaps you'll have better luck than me. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 03:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Das Baz,

You added Relevant Book of Mormon passages: I Nephi, chapters 3 through 13, in particular 3:25-27, 13:10-13. to the end of the article, however the many waters section is only relevant if we can find a source that argues it says what you say it does. Otherwise the casual reader will have no clue what it's referring to. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 18:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Das Baz,

The issue isn't that I want to minimise the reference. Rather, we need to find a reputable source that believes those verses mean what you say they do, otherwise we are embarking on original research. Once we find them we can openly include the claim. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 05:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

To anyone studying this fascinating subject, I recommend reading The Book of Mormon, I Nephi chapters 3 to 13, in particular 13:10-13. From this it is clear that Nephi knew his descendants - and the descendants of his brothers - would be living on the other side of "many waters" - and he knew this while still in the neighborhood of Jerusalem.Das Baz 15:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Das Baz,

If that's a quote from a reputable source then we should include that POV in the article. We need a URL or ISBN and page number so that others can access the quote on their own though. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 04:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, here it is: Book of Mormon, ISBN 1592975003 (hardcover), ISBN 1592975011 (softcover) Das Baz 15:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Das Baz,

I'm sorry, I guess I wasn't clear before. What we need is a reliable source that interprets the "many waters" passage in the Book of Mormon to mean that Lehi had gotten his message about the sea voyage etc. If we make the connection ourselves based on the passage then we would be engaging in original research. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 04:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me it's just plain common sense. It seems to me strange to say the least that a wrongheaded argument can be included if it was printed somewhere, but plain common sense cannot unless somebody pointed it out in print. Das Baz 15:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Das Baz,

You're right - we're not allowed to include an argument, no matter how logical it seems to us, if it isn't sourced. I know its frustrating, but thats Wikipedia:No original research. And while publication is important, in order to be cited in wikipedia, a source must be reliable, as defined by Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Thats just the way it is. I believe that at the end of the day, these policies do ensure that wikipedia maintains its high quality, and doesn't devolve into a glorified chatroom for every angry POV IP vandal, even if what they add makes sense to them. If we can't find any source that records the understanding of the verses that you've mentioned, it may be possible that that opinion is not a notable one (Wikipedia:Notability). I do hope that we can find a source and include it, and I again commend you for maintaining this dialogue. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 16:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Bedouin

Clearly, more interviews and more research of local Bedouin traditions are needed.[1].

Hi Das Baz, I think you accidentally added the above to the article. I agree. If we can find more evidence, that would be great. I'm personally puzzled by Bedouin living in that area, which is slightly distant from their settlements in the 60s, as well as being a frontier and probably secure from civilian presence. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 07:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Tewfik. Distances and borders are not insurmountable impediments to the Bedouin. I read in the newspaper that Sinai Bedouin have been smuggling Darfuri refugees from Egypt to Israel across the Sinai Desert - moving a lot faster than Moses did. Das Baz 15:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Questions about sources

I replaced some Hebrew sources by English ones. A note and a question:

• Naveh, Joseph (1977). "כתובות עבריות במערת קברים מימי בית ראשון" [Hebrew inscriptions from a burial cave of the first temple period]. ידיעות החברה לחקירת ארץ-ישראל ועתיקותיה (in Hebrew) (Israel Exploration Society) 27: 235–265. The journal Yediot ceased publication in 1967, so probably this 1963 article is the one intended (correct volume and page numbers). However it seems to be more or less identical to the version in the English journal Israel Exploration Journal published by the same society. So I replaced it.
• Naveh (1963) says "This is the earliest Hebrew inscription mentioning ירשלם." Text I removed said "The reference to Jerusalem is the oldest Hebrew language mention using this spelling." cited to this Hebrew source. The wording raises the question of whether there are older inscriptions that mention Jerusalem with a different spelling, or is this a reference to mentions in places other than inscriptions (eg. bible)? Can someone who reads Hebrew better than me please look at the source closely to see if this issue is clarified there?

Zero^talk 03:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

"The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations" also has an English edition that should be used in preference. Zero^talk 03:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The name Lehi

I wonder if there is an pre-Mormon source for the name Lehi or its Hebrew version לחי. I can't find any. The name used by the Survey of Western Palestine, based on the Arabic, was Leyi. The name on topographic maps of the British Mandate is Lei. Naveh called it Lei in English and ליי in Hebrew. The modern Israeli name is Loya (לויה). So where does Lehi come from? I think it is a myth and will remove it unless someone comes up with a solid non-Morman source. Mind you, I wouldn't object to a very brief section that describes the significance that some Mormon writers ascribe to this site, but it has to be separated from the scientific content. Zero^talk 04:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, use of the word "Lehi" is not supported. I can only find fringe sources (e.g., Mormon fringe theorist Cleon Skousen) for identifying "Lei" with "Lehi". But Skousen's view is shown to be out of even the Mormon apologetic mainstream, because Jeffrey Chadwick, a credentialed Mormon archaeologist that was commissioned by the apologetic Maxwell Institute of BYU to investigate the matter, has written that "Beit Lehi" is the product of "linguistic misinformation." For that reason, I am removing "Khirbet Beit Lehi" from the opening sentence as a name variation on grounds of WP:FRINGE. COGDEN 20:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Khirbet Beit Lei. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111202030735/http://beitlehifoundation.org/report-2008-excavation-season/ to http://beitlehifoundation.org/report-2008-excavation-season/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)