Talk:List of Jewish states and dynasties

Did attempts to change POV in this list go too far & make it more biased?

I reverted these edits because I believe them to be biased. While I think there are some things that need to be corrected in the article, I think that this swings things too far from one perspective to another. While In the Land of Israel may have need to be corrected as a section heading, I think to switch to In the Levant & the removal of historical Jewish kingdoms went too far. We deal with changing place names all the time, such as the case with Poland & Ukraine. I think we can accommodate what was historically called Kingdoms of Israel and Judah.

To remove these kingdoms is just absurd.

• Twelve Tribes of Israel
• Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy), c. 1047–930 BCE
• Kingdom of Israel (Samaria), c. 930–720 BCE
• Kingdom of Judah, c. 930–587/586 BCE

I include the references here to illustrate that cited material was removed.

I expect this to be initially a fast moving discussion. Unfortunately, I need to work at this time, & will not be able to respond for many hours.

Peaceray (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

The Twelve Tribes is mythology not history. You are citing works based on the Bible. Sorry, that isnt what we base our history articles on. Same for the Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy). You are attempting to elevate religious dogma as objective fact here. That is what is biased. nableezy - 18:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the first is purely mythological, so that's a joke entry, and the second is still bloody dubious quasi-mythology blended with biblical archaeology - nobody knows for certain what, if anything, kingdom-like existed at that time. But more importantly, all of these entries are pre-Judaism (6th century BCE) - it's there in the first paragraph of the lead, so they were not 'Jewish' states. They were Hebrew/Israelite states that practiced Yahwism. If the list was "Israelite and Jewish states" then it could work, but that's not the current scope right now. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

What is being referred to as Yahwism is widely chronicled as early Judaism in scholarly works and histories of Judaism. Drsmoo (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Not so much. "... the Persian period (ca. sixth to fourth cent. BCE) has been also characterized as the formative phase of early Judaism and its normative scriptures. P.3 Or "After the exile, exclusivistic Yahwism became the norm. Yahwism now developed into early Judaism, the religion practised by the Jews during the Persian period (539–333 BCE) ..." [1] Iskandar323 (talk) 20:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

You can find some sources that delineate so called “Yahwism” from early Judaism. But both the term and conception of a distinct Yahwism is modern and that delineation is not the mainstream view. Drsmoo (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Some sources is still better than nothing; what's your mainstream view source? Iskandar323 (talk) 05:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

”Extending over thirty-five centuries of history and over well-nigh all the lands of the civilized globe, Judaism could not always retain the same form and character. Judaism in its formative period, that is, in the patriarchal and prophetic times, differed from exilic and post-exilic Judaism; and rabbinic or pharisaic Judaism again presents a phase quite different from Mosaic Judaism, to which the Sadducees, and afterward to some extent the Karaites, persistently clung.” https://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/9028-judaism

The author of that, Kaufmann Kohler, died in 1926, nearly a century ago. This barely qualifies as 20th-century material, let alone mainstream 21st-century material - hence we avoid century-old stuff. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Simon Schama's "The Story of the Jews: Finding the Words, 1000BCE – 1492CE" includes ancient Israel, for example, as does every history of the Jewish people I've ever seen. Drsmoo (talk) 13:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Not the point. Histories include lots of thing. The connection is obvious, but just because something is 'part of a X's history' does not mean everything in it is explicitly 'X' working backwards. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Regardless, surely you agree including mythological dynasties in our list of historical ones is incorrect? nableezy - 20:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I have put in Tribes of Israel using citations that rely on archeological information, which may then allay any problems with mythology. Since most tribes are dynastic, I think this fits. Peaceray (talk) 01:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Popping in from a work break. I contest the characterization that anything before 6th century BCE can be characterized as pre-Jewish. Consider these two sources & statements.

• Williamson, H. G. M. (2015-09-03), History of Ancient Israel, Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780199340378.013.20 states ... the name “Israel” covers a wide diversity of social and political entities over the course of many centuries. The first attestation of the name outside the Bible (on the Egyptian stela of Merneptah, c. 1208 bce) seems to refer at most to some ill-defined tribal federation. It then served for at least two different monarchies and later again as a social or religious title for the people who inhabited the Achaemenid (Persian) province of Yehud.
• Finkelstein, Israel (2013). The forgotten kingdom: the archaeology and history of Northern Israel (PDF). Atlanta, GA, US. ISBN 978-1-58983-911-3. OCLC 880456140.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) states: The settlement process may have started in the final phase of the Late Bronze Age (the late thirteenth or early twelfth centuries b.c.e.), accelerated in the early Iron I (the late twelfth to mid-eleventh century), and reached its peak in the late Iron I (the late eleventh and first half of the tenth centuries b.c.e.). [...] The wave of settlement of the Iron I continued undisturbed to the Iron IIA, when the people of the highlands constituted part of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. This makes it possible to label the Iron I population in the hill country “Israelite.”

Peaceray (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

The title of this article is Jewish states, not Israelite ones. nableezy - 21:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I think that is a rather disingenuous statement. As the Jews article states, Jews .. or Jewish people are an ethnoreligious group and nation originating from the Israelites and Hebrews. As the Jew (word) article states, The English term Jew originates in the Biblical Hebrew word Yehudi, meaning "from the Kingdom of Judah".

And there is this from the Hebrews article:

Hebrew people are mostly considered synonymous with the Semitic-speaking Israelites, especially in the pre-monarchic period when they were still nomadic. However, in some instances it may also be used in a wider sense, referring to the Phoenicians, or to other ancient groups, such as the group known as Shasu of Yhw on the eve of the Bronze Age collapse, which appears 34 times within 32 verses of the Hebrew Bible. It is sometimes regarded as an ethnonym and sometimes not.

By the time of the Roman Empire, Greek Hebraios could refer to the Jews in general, as Strong's Hebrew Dictionary puts it, "any of the Jewish Nation", and at other times more specifically to the Jews living in Judea. [...]

In Armenian, Italian, Greek, the Kurdish languages, Old French, Serbian, Russian, Romanian and a few other languages, the transfer of the name from "Hebrew" to "Jew" never took place, and "Hebrew" is the primary word used for a Jew.

With the revival of the Hebrew language and the emergence of the Hebrew Yishuv, the term has been applied to the Jewish people of this re-emerging society in Israel or the Jewish people in general.

I think in English, most would agree that ancient Jew would be synonymous with Hebrew or Israelite. I think to maintain that there is truly a significant difference between Jew, Hebrew, or Isralite, with respect to this article title is only hair-splitting. Peaceray (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Then rename it, but even if that were the case it does not mean that one places in things from the Bible as though that were a factual history of mankind. nableezy - 06:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I would just change the article title to incorporate Israelite, which would bring everyone on to the same page and cover all bases. I would also avoid calling comments disingenuous, as it is important to WP:AGF and users in this space tend to be quite litigious on notice boards. Drsmoo (talk) 00:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Might be worth mulling over the "states and dynasties" part too if you want to re-scope. There's a big overlap between 'dynasty' and 'state', so these are a bit tautologous, and, at the same time, 'state' is a slightly poor fit for some of the fleeting, mid-revolt rebel polities that are currently on the list. Indeed, 'polities' may be better fit. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

The key terms in those wikipedia pages statements is "originates/originating", as in 'related to in reference to its origins', not 'the same thing as'. Everyone knows the relevant histories and etymologies at play here. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

As the creator of this article, I believe the listing of Judea and Samaria is pretty airtight considering their existence in the area has been proven by mentions in their neighbors' records and archaeology. As for the twelve tribes of Israel, it's more difficult as their historical record is far less verified outside of religious/cultural anecdote, but that puts them in the same boat as the Xia dynasty of China which also has been shoddily verified and I think it should be treated the same, perhaps with some note of its historical existence being shaky. Not to mention that the Hebrews existed before the so-called beginning of the monarchy and their cultural anecdotes emphasize the tribes in their political structure. On the other hand, the supposed Kingdom of Habor has zero proof of its existence in France at all outside of one person, David Ruebeni. I feel like that example could be axed, but I'm indifferent to if it goes or not as long as mention of the lack of proof of it is kept. J390 (talk) 01:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I did not suggest removing the Kingdom of Samaria or Judah from the list, but the united monarchy one is based on scripture, not history, or at least not so uncontested among historians as to merit mention here without any explanation that most consider it mythology and not history. nableezy - 02:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with some clarification about it's historicity being just verified to our current knowledge in mythological texts instead of historic, in the same way as the Xia dynasty in a list of Chinese dynasties. Would the thirteen tribes count as a polity too, or did they not meet the criteria we would call a "state"? J390 (talk) 00:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I think we should keep Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) and Kingdom of Judah since those are historically documented. I believe that it is fair to consider them as "Jewish" states and dynasties. While the religion of these kingdoms is remote from modern Judaism, I think it's fair to call it "Jewish" since modern Judaism evolved from it. I find it similar to saying that the Kalasha practice a form of ancient Hinduism or calling the Historical Vedic religion Hinduism--it's inaccurate, but it conveys an important point about the evolution of modern religions.

I agree that Twelve Tribes of Israel should be removed since it is neither historically documented nor a state in the biblical narrative. In the Tanakh, during Judges, there was no formal state or kingdom.

The Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy) is tricky since there isn't really any consensus as to whether we have archeological evidence of it. I'm fine keeping it in the list since it is important to the biblical narrative, but I would like to see a caveat somewhere saying that it is disputed among scholars whether we have archeological evidence of its historicity, maybe in brackets next to the link? _{too_much} curiosity (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

References

tribes of israel sources

Peaceray, where exactly in Williamson, H. G. M. (2015-09-03), History of Ancient Israel, Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780199340378.013.20 are you finding evidence supporting the Tribes of Israel for inclusion here? Because I see the word tribes used once, and not in reference to a kingdom but rather a diaspora (Historically, there are two features of the exilic period that are not always as well appreciated as they should be. In Babylon itself the Babylonians adopted a new policy with regard to displaced peoples that distinguishes them from the Assyrians and without which it is questionable whether the community would have survived at all. Exiled communities were generally settled together rather than completely dispersed among the new host population (contrast the practice in Assyria, which led to total assimilation over time: the “ten lost tribes”).). Im still checking the others, but please do be clear on the exact locations and quotations that support the existence of such a kingdom as a piece of factual information and not religious dogma. nableezy - 06:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I have self-reverted that material for now & will respond more fully about the citation content when I am not about to start my work day. I hope to get to this evening (I am -7 UTC).

I do believe the citations support the ancient presence of an entity, or entities collectively (tribes), known as Israel. I realize that Tribes of Israel redirects to Twelve Tribes of Israel & that this is politically charged. Perhaps it would be better to to link to Twelve Tribes of Israel#Historicity. Do you have any alternatives for wikilinking to suggest? Peaceray (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I dont think youre going to be able to show that it is anything other than a contested POV that such a thing actually existed, as most of the sourcing Ive seen all prefaces it as according to the Hebrew Bible ... . But feel free to bring the sources and we can evaluate it from there. nableezy - 14:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

First, if you have not already, I recommend signing up for the WP:The Wikipedia Library because it will give full access to a lot of the sources.

• Williamson, H. G. M. (2015-09-03), History of Ancient Israel, Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780199340378.013.20 states The first attestation of the name outside the Bible (on the Egyptian stela of Merneptah, c. 1208 bce) seems to refer at most to some ill-defined tribal federation. It then served for at least two different monarchies and later again as a social or religious title for the people who inhabited the Achaemenid (Persian) province of Yehud. The subscription version then goes onto say The name “Israel” here carries a written sign to indicate that it refers to an ethnic group (rather than a geographical indication), ... & By the time “Israel” appears again in extrabiblical sources in Aramaic, Moabite, and Akkadian, it refers to what is typically called the northern kingdom of Israel.
• Sparks, Kenton L. (1998). "Merneptah's Stele and Deborah's Song". Ethnicity and Identity in Ancient Israel. Penn State University Press. pp. [2]95–97. doi:10.5325/j.ctv1w36q0h. ISBN 978-1-57506-516-8. OCLC 747412010 – via Internet Archive. states The victory stele of Merneptah dates to the end of the thirteenth century B.C.E. amd was inscribed in two places .... The inscription contains the line Israel is laid waste and his seed it not;
• Maeir, Aren M. (2012). "Israel and Judah". In Bagnall, Roger S. (ed.). The encyclopedia of ancient history. Vol. 7. Malden, MA, US: Wiley-Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah01103. ISBN 978-1-4443-3838-6. OCLC 773301853. can also be found at www.academia.edu/2501888/Maeir_A_M_2013_Israel_and_Judah_Pp_3523_27_in_The_Encyclopedia_of_Ancient_History_New_York_Blackwell whereas the DOI version can be accessed via the Wikipedia Library. I would guide you to the second paragraph where the Merenptah stela is metioned as well as a possible earlier reference has been identified in a text from the reign of Rameses II. Thereafter, no reference to either Judah or Israel appears until the ninth century. That same paragraph lists three ninth century sources: the Aramaean stele from Tel Dan, inscriptions of SHALMANESER III of Assyria, and the stela of Mesha of Moab. The article goes on to say that From the early eighth century onward, the kingdoms of Israel and Judah are both mentioned some-what regularly in Assyrian and subsequently Babylonian sources, ... The article then goes on detail what those sources say & how they relate to biblical texts. For instance, the Aramaean Tel Dan stela, ... mentions the "king of the House of David". There is also much discussion in the "Background and Early History" about how the archeological evidence differs from the biblical narrative. This section also states While the initial stages of this process remain obscure, one can trace a transformation of the settlement pattern in the central hills of Palestine and Israel. From the pattern of rural villages that characterized Iron Age I (twelfth to tenth centuries) there emerged an urban-rural matrix, reflecting the appearance and formation of small kingdoms in the central hill zone.

That's what I have the energy to write now at this late hour. I am sure that there will be more back & forth, but suffice it to say that the first mention of Israel was written in stone at the late 13th century BCE, followed by three different sources in the 9th century BCE, & more commonly written in the 8th century BCE. Peaceray (talk) 06:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I have the Wikipedia Library (that's how I saw the other source actually), and Ill go over these. Im not really disputing that the first mention of Israel dates to the 13th century BCE or any of that either, Im just disputing that "The Twelve Tribes" belongs on a list of Jewish states. So I dont at least from these quotes see the relevance to that question here. nableezy - 02:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

So an "ill-defined tribal federation", per the first source, falls pretty short of a state. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I mentioned something similar in the discussion above, but I think it makes sense to exclude Tribes of Israel from the list. I don't think they constituted a kingdom or state in most senses of those terms. In the biblical narrative, before the kingdoms was the time of Judges, which did not have a state apparatus. In fact, the book contains anti-monarchist attitudes. Even with historical evidence of the tribes' existence, I think it should be excluded since it does not constitute a state or kingdom. _{too_much} curiosity (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)