Talk:Kingdom of Israel (Samaria)

message: This article reads far too much like a biblical commentary, and rests far too much on biblical texts as historical citations. The Jewish scriptures are not historical documents and cannot be used unsupported as historical evidence. As I'm sure people interested in this subject are aware, the historicty of the Kingdom of Israel is being called into question by opponents of modern Zionism. This article must therefore base itself in sound historical scholarhip. I would like someone familiar with the historiography of this topic to rewrite this article accordingly. Adam 10:12, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say (and speaking as a Christian) that my thoughts were the same as yours upon first reading the text.  It does have a theologocal aspect rather than a strictly historical one.  Not that there is not a place for such an article, however I feel that the narrative of article should be more consistent with the style of other state histories. --JohnArmagh 04:46, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a quick historiographical note: As historical sources, they can be used on their own, if there are no other sources. But all sources need to be taken into account. But thanks for the effort of correcting yourself. Str1977 14:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The biblical account of the ancient existence of Israel as the name of a federation and then a kingdom is supported by Egyptian, Moabite, Assyrian and Babylonian inscriptions. The instances where names of Israel's and Judah's kings are mentioned in the various inscriptions largely correspond with the biblical records. Fire Star 14:30, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: In response to the update by 80.230.142.96: The Hebrew used in the table is from A Hebrew - English Bible According to the Masoretic Text at http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm which uses the vowel-less text extant at the time (though the alphabet used is contemporary Hebrew rather than the ancient Hebrew of the time). --JohnArmagh 14:08, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't surprise me at all that this article is complete mythology. There is no archaeological evidence for any of this so called account of the "kingdom of Israel. For a nice overview of the subbject you can check out the following website: http://members.dodo.com.au/~neilgodfrey/arch/davies5.htm AllTalking 01:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is based on historical scholarship using historical sources (including the Bible) and archaelogical evidence as well (but not only archealogical evidence). Inflammatory rhetoric in tags doesn't help the issue either. Therefore the tag is not justified. Str1977 (smile back) 07:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Bible is a historical source?... lol ... sure.. hey..  don't forget to check your brains at the door and pick up the crayons...  I leave you with a quote by a great and wise man "Incurably religious, that is the best way to describe the mental condition of so many people." Thomas Edision  24.6.23.248 10:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article fails the NPOV and verifiability criteria for Wikipedia, as well as failing to cite sources.  I've added the appropriate tags.  Hopefully someone can completely rewrite this and the material can be presented in a more appropriate manner. EllenS 20:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As to AllTalking's assurtion that "There is no archaeological evidence for any of this so called account of the "kingdom of Israel." In fact, there is plenty. Omri, Ahab, and, in fact MOST kings of Israel during the divided kingdom have left steles attesting to their existance. This has been known since the 19th Century. Granted, racists and some biblical minimalists deny that there were ever any Jews in the middle east, the archeological record shows otherwise. Take the Western Wall for example. Who built THAT, hmmmmmm?Ericl 14:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You have to admit that any non-expert looking at this article and the citations and references would think it's just a Bible story. Please add your archaeological evidence. Fourtildas (talk) 02:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I note that despite the "plenty of archaeological evidence" the majority of citations are still biblical; and as the books cited are thought to have been written anywhere from 100-400 years after the events they describe source is unknown. It could be contemporary or it could be 'what X's grandfather remembers his grandfather telling him'. As a result this is like citing Historia Regum Britanniae for a chronology of British kings. FlipC (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Regarding the Divided Monarchy, few scholars disagree about the major details the Bible provides, with plenty of archaeology for whatever issues the nay-sayers are having here (e.g. A. Mazar, 'Archaeology of the Land of the Bible'; Aharoni and Avi-Yonah, 'MacMillan Bible Atlas', etc). Mazar's book provides plenty of evidence archaeologically even for the United Monarchy. What archaeology are you guys missing here? The Bible has plenty of history as it was compiled from historical annals as was the custom in those days (1 Kings 14:29 and many more), for those of you who ignorantly assume that it's merely a religious book. Cornelius (talk) 00:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Historicity of Israel

message: Any chance anyone has time to create  a map, this article could use one? Falphin 23:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Map

message: The dissenting scholars point out that all Israelite kings were called "son of Omri", whether they were of the Omrite dynasty or not; that the date of the inscription is in question; and that Assyrian kings frequently "stole" accomplishments from their predecessors to increase their own glory in the eyes of history. The obelisk is the earliest depiction of an Israelite in ancient history.
:I'm not sure that this should be in here at all.  The first argument doesn't seem like an argument to me at all.  Jehu was not of the Omrite dynasty, so I don't see how him being called son of Omri makes the identification more questionable.  The rest of it seems like special pleading - I am not aware of any actual mainstream scholars who dispute the 841 BC Jehu synchronism. john k 02:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jehu 841 BC date 

message: At the start of the article there is the text: Standard Hebrew Malḫut Yisraʼel, Tiberian Hebrew Malḵûṯ Yiśrāʼēl). In my browser I see squares between the "l" and "u" and "a" and "e" of the Standard Hebrew version, and similarly for the Tiberian Hebrew version. I think I have the most common set-up (certainly I use Internet Explorer). Could someone change the font to make it legible to more readers? Thanks in advance, jguk 07:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Font 

message: Rob117 corrected the date of David's accession, saying "David's reign-only 33 yrs in Israel, 40 yrs in Judah)". I don't know what the scholars given as references (table heading) say (and the figures given here should match what they say, or the table should be changed). However, Rob's edit summary is mistaken. David ruled 40 years, 7 in Hebron and 33 in Jerusalem. So 7 years after his accession in Judah he conquered Jerusalem and made it his capital. It didn't take seven years for him to be accepted as king of all Israel (he just was still residing in Hebron) - Ishbaal reigned for two years and after his death, the (non-Judean) Israelites accepted David as king. I have changed the figures accordingly (with the caveat that I don't know what these scholars say). Str1977 14:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: David's accession

message: on that note, I added him. He was king of Israel for a couple of years. Ericl 13:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ishbaal son of Saul

message: Perhaps the list of kings should be incorporated into a new page, possibly List of kings of Israel. Lemmy Kilmister 09:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New page 

message: Why is there no discussion of the Kingdom of Israel as a state of Rome, or under Greek domination?  It was the fall of Rome which led to the ultimate undoing of the Kingdom of Israel. Jon Jonasson (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the Kingdom of Israel under that name ended with the Assyrian conquest of ca. 721 B.C.  Subsequent Jewish kingdoms were known as "Judea", not "Israel".  Also, I'm not sure what relevance the "fall of Rome" has -- Jewish kingship ended basically with the death of Herod Agrippa in 44 A.D., while the Roman or Eastern Roman (Byzantine) empire continued to rule the region for more than 500 years more... AnonMoos (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Elementary my dear friend, the fall of the Western Roman Empire, followed by the reduction of power in the Eastern Roman Empire, essentially eliminated the Pax Romana.  This left Israel/Judea vulnerable to external attack and domination by masters even less pleasant than the Romans.  We need not name them. Jon Jonasson (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately for this thesis, the Romans themselves actively eliminated all relics of Jewish sovereignty in this area as a result of the First Jewish Revolt of ca. 70 A.D. and the Second Jewish Revolt of ca. 135 A.D., long before the western Roman empire started to fall.  Furthermore, some Jews, at least, welcomed the medium-term consequences of the Muslim invasions of the 630's A.D., since they found Arab rule to be less oppressive towards them than had been Byzantine rule.  The Christians fell under suspicion as coreligionists of a state permanently at war with the Arab caliphate, while the Jews were considered militarily and politically harmless by comparison...  AnonMoos (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no diaspora under the Romans.  The diaspora was the ultimate undoing of the homeland. Jon Jonasson (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, after 135 A.D. Jews were prohibited by the Romans from living in Jerusalem or its general vicinity, "Judea" was renamed "Palaestina", Jerusalem was renamed "Aelia Capitolina", and a temple to Juppiter Capitolinus was established on the site where the Jewish temple had been destroyed in 70 A.D.  I find it very difficult to ascertain what you're really trying to say, but it seems unlikely that it will have much relevance to improving the article Kingdom of Israel... AnonMoos (talk) 02:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you have lowerered the level of discourse to "Dude", that probably says it all.  Jon Jonasson (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since none of your comments has any relevance to improving the article Kingdom of Israel (which is the dedicated purpose for this page in the first place), there was little point in you adding them here. AnonMoos (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Roman State

message: The map that appears at the top of the article appears to have a typo, referring to a Kingdom of Maob. Is this supposed to be the Kingdom of Moab? --198.179.142.6 (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. AnonMoos (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: This can actually be fixed rather easily - First sentence: little is know of _ , outside of passages in the bible. Then subsum all bible information under a = according to the bible = header. Oh, and PLEASE remove bible quotes from references. That is just funny. --*DuckundWeg* (talk) 13:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality 

message: The map is not accurate: "Kingdom of Egypt" should be specified in place of "Arabu tribes". The most of this map presents states, not tribes  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.126.101.29 (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  States in the map 

message: At the top of the graphic, it shows a "Sheba" as having reigned over Israel at the same time (?) as David.  If there's no source for this, I think it should be edited out.  Are there any objections?  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 12:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sheba? 

message: Would whoever keeps adding this book under See Also please stop it?  There are literally hundreds of books that are relevant to the subject of this article, and no reason at all to set one up as being above all the others.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As it's used in the article and someone for some reason added a who tag, I've replaced the tag with the authors and the book. That seems reasonable. Dougweller (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Bible Unearthed 

message: "House of Joseph": One of the referenced verses, II Samuel 2:10, does not use the term (and wouldn't, since it is before the division of the kingdom).  "Israel in Samaria": the referenced verse, 1 Kings 22:51, says "Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria", which means Ahab reigned in Samaria.  It's not calling the kingdown "Israel in Samaria".  This is made unambiguous in some translations e.g. the Contemporary English Version.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.79.118 (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of the Kingdom 

message: I try to stay out of religious discussions, but the characterization of the Kingdom of Israel's religion as "Yahwehism" and "Baalism (repressed)" has it backwards. Most commonly, worship of Yahweh in the northern kingdom was an underground activity of the people and it was repressed, often severely, by the King. Travel to Jerusalem was immediately suppressed by Jeroboam, who built golden calves and Asherah poles so that his subjects would not be traveling to Jerusalem and coming under the influence of Rehoboam.
Just as one outstanding instance, Ahab and Jezebel murdered every prophet of Yahweh they could find; Obadiah saved 100 by hiding and feeding them, and Elijah hid in a cave. There was no time at which "Yahwehism" was the state religion of the Kingdom of Israel.  At maximum, Yahweh was included among the panoply of gods in polytheistic Israel, and at minimum, worship of Yahweh was ruthlessly repressed by the state.
Apollo (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baalism (repressed)? 

message: What is the basis of this revised chronology? What support does it have, outside of the people who created it? The way that it is presented, it appears as if it is being claimed that virtually no one accepts this. If so, why does this chronology predominate in this entry? Shouldn't speculative theories have their own entry? I am not against discussing this topic, I just want to know why a speculative topic with (it seems) little outside support is the only point of view here. (Or maybe I am missing something.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.155.160.138 (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2002 (UTC)
thread_title: chronology

message: The third paragraph of the beginning of this article reads:
Modern scholarship, including textual criticism and archaeology, has challenged the biblical account that the northern kingdom of Israel broke off from a united monarchy with the southern kingdom of Judah, suggesting instead that the northern civilization of Israel developed independently of Judah, a comparatively small and rural area, and that it first reached the political, economic, military and architectural sophistication of a kingdom under the Omride dynasty around 884 BCE.
This is completely untrue and the archaeological evidence suggests virtually the exact opposite. For example, the rapid, unprecedented urbanization of Palestine in the 10th century BC isn't to be explained by the "two independent states of Judah and Israel" theory. In addition to Palestine, the Negev becomes littered with 40+ fortresses out of nowhere in that same (Solomonic) time-period. Finkelstein's objection to this is that Judah isn't as urbanized as Israel until the 8th/7th centuries BC - this is irrelevant since as he points out, Israel had far more resources, and the urbanization began in David's time: towns had virtually no walls except the outer walls of houses on the perimeter, replaced by actual walls in Solomon's day.
The reason Judah has very few built structures in this time period is because they were ravaged in David's time (p.374), and rebuilding doesn't happen within a generation. Shishak's campaign left the north pretty devastated and as Judah would have taken much of their resources (their whole complaint to Rehoboam and why they broke off), it isn't until the 9th century BC that they become an urbanized kingdom. Makes much more sense than an originally independent, affluent kingdom that for some reason only precedes Judah's urbanization by a century or so, spoke the same language as Judah (a different dialect as Finkelstein admits), and had religious ties (Jehu's wiping out of the Omrite dynasty in the name of Yahweh, for Yahweh prophets; religious pilgrims into southern Judah as late as the 8th/7th centuries BC! [references in Amos, Isaiah as Leslie points out in his book, The Old Testament in Light of its Canaanites Background [1936]]). The placing of the sanctuaries at Bethel and Dan - opposite ends of Israel's southern and northern borders - by Jeroboam, the founder in the late 10th century BC, makes much more sense as a rebellion politically and religiously from Judah than an independent arisal, because there would have been a centralized cult, as in Judah, rather than a defensive one as if the kingdom was fighting off an earlier influence. The Tel Dan Inscription would have never mentioned a House of David. Finally, the capital would have never switched so many times - evidence of a disorganized new kingdom out of a revolt. Compare with Judah which had the capital move only twice in 50 years and remain the same.
The earlier time reflects the formation of Judah, just as the 10th/9th century BC seems to reflect the formation of Israel, and archaeology does not support an earlier time for Israel to develop as a kingdom: an interesting coincidence that both developed at the same time and that it was Judah who for some reason seems to have dominated Israel religiously, politically, and historically despite the opposite being the natural assumption as Finkelstein himself notes. The same happened many times in history where an able military commander could overtake a larger foe by his military abilities (e.g. Alexander the Great, and just about any successful kingdom that arose and fell quickly, like the United Monarchy). The same occurred after Alexander's conquests - depleted manpower and razed cities, though, naturally, on a much smaller scale. In Jerusalem, a monumental building existed more appropriate for David's time than Solomon's, and is tempting to identify it with the fortress of Zion (1 Chronicles 11:5) (p.374). "It would appear that the first half of the tenth century B.C.E. was a transitional period in which the Israelites began to develop an urban culture. The modest archaeological data from the time of David, although not conforming with the image of an empire founder, is consistent with the biblical accounts, which do not attribute to him any building operations." (ibid., pp.374-5). And the whole problem is that Finkelstein has in view a Charlemagne or an Augustus when thinking of David, when it should be more along the lines of a Clovis or Tsar Samuel of Bulgaria.
Aharoni and Avi-Yonah's MacMillan Bible Atlas points out that Asa (early 9th century) fortified his western, southern, and eastern borders, but not his northern in hopes of reconquering the territory that was originally part of his grandfather's (Solomon's) kingdom. Why he wouldn't fortify his northern border against his biggest threat (Israel in the north) until Baasha's conquests, the natural result of this, cannot be explained by Finkelstein's hypothesis. Cornelius (talk) 00:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: And all of this is interesting but pointless without sources specifically discussing the data of Judah. See WP:NOR. Doug Weller talk 06:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction Non-Neutral, Unhistorical Error 

message: Is it a result of vandalism? Or is there some twisted deeper explanation? Arminden (talk) 10:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sarnaria (instead of Samaria) is a typo, right? 

message: Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, the great majority of ancient and medieval chroniclers are quite vague when it comes to large numbers of people (in the mutiple thousands).  The "185,000" number doesn't cast any real doubt on the Bible, since many of historians of the time (such as Herodotus) were equally careless with large numbers.  Also, we have an article Assyrian siege of Jerusalem which discusses historical sources.  Ancient Assyrian royal inscriptions are almost as problematic as the Bible in some ways, since they almost always propagandistically proclaim that Assyrian forces were victorious (whether they actually were or not).  Of course, when recounting where the Assyrian armies went and which battles they fought, they're more or less authoritative... AnonMoos (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, searching further, the JSB considers him a real king, so I will self-revert. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jeroboam or Omri? 

message: There are currently two open discussions on whether templates Template:Kings of Israel & Template:Kings of Judah should be deleted or not. Both discussions can be found at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 April 27. Jerm (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD Notice 

message: Except for Constantine the Great's rule, all Ancient countries were theocracies. They did not knew separation between church and state. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Most ancient countries had a favored or official religion whose rituals and ceremonies were upheld by the country's rulers, but it's not a theocracy unless the religious authorities are also the country's rulers.. AnonMoos (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theocracy 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Is a section dedicated to references in pop culture needed? I personally know some games that portray the kingdom of Israel /Judeah SjoerdsDeVisser (talk) 09:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  References in pop culture 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion