Talk:History of ancient Israel and Judah/Archive 1

message: I removed the following text
:However, what is less commonly known is that many people from the conquered northern kingdom fled south to safety in Judea, the Southern Kingdom, which maintained its independence. By this time the nation of Judah then was populated with Israelites from Judah, Bejamain, Shimeon, some of Levi, and many from all of the other tribes as well.
for the reasons detailed in Talk:Israelite#Lost tribes.
:Perhaps it should be added in again.  Archaeology confirms that the size of Jerusalem grew by 500% as a result of the collapse of the northern Kingdom, with the refugees fleeing south.  Hezekiah needed to greatly expand the city walls, and create a whole new water supply for the lower city. John D. Croft 14:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed lost tribes text

message: It is only true that the Canaanites are the earliest inhabitants if one uses the term incorrectly to mean anyone uncovered by archaeologists prior to the period of Abaraham, but this is not how the term Canaanite is used in traditional sources. In Jewish and Ethiopian sources the term is used for a people who invaded the land around the time of Abraham, the prior inhabitants are generally referred to as the sons of Shem i.e. Semites. The traditional Canaanites were descended from Ham - Hamites.
:Some people feel that this information which is currently in one sentence in the article should be removed, I don't see why. It is indeed part of the traditional history found in Rashi and independently in the Ethiopian Kebra Nagast. It is also supported by Phoenician traditions that they were invaders from the Persian gulf (can't remember offhand the Greek source for this). Kuratowski's Ghost 11:50, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Its in Herodotus Histories I, 1. Also information similar to that in the Kebra Nagast is found in the mediaeval Sefer Hayashar. Kuratowski's Ghost 13:37, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Semites and Hamites are modern terms relating to people speaking a Semitic or a Hamitic (i.e. Egyptian/Coptic) language.  Using this modern language, Canaanites are Semitic, not Hamitic. Check Semitic languages for yourself. John D. Croft 14:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Canaanites" as earliest inhabitants 

message: Recently added: "If however the parting of the Red Sea was caused by the eruption of the Santorini volcano, then the Exodus might have happened around 1500 BC." And if it was caused by the September 11, 2001 attacks then the Exodus might have happened in 2001. Seriously, though: is there an appropriate citation for the theory that the parting of the Red Sea is an historical fact and might have been caused by the eruption of the Santorini volcano? If there is cite it. If not, let's get this out of the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:51, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
:The Santorini volcano has recently been redated to 1628 BCE or thereabouts on a number of different dating chronologies, which is considered far too early to have any effects upon so-called crossings of the Red Sea (which would not be effected by tsunamis in the Mediterranean).  John D. Croft 21:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Santorini volcano? 

message: :I would like to see more about how ordinary people lived. Were they farmers (what did they grow?), shepherds, ranchers or fishermen? Was there mining or manufacturing? For example, in North America we have archeological evidence that native peoples mined flint and manufactured arrowheads which were traded over much of the continent. Surely there must be information about mining manufacturing and trading in  ancient Israel.
:Also, we know quite a bit about the ancient political and social systems from Egypt to Mesapotamia. They had hereditary kings and ruling classes and military classes and priest classes and most of the population were slaves or serfs.  How do these compare with ancient Israel?24.71.223.140 06:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economic and Social system 

message: I've removed the following paragraph as it seems to be off topic.
"1365 BCE Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten) came to power. He unsuccessfully tried to promote a form of monotheism with the Sun god 'Aten' as creator. Akhenaten's successor was Tutankhamun."
Looks like its purely about Egypt not about Israel. The fact that it mentions monotheism doesn't make it a statement about Israel. There a few other paragraphs that seem to be just barely relevant to Ancient Israel and are more about Egypt and Turkey/Anatolia. Kuratowski's Ghost 16:23, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Off topic?

message: I think our debate over what to name the region between southern lebanon and Eilat might reflect a greater debate in the academic community. There is no official name. In the Biblical Archaeology class I took, Palestine was used to describe the region purely geographically and names such as Canaan and Israel referred to certain periods of time. This naming system was consistent with our course book (Amihai Mazar's "Archaeology of the land of the Bible") and many articles and essays we read. I assumed Palestine is the standard. As Kuratowski's Ghost pointed out, some archaeologists/historians do use Israel. Southern Levant is really rare...I would know what it referred to, but I've never seen it used. 
Here are the pros and cons of each name (as I understand them)
name           	origin                                                                                       	pro                                                                	con
Palestine      	the Philistines (inhabited coast of Israel), name Palestina given by Romans in 2nd century AD	was universally accepted name 50 years ago, still in majority usage	perceived as "pro-Palestinian" politically
Israel         	the Israelite people, the kingdom of Israel                                                  	very appropriate for 10th century BC - 1st century AD              	minority usage, perceived as politically "pro-Israel"
Southern Levant	Southern East (from latin verb levo -are, literally "to bring up", where the sun rises)      	politically neutral                                                	obscure
Canaan         	Canaanite nations of 2nd millenium BC                                                        	politically neutral                                                	refers to specific people and time
If we scale the article back to deal only with the Israelite period (~13th century BC - ~2nd century AD) then Israel is definitely the way to go. If we expand it to cover all of "ancient" history, then...I don't know. All the choices look bad to me. --Cypherx 01:07, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd add that Canaan is also typically a smaller region e.g Gilead is part of the Land of Israel but not part of Canaan. Kuratowski's Ghost 10:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Is it already decided that articles ought to be merged to create one big ancient history article?--Doron 02:44, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there definitely needs to be an article that hits the highlights of the region's past 200,000 years. Perhaps this could be divided along the archaeological ages (paleolithic, epipaleolithic, neolithic, calcholithic, bronze age, iron age). An alternative would be to have an "Early History" section cover the paleolithic-calcholithic, and then sort the rest of the article according to inhabitants/ruling power(Canaanite, Israelite, Roman, Byzantine, etc...). There are many articles that cover bits and pieces of the overall history (History of Palestine, Canaan, Southern Levant, History of the Levant, History of ancient Israel and Judah, Occupations of Palestine), but none of them satisfy me. Perhaps one of these articles can be used as a baseline onto which we can pile info from other articles. In my opinion this particular article (History of ancient Israel and Judah)  should be renamed "History of the Israelites" and stripped down to focus on the time between the 13th century BC and 2nd century AD, when it was inhabited by Israelites.  --Cypherx 05:48, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The danger of focussing on peoples (Israelites) rather than regions/kingdoms (Israel and Judah) is that there are all sorts of speculation about the origins of the Israelites, what happened to them, groups today who claim to be them, etc., whereas the history of the kingdom's is much more easily defined. I think a main article covering the history of the region, with sub-articles covering different kinds of governments (Canaan, Israel, Persian, Greek, Hasmoneans, Roman, Byzantine, Muslim, Crusader, etc.) might make sense. Jayjg (talk) 18:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: That would mean stripping traditional history prior to the Exodus (Abraham etc.) which wouldn't sit well, it also means stripping info on early cultures, Canaanites and Philistines making the article purely about the Israelite people which to my mind belongs as a part of the Jewish history article (and it is there in condensed form). This should be an article about the history of the land in general in ancient times. Kuratowski's Ghost 10:29, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Not entirely true, the overwhelming reason for the choice of the name Yisrael/Israel is the fact that the region was always called Eretz Yisrael (Land of Israel) in Hebrew regardless of whether an independent kingdom or state called "Yisrael" existed or not. Look at a Hebrew-English dictionary from way before 1948 and you find English "Palestine" translated as Hebrew Eretz Yisrael and vice versa. Kuratowski's Ghost 22:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Regional Name

message: As related to discussions at Talk:Occupations of Palestine#Please delete, here is what I have posted over there: "Hi, first to User:Cypherx: I am not sure how much experience you have had with reading, editing, and writing articles at Wikipedia, but judging from your reactions here, you are either VERY inexperienced or you choose to play dumb as the need arises...so for now, since I am a very old hand at both editing and writing articles at Wikipedia, I will give you the benefit of the doubt for a few more days. However, I have noticed that you DO have an immense prejudice against the Hebrew Bible judging by your comments and reactions elsewhere recently, see Talk:History of ancient Israel and Judah#Israel or Palestine for the region?, so I wonder if you could just clarify from what POV you appraoch things? Are you an athiest? Do you treat the Koran the same way that you treat the Bible? Do you happen to have an anti-Zionist agenda? Are you only pro the PLO or do you believe that the Jewish people also have rights and claims to the Land of Israel? Until such time as we can clarify these questions, it seems to me that your main objective appears to be to destroy the foundations of any articles that deal with the modern Jewish people's claim to Israel that can be construed as derived or connected to their great gift to all mankind: The Hebrew Bible which for many people is not the kind of "supect document" you pathetically try to make it out to be,
:Good point, Biblical Minimalism is in reality a minority position amongst accomplished academics (four main proponents?) and has been repeatedly critique and found wanting. Yet it has a lot of fans amongst the religiously atheistic who insist on presenting it with statements like "most scholars" as if it were the majority view. Kuratowski's Ghost 21:46, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Biblical minimalism is usually a term of abuse against certain people with whom one disagrees.  No one calls Noth, Alt, Grunemwald, Soggin, etc minimalists and yet their views on many issues are very similar to these writers.  John D. Croft 15:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While some passages in the Hebrew Bible have found a degree of archaeological support & others agree fairly well with historical documents recovered from Assyrian & other regional sources, your statement is quite astonishingly inaccurate.  Not only does the Hebrew Bible contradict itself a number of times per page on page after page in some books, but also contradicts observed reality.  While this is tangential, indeed arguably off-topic to the history of the Holy Land, it is relevant to your remarkable claim that in the Hebrew Bible, for instance, the earth is flat & immobile, supported on pillars, with the sun moving over it, covered by a hammered out solid dome separating the waters above it from the waters below it, with openings through which God operates floodgates to let rain fall, with storerooms off this vault of heaven for hail & snow, with openings through which move those celestial beings the sun & moon, subject to punishment by God for tardiness in their movements, with stars hanging from it & God Himself sitting in His throne & walking back & forth atop it.  I'm sorry, but many are the scientists who would disagree with your assessment that this description of the cosmos is 100% accurate, whatever may be the case for the biblical record of the history of the southern Levant. Poluphlosboiu 05:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: This is definited a POV error John D. Croft 15:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: IZAK, let's just focus on the proposal, and see how the conversation goes, OK?  If we assume good faith, I'm sure things will work out fine. Jayjg (talk) 20:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, IZAK, you're right, I am fairly new to wikipedia, and my idealistic vision of this community is quickly fading. An encyclopedia that anyone can edit sounds great in theory but now that I see the result I'm regretting having tried to contribute. --Cypherx 20:59, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to get discouraged, you've stirred up some good discussion. IZAK is just a little worked up right now, but we'll all forge forward together and work something out.  In the end Wikipedia will be better. Jayjg (talk) 21:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does Cypherx  REALLY want? 

message: Cypherx: This article is about History it is not about Prehistory. In the name of "ordering" things, you are actually proposing obfuscation and CHAOS! Here are just a few examples of where you seriously err:
#You say: "I think our debate over what to name the region between southern lebanon and Eilat might reflect a greater debate in the academic community." Response: What "academic community" EXACTLY are you referring to? because here at Wikipedia we also deal with Reality! For your information: Since the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, the vast bulk of that area is called the State of Israel, unless of course you side with that segment of the "academic community" that hates Israel and wishes it would just "disappear"?
#You say: "There is no official name". Response: What lunacy is this? By this logic there is no "official name" for the United States either, because a thousand years ago there were only animals, vegetables, and native tribes on it, or any other region for that matter, if you dig back long enough in time. This is NOT an article about Natural history, or Paleontology, and we don't care about Fossil records! We are talking history, intersecting with the politics of each age including our own, and there most certainly IS an "official" name for the majority of the region, and it is the State of Israel and for some, even more than that, it's the Land of Israel, or try Holy Land.
#You say "In the Biblical Archaeology class I took, Palestine was used to describe the region purely geographically and names such as Canaan and Israel referred to certain periods of time." Response: Wikipedia is NOT a "Biblical Archaeology class". Wikipedia may reflect its views if they are warranted, but Wikipedia is a team effort that takes ALL sources into account, and not all of us here share the views of your professors, because, certainly speaking for myself, I 100% trust the truth and accuracy of the Torah and Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible) particularly as seen through the prism of Rabbinic literature whose contents take into account not just mere "geography" (which would just be a gross marginalization of the Hebrew Bible's authority at best). In any case, there is a separate article for Canaan. Again, I see that you are approaching this topic as if it was a sub-division of Anthropology or Archaeology mainly, and I repeat, this is NOT an article about Archaeology or Anthropology only, if at all.
#You say: "This naming system was consistent with our course book (Amihai Mazar's "Archaeology of the land of the Bible") and many articles and essays we read." Response: Editors at Wikipedia do NOT have to "jump to attention and salute you" because you mention some egg-head's book (some of us have read far wider and deeper than what we learned in college by now). For example, for many editors here, the Book of Joshua and the Book of Judges are far, far better reliable WRITTEN first-hand records of what went on in ancient Canaan than what is said about it by some far-off academic who is paid $100,000 a year to sit in an "Ivory tower" and "pontificate" about an ancient past that he knows only from others like him/herself!
#You say: "I assumed Palestine is the standard." One slight problem, the fact remains that there REALLY was a Kingdom of Israel and a Kingdom of Judah, (oh yeah right, I forgot, academics hate religion, so they would not respect Primary source information from the Hebrew Bible. You know what? it's their loss as it shows how one-sided and dumb they then appear as a result of their blind prejudice and snobbishnes.)
#You say "I think there definitely needs to be an article that hits the highlights of the region's past 200,000 years." Response: Now this really blew me away! "200,000 years"!!! Wow!!! What "history" would that be? This is proof that you do not know the Definition of History BECAUSE history basically ONLY deals with WRITTEN records! What nonsense are you spouting?! This is NOT an article about "The results of Evolution in the Middle East 100,000 years since the first Neanderthal strolled into Canaan"! First of all why do you assume that every editor here agrees with your notion that the world has existed for "200,000" years? A: You should take into account that some people around here believe in the Jewish God and who believe in the literal Creation according to Genesis. B: There are basically NO real  S U B S T A N S I V E  WRITTEN records that exceed the Hebrew Bible's account of the ancient Biblical era under discussion here, that describe the first three millenia of  the last 5765 years of History according to the Hebrew Calendar. C: Feel free to write articles about the Fauna and all the Neanderthals that come to your mind, however, once again I must point out your falacious thinking, this article is about a time in the recorded history of Civilization as we know it to be (and not of ape-men drawing "oxen" on cave walls), and we are most certainly NOT dealing with Middle Paleolithic, Lower Paleolithic, or Pleistocene ages because those are ENTIRELY different subject areas NOT related to conventional H I S T O R Y.
#You say "Perhaps this could be divided along the archaeological ages (paleolithic, epipaleolithic, neolithic, calcholithic, bronze age, iron age)." Response: Horrible idea! Here's why: You are misreading and distorting the nature of this article's intent. To repeat: What we are dealing with here is History and NOT Prehistory!!! Take some time and read the Prehistory article and you will learn that: "Prehistory (Greek words προ = before and ιστορία = history) is the period of human history including all previous history before humans which is prior to the advent of writing (which marks the beginning of recorded history)." Take note and let it sink in!
#You say: "An alternative would be to have an "Early History" section cover the paleolithic-calcholithic, and then sort the rest of the article according to inhabitants/ruling power(Canaanite, Israelite, Roman, Byzantine, etc...)." Response: TODAY, most of humanity knows that the Holy Land means the territory we are talking about here. How many people, besides the few academic egg-heads who live in their own deluded make-believe worlds, would associate the Holy Land with Romans or Byzantines? Rome had Rome, and the Byzantines had Byzantium (and the Arabs have Arabia by the way), and to the subject of the History of ancient Israel and Judah belongs the people of BOTH the Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah as well as to their latter-day descendants the Jewish people. Why confuse this point unless you have an agenda of denying the Jewish people their connection with their own land in Israel?
#You say: "In my opinion this particular article (History of ancient Israel and Judah) should be renamed "History of the Israelites" and stripped down to focus on the time between the 13th century BC and 2nd century AD, when it was inhabited by Israelites." Response: Sadly, I think the key word here from you is "stripped down" as I see that all you seem to want to do is "strip down" the Jews' claim to their own land of Israel, because you see, perhaps it has not entered your consciousness yet, the modern Jewish people in Israel, known as Israelis, also happen to be the rightful heirs of the ancient Israelites' Land of Israel who are their ancestors that had lived in it for thousands of years (from Abraham until the destruction of the Second Temple), or is that another point you see from a PLO POV perhaps? It is time to stop "stripping down" the Hebrew Bible and Israel, both ancient and modern, and instead recognize the fact that it is a fact of life and part of a firm reality that Israel is the true home of the Jews and it is here to stay because it has never "left" the domain of the Jews and Judaism at all. IZAK 21:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teaching Cypherx history: This article is NOT about "Prehistory" 

message: I'm fine with this article giving a synopsis of the bible. However, you cannot give the "patriarchal period" as historical fact, and refer to Abraham as a historical person etc. and at the same time say in the intro
:This article attempts to give a conservative scholarly view which would currently be supported by most historians.
Either write an account summarizing the bible, and say so, or write a "conservative sholarly" article admitting that there are no sources about Israel prior to ca. 900 BC. By any scholarly standard, the 2nd millennium is prehistory, as far as Israel is concerned. dab (ᛏ) 4 July 2005 07:18 (UTC)
::Well its one opinion that there are no sources prior to 900 BCE, another opinion is that the Pentateuch goes back to Moses and was partially compiled using writings by Abraham etc. If we go lowest common denominator when it comes to history then virtually nothing can be said about anything. One wouldn't even be able to write contemporary history as not everyone trusts the media! This article gives a conservative view in the sense of following traditional history as opposed to embracing modernist and post-modernist rejection of tradition, i.e it gives a so-called "maximalist" view. It is no less scholarly than using Geoffrey of Monmouth for British history, Tacitus for Roman history or Saxo Grammaticus for Danish history. Kuratowski's Ghost 4 July 2005 11:06 (UTC)
::: Exactly the problem!  If I found an encyclopedic article claiming that Britain was founded by Brutus, I'd be amused if not outraged. No one would seriously consider using Geoffrey of Monmouth for British history where his account is not made credible by the external evidence. - Mustafaa 4 July 2005 17:06 (UTC)
:::: LOL Ok Geoffrey is a bad choice, I reckon the Bible is far more reliable than him. Although even with him there are things he said which at first seemed to be complete nonsense like king Arthur but later it was realized that some of it matches Artorius Castus. Lets say instead Herodotus or Manetho. The important thing is to always qualify where the "history" comes from. Trying to determine absolute truth in history seems futile without a time machine, and even if we had one I wouldn't trust journalists sent back into time to give unbiased reports ;-) Kuratowski's Ghost 4 July 2005 20:53 (UTC)
*Clarification needed: Mustafaa what's wrong with the Hebrew Bible as a Primary source? Is it not a POV to place the Hebrew Bible in the "suspect column" and at the same time be so blindly accepting of non-Judaic sources? IZAK 5 July 2005 07:54 (UTC)
: Since you ask: a good historian places every account in the "suspect column", not just the Bible, and looks for validation from multiple independent sources, or from archeology and linguistics.  Even contemporary accounts are often falsified (Ramses' account of his own conquests, for instance, is largely self-aggrandizing propaganda.)  Accounts whose earliest surviving copies were made much later are normally given even less confidence. - Mustafaa 7 July 2005 19:01 (UTC)
For a calm, thorough, readable and authoritative book  touching on many if not most of the points in this discussion, please have a look at "The Bible Unearthed; Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the origins of its ancient texts." Authors: Finkelstein  and Silberman. (Free Press, 2001) Authors' summary at:  http://www.bibleinterp.com/commentary/Finkelstein_Silberman022001.htm.Wooolfy 00:20, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
:For a balanced view also look at The Old Testament in Light of the Archaeological Evidence: A New Assessment for the Twenty-First Century by Kenneth Kitchen. Kuratowski's Ghost 00:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Arguing that the Bible should be read as literature rather than history in the modern sense, biblical archaeologist Thompson (Biblical Studies/Univ. of Copenhagen) sweepingly reassesses the historical evidence for the existence of ancient Israel. Bitter scholarly controversies, fueled by religious belief, have raged for decades about the historical authenticity of such Bible stories as the Garden of Eden, the Flood, and the flight from Egypt. These debates are misconceived, argues Thompson: much of the Bible was never intended to be read literally, or even to be understood as history as modern readers conceive it. Instead, much of the Bible consists of tall stories and other types of literature that, in ancient Jewish society as in other ancient cultures, provided people with an understanding of a common past. Relying on archaeological rather than biblical evidence, the author sketches the ancient economy and society of the people of Palestine. Rather than the unified "kingdom of Israel" depicted in the Bible, he paints a picture of a turbulent tribal Palestine, buffeted by drought, waves of immigrants from the Aegean, and expansionist neighbors. Contrasting this evidence with biblical narratives, shot through as they are with elements of the miraculous and the fantastic, Thompson questions the historicity of such scriptural accounts as the stories of the kingships of Saul, David, and Solomon and the Babylonian exile. Thompson finds magnificent poetry in the Bible, brilliant epic narratives and folktales, and great philosophical and moral writing that raises important questions about the meaning of life and the name of God: "it is only as history that the Bible does not make sense." In rather heavyhanded fashion, Thompson makes a good general point: that many biblical narratives should not be read literally as history; but in his total reliance on archaeology, he may overstate his case somewhat for the ahistoricity of the Bible. -- Copyright ©1999, Kirkus Associates, LP. 
--Sjsilverman 02:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Sounds like a tired rehashing of the sort of codswallop that was popular a century ago amongst the pseudo-intellectuals who infest humanities departments at universities :P Kuratowski's Ghost 01:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "scholarly"

message: I'm interested in creating History of Ancient Israel and Judah series, or Kingdom of Israel series. I imagine there will be red links if therei s a history of ancient Israel simply because Wikipedia is missing a lot material on the subject.  
On the other hand, Kindgom of Israel would be farely easy to fill in. Either way   I am intending on creating Saul's Kindom, David's Empire, and Solomon's Empire in my free time. Thanks for any future coments or suggestions. Newbie222 02:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: History of ancient Israel Series or Kingdom of Israel series?

message: Rejection of the Patriarchal narratives does not constitute minimalism.  The term minimalism refers to a small number of interpreters, such as Davies, Lemche, and Thomson, who date all the biblical material to the Persian period and later, and deny most of the history of the Hebrew kingdoms that is given in the books of Kings.  These scholars are decidedly on the fringe of biblical scholarship.
However the biblical "prehistory"- the period of the Patriarchs, Exodus, and Conquest- is generally seen as legendary/mythical by most archaeologists these days.  The term "maximalists" is misleading really- Israeli archaeologist Amihai Mazar for example, is often used as the portrait of a sample maximalist, as he believes that there is some historical background in both the Patriarch and Exodus traditions- he is not a fundamentalist however, and makes clear (see Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 1990, part of the Anchor Bible Reference Library), that certain biblical traditions of the Patriarchs, such as Abraham's interactions with Aramaeans and Philistines, must be Iron Age anachronisms.  Likewise, he has no problem accepting the indigenous origins of the majority of the early Israelites, even though he still believes the Exodus tradition must at least have originated with a small population movement from Egypt to Canaan who settled among, and passed their story along to, the Proto-Israelites.  He also rejects the Conquest tradition of Joshua, which is standard practice among biblical archaeologists.  Both Dever and Finkelstein, who reject the Patriarch and Exodus traditions, are not maximalists, but they certainly aren't minimalists either; Dever has spent a lot of efforts arguing with minimalists (whom he dubs "postmodern revisionists," see What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?, 2001), whereas Finkelstein politely evaluates their arguments but ultimately rejects them (The Bible Unearthed, 2001).  The history of the kingdoms given in the Book of Kings is generally treated with credibility, all the way back to Saul and David in the eyes of most biblical archaeologists; and even Finkelstein, who sees the United Monarchy as legendary, treats the history from Omri onward with credibility.  The Book of Judges is believed to contain many kernels of actual history as well, albeit in a legendary form.
That's the problem with using the minimalist-maximalist classification.  The opposite of minimalism is fundamentalism, not maximalism.  Fundamentalism and minimalism represent the extremes of conservative and skeptical respectively, with regard to biblical history.  Maximalists like Mazar are conservative within the mainstream.  Dever would be middle of the road, and Finkelstein is skeptical within the mainstream.  "Minimalism" is a term reserved for fringe scholars like Thomson and Davies, not merely for rejection of the Patriarchal narratives.--Rob117 03:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I would submit that someone is even less likely to refer to oneself as a "fundamentalist" than a "maximalist", making it even more of an exonym or an outside label...  So bear in mind when you come up with all these "definitions", they are really the definitions that you use -- not definitions you can magically get everybody to use, just by summarily declaring them "mainstream" definitions... Codex Sinaiticus 22:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly disagree, tens of millions of Americans proudly call themselves "fundamentalists". (Check out Fundamentalist Christianity if you are not sure exactly what they mean by this.) I've never heard anyone say "I'm Biblical maximalist". -- Jmabel | Talk 19:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of minimalists and maximalists. 

message: Unless I am very mistaken, this series of edits is simply wrong.  Certainly the Old Testament includes the the five books of Moses, and I'm unaware of any books of the prophets in the Tanakh that are not also in the Protestant Old Testament. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No you are correct.  The Tanakh and the *Protestant* Old Testament are identical.  The Catholics add a few minor additions such as Ecclesiaticus and Maccabees. I have edited the page accordingly. Wjhonson 06:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tanakh 

message: An anon make some changes recently. See . This editor has a history of making ridiculous edits to Quidditch. Can someone check these edits? -- Ec5618 18:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anon addition

message: I just want to give my thanks to everyone who has taken the time to work on this mammoth of a page. I found a link to here from the Judah page and it's really great. Has it gained featured page status? It should have its amazing, my admiration and respect for a job well done. -- Shimirel (Talk) 02:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks 

message: I have created a map for the Jesus article and thought it may go well here under the "Roman conquests" section. I was wondering if any of the editors here would give me input and feedback about this map so I can make a final version. So far people have requested the inclusion of Idumea, somehow designate the jurisdictions of the tetrachs, and possibly change the name from Palestine to Holy Land or something else (suggestions welcomed).--Andrew c 02:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of 1st Century Palestine 

message: This tradition appears in later literature, like Jubilees and the rabbinic commentaries.--Rob117 00:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, although its hinted at in the Torah. Kuratowski's Ghost 08:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tanakh does not claim the original inhabitants were Shemites 

message: Several topics on this page have entire pages devoted to them, namely:
United Monarchy,
Kingdom of Israel,
Kingdom of Judah,
Babylonian Captivity
among others.  It would make more sense to reduce the space devoted to these topics to a minimal outline and direct the interested reader to the full article elsewhere, and avoid duplication of information, as well as unaddressed contradictory information.  Any comments?
Spooky turnip 02:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other articles and duplication of information - Opinions? 

message: The family tree at the bottom of the page is missing one of Ham's sons;Canaan.....Deananoby2 21:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chart at bottom of page? 

message: The reference to Salmanasar in the text (722 BC) is not to the right Salmanasar. 84.10.114.122 17:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference 

message: Any ideas on how to add a link to History of ancient Israel and Judah (1000-63 BCE)? There are about 5 or so headers it could go under.--Andrew c 03:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of ancient Israel and Judah (1000-63 BCE) 

message: The lead (the section right at the very top of the article, before even the introduction) doesn't fit the normal Wiki pattern. The normal lead begins with a one-line definition of the subject - in this case, I would expect to find something like: "The history of ancient Israel and Judah concerns political, social and religions developments in (define geographic area) between (dates);" I would not expect to find a discussion of sources, which is what this one gives. In fact I was rather curious, when I clicked the link to arrive here, as to just what the topic would turn out to be: Judah and Israel are (were) the two kingdoms that followed the kingdom of David and Solomon, with a combined lifespan roughly from 922 to 587 BC; and there are already articles on both of them; so what was this article going to be about? I think the lead needs to clarify that question. PiCo 11:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lead 

message: What does the following have to do with this article? Moved here:
:This article attempts to give a scholarly view which would currently be supported by most historians. The precise dates and the precision by which they may be stated are subject to continuing discussion and challenge. There are no biblical events whose precise year can be validated by external sources before the early 9th century BCE (The rise of Omri, King of Israel). Therefore all earlier dates are extrapolations. Further, the Bible does not render itself very easily to these calculations: mostly it does not state any time period longer than a single life time and a historical line must be reconstructed by adding discrete quantities, a process that naturally introduces rounding errors. The earlier dates presented here and their accuracy reflects a maximalist view, in that it uses the Bible as its sole source.
:Some writers consider the different source materials to be in conflict. See The Bible and history for further information. This is a controversial subject, with implications in the fields of religion, politics and diplomacy. Others, known as minimalists dispute that many of the events happened at all, making the dating of them moot: if the very existence of the United Kingdom is in doubt, it is pointless to claim that it disintegrated in 922 BCE. Philip Davies Davies, Philip (1998), "Scribes and Schools: The Canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures" (Knox Press) for instance, shows how the canonical Biblical account can only have been composed for a people with a long literate tradition such is found only in Late Persian or early Hellenistic times, and argues that accounts of earlier periods are largely reconstructions based upon largely oral and other traditions. Even the minimalists don't dispute that a few of the events from the 9th century onward do have corroborations; see for example Mesha Stele.
:Archaeologists have named the earliest inhabitants of the area Mousterian Neanderthals.  They have been estimated to date to about 200,000 BCE. The first anatomically-modern humans to live in the area are called the Kebarans. They have been conventionally dated to about  18,000 - 10,500 BCE, but recent paleoanthropological evidence suggests that Kebarans may have arrived as early as 75,000 BCE and shared the region with the Neanderthals for millennia before the latter died out. They were followed by the Natufian culture (c. 10,500 BCE - 8500 BCE), the Yarmukians (c. 8500 - 4300 BCE) and the Ghassulians (carbon dated c. 4300 - 3300 BCE). None of these names appears in any pre-modern source; they were all devised as conventions in recent times by archaeologists to refer to the various cultures found in archaeological strata. 
:The Ghassulian period created the basis of the Mediterranean economy which has characterised the area ever since.  A Chalcolithic culture, the Ghassulian economy was a mixed agricultural system consisting of extensive cultivation of grains (wheat and barley), intensive horticulture of vegetable crops, commercial production of vines and olives, and a combination of transhumance and nomadic pastoralism.  The Gassulian culture, according to Juris Yarins, developed out of the earlier Minhata phase of what he calls the "circum Arabian nomadic pastoral complex", probably associated with the first appearance of Semites in this area.
:Georgraphically the area is divided between a coastal plain, hill country to the East and the Jordan Valley joining the Sea of Galilee to the Dead Sea.  Rainfall decreases from the north to the south, with the result that the northern region of Israel has generally been more economically developed than the southern one of Judah.
:The Ghassulian period was associated with increasing urbanization, where people may have begun living in small city-states, one of which was Jericho. The area's location at the center of three trade routes linking three continents made it the meeting place for religious and cultural influences from Egypt, Syria, Mesopotamia, and Asia Minor:
:# A Coastal Route: connecting Gaza and the Philistine coast north to Joppa and Megiddo, travelling north through Biblos to Phoenicia and Anatolia.
:# A Hill Route: travelling through the Negev, Kadesh Barnea, to Hebron and Jerusalem, and thence north to Samaria, Sechem, Shiloh, Beth Shean and Hazor, and thence to Kadesh and Damascus.
:# The "Kings Highway": travelling north from Eilat, east of the Jordan through Amman to Damascus, and connected to the "frankinsense road" north from Yemen and South Arabia. 
:This region was was also the natural battleground for the great powers of the region and subject to domination by adjacent empires, beginning with Egypt in the late 3rd millennium BCE. The period of the historical states of Judah and Israel was the period in which this area became gradually incorporated into the later Neo-Assyrian and Babylonian period traditions regarding the early history found in later works such as the Book of Jubilees, the Kebra Nagast and commentaries of Rashi, Philo and the Sepher Hayashar of Ibn Ezra refer to the early inhabitants as the sons of Shem and also speak of an invasion by the people known as Canaanites descended from Ham.
:The history of the area seems to have suffered from acute periods of dessication, and reduced rainfall which has influenced the relative importance of settled versus nomadic ways of living.  The cycle seems to have been repeated a number of times during which a reduced rainfall increases periods of fallow, with farmers spending increasing amounts of time with their flocks and away from cultivation.  Eventually they revert to fully nomadic cultures, which, when rainfall increases settle around important sources of water and begin to spend increasing amounts of time on cultivation.  The increased prosperity leads to a revival of inter-regional and eventually international trade.  The growth of villages rapidly proceeds to increased prosperity of market towns and city states, which attract the attention of neighbouring great powers, who may invade to capture control of regional trade networks and possibilities for tribute and taxation.  Warfare leads to opening the region to pandemics, with resultant depopulation, overuse of fragile soils and a reversion to nomadic pastoralism.
:The Book of Jubilees, states that the land was originally allotted to Shem and Arphaxad (ancestor of the Hebrews) when it was still vacant, but was wrongfully occupied by Canaan and his son Sidon. The Kebra Nagast speaks of the Canaanites invading existing cities of Shem, and Ibn Ezra similarly notes that they had seized land from earlier inhabitants. Rashi mentions that the Canaanites were seizing land from the sons of Shem supposedly in the days of Abraham. The Tanakh does not directly mention Shemite presence in the land before the Canaanites, although some feel late Canaanite arrival is implied in Genesis 12:6 where the expression "At that time the Canaanites were in the land" cannot carry the connotation of then but not now as Canaanites were present up and until the second Temple period by which time Genesis had certainly been written.
The above should be called Pre-history of the Land of Canaan (it is now there) because it is not directly associated with Israel or Judah which are the main topics of this article. IZAK 08:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved the above to Pre-history of the Land of Israel as the name "Canaan" is very time-specific applying only to the historical period during which the area was ruled by Canaanites, while the name Land of Israel is typically used as a timeless name for the region. Kuratowski's Ghost 11:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-history is not part of ISRAEL and JUDAH's history 

message: I have deleted the section on the patriarchal period, as Israel and Judah did not exist in this time.  The earliest historical reference to Israel is the Merenptah stele (1206).  The article on the early Bronze Age has been moved to the pre-hsitory section as there are no historically verifiable information on these periods either.  Even by Biblical accounts Israel as a person did not exist until 3 generations after Abraham, and so a discussion on Abraham is not relevant to the ancient history of Israel and Judah.  John D. Croft 15:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But you also deleted Israel himself, and yet you retain ancient Egyptian domination from... the same period.  Seems a little unclear to me.  As you know the date 1800BC is not fixed for Abraham it's merely a hypothesis, and one not completely supported by the evidence.  Just perhaps the majority view you might say.  There should at least be a section that explains *why* the alledged Israelites were in Egypt in the first place. Wjhonson 19:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Abraham was not a patriarch only of the Jewish people, he was patriarch of many different groups including the Arabs.  Isaac was also not just a patriarch of the Jews as he was father also to Esau, ancestor of the Edomites.  They should not be mentioned in an article on Israel, if mentioned at all they belong to an article on the Semitic peoples, or the history of the Levant.  For these reasons I will revert to my original post. John D. Croft 19:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are together referred to as the Jewish patriarchs. The Edomites were reabsorbed into the Jewish people during the Hashmonean period. Abraham is not the patriarch of the Arabs, in Arabic tradition the patriarchs of the Arabs are Qahtan (father of the true Arabs) and Adnan (father of the Arabicized north Arabians. A late hermeneutical fable attempted to link an ancestor of Adnan with Ishmael son of Abraham but this is not regarded as history. Kuratowski's Ghost 23:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is regarded as history, as the Arabs claim (with some evidence) that it was Ishmael who was to be sacrificed, not Isaac (it was to be Abraham's "eldest son" and that was Ishmael).  Ishmael is accepted as the ancestor of the Qaysite Arabs, which include the family of Mohammed.  Abraham is a patriarch of the Arabs too.  Ask any Muslim. John D. Croft 06:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its far more complicated than this, there are numerous discussions of Adnan's lineage in the works of classical Islamic historians, attempts to trace him to Ishmael are inconsistent in name and number are rejected by other Islamic historians. Moreover such attempts are based on the equation of Adnan's ancestor Araq Al-Thara with Ishmael based on the delightful argument that Thara means mud and mud doesn't burn and Abraham being a prophet didn't burn in hell so Al-Thara is Abraham and Araq is his son Ishmael - no sane person would view this as history. Kuratowski's Ghost 09:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Corrections