Talk:Kingdom of Judah

message: "According to the Hebrew Bible..."  
Clearly the Bible is full of myths and propaganda and in itself not a valid source for historical accuracy. Perhaps there should be a separate paragraph for what the Bible says about Judah, similar to how other topics have a paragraph about references in popular culture.--Tchoutoye 12:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the first place, while most historians recognize that the Deuteronomic History (i.e., the Book of Kings) is full of myths and propaganda, they also have generally felt that it also contains reliable historical information, and many have been fairly confident that they can decipher which parts are reliable history, and which parts are later myth.  Furthermore, many of the prophetic books are actually considered to be at least partially written during the life of the Kingdom of Judah.  If you think that the presence of myths and propaganda in a source makes it "not a valid source" for historical inquiry, then we would have to exclude just about the entirety of ancient historical writing, and conclude that we know nothing about ancient or medieval history at all.  But, of course, you don't actually think that, you just dislike the Bible.  The Bible is basically our only major source on the Kingdom of Judah, and most historians have been interested in figuring out what in it can be trusted, and what cannot.  Your suggestion is ridiculous, in that I can't imagine what the "Main" part of the article would consist of if you took out material derived from the Bible. john k 12:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This artical doesn't meet the Wikipedia standards for neutrality, verifiability and it does not quote accepted sources.  I've added the appropriate tags.  Hopefully someone can rewrite the whole artical and present the material in a more appropriate manner. 76.176.114.213 00:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there should be separated articles on the history of Judah (and Israel) as described in the Bible, and the history as "described" by archeological evidences. For the latter everyone just read The Bible unearthed by I. Finkelstein & N.A. Silberman. They are - as far as it makes sense - critical towards the history written in the Bible, based on evidences partially discovered by themselves (and to answer John K: yes, there are many clear evidences, that show, that the Bible is not always a valid source for history! It gives a very useful background for archeological research though), but again they point out cleary - and so do I - that the Bible isn't a history book at all!! It is an excellent work of literature (formally), and for two major religions The Source (spiritually) containing some historical information as well. We just have to know what to use it for (and how)!
all you who say the tanakh is not a  credible source  :
you're whole claim is childish , the jewish tanakh books are the only books from the ancient times which represent a nation which says the complete truth about even the most key people in its history , most respected and most loved people in their history, the tanakh is not "covering up" for no one , and to be honest , its the only ancient source who does so 
it seems none of you would ever claim such things on The  assyrian and egyptian sources which are full of mistakes , blunt lies and glorification of their kings (which usually dont deserve it)
"For the latter everyone just read The Bible unearthed by I. Finkelstein etc " 
oh , you mean the same i.finkelstien  who decleared that the V||| layer in meggido is from the middle of the 14 century bc (against evidence proving its cannot be erlier then the end of the 14 century bc according to archeaological work using Mycenaean ceramic found in the layer, And a carbon 14 test)  just so it would correspond  to the historic knowlege reflected through the amarna letters. that finkelstein ? he's a joke , and that book is not founded, and is already contradicted by hundred of articles and books which proved how baseless are the claims of that pathetic book.
 
oh and btw - judah in the first temple period was usually much bigger then that map shows(try including edom which was most of the time a a subjact of judah)
message by 
hebraic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hebraic (talk • contribs) 20:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bible as source?

message: The kingdom is named after the tribe Judah, which does not mean 'God's Worshipper', but is a name. The name originally meant 'Thank God'. I dont understand the translation.
:No it means Thank Yahweh.  "Thank God" would be Eldah! 203.59.11.115 14:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "God's Worshipper's Kingdom" 

message: If the Bible is the main source of information, the article needs more explanation of where the dates are derived from. I assume it is something more intelligent than the argument which leads some Christians to believe that the Earth and Universe are 6000 years old, but what is it in each case? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.7.20.133 (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, Biblical dates after the founding of the Israelite monarchy (ca. 1000 B.C.) are far more definite and least partially historically founded than Biblical dating references to periods before the founding of the Israelite monarchy.  The Biblical information about the sequence and lengths of individual reigns is certainly used (since information on these matters is simply not available anywhere else), but great efforts are also made to synchronize with external chronologies wherever possible.  Three different scholarly schemes are tabulated right in the table on the article page. AnonMoos 08:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no independent non-Biblical confirmation of any Biblical date before the reign of Ahab.  So say that dates after the founding of the monarchy before that date is factually incorrect.  203.59.11.115 14:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline 

message: The main article references Joshua 18 which far predates post-Solomonic Israel.  The first citation for Jerusalem being the capital of Southern Kingdom is most likely in 1 Kings 12 instead.  Additionally, 2 Samuel 5:6-9 describes David conquering Jerusalem and making it his capital (Hebron served as his capital during the years he reigned over Judah alone).
Joshua 18:28 (NIV) reads "Zelah, Haeleph, the Jebusite city (that is, Jerusalem), Gibeah and Kiriath—fourteen towns and their villages.  This was the inheritance of Benjamin for its clans."  While this obviously mentions Jerusalem, it does not lay it out as the capital of the Kingdom of Judah.   
The division of the Unified Kingdom occurs in 1 Kings 12, with Rehoboam driving off the Northern Kingdom (Israel) with his harsh demands.
Zamoose 12:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect Scriptural Citation

message: I've revised the lead quite radically ("edit boldly"). There were two problems with the existing lead: First, it was far too long - a lead has to be a brief guide to the subject, and the old one was far from brief; second, it was not really no more than a summary of the bible, which is not a reliable historical source. I recognise that the new lead has no citations - this is a fault, and perhaps I should supply some. PiCo (talk) 02:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides that. The introduction, as it currently stands, places more focus on the subsequent fate of the area rather than the Kingdom itself. Two centuries of archaelogical research and theories on this minor state are not even mentioned. Dimadick (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. I've cut it back and it now deals with the birth and death of Judah as known from archaeology. It does need to be expanded, because more than this is known. PiCo (talk) 00:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New lead 

message: A serious deficiency in this entry: The author assumes that the Kingdom of Judah existed no earlier than the 9th century BCE, and the first Judean king he finds in external sources is Hezekiah. This claim is 16 years out of date.
The Tel Dan Inscription, written by an Aramean king, Hazael II, mentions Ahaziah, King of Judah and contemporary of Jehoram, King of Israel, both of whom Hazael claims to have defeated and killed in battle - an event that occurred in the mid-9th century BCE. Moreover, he entitles Ahaziah as king of "the House of David", his term for the Kingdom of Judah. This is a typical usage of that period - naming the kingdom for the founder of the ruling dynasty. Similarly, Amos calls Aram Damascus "the House of Hazael", and Assyriaqn inscriptions of the period entitle Israel "bit Humri" - "the House of Omri". What this meaqns is that the ruling dynasty of Judah was founded by King David, and that this occurred at some time before King Ahaziah. Thus, there is no reason why we should not accept the list of Judean kings presented in Kings as historical, and date the founding of the dynasty back to the 10th century BCE (the regnal years of David and Solomon appear to be typological (40 years apiece), which is why I refrain from writing "early 10th century"). Why should anyone invent these kings? To fill in the gap between David and Ahaziah? Unacceptable. The most one can say is that not all words and deeds attributed to them by the Deuteronimistic redactor of Kings are historical.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yonsaf (talk • contribs) 08:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We need a reliable source to make the sort of changes you suggest. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Note, however, that the current sources are dated 2007 and 2011 (the last one by the media, and not as important). So it would be nearly impossible to present something discovered 16 years ago that would somehow contradict these reports. An editor would have to somehow demonstrate that these (newer) supposed experts had "overlooked" these "Ahaziah" discoveries made years before. There appears to be a gap here between an initial report made 16 years ago and subsequent analysis by other experts which may have placed the older findings into eclipse. It would be nice to demonstrate otherwise. I hope you are successful. Student7 (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is outdated 

message: It is possible that we will need a "minimalist" vs "maximalist" article or statement in every article on pre-Alexandrian Israel/Judah/Jerusalem. Inserting it in one article alone seems insufficient, IMO. Student7 (talk) 01:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Archeology

message: In the order of birth the twelve sons of Jacob are Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Issachar, Zebulun, Joseph and Benjamin, and they become the ancestors of thirteen tribes, because Joseph has two sons, Mannasseh and Ephraim which become two tribes, leaving one Tribe upon the shepherd stone not numbered among the twelve tribes.
Genesis Chapter 35 Verses 22 to 26 Genesis Chapter 48 Verses 5 Genesis Chapter 49 Verse 24
During the days of Moses and shortly thereafter, the tribe of Levi stood upon the shepherd stone, not being numbered among the twelve numbered Tribes, and Levi was given no inheritance in the Promised Land, so that all Levi dwelt among the twelve numbered Tribes, as the only Priesthood in Israel, until the days of Samuel of the Tribe of Ephraim, which was given to Ephraim  because the sons of Joseph obtained the birthright.
Number Chapter 1 1 Chronicles Chapter 5 Verses 1-2
The Levitical High Priest Eli, had sinned against Yahweh, and Samuel was raised up as a new High Priest placing the Tribe of Ephraim not numbered among the twelve Tribes, as a new Priesthood upon the shepherd stone unto this day, even though the Levitical Priesthood continues.
1 Samuel Chapters 1 to 3
Saul of the Tribe of Benjamin was anointed as King of Israel, but he sinned against Yahweh, and David of the Tribe of Judah was anointed as King in his place. 
1 Samuel Chapter 9 1 Samuel Chapter 16
David’s son Solomon forsook Yahweh because of the influence of evil women, and even failed to mention the name Yahweh in his writings of Ecclesiastics and the Song of Solomon, (the only two scrolls of the twenty four scrolls of the Tanakh besides Ester, that do not contain the name Yahweh,) so in Solomon’s son’s days, the Kingdom was divided. 
1 Kings Chapter 11 verse 4
The Tribe of Benjamin was given to the house of David and the Tribe of Judah as the southern Kingdom, the Kingdom of Judah made of just two Tribes, and ten Tribes including Levi were given unto the Tribe of Ephraim as the northern Kingdom Israel, leaving Ephraim not numbered among the twelve Tribes.  JosephLoegering (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, in both the map above and this contribution, 12-13 tribes are discussed. Yet the article is about the Kingdom of Judah, the 2-3 southern tribes. How would any of this be used to improve this article? Student7 (talk) 13:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Thirteen Tribes of Israel 

message: I noticed that most of the article is under the heading "Biblical Narrative."  However, the "Clash of Empires" and "Destruction and dispersion" subheadings appear to be more based on archaeology and research than on the biblical narrative.  For example:
:Necho then joined forces with the Assyrian Ashur-uballit II and together they crossed the Euphrates and lay siege to Harran. The combined forces failed to capture the city, and Necho retreated back to northern Syria. The event also marked the disintegration of the Assyrian Empire.
Although no citation is given, this assertion appears to be based on extra-biblical authority. So I'm wondering if these sections really belong under the "Biblical Narrative" umbrella, or if perhaps they can be combined with the "Archaeological Record" section for a complete discussion of scientific/historical inquiry into the actual history of the Kingdom of Judah.--BenEsq (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I agree that material that isn't sourced from biblical texts belongs outside the biblical-narrative section. However, IMO to move them there we'll need the extra-biblical sources. --Dailycare (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganization of Headings? 

message: It's not 100% clear: is this whole history based entirely on the Biblical record? If so< what about the historians side?.45Colt 08:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There is the "Archaeological record" section with input from historians. There isn't much such input though, so most of the material is biblical. --Dailycare (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

text: Definitely confused.  I've been trying to look up the history of ancient Judea, but all the articles fall into two irreconcilable camps.  One says that Judah "emerged" (whatever that means) around 800 BCE and that Hezekiah was the first "known" king.  The other talks about a King David who established a dynasty nearly a century earlier and was even the subject of a biography, the "Court History of David". How do historians reconcile this?  Do they consider David a minor ruler whose dynasty didn't become important until Hezekiah's time?  Is it possible that the archeological record begins with Hezekiah simply because the Assyrian invasion destroyed earlier artifacts?  I wish I had more information.  73.137.170.88 (talk) 22:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a problem with other articles too, where related articles disagree. The Court History of David doesn't exist and may never have existed. Doug Weller (talk) 08:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure I should trust that article. See for instance this. Doug Weller (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused  

message: To say that Judah begun in the 9th (or even 8th!) century BC is to completely disregard the archaeological evidence. The wars between Asa and Baasha (e.g. Aharoni and Avi-Yonah, MacMillan Bible Atlas) in the early 9th century BC already guarantee that the kingdom existed in the 10th century BC, in my very honest opinion. The Tel Dan and other inscriptions also support the existence of King David, as does the rapid urbanization of Palestine in the late 11th/early 10th centuries BCE (A. Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible pp.374-5). Cornelius (talk) 01:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll need sources specifically dating an earlier Judah. Doug Weller talk 06:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Look at Renassault/Cornelius's other contributions over the last four years -- he/she appears to just be posting his/her personal opinions regarding various ancient near-eastern archaeological topics on article talk pages, without attempting to actually improve article content. Even the above, which claims to be about a "biased introduction" (an apparent misunderstanding that the lead is supposed to be something other than a summary of the body, mind you), is bizarre: "the existence of King David" is not touched on one way or the other at any point in this article. The user appears to be posting random opinions about biblical minimalist archaeology in whatever forum they can find. This is a long-term, but very minor, problem, and I am not entirely sure how it should be dealt with, as in all likelihood the account will be inactive until about a year after the above post... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

text: Repinging User:Doug Weller in case they click the notification that I mentioned them and only read the initial diff rather than my (important) edit to my own post. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  as the account hasn't been active since March there really isn't anything to do here. I don't see any warnings on their talk page either. You might want to put one there. I agree they seem more interested in using the talk pages as forums for their opinion than editing. Doug Weller talk 10:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very Inaccurate and Biased Introduction 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Kingdom of Judah. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.aol.com/article/israeli-archaeologists-find-ancient-text/233027?icid=100214839x1212506023x1200749390
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article needs to clearly differentiate mainstream archaeological methodology from biblical archaeology, the latter of which tries to make the historical record fit religious beliefs. It's confusing when someone is trying to figure out what material evidence exists for the Kingdom of Judah, and finds nothing but the Bible. Jan sewi (talk) 10:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a section on actual archaeological finds relating to Judah in the article. If you have good sources, this section could be expanded. --Dailycare (talk) 08:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archaeology 

message: I'm very confused how we use the sources and dates we use for the formation of Judah.
Firstly, the sources. The first source, used to cite a figure of the 9th century BCE, comes from Israel in Transition: From Late Bronze II to Iron IIa (c. 1250–850 B.C.E.), pages 225 & 226, found here.
The first source does indeed make use of the figure of 9th century BCE, but not for the formation of the independent kingdom. It mentions that there are signs of early activity in the 10th century BCE, with certain cities in Judah showing signs of inhabitance during Iron Age IIA. However, it makes no use of this date to say that Judah was formed during this period, just because activity is observed at a time period doesn't mean the kingdom was formed. That's like saying the Kingdom of Samaria was founded in the 9000s BCE because that's when Jericho showed the first signs of human life.
The second source, Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period, page 149, found here, has the exact same problem.
It presents evidence showing that there was some sort of human activity in the area of Hebron and some others - however, while it certainly mentions Judah, it makes a point that it these signs of human activity seem to be more of a disproof for the existence of an established Kingdom of Judah than a support:
"If Judah would have been a well integrated region in Iron Age I and IIA, one would expect that the line of the ranked sites would have been straight. One does not observe a straight line in either the Iron Age I or IIA."
Finally, the third source, used to support of a date of the 8th century BCE, The Last Labayu: King Saul and the Expansion of the First North Israelite Territorial Entity", page 171, found here.
The source doesn't even mention the 8th century BCE! It barely even mentions Judah! It mentions Solomon, but almost nothing else on the page cited!
Finally, and most glaring, the date for the independence of the northern kingdom is 930 BCE. How would Judah, the independent kingdom of Judah, that became independent when Samaria broke away, be founded during a time centuries before Samaria broke away, i.e. centuries before "the Kingdom of Judah" could actually exist, i.e. when there was no other independent Israeli kingdom??? Even without the sources provided, it makes. No. Sense.
BedrockPerson (talk) 14:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Correcting date of formation

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Kingdom of Judah. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/ASOR/BA/Borowski.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080528230034/http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/JHS/Articles/article_47.htm to http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/JHS/Articles/article_47.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080528230034/http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/JHS/Articles/article_47.htm to http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/JHS/Articles/article_47.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717120935/http://www.tyndalehouse.com/tynbul/library/TynBull_2004_55_2_01_Pitkanen_EthnicityIsraelSettlement.pdf to http://www.tyndalehouse.com/tynbul/library/TynBull_2004_55_2_01_Pitkanen_EthnicityIsraelSettlement.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: If minimalism ever was a single theory/POV, the mainstream is now minimalist:
Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth and death of minimalism 

message: Highly urbanized?  Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:40, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highly urbanized 10th century Judah 

message: The article probably needs to be divided into two sections, "Biblical Judah" (the story of the Book of Kings) and "Historical Judah" (the story from archaeology).PiCo (talk) 11:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Biblical Judah" and "Historical Judah" 

message: One of the sources cited does not seem to be about the Kingdom of Judah at all.:
*"an important group of archaeologists and biblical scholars formed the view that in reality the kingdom of David and Solomon bore little resemblance to the biblical portrait of an extensive, powerful, united monarchy. This view derives primarily from the fact that no 10th century BCE archaeological finds exist that could corroborate claims of the existence of a magnificent biblical kingdom extending from Be'er Sheva in the south to Dan in the north."
The source is talking about the apparent lackk of historicity for the Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy), which is associated with legendary monarchs David and Solomon. Neither of them is a King of Judah.
Also the quote mentions the findings concerning the 10th century BC. Yet the article's text extrapolates that the situation remained unchanged to the 8th century BC. That is not stated in the cited source. Dimadick (talk) 11:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevant source 

message: The articles says that probably one of Zedekiah's sons survive. The source for this, is the so called Book of Helaman. 
The book of Helaman, however, is part of the Book if Mormon, and can't be a source. Even though the Bible is a reliable source used with caution, because is an ancient text, the book of Mormon isn't and must be not used at all. 
If another source, epigraphical or textual, mentions that probably one of Zedekiah's sons remained alive, it's fine. Now the sentence is unfounded and must be erased. Gustavo Rubén (talk) 09:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book of Helaman? 

message: See WP:RSN#LMLK Research website as a source for biblical archaeology - run by a Creationist with a B.Sc..  you'll want to participate I think. Doug Weller talk 14:55, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  LMLK Research website as a source for biblical archaeology - run by a Creationist with a B.Sc. 

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) 16:41, 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) 20:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theocracy 

message: The dates within the article should be changed from BC->BCE and AD->CE to reflect neutral academic terminology of the Common Era that does not carry with it any religious or ethnocentric bias. 
As this article has nothing to do with Christianity or Christian-influenced Western culture, there is no reason for the date notion to ve based around the birth of Christ (BC meaning Before Christ and AD Anno Domini, Latin for "in the year of our Lord."). 
Also because this article is related to other religions, Monotheistic Yahwism and early Judaism, I believe it is extra important for there to be religious objectivity, making Before the Common Era/Common Era the appropriate choice. 
According to the Wikipedia Manual of Style, chronological notation can be changed when it makes sense for the article. While it gives specific examples of when to use to Julian or Gregorian calendar, early societies in the Near East are not explicitly stated."For dates in early Egyptian and Mesopotamian history, Julian or Gregorian equivalents are often uncertain. Follow the consensus of reliable sources, or indicate their divergence." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Julian_and_Gregorian_calendars  Using BCE/CE also follows the standards set by the majority of leading manuals of style including those for Encyclopædia Britannica, American National Biography, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, MLA, Chicago Manual of Style, AP Stylebook, and more.
My previous edits reflect this change in date format in the article.
016bells (talk) 22:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: We have WP:RULES for it, i.e. WP:ERA. The point is that AD/CE choice is arbitrary, so who wants to change the choice loses by default. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year Notion to Common Era 

message: I don't want to get involved in the edit war going on here, but I want to make some points about how to cite and use sources.
Sources 4 to 8 in the lead at the moment of writing have NO page numbers. Sources have to be verifiable, and if you don't give page numbers you make your sources essentially unverifiable.
Sources 9 to 11 also have no page numbers. They have quotes, but without the page numbers no one can check that the quotes are accurate. (Nothing wrong with quotes, but the page numbers are needed).
Source 12 has a page number and a quote. That's what's needed, but the quote from the source, "Sargon's heir, Sennacherib (705–681), could not deal with Hezekiah's revolt until he gained control of Babylon in 702 BCE", does not support the passage in the article to which it's attached: "In the 7th century BCE its population increased greatly, prospering under Assyrian vassalage (despite Hezekiah's revolt against the Assyrian king Sennacherib)." (There's nothing in the source about an increase in Judah's population or its growing prosperity - I guess the source is meant to show that Hezekiah revolted, but it doesn't quite work out). Achar Sva (talk) 10:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Technical observation: Google Books will say quote found/not found, if found in which source, even if it does not display that page. tgeorgescu (talk)  18:23, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to use/cite sources 

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: @Zhomron Is there an attested Paleo spelling? I don't know of one so I'd sooner just remove the whole thing. I also imagine it wouldn't have a waw but not our job. GordonGlottal (talk) 04:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Few and far between, but yes. King Ahaz's seal and the King Hezekiah bulla, for instance. Zhomron (talk) 11:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I was aware of the first (in general terms) but not the second. Looking at the Hezekiah bulla, I can only see a yod and a he and then a (?) which could certainly be a dalet, but I see that others have reconstructed it that way based probably on the Ahaz bulla. I wish I could be sure the Ahaz bulla was real -- it really looks way too convenient. Anyway thanks, I'm satisfied. GordonGlottal (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paleo Spelling 

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 

message: Under the Religion tab, follows this sentence:
"It is now widely agreed among academic scholars that the Books of Kings are not an accurate portrayal of religious attitudes in Judah or Israel of the time."
To portray this sentence as something that's "widely agreed" there needs to be more than two references or two references where scholars are mentioned to be widely agreeing. "Widely agreeing brings to mind a large majority; something irrevocably decided by most. "It came to me in a dream" seems like a more plausible defense for this quote's portrayal.
It also seems dodgy to not include this statement found in one of the references, "...even though the majority of the text is accepted to be historically trustworthy". 
Are half-truths considered unbiased, unemotional information as Wikipedia claims, or at least is supposed to? SeleneMarie (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: We have WP:RULES for writing articles, in this case WP:RS/AC. And WP:UNDUE. And WP:GEVAL. And WP:FRINGE. tgeorgescu (talk)  03:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Widely 

message: With talking about a biblical kingdom why can’t BC be used instead of BCE? 2600:6C5E:4000:3F5C:1581:D9E2:EF41:FDBC (talk) 11:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Because Anno Domini is insulting to Jews. Dimadick (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dating