Talk:Israelites/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Hasmonean conversions

There are no information or sources to prove or to support the claims that Philistins people, Moabite, Ammonites nor Zabadeans had converted into Judaism during the Hasmonean peroid, the only known cases are of the remaining Edomites (most of them) and the Itureans who converted into Judaism after their lands had been conquered, or after they had been defeated by the Israelite Hasmoneans.--DXRD (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC) And by the way, Ammonites and Moabites are forbidden to live within the Israelites or to convert into Judaism, as stated in the Torah, so this really lows the odds that any of these two people were converted into Judaism or joined the Israelites, and as the Hasmonean rulers were ultra religious they should know and be aware of that rule and must have not converted any Moabite or Ammonite into Judaism.--DXRD (talk) 07:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The information comes from Macabees, the Talmud and Josephus, where it is made clear that the people conquered by the Hasmoneans were forced to convert to Judaism. The Talmud also covers the fact that the ban on the Ammonites and Moabites was considered to be non-applicable going back to the Assyrian conquest. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Josephus never said anything about the Nabateans, nor the Philistine civilians nor any of those groups, so please add sources to support your claims, he did mention the Edomites (converted by John Hyrcanus) and Itureans/the people of the Upper Galile convertion to Judaism (by Aristobulus I) but not the Nabatean groups, non the Ammonite, nor the Moabites. Many citizens were also exiled after they refused to convert into Judaism, like the ones of Beit Shean, and some Helenistic Edomites escape to the Talmi era-Egypt in order to practice their Helenistic way of life.--DXRD (talk) 12:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Lead

Can someone please point out where in the Bible the term "Israelite" is used for an adherent of Yhwh but who is not somehow descended from Jacob? The term "Israelite" is a tribal designation in the Bible, not a religious one. Can someone establish factual accuracy in this point please? ≡ CUSH ≡ 10:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

If you follow the little number at the end of that first sentence, and click on it, it will take you to a footnote, which contains a clickable link to a book which will answer your question. (The bible isn't the only source for the use of the word - in modern Judaism it means a member of the community who follow the laws of God). PiCo (talk) 04:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

In this case, there must be a section "modern usage of the term" and all such interpretations must go in that section. Everything else would be confusing and misleading. Modern Judaism claims a lot of things that the basis of their religion, the Tanakh, does not contain. ≡ CUSH ≡ 10:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

That's great news about the link, PiCo. To clarify what the bible actually says, the Israelites included the "mixed multitudes" that followed the Jews out of Egypt, as well as various Canaanites who joined up with the group during the 40 years in the desert. This is why the Torah speaks of "the convert within your gates." So while it is a tribal designation leading back to a specific patriarch, the Israelites were not limited to blood descendants of Jacob. I do see how this is a little misleading, however, from the intro. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 04:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

What happened to the "mixed multitudes" in the judges and united monarchy periods? An can you give text references for what you wrote? ≡ CUSH ≡ 10:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Cush, look at the source cited at the end of the first sentence of the lead. For text, you need to take into account books like Ruth - and, incidentally, to avoid historicising the Exodus.PiCo (talk) 11:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The source says "the term appears to have been used for the people who worshiped the God of Israel." without giving textual references. That is far away from the certainty expressed in the intro of this article. What other sources are there to corroborate the claim? ≡ CUSH ≡ 13:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Cush, you're misrepresenting the source by taking a partial quotation out of context. Are you saying you regard the Mercer Dictionary of the Bible as an unreliable source? And have you read the Book of Ruth? PiCo (talk) 01:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Cush, while I appreciate your diligence in making sure that this is a quality article, I think it behooves you to read the books of Moses at least two or three times before coming on so strongly with your challenges. Clearly, you are not familiar with the story or sequence of events. The mixed multitudes are part of the story. They are Egyptians who sided with the family of Jacob during the 10 plagues, and henceforth came out of Egypt with them. At Sinai, all present, including Jacob's descendants, the mixed multitudes, and other Canaanites that joined up with the Israelites entered a covenant with YHVH and henceforth became the Jewish people, or "children of Israel." The mixed multitudes come up again in the story of the Golden Calf. The Egyptians that took necromancy out of Egypt were among the 3,000 people killed by the Levites after the Golden Calf incident. Seeing that the remaining members would have been merged into the tribes and intermarried, there's no reason why they would come up in later texts.

There are literally thousands of texts that explain this, but the one I know of that gives the most detail is Me'am Lo'ez. There is a flowing English translation by Aryeh Kaplan that I would recommend for anyone looking to understand the Old Testament beyond the loose English translations commonly used. Kaplan also has a translation of the Torah (Books of Moses) that's updated well beyond the King James' version that I would also recommend.

I only have so much time to commit to this page, but I will work on locating the biblical verses that support everything that's being discussed here. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 17:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Would User:DXRD Please discuss issues with the article here before making changes

Calling people Racist in the Edit summary does not help either.Weaponbb7 (talk 19:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Once again, Please discuss changes you have made Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the original version from before you changes please discuss here as there looks like there is usable material in there Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Content duplication

Right now there is a huge amount of content duplication between this article, Groups claiming an affiliation with the ancient Israelites, and Ten Lost Tribes. In 2009 someone suggested on the talk page of the second article that it be merged/redirected here, that would probably be a good idea.Prezbo (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Pure knowledge is a right to every one

and you can not simply delete entries that you disagree with?
please give you feedback or critique and let every one read both sides of the issue. Thanks
--Nizarsh (talk) 11:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC).
So please keep the entries on Israelites in Islam and Qur'an.
I will be puting it again very soon. This is a knowledge that every one should know. --Nizarsh (talk) 11:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It was not deleted, it was moved to the "See also" section. Disagreement was not the reason this was done, but, as stated in the edit summary, because a separate section is not needed (and inappropriate) solely to convey a single wikilink. Hertz1888 (talk) 14:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

First king of Israel

The Israelites asked for a king, but it was not David that they were given, it was Saul.

"So all the people went to Gilgal, and there they made Saul king before the LORD in Gilgal There they also offered sacrifices of peace offerings before the LORD; and there Saul and all the men of Israel rejoiced greatly. - 1 Samuel 11:15

When king Saul found out that David had been anointed as the next king he became jealous of David and tried to have him killed. David fled to the wilderness and it wasn't till after Saul had died in battle that he became the second king of Israel.

````Darkranger85 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkranger85 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Over reliance on a single source

This entire paragraph contains only one recycled reference.

But the archaeological evidence contains no evidence of the ethnic make-up of the two states of Israel and Judah, and is no mention of anything like the biblical "Children of Israel," nor does the designation "Israelites" appear in the record.[13] The archaeology does indicate that Judah's chief god was Yahweh from the 7th century BCE down to the fall of the state, but this cannot be taken as indicating ethnicity – it was the common practice of the time and region for each state to have its own chief god. Such differentiation of gods may be a source of ethnic differentiation, but it is impossible on the current evidence to tell whether this had occurred in the first half of the first millennium BCE.[13] In any case, the god Yahweh at this time had characteristics lacking from the biblical Yahweh, notably the presence of a consort-goddess.[13] Evidence from Israel is more complicated, but does not support the biblical picture of Israelite religion.[13] Nevertheless, while the archaeological evidence does not support the existence of a specific Israelite ethnicity separate from those of neighbouring kingdoms, it is too meagre and too scattered to be called conclusive.[13]

Since there is only one reference supplied in support of all these claims, since none of these claims support the scholarly consensus, and since Lemche's views are non-representative of the broader scholarship, this entire section needs to be rewritten with proper references reflecting the full spectrum of views. A paragraph written with such references would look something like this.

The archaeological evidence is widely understood as distinctively identifying the Israelites through a combination of foodways, architecture, cultic practices, and material culture such as ceramics and large water pithoi.--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Other Israelite gods besides YHWH

This article gives a biased view of the religion of the Israelites, as being exclusively the worship of YHWH. Even the Tanakh says this is not true. The Israelites worshiped other gods, and the Israelite exclusivist monotheism evolved over time. There is not enough focus on this article on the other gods the Israelites worshiped and how the modern religions we now associate with the Israelites came to be monotheistic. Religion of Ancient Israel is a new article that also has this problem. --La comadreja <sub>formerly AFriedman</sub> RESEARCH (talk) 21:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe you are confused. When the Tanakh talks about Israelites worshiping anything other than Hashem, its considered to be the religion of other nations that have infiltrated Israel. This is different than other "gods" being part of the Israelite tradition. Israelites in Egypt worshiping an Egyptian god are worshiping an Egyptian god, not following an Israelite tradition. Putting this in the article makes no sense. And what is the bias? Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

What about Asherah? Also, YHWH was originally a composite of 2 gods, El and Yahweh. --La comadreja <sub>formerly AFriedman</sub> RESEARCH (talk) 01:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Just read the article on Asherah. I understand the suggestion, but at best you are still talking about idolatry that came into the Israelite tradition from the outside. As far as The Name is concerned, you are not talking about a concept that is the result of archeological digging. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 00:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Monotheism had to come from somewhere. The ancestors of the Israelites were almost certainly idolatrous and there would presumably have been a transitional period. I am not an expert on archaeology, but would think there is evidence of this. Also, if Israelites are worshiping other people's gods and dedicating shrines to them in Israel, presumably some would have thought they are Israelite gods as well. --La comadreja <sub>formerly AFriedman</sub> RESEARCH (talk) 01:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding the meaning of "Israelite." The ancestors of the Israelites were not Israelites. It started with Yaakov. I'm carrying this over to our talk pages to avoid another one of these endless threads. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 01:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed the problem, I can't agree with the lead and definition there. Dougweller (talk) 06:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

While the term "Israelite" has been used historically as a synonym for "Jew", the primary usage is clearly to the "twelve tribes of israel" who occupied the Levant before the Assyrians and Babylonians carved up their territory. That these people sometimes worshipped gods other than El or YHWH is certainly attested in the Tanakh. That the gods in question were identified as foreign does not alter the fact that they were worshiped. What exactly is the dispute? Paul B (talk) 09:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Your comment here is quite a bit different than the original question. The original question had to do with the derivation of Israelite worship. As I've stated, I'm carrying that discussion over to our respective talk pages as to avoid an endless thread that just gets more confusing as people interject halfway through without following the conversation, which invariably happens (especially on this page). Please feel free to follow the conversation and post to my talk page if you would like. I'd be happy to respond to anything, I just don't want to sit here and see this particular thread go in a million different directions. All the best. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I read the thread. The problem is that specifi aspects of the text need to be identified for discussion to be useful. Paul B (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Religion of Ancient Israel now has a new redirect to an article I hadn't known about when I started this thread. That redirect contains the materials I had in mind, which IMO also belong to this article. IMO The missing aspect, even there, is which gods were worshiped concurrently by some people after monotheism became established. --La comadreja <sub>formerly AFriedman</sub> RESEARCH (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I am just learning the ropes and am not sure how to sign my comment... I would like to suggest another way of looking at this issue. The Israelite religion was Monotheistic. The fact that individuals in different periods worshipped other gods as well does not change this fact. Similarly, Christianity holds that homosexuality is not allowed, nor are theft or blasphemy. But, there are Christians who engage in any one of these things. But, it does not mean that they are "part of Christianity" or "Christian life." There are many mitzvot in Judaism. And the fact that people may violate them doesn't change the content of Judaism. In this context, arguing otherwise comes across as simply going out of one's way to point out that at different periods, Jews sinned. Yes. Everyone of every religion has sinned (according their own religion). There are very very few people who behave 100% correctly according to their religion, 100% of the time. ~affinity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.28.151 (talk) 15:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: Changing "Elohim" in the Intro

While I like the ambition of referencing the original Hebrew terminology, clicking on the link to "Elohim" makes the story of the name derivation very confusing. The simplest way to explain this incident is that Jacob wrestled with an angel of the divine. Read it this way, it makes coherent sense. Read it as Elohim from the perspective of one who doesn't know what Elohim refers to, who then clicks on the link. The confused reader is now even more confused.

What the original Hebrew states is that Jacob wrestles with a man on the shores of a river. Then when Jacob summarizes the incident and names the location "Peniel," he mentions "Elohim." We then understand that the man is an agent of the divine. (I do not see "Elohim" written in the original Hebrew anywhere else in these passages. If there's an "Elohim" I've missed, let me know.)

Considering that commentaries on this incident talk about an angel, I don't see why we have to get so incredibly technical, especially when the "Elohim" page seems to be referring to a vast range of different terminology. I would really like to change this back. Please contribute to this discussion if you do not want to see it changed. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

DNA, "ancestors of the Jews"

Besides the fact that not all Jews have a Middle Eastern ancestry, the two references don't mention pre-Exile Israelites. so how can the lead make this claim? Dougweller (talk) 06:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Over 90% of modern day Jews have Middle Eastern ancestry, many genetic tests that had been published over the years had proven this claim. Just read this article: Genetic studies on Jews and judge it for yourself.--DXRD (talk) 14:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I have and it does not support how it was written, or how it is currently written. The written record of the Hebrew Bible suggests this ancestry and a couple of contemporary genetic studies suggest that it is likely but it by no means a fact and should not be presented as such. It needs to rewritten which is why I deleted it at first.Griswaldo (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Middle Eastern ancestry for most Jews, ok, but that doesn't equate to Israelite. The Genetic studies on Jews article doesn't make the claim of Israelite ancestry either. We can say Middle Eastern and most Jews, but I don't see the point of doing that in this article. Dougweller (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

So, what you are saying is that the Jews are "not Israelites", so explain what are they? because from what you're saying it's look like the Jews claiming something they're not, which is not true, Jews alongside Greeks, Armenians and Persians are probably the oldest people in the world who carry the traditions and posess the knowledge of who were their ancient ancestors. Unlike other nations who can't trace their ancestry before they converted into Christianity (European nations, that are mostly descendants of Germanic peoples) or Islam (many nations from multiple origins, including ancient Arab tribes), Jews carry their history of being descended from the ancient people of the Kingdom of Judah and of the Northern Kingdom of Israel through the Hebrew Bible for over 3,000 years and with this fact, ladies and gentlemen, you can not argue (even genetic sciene supports that).--DXRD (talk) 10:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the Nature.com reference that was removed from the beginning of the article, with the message "Your sources do not say the Israelites are the genetic origin of the Jews, that is your interpretation." The source does in fact say just that. In the full study (which unfortunately is not free, not sure if that affects wikipedia policy or not) The source (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7303/full/nature09103.html) states "The most parsimonious explanation for these observations is a common genetic origin, which is consistent with an historical formulation of the Jewish people as descending from ancient Hebrew and Israelite residents of the Levant." http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7303/full/nature09103.html, the scholarly link has been re-added.

First, one paper is not enough for an article to assert something as fact. Secondly, the way you have written it changes what they actually said in the paper. They say their studies reveal " a close relationship between most contemporary Jews and non-Jewish populations from the Levant." and go on to say that this is consistent with 'an historical formulation'. Your edit portrays that 'historical formulation' as fact, which the paper doesn't do. There are also some criticisms of the conclusion of the paper at [1] which might interest people. One point made there responds to DXRD's question about what the Jews are - "Jews appear to be variable mixtures of three components (in the regional figure): pink, which is shared by them and Arab speakers; very light blue, which is shared by them and non-Arab West Asians and south Europeans; medium blue, which is centered on southern Europe.". But the bottom line is that you haven't represented the paper correctly and that it is just one paper, not a factual statement of anything. Dougweller (talk) 06:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

While I disagree with your assertion that one scientifically accurate paper is insufficient, there are in fact multiple.

"Recent reports have reaffirmed that the AJ[Ashkenazi Jewish] population has a common Middle Eastern origin with other Jewish Diaspora populations, but also suggest that the AJ population, compared with other Jews, has had the most European admixture." "Taken as a whole, our results, along with those from previous studies, support the model of a Middle Eastern origin of the AJ population followed by subsequent admixture with host Europeans or populations more similar to Europeans." http://www.pnas.org/content/107/37/16222.full

"Jewish communities from Europe, the Middle East and the Caucasus all have substantial genetic ancestry that traces back to the Levant;"

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/science/10jews.html

"Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes" " The results support the hypothesis that the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population, and suggest that most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non-Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC18733/?tool=pmcentrez

"The Y Chromosome Pool of Jews as Part of the Genetic Landscape of the Middle East" "Thus, the common genetic Middle Eastern background predates the ethnogenesis in the region. The study demonstrates that the Y chromosome pool of Jews is an integral part of the genetic landscape of the region and, in particular, that Jews exhibit a high degree of genetic affinity to populations living in the north of the Fertile Crescent." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1274378/ The full paper is not available for free, however the title is "The common, Near-Eastern origin of Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews supported by Y-chromosome similarity" an excerpt ( as cited in the Genetic Studies on Jews article) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-1809.1993.tb00886.x/abstract;jsessionid=486464CA8E85A5734DC95479B92BE270.d01t01 Drsmoo (talk) 03:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I've got no problems with statements such as the quote "Jewish communities from Europe, the Middle East and the Caucasus all have substantial genetic ancestry that traces back to the Levant;". That seems to be the common theme. But that isn't what you are trying to add, is it? Dougweller (talk) 06:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The Lemba and Samaritans are also traced back to the Israelites, as are Palestinians and Pashtuns. Drsmoo (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Part of the Palestinians are descended of both Jews and Samaritans that were forced to convert into Islam during the Muslim conquest of the Land of Israel, they were probably assimilated into the occupying Arabs' population due to intermarriages which caused their so called Palestinan ethnos, probably that's how some of them are related to the Israelites. And about the Pashtuns, there is yet no clear evidence for their claims of being of an Israelite origin, there is a research that is going to be publish (if it wasn't published already?).--DXRD (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Where's the documentation that the Palestinians are related to the Jews? Just because people are living in the same geographical region 2000 years later does not mean they are related. If they were, I doubt you would see the tensions you see today. Please explain. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 20:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It's known that many Jews and Samaritans (which are both originated from the ancient Israelites) were forced to convert to Islam when the Arab Muslims invaders conquered the Land of Israel. Those Jews and Samaritans intermarried with the conquering Arabs and were absorbed into this invading community, their genetic material passed to their modern-day descendants who claim to be "Palastinians". But please take NOTE that not all of the Arabs/"Palastinians" who now lives in the Land of Israel are related to the Israelites, only those who descended from the forced-to-convert people (Jews & Samaritans) I had spoke of earlier are related to the Israelites and to the Land of Israel, the rest are descended of the invading Arabs who conquered the Levant region and people from other Muslim nations who immagrant into the Land of Israel during the centuries.

Studies show that Jews and Arabs are closely related to each other relative to other groups, NOT that Arab and Jewish groups are commonly descended from Israelites. Archaelogical and linguistic evidence suggest that Israelites and Arabs share a common proto-Semitic origin. Furthermore, the genetic similarity between Jews and Arabs is not limited to Palestinians, but also Syrians, other Arab groups, and some Turkic groups. Kxcd (talk) 04:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

All of you might want to read more about this subject here: [2] which contains many articles about genetic studies on Jews which strengh the Israelite ancestry of the Jews.--DXRD (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The Lemba have some genetic ancestry from the Levant, the studies I've read don't say Israelites. Dougweller (talk) 21:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Roots

This important map http://restorationlibrary.org/library_restoration/AOBH/AOBH_016_A.jpg can explain where the descendants of Israelites came from and this map http://www.jesus-kashmir-tomb.com/sitebuilder/images/Map_to_Graves-691x418.jpg also support the future research. Long times ago before Ramayana, Yayati's sons Anu and Turvasu migrated from east to the west, from whom arose the Yavana and Turvk. After the Mahabharata Yadava and Abhira also migrated there from India. The word Yadava became Yada, while Abhira became Habhir (Eber) (Latin: Hebrew). Bocah anon (talk) 10:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The maps don't meet our criteria as sources, see WP:RS.You other comments appear to be your own views, see WP:NOR. Dougweller (talk) 13:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any peer-reviewed material by modern, accredited scientists who actually have kept track of the past century of anthropological and genetic studies, and who have given up on nationalistic biases? Because the material you're presenting doesn't look like that. You have a map from a Sunday school in 1880 (before any real study of genetics had begun, and at a time when all anthropological study had nationalistic, even racist, biases), and a map from a tourist trap. Those don't amount to any sort of evidence. You also don't have any hard evidence for your attempted etymologies, there's nothing to show they aren't false cognates. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Origins of the Israelites

I've made some large deletions from this subject-area and an editor has asked me to justify them, which is fair enough.

I deleted material stating that the existence of a distinctive ethnic group (Israelites) is supported by distinctive archaeological evidence. A great many books were cited in support of this, and I haven't the time to go through all of them. Nevertheless, the fact is that it's generally agreed today that there's no such evidence.

The first group of material evidence was advanced by Albright and his colleagues in the decades around the middle of the 20th century. There were two major candidates: collar-rimmed pithoi (a type of jar used for storing water, oil, grain etc), and a particular house-plan (4 chambered houses). The reasoning was that these were found in the Israelite highlands, and must therefore mark Israelite settlements. However, it is now known that both the jars and the houses are found outside the highlands, and have their origins in Canaanite culture from the Late Bronze period. (Similar claims were made with regard to agricultural terracing and the construction of waterproof cisterns, but are not so crucial).

Much more recently, in the 1990s, Israel Finkelstein, on the basis of exhaustive surface surveys of the highlands, advanced the thesis that two things marked the highland settlements: an absence of pig bones, and the presence of a specific circular settlement pattern (the houses are constructed more or less in a circle, with an open area in the middle, and presenting an unbroken outer wall to the outside). Again, these have been challenged: both the absence of pigs and the use of this settlement plan, it's argued, represent adaptations to the highland environment (pigs are difficult to raise there, and the circular villages are a low-cost way of self-defense that could have adopted by anyone - both are therefore best seen as responses to the environment rather than as markers of ethnicity).

A good place to start is Diane Edelman's book, which has a section that goes through all the markers one by one.

As for the three theories of Medenhall et al, these are now outdated. The usual thinking today is that we can say with some confidence that the Israelites were originally Canaanites, that they probably had some herders mixed up with them, and that the causes for the settlement of the highlands are connected with climate change, changing trade patterns, and political events. I'm not sure what books to refer you to for that, but if you want I'll look some up. PiCo (talk) 02:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I've re-written the origins section to make it more succinct and up to date. We need to make sure we reflect current thinking - there's not much point describing Mendenhall as if his theories are still current.

Also, the article needs to distinguish between two distinct usages of the term "Isrealite". The first is archaeological, and means that which pertains to the Iron Age kingdom of Israel. In this sense it's often used as if the people of that kingdom called themselves Israelites, but in fact there's no evidence that they did - in fact there's very little archaeological evidence as to how this kingdom regarded itself, the only epigraphy being from foreigners. Then there's the second usage, the biblical one, which is very complex in its meanings and needs far more treatment than it gets here.

Also worth mentioning is the way Israel (the kingdom) came to its ethnic identity. Archaeologists and historians speak of the whole group of Iron Age kingdoms in the region - Isreal, Judah, but also Ammon, the Philistine cities, etc - as "ethnic states", and distinguish them by this term from the Bronze Age city-states that preceded them. In a nutshell, the idea is that the tiny city-states of the bronze age were replaced in Iron I by far larger units which constituted themselves around a fictive ethnicity, based on a national god (Yahweh for Israel and Judah); tribes were developed to serve this ethnicity, focusing national identity on an equally fictive ancestor-figure. All this is not even touched on in the article. PiCo (talk) 11:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Removing references

User Koakhtzvigad put this on my personal talk page, but it relates entirely to the editing of this article and so I'm moving it here.PiCo (talk) 12:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC) I have reviewed your editing history, and I'd like to inform you that:

a) age of reference is irrelevant as long as it is relevant to the article. In fact, old reference are quite useful to show the context and transition of understanding the subject of the article over time if they conflict with newer sources. Removal of such references is therefore highly unencyclopaedic.

b) I noted this recent edit summary Israelites‎; 01:50 PiCo (talk | contribs) (→Historical Israelites: The Coogan book isn't online, so replaced with Grabbe and rewrote to reflect this source.)
Contrary to your belief, just because the reference is not online, it should not be deleted and replaced with something that is. Most printed books are not available online even in part. If Wikipedia was to adopt your POV, the vast majority of its articles could not be referenced for technical reasons, and not just those of laziness as is the situation now.

I'd like to also ask where you get your knowledge of the Jewish texts. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 11:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

In reply:

a) Age of texts is extremely relevant. Scholarship continually advances, new findings become available, theories are disproved, new explanations become current. The use of sources a century old and older is simply not scholarly.

b) One of the major policies of Wikipedia is verifiability, meaning that readers must be able to verify material. If the same point is made by Coogan and by Grabbe, and Grabbe is online and Coogan isn't, then it's preferable to use Grabbe.

c) I don't know the background to your question about my knowledge of Jewish texts - in fact I don't know what Jewish texts you're referring to. Perhaps you could explain. PiCo (talk) 12:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Not to poke my nose in here, but I thought I'd offer my opinion on these matters. If for no other reason, just because I can. :)

a) I fully agree that ages of texts are very relevant. This should be obvious and I'm very surprised that anyone would disagree.

b) I've seen many that reference both. Is that not a better option? This way those who happen to have access to Coogan can find the information and those who do not, can still view it online. If I'm not mistaken, sound journalism requires at least two sources to be truly verifiable.

c) I find this completely irrelevant to the subject at hand, so long as sources back up claims.

No, my input was not solicited, but I'm an opinionated person so there it is anyway. ;) Cheers! MagnoliaSouth <sup>(talk)</sup> 18:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Information overload

This article stinks. I don't mean to sound rude, but there it is. I don't believe there is enough room for me to list all the things wrong with it, but it needs an entire rewrite in my opinion. I will list the top most important issues that are glaringly obvious. I say this because this is what I came here for and was amazed at the confusing jumble of information. I also will say that though my words sound brutal, I am not a very good writer and certainly not an authority on the subject. I often hear myself saying, "If you can do it better, then have at it." lol! I am contradicting my own principle here. However that said, I am good at critiquing. So here I am, with my suggestions, if I may...

1. Length - The length of this article is too long. I recommend that sections be condensed and further details should be linked as a new entirely separate article.
2. Flow - There is no flow whatsoever in this article that I can tell, which is understandable. I am no scholar in religious studies, but I feel that the term "Israelites" should be a simple thing to explain. The whole summary of Wylen's whatever needs to be scrapped.
3. Twelve Tribes - The Twelve Tribes of Israel needs its own section and description. The infobox, in my opinion is a good one, but is small and not at all as prominent as it needs to be.
4. Modern groups - I do feel that since modern groups are the descendants of Israel, obviously and because of that, they deserve mention. However the entire section looks to be more like a vocabulary section, rather than "... and so they spread throughout the world becoming Ashkenazi (German), Sephardic (Spain and Portugal), etc., ... Jews." Any further background on those groups really deserves another article since it is more regionally based rather than descendant based.
5. Christianity - It should be noted that Christians also highly revere Jacob and the Twelve Tribes. Many Christian sects claim to be descendants as well. There is a popular Christian children's hymn titled Father Abraham. Though it speaks of Israel's grandfather instead, it clearly states Christians are children of Abraham. "Father Abraham, had many sons, and many sons had father Abraham. I am one of them, and so are you, so let's all praise the Lord!" Examples. It is often one of the first hymns children learn. I only mention this to convey the importance of Abraham's children, to include Israel, to Christians. Because of this the Israelites are not only related to the Jewish faith, as the article strongly implies, but is also linked to other beliefs as well.

I'm sure plenty will disagree with my suggestions and that is fine. I by no means feel that anyone should HAVE to do it my way, but hopefully my suggestions will at least spawn further discussion on a better flow of information in the article. MagnoliaSouth <sup>(talk)</sup> 18:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Synthesis: Biblical Israelites

The Biblical Israelites section is very messed up. It does not seem to follow the alleged source. It needs a serious rewrite or maybe even scrapped. Wylen is not a good source, especially since it is a book about the times of Jesus, not ancient Israelites, and it is very not NPOV.

Anyone want to try to salvage anything in the section? 172.129.202.168 (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

should the palestinians be mentioned on this page too

the link below is about research finding that the palestinians are very genetically related to the modern jews, indicating that they are both descendants of the ancient jews. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/05/000509003653.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crossovershipper (talk • contribs) 03:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

also i'm a christian zionist who believes that that the majority of palestinians are also descendants of the ancient israelites like modern day jews are.{unsigned}

Palestinians should definitely included if we are basing this on facts. DNA and historical evidence (as shown by the cites from the previously removed post) support their descent from Jews, who based on this page, descend from Israelites. I understand the political implications but this article seeks to inform not present a biased position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AristotleLocke1 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Your link says nothing about descent, nor does this more recent link which simply says " the same markers can be found in Palestinians as well." That might be relevant in an article on Palestinians, but I don't see how it is relevant here. Dougweller (talk) 08:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Clearifying Judaism Vs Israelites Vs jews

There is a lot of mixup and wrong definitions about jews and israelites. 1. first thing to understand is that while judaism is a religion, jews are also an ethnic group, so even if a jew doesn't belive in god, he is still a jew. 2. jews as an ethnic group are direct decandents of the Israelite tribe Juda, Benyamin, and part of levi. this is the reason they are called jews, because they decand from juda tribe. 3. the concept of the word judaism and its terminology is basicly wrong and misleading. while the religion is called judaism, its origins are not from jews. the israelites, which the tribe of juda and their decandent jews, are the one who practiced this religion first, only it wasn't called judaism, it was called in free translation from ancient hebrew, Moses and israelites religion. after the first return of israelites to israel, the other 10 tribes were lost, and only the juda, benyamin tribes returned, and thus they were called jews, and their religion was called judaism. 4. the israelites are called hebrews also, which translate from hebrew to english as beyond the river bank, a referance from other old nations who lived in israel, to the fact that the israelites came to israel from the other bank of jorden river. 5. those mixups and wrong terminology are the result of foreign conquerers, much like the naming of the arabs who set in israel as phalisitnes, which is in fact another ancient nation that set in israel, again, by foreign conquerers.

hopes it helps the confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.38.153 (talk) 11:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The intent seems good, but it surely helps plenty to confuse the issue more. We are still mixing facts with fiction and pushing an unverifiable mythological narrative in order to advance a predetermined POV. That would be fine if presented as a belief shared by a certain group but not as history in the absolute. And by the way, how did Habiru, the first people called as such in Egyptian records and who were a Bedouin tribe living in the current region of Jordan desert and robbing trade caravans, that is east of the river, become meaning people “who have crossed from the other side of the river into Palestine?” They did not cross the river yet, did they? And as far as I know in Arabic they are called “Ibriyyin”, which just means those who crossed over or passed through. I suppose the Hebrew meaning should be close to that. And in this case the Arabs explain the name (in one version of the story, not history) as being given to them because they crossed over from Mesopotamia into Canaan, that is it was associated with Abraham. Of course, again, all of this is fiction. If there was no Abraham then there was no Hebrews. If there was no Jacob then there was no Israelites, and so on. We are ascribing legends to the bits of information we have.173.74.22.141 (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Wiki should distinguish Israelitism from Judaism

there is already a blessed separation between (Pharisaic, secular, or atheist) "Jews", to "Isralites", and i myself see no reason why there shouldn't be between the first 2. thanks. Babaluba100 (talk) 10:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Pico's revision of WP:LEAD

(1) The alternative name of the biblical ancestor Jacob (renamed "Israel" following an encounter with a divine figure) and his descendants:

(2) The name of a league of tribes;

(3) The name of a kingdom with its capital in Jerusalem;

(4) The name of a later kingdom, one of two resulting from the division of the original Israelite kingdom, with its final capital at Samaria;

(5) An alternative name for the second of the two successor kingdoms, otherwise known as Judah;

(6) After the Bablyonian exile, a name for the religious community within the Persian province of Yehud;

(7) A name for the laity within this religious community of post-exilic Yehud, as distinct from Aaron, the priesthood;

(8) A name for descendanmts of Jacob/Israel;

(9) A name for a pre-monarchic tribal group in Ephraim;

(10) A name for followers of various forms of Hebrew/Old Testament religion.

The article is about the Israelites, not about the term Israelites.

1. Jacob was not named "Israelites".

2. Conceivably "Israelites" could fit, but I believe "Israel" is meant.

3. The kingdom was not named "Israelites".

4. The later kingdom was not named "Israelites".

5. Judah was not alternatively known as "Israelites".

6. Conceivably "Israelites" could fit, but I believe "Israel" is meant.

7. Conceivably "Israelites" could fit, but I believe "Israel" is meant.

8. Conceivably "Israelites" could fit, but I believe "Israel" is meant.

9. Not sure what this one means.

10. Conceivably "Israelites" could fit, but I believe "Israel" is meant.

Please check your source and make sure it is discussing the Israelites and not "Israel". Editor2020 (talk) 01:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

ps. This material may be appropriate at an Israel disambiguation page. Editor2020 (talk) 13:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

DNA evidence

Historylover recently tried to remove the DNA evidence section. When this didn't work, he added the following text:

However other academic material has given widely divergent results; for one example on Ashkenazi Jews the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America has stated "The fixation index, FST, calculated concurrently to the PCA, confirms that there is a closer relationship between the AJ (Ashkenazi Jews) and several European populations (Tuscans, Italians, and French) than between the AJ (Ashkenazi Jews) and Middle Eastern populations (Fig. S2B).

The text follows the statement "Modern DNA evidence has proven that most of the world's Jews and Samaritans have a common ancestral lineage in the Levant..."

This addition is at best misleading and at worse falsification. The study, which can be found here, specifically says "Taken as a whole, our results, along with those from previous studies, support the model of a Middle Eastern origin of the AJ population". Any reason not to remove the text? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I've replaced it with a more representative quote which includes the sentence above. I've also told him that given all the problems that other editors have comment on, edit-warring, problems with sources, etc, that a ban from certain topic areas might be the only solution to these problems. Dougweller (talk) 18:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I can provide quite a few more examples of problematic behavior if necessary. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Give the full quote from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences [3]

"Interestingly, our population clustering reveals that the AJ population shows an admixture pattern subtly more similar to Europeans than Middle Easterners (Fig. 2 A and C, Lower), while also verifying that the Ashkenazi Jews possess a unique genetic signature clearly distinguishing them from the other two regions (Fig. 2C, Upper). The fixation index, FST, calculated concurrently to the PCA, confirms that there is a closer relationship between the AJ and several European populations (Tuscans, Italians, and French) than between the AJ and Middle Eastern populations (Fig. S2B). This finding can be visualized with a phylogenetic tree built using the FST data (Fig. S2C), showing that the AJ population branches with the Europeans and not Middle Easterners. Two recent studies performing PCA and population clustering with high-density SNP genotyping from many Jewish Diaspora populations, both showed that of the Jewish populations, the Ashkenazi consistently cluster closest to Europeans (13, 25). Genetic distances calculated by both groups also show that the Ashkenazi are more closely related to some host Europeans than to the ancestral Levant (13, 25). Although the proximity of the AJ and Italian populations could be explained by their admixture prior to the Ashkenazi settlement in Central Europe (13), it should be noted that different demographic models may potentially yield similar principal component projections (33); thus, it is also consistent that the projection of the AJ populations is primarily the outcome of admixture with Central and Eastern European hosts that coincidentally shift them closer to Italians along principle component axes relative to Middle Easterners. Taken as a whole, our results, along with those from previous studies, support the model of a Middle Eastern origin of the AJ population followed by subsequent admixture with host Europeans or populations more similar to Europeans. Our data further imply that modern Ashkenazi Jews are perhaps even more similar with Europeans than Middle Easterners."

The quote should be provided in full, as it completely contradicts the claim in this article of "low admixture" of Jews and Samaritans; in fact the PNAS article says; "Using these proxy ancestral populations, we calculated the amount of European admixture in the AJ population to be 35 to 55%."

Also other sources that should be added for fuller details; [4] 2010 Zoossmann-Diskin;

"Results

According to the autosomal polymorphisms the investigated Jewish populations do not share a common origin, and EEJ (Eastern European Jews) are closer to Italians in particular and to Europeans in general than to the other Jewish populations. The similarity of EEJ to Italians and Europeans is also supported by the X chromosomal haplogroups. In contrast according to the Y-chromosomal haplogroups EEJ are closest to the non-Jewish populations of the Eastern Mediterranean. MtDNA shows a mixed pattern, but overall EEJ are more distant from most populations and hold a marginal rather than a central position. ...

Conclusions

The close genetic resemblance to Italians accords with the historical presumption that Ashkenazi Jews started their migrations across Europe in Italy and with historical evidence that conversion to Judaism was common in ancient Rome. The reasons for the discrepancy between the biparental markers and the uniparental markers are discussed."

[5] (With an editorial board that was led by an individual named Whit Athey with a doctorate in physics and biochemistry from Tufts University and is currently led by Dr. Turi King PhD from the prestigious University of Leicester in the UK [6].

Again: [7]

"It is this final idea – that much of J2 is European in origin rather than Middle Eastern – that complicates the interpretation of Jewish J2 results. Sub-clade J-M102* originated in the southern part of the Balkans and is generally absent in Middle Eastern populations (Semino et al. 2004). Ashkenazim have a 1.2% frequency of J-M102 and Sephardim have 2.4%. These results argue in favor of European gene flow into the Jewish community.

The Khazars and the Smoking Gun of Haplogroup Q

With the discovery of haplogroup Q among Ashkenazi Jews, DNA researchers may have found the “smoking gun” of Khazarian ancestry.

... The migration of R1a and Q groups into Scandinavia is presently unknown, though Faux postulates a group from Central Asia may have moved up into Scandinavia sometime around 400 CE. Only a few hundred years later, the Khazars of southern Russia make their first appearance in the historical record. And it is to the Khazars, who undoubtedly possessed a high frequency of this haplogroup, to which the Jews most likely owe their unique Q ancestry."

This wide ranging information should be included; also not even getting into Arabs and Palestinians in particular having Israelite background according to most studies (Tsvi Misinai and many others [8]) and other small divergent Jewish groups like Ethiopian Jews who are shown to be most similar to other African groups and in particular Somalis with both believed to have an amount of gene flow from Yemenis in particular. And the Jews of India (i.e. Indian Jews) who are most similar to other people in the Western part of India where they are and originated from according to studies.Historylover4 (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The JOGG article isn't a reliable source, JOGG has been discussed at RSN as I believe you know, and the conclusion is that it can only be used selectively and in this case you've been told that the author "is an attorney in private practice specializing in family law and thus not a reliable source. Feel free to go to WP:RSN if you disagree, but don't try to use it until you get consensus. I've also cut a lot of your quote out because the size made it copyvio. And you need consensus for any of the above. Dougweller (talk) 09:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Putting aside the paper by a lawyer, we're back to quoting stuff from papers where the authors explain their conclusions in a clear manner that is not clear from the quotes used. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Again people wanting to reject the Journal of Genetic Genealogy as a source, are completely ignoring the fully accredited and academic editorial board jogg.info possesses. This is like people saying about Ellen Levy-Coffman "oh she's just a lawyer" (putting aside she has an academic archaeology background and that she works on three accredited DNA projects); they are not taking into account jogg.info overall credentials that buttress Levy-Coffman's article at hand (and by extension all of jogg.info's article period). Credentials at jogg.info which again includ past editor well known T. Whit Athey PhD [9] with among other credentials a doctorate in physics and biochemistry (thus very relevant to the issues at hand as far as DNA goes) from the prestigious Tufts University near Boston. And current jogg.info [10] lead editor/Editor-in-chief Dr. Turi King PhD a well known expert from the also prestigious University of Leicester in the UK [11][12]. Thus anything coming from jogg.info has a very strong editorial board at the website that is automatically backing them up, an editorial board again with all the proper credentials behind them. So again simply saying "Coffman is a lawyer" (putting aside even her archaeology and professional DNA work) is completely a cop out and ignores this vital information and sources.Historylover4 (talk) 22:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The RSN discussion about JOGG can be seen here. You can open a new discussion there and try to convince people it's a reliable source, but as long as there isn't a new consensus it can't be considered RS. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Historylover7 has been indefinitely blocked, see [13]. Dougweller (talk) 09:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Kings 1, 11:34 Ahijah the Shilonite

The Tribes of Israel were divided by Ahijah the Shilonite in the book of Kings 1 and is specifically mentioned in the chapter 11. At least 10 of the 12 Tribes of Israel were taken from Solomon, the Jewish ruler at that time. Question, how can I improve this quote before posting?

34 “‘But I will not take the whole kingdom out of Solomon’s hand; I have made him ruler all the days of his life for the sake of David my servant, whom I chose and who obeyed my commands and decrees. 35 I will take the kingdom from his son’s hands and give you ten tribes. 36 I will give one tribe to his son so that David my servant may always have a lamp before me in Jerusalem, the city where I chose to put my Name.

— First mention of the tables in Kings 1, 11:34-11:36

Twillisjr (talk) 01:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

"later evolving into the Jews and Samaritans of the Hellenistic and Roman periods,"

This was changed to "later evolving into the Jews and Samaritans" - I reverted it, the deletion was repeated with an edit summary " I deleted it because Jews and Samaritans are not OF the Hellenistic times. They still exist today." That's not being challenged by the original text. This seems to be a misunderstanding of the meaning. The original text gives the time context which was removed by the deleting editor. Dougweller (talk) 06:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Israelite v Jewish

There are plenty of articles on Judaism and Jews in Wikipedia. We do not need the extensive sections on the various Jewish groups in this article, and the claims that they are descendants of the Israelites. It would be better to replace all of section 3 with links to the other existing articles.81.129.212.77 (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Could not agree more. The whole section should move to the Jewish diaspora article, where it would fit much better. I will WP:BEBOLD. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

B'nai Israel

B'nai Israel now hosts a disambiguation page, so I've boldly removed the hatnote for this, and incorporated the link to Israelites (disambiguation) in existing hatnotes. I've also floated the image of Merneptah Stele to the right to fix the issue of it over-running on the left and pushing some of the 'see also' links towards the middle of the page. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 13:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Why aren't the historical roots of the Jews/Israelites mentioned in the lede as are the mythical origins?

The historical roots of the Jews/Israelites are Canaanite according to archaeologists and historians, the mythical origins claim the Jews/Israelites were distinct from the Canaanites however we now know this wasn't the case, and that the Torah which was put together during the Babylonian captivity around the 6th century B.C.E attempted to distinguish the Jews from their Canaanite roots out of the attempt to establish monotheism, before that however, the Israelites were a Canaanite people who spoke a Canaanite language (Hebrew which broke from Phoenician) and worshiped Canaanite gods like El (who would become Yahweh), Ashera, many fertility gods etc, also their settlements were indistinguishable from the settlements of other Canaanites, the only exception would be the lack of pig bones in the Israelite settlements, but that's too small a difference considering all the similarities considering that both culturally (ancient Israelite religion, gods, settlements, art etc) and linguistically (the language of the Israelites, Hebrew, a Canaanite language which broke from Phoenician, another Canaanite language) the origins of the Jews/Israelites are Canaanite. My point is that both origins, Historical and mythical are mentioned in the actual article, but in the lede only the Mythical origins are mentioned, that's misleading and I propose the historical origins be added as well. Guy355 (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Someone seems to push the Khazar hypothesis in the article despite the many studies following Eran's study contradicting his own study.

Here are the studies:

If you wish to add the hypothesis, please add it in "Genetic studies on Jews", although I reckon it's already there. Guy355 (talk) 08:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Also please take into account that not all Jews are Ashkenazi, and that the Ashkenazi themselves seem to be genetically speaking pre Islamic east Mediterranean, plotting between Cypriots and Greeks, alongside Maltese and Sicilians, sharing closest genetic similarities with Sephardi and North African Jews, and when it comes to non Jews, Armenians, Cypriots, Druze, Greeks and Sicilians. Also the fact that Ashkenazis share most IBD with Sephardi Jews, with the next population (east Europeans) being considerably lower, with the northern Caucasus (the historical region of the Khazars) lower still. Guy355 (talk) 08:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)