Talk:Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Dating

There is some inconsistent dating in the article. The sentence below is confusing, because it starts with the Albright-Thiele dates for David’s reign, but then uses the Galiel Dates for establishing Jerusalem. It seems the article should choose one set of dates for consistency.

After the civil war with Saul, David forges a strong and unified Israelite monarchy, rules from c. 1000 to 961 BCE[51] and establishes Jerusalem as his national capital in 1006 BCE.[52] Some modern archaeologists Nddmc12 (talk) 23:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

No, David did not forge a strong unified Israel after Saul's death. A seven-year civil war began after. David having ruled over the tribe of Judah at Hebron while Ish-bosheth ruled the rest of the tribes as king after his father (Saul) died. I'm not sure though if he ruled the other tribes for the full seven years or just for the first two years only. Jerm (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Size of the United monarchy

Hey at the article Historicity of the Bible. I noticed someone cited this in the article. The source says The exact boundaries, however, are debated. A few scholars view this polity as ruling only small parts sections of the central highlands, but most scholars view it as a larger polity that ruled some large sections of Cisjordan and probably even parts of Transjordan.

Yet for some reason this article is implying that the monarchy was very small. I don’t research much in this topic so can’t say much. I may just pull some users who research more on this topic to help with this.CycoMa (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey Karma1998 and tgeorgescu sorry for pulling y’all into this discussion again. But you two are the only users I know who research deep on this topic.CycoMa (talk) 21:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

The straight answer is that we don't know, since there is no archaeological evidence, just stories from the Bible. If anything, the archaeological evidence is that the supposedly Monarchic Judah was scarcely populated. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I don’t know much about ancient Israelite history but scrolling through articles on this topic. To make it clear that not much is known about ancient Israelite history in general.CycoMa (talk) 21:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

The Ancient history of Israel, later than the United Monarchy, is better documented. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu To claim that "If anything, the archaeological evidence is that the supposedly Monarchic Judah was scarcely populated" is simply to ignore the vast amount of archaeological evidence that demonstrates the existence of urban settlements in Judah during the 10th century BC. You can check a collection of essays regarding urban development in 10th century BC Judah HERE.

Finkelstein's claims that there is no evidence for urban settlements during the United Monarchy period is just a fringe view within its archaeological community, so I think we should better include essays such as the one I presented above in order to explain what is the actual archaeological consensus on the subject. Potatín5 (talk) 10:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Potatín5: I did not say anything about urban settlements. But that still begs the question if those urban settlements were Israelite, Judahite, Philistine, Canaanite, or whatever.

I saw the paper. Except for popularly, it has nothing with popu in it. And nothing with inha in it.

I can live with the idea that Jerusalem was a city-state. But there is no evidence that David ruled from Jerusalem over all Shfela.

E.g. Amihai Mazar affirmed in 2008 for Icarus Films that David's Jerusalem was a very little town, but a powerful little town in the political vacuum of the country. "Background on Scholars". icarusfilms.com. 20 July 2009. Archived from the original on 20 July 2009. Retrieved 18 July 2019.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)

in my 28:23 view David's Jerusalem was a kind of a citadel City it doesn't mean that he had a huge city around him the city was 28:30 quite small but he probably gained a lot of political power and somehow succeeded 28:36 to control the entire country in a time when there was a gap there was a kind of a vacuum political vacuum in this 28:42 country there was no Egyptian Empire anymore the Canaanites were very poor and probably he took advantage of this 28:49 situation

— Amihai Mazar

Coogan, Michael (October 2010). "4. Thou Shalt Not: Forbidden Sexual Relationships in the Bible". God and Sex. What the Bible Really Says (1st ed.). New York, Boston: Twelve. Hachette Book Group. p. 105. ISBN 978-0-446-54525-9. Retrieved 5 May 2011. Jerusalem was no exception, except that it was barely a city—by our standards, just a village. In David's time, its population was only a few thousand, who lived on about a dozen acres, roughly equal to two blocks in Midtown Manhattan.

What Mazar and Coogan have in common? They have both lambasted Finkelstein and they both agree that Jerusalem was a very small town. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: I did not say anything about the size of Jerusalem; I was talking about whether there was archaeological evidence for urban populations in the territory of Monarchic Judah (not just of Jerusalem) during the United Monarchy era or not. Potatín5 (talk) 13:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Potatín5:

Lipschits, Oded (2014). "The history of Israel in the biblical period". In Berlin, Adele; Brettler, Marc Zvi (eds.). The Jewish Study Bible (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. pp. 2107–2119. ISBN 978-0-19-997846-5. As this essay will show, however, the premonarchic period long ago became a literary description of the mythological roots, the early beginnings of the nation and the way to describe the right of Israel on its land. The archeological evidence also does not support the existence of a united monarchy under David and Solomon as described in the Bible, so the rubric of "united monarchy" is best abandoned, although it remains useful for discussing how the Bible views the Israelite past. [...] Although the kingdom of Judah is mentioned in some ancient inscriptions, they never suggest that it was part of a unit comprised of Israel and Judah. There are no extrabiblical indications of a united monarchy called "Israel."

Maeir, Aren M. (2014). "Archeology and the Hebrew Bible". In Berlin, Adele; Brettler, Marc Zvi (eds.). The Jewish Study Bible (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 2125. ISBN 978-0-19-997846-5. Archeological evidence for the early stages of the monarchy is minimal at best. [...] In any case, the lack of substantive epigraphic materials from this early stage of the Iron Age II (after 1000 BCE), and other extensive archeological evidence, indicate that even if an early united monarchy existed, its level of political and bureaucratic complexity was not as developed as the biblical text suggests. The mention of the "House of David" in the Tel Dan inscription, which dates to the mid/late 9th c. BCE, does not prove the existence of an extensive Davidic kingdom in the early 10th c. BCE, but does indicate a Judean polity during the 9th c. that even then associated its origin with David. [...] Although there is archeological and historical evidence (from extra biblical documents) supporting various events of the monarchical period (esp. the later period) recorded in the Bible, there is little, if any evidence corroborating the biblical depiction of early Israelite or Judean history.

Finkelstein's remark was not that it was so sparsely populated that there were no towns, his remark was that Judah was too sparsely populated for having a reasonable kingdom (i.e. a developed state). tgeorgescu (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu

Dever, William G. (2021). «Solomon, Scripture, and Science: The Rise of the Judahite State in the 10th Century BCE». Jerusalem Journal of Archaeology p. 119. ISSN 2788-8819. "Conclusion: The biblical and archaeological “revisionists” have had their way for thirty years. It is time to say “No” to radical skepticism, to reclaim an early Judahite or Israelite state, in the light of clear stratigraphic evidence, improved ceramic chronology, new C14 dating, and – yes – a critical reading of pertinent Biblical texts. The Hebrew Bible is indeed a collection of stories, some of them fanciful or late. But some of them – early and buttressed by our current archaeological data – have the ring of truth about them. Let’s do some real “revisionist history.” On the basis of all the “witnesses” we have in this case, the claim that the kingdom of David and Solomon in Judah in the 10th century BCE did exist is true “beyond a reasonable doubt.”"

Guy, Judah was not too sparsely populated for having a reasonable kingdom, that is today an outdated and continously dying position. Potatín5 (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Has a smoking gun been found? The eight o'clock news must have missed it. This discussion ain't over till there is a smoking gun. And do notice that I did not quote Finkelstein: he is one among many who doubt that David ruled from Jerusalem over all Shfela. Is there any evidence he did? The eight o'clock news must have missed it. Really, it would have been on the front page of all newspapers.

@Potatín5: I know there is a plurality of views (theories). Tell me something I don't know, e.g. if there is any direct evidence that David ruled over all Shfela. Tell me there is an extrabiblical mention of Solomon's empire. I know there are many theories, but actual evidence is severely lacking. And I don't put all my money upon Finkelstein being right. You cannot fight against reasonable doubt with "theories". You have to have evidence for your claims. There is too much reconstruction and too much interpretation, while actual evidence is direly lacking.

I'm afraid that both Dever and Finkelstein are in the limbo of not even wrong. And they cannot be shown to be wrong due to a lack of evidence. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Okay but anyway do you know any other Wikipedia editors that know a lot about this topic?CycoMa (talk) 00:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: Achar Sva is a historian by education and pretty well-read in the Ancient history of Israel. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Ishbaal/Ishboseth

Ishbaal was never a legitimate moshiach, as he was never properly anointed. The three anointed kings over the United Israel were Saul, David, and Solomon. This needs to be fixed. For the record, if ya'll want to debate the legitimacy of Tanach feel free to create one specifically for such a thing, but we don't come here for your biased opinion. Too often "one guy challenging the status quo, whose opinions the majority of his contemporary reject" becomes "most experts believe . . ." We understand, you don't believe it, however what the literature says and what some dissenter believes are two completely different things, and have no place side by side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.17.146.166 (talk) 20:46, 2006 October 16 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Kingdom of Israel 1020 map.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Primary source flag on biblical narrative section

@Iskandar323 I see you put a flag on the biblical narrative section. I disagree with your reasoning since I believe a reader would understand the biblical narrative here precisely as if it were a novel. The page somewhat addresses the lack of archeological evidence (although perhaps without enough weight to voices of skeptics), and no secondary sources would exist to "prove" the biblical narrative besides commentary and literary analysis. Still, the biblical narrative remains notable and should be somewhat addressed on this page.

I consider it similar to the Gilgamesh: that page makes no claims that the stories in the epics happened, despite the fact that Gilgamesh may have been a real king in the city of Uruk.

Additionally, there are a few secondary sources in the section. So, I really don't think this particular flag is needed here.

That being said, can you elaborate on your concerns here so that I can make sure I understood them correctly? And, what can be done to address your concerns? _{too_much} curiosity (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

That section isn't a simple plot summary based on primary sources. In the second paragraph it reads: "According to the biblical account, the united monarchy was formed by a large popular expression in favour of introducing a king to rule over the decentralised Israelite confederacy." The Bible says not such thing. This is a highly interpretive reckoning of the fables. The section juggles between the literal and the interpretive throughout, later with "Some modern archaeologists ..." This is perhaps the nature of the subject. The 'united monarchy' is a theory borne out of biblical interpretation, so it cannot really be just a plot summary, because there is no single story from the bible that is being discussed. It is a summation of stories from Samuel 1 and 2 and Kings 1, and we really need secondary sources to explain this. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! I understand your point now. Also, you are absolutely correct that many sentences are highly problematic/interpretive and should be removed quite frankly.

I am curious though, would you prefer replace the juggling between literal and narrative with just narrative (should narrative secondary sources be included)? I happen to strongly believe would is the best approach to making a coherent section on the page. _{too_much} curiosity (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)