Talk:History of ancient Israel and Judah

"Ancient Israel" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Ancient Israel has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 15 § Ancient Israel until a consensus is reached. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Scope of this article

In academic literature, the term "Ancient Israel" generally refers to the pre-exilic period of Israelite and Jewish history, from the earliest emergence of the Israelites around the 12th century BCE through the fall of Judah and the destruction of the First Temple in Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 587/6 BCE. Two other terms common in literature are the Iron Age in archaeological context and also the "First Temple period", but the latter does not apply to earlier pre-10th century Israelite history.

This page also covers parts of the Second Temple period, which lasted from the late 6th century through 70 CE. In order to follow the periodization used in the research and avoid content duplication, I suggest that we cut the scope of this article just before the Edict of Cyrus and the subsequent Return to Zion, and relocate all later history and related periodical aspects (religion, society, literature, etc.) to the Second Temple period article. Thoughts? Tombah (talk) 08:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

That broadly speaking makes sense, though it is a little more natural to keep the Babylonian period with the Persian one. The title should probably also move back to just Ancient Israel and Judah, as it was once in the past, as pointed out at the redirect discussion. That would make more sense. The "History of X" format here is meaningless, since there is no "X" article for it to be the history of. Subjects that are fully encapsulated by the historical, e.g. Achaemenid Empire, do not need to clarify that they are about history. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree, we should drop the "History of". However, it would be better to keep the Babylonian period in this article, since the Second Temple period begins with the Persian period and the Edict of Cyrus; events of the Babylonian period would be out of place there. Tombah (talk) 19:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Although I notice that not many editors have expressed an interest in this topic, given the common periodization in Jewish historiography, I suppose that this is not a very contentious re-scoping to make. I've just deleted the sections that relate to the Second Temple period and are covered in the relevant article. Since it already contains all of the material we have here about this time period, I haven't copied anything much there. Only the sections that shortly summarize later but related processes remain, such as the brief section touching on the transition to Second Temple Judaism. I have also added a new "About" section to make it easier for readers to grasp where one era begins and where it finishes. Any other suggestion are, of course, welcome. Tombah (talk) 18:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Frevel’s new SBL textbook “History of Ancient Israel”

Would be worth updating and refining things with material from Frevel’s new SBL Press textbook:

https://cart.sbl-site.org/books/061737C 2600:100C:B037:E65A:91AE:73D2:ED60:173E (talk) 11:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Somewhat confusing title

Should be kept for brevity, but it should be quickly clarified in the lead that the article deals with the TERRITORIES of J & I, NOT THE KINGDOMS. The kingdoms appear in Iron Age II (when exactly it's still debated, especially re. Judah), whereas the Israelites in their clusters of hill country villages appear in Iron Age I, two essential centuries earlier. Proposals? Arminden (talk) 10:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I support Tombah's "[History of] ancient Israel" as the well-established term from academia. What we have now is misleading (suggests just kingdoms). This "History of ancient Israel and Judah" concoction was either intended to specify the 2 separate realms, N and S, or to push against confusion between modern (Zionist) term and ancient realities. Neither strong enough reasons to go against well-established terminology. Keep & create redirects, define very clearly scope of article, but don't try to reinvent the wheel - not for reasons of perceived accuracy, and even less so out of anti-Zionist activism. Israel as a historical term is fundamentally understood as relating to the Israelites, via biblical etymology: Jacob/Israel - 12 tribes - Israelites. NB: etymology is not a propaganda weapon, but a linguistic fact reflecting long-gone historical perception (apart from phonetic shifts etc.). Arminden (talk) 12:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Define the period

I removed the Late Bronze Age from the definition in the lead, as it contradicts the article text, based on McNutt.

1. Why only on him though?
2. What do others, like I. Finkelstein say?
3. Is there a consensus for date of emergence of the almost 300 new Israelite villages in the hill country?

The Israelites of the Mernephtah Stele are not directly relevant, as they might have been a) unrelated or at least not identical w the eventual settled Israelites, or b) a group of nomadic tribes somewhere outside the eventual (main) settlement area of the Israelites, for instance in S Transjordan. The article deals with a certain POPULATION, within the specific PERIOD when it lived in a certain TERRITORY, so only for the timespan when population and territory are overlapping, or the intersection of those two sets in set theory terms. This with the additional condition of autonomy or own sovereignty, so ending in 720 in Israel and 586 in Judah.

We need a CLEAR DEFINITION for this article: whose history, and when (from-till). Background section for precursor, aftermath section for time after 586, but not the mishmash we had until now. Arminden (talk) 11:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I see Tombah and Iskandar323 have started the discussion last year. Shame that Tombah has been blocked, he offered good arguments (the legalistic issues don't impress me, the quality of an editor's contribution does). I don't agree though with his suggestion to keep here the Babylonian period. It makes no sense for Wikipedia to introduce new categories beyond what's common practice in archaeological and historical periodisation, and Iron Age I and II with emergence of Israelites and lifespan of the 2 kingdoms are a clearly defined period. Besides, we would again leave adide the short but not irrelevant Assyrian period between the fall of Israel and Babylon taking over Mesopotamia. Arminden (talk) 11:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Late Bronze and Iron I: years

The definition evolves. We should for instance clarify why we use 1150 and not 1200 BCE as transitional year between Late Bronze and Iron Age. 586 is also a bit shaky, but only by 1 or 2 years. A "circa" is always advisable for such remote times, see how interpretations and even absolute dates have been shifting. Arminden (talk) 11:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Why do we need this article? or: critical review of the article

An honest question. What is the scope of this article, that isn't covered by other articles?

We have a "periods" section, which lays out archaeological (not historical) periods of the Southern Levant. Now, while the biblical historiography of the kingdoms start with the creation of the world, scholarly reconstructed history begins in the 10th century, with one ambiguous mention to Israel in the Merneptah stele in late 13th century BC.

An important note: Israel's history ends with Assyrian conquest in the late 8th century, while Judah's history continue until Roman times. These are two separate histories. Most of the article does not really deal with history, but with scholarly debates, centered mostly around ancient society and ethnogenesis, based on critical reading of archaeological material and biblical accounts. There is a large section about religion, whose scope to history is secondary. Most of the actual history - the chronicles of Israelite and Judahite kings, their wars with their neighbors etc. are mostly absent. But they belong to two parallel histories, of Israel and of Judah.

I have read here that some people said that the article deals with the lands and not the kingdoms, but the kingdom's lands changed through time. If it is about land, it would better to have an article or a section about the Iron Age in the Southern Levant. The Hebrew Bible is a crucial source for that matter, but seemingly its natural emphasis on Israel and esepcially Judah, has created a bias to believe there is a need for an article like that. This belief can be satisfied with the article about Biblical archaeology, as well as Historicity of the Bible. I am concerned that some modern political consideration lurk in maintenance the article. I would be happy to address them and find a better solution.

If the scope of the article cannot be adequately determined, its contents can definitely be distributed in already existing articles: Kingdom of Israel (United Monarchy), Kingdom of Israel (Samaria), Kingdom of Judah, Samerina, Yehud Medinata, Samaritans, Canaan, Canaanite religion, Yahwism, Southern Levant etc. Bolter21 (talk to me) 08:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

More over, the fact that "Israel" is a national-religious terms that refers from the Iron Age to both Israel and Judah, this aspect is definately adequate to the Israelites article, as well as to Jewish history. I'll @Arminden: here. Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

If discarding every bit of traditional, preferably Western thinking (deconstruction?) of the time between French Revolution and some moment after WWII, and fragmenting everything to bits is the right way, fine. But why should it be?

If everybody is an individual atom or molecule with equally strong tentacles stretched out in every direction, fine. But are we?

There are real affinities, and perceived ones, and obtained ones. Relativising them seems out of place and intrusive, yes even aggressive.

Here? Two countries who at times became one, deeply interwoven, who exchanged populations, shared deep cultural elements, more than with the other closely related Moabites and Edomites, let alone the Phoenicians and Philistines. Not everything modern-day fanatics hold dear and holy must be dismissed. There is normalcy, an organically grown behavioural vocabulary, healthy cohesion, mutual support and a certain balance in social and cultural structures too easily dismissed by overzelous skeptics. Not everything has to be smashed; most things disintegrate when their time is up. Not everything has to be rebuilt; many things ain't all that broken, and don't need radical fixing. Arminden (talk) 22:57, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this page reads mostly like a highly complex Venn diagram of all of those topics, and especially the first three. Also agree with the problems arising from the overlapping yet distinct timelines. It's muddled. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)