This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Can someone explain to me why the Biblical Criticism section restates the views of Finkelstein and Silberman no less than three separate times?Editshmedt (talk) 16:01, 25 December 2020 (UTC)WP:SOCK edits stricken
About Finkelstein making contentious arguments: always what mainstream historians and archaeologists will say about the Ancient Israel will be contentious for true believers, or even for people who do not follow the history journals. And in the academia there is always debate among scholarly factions. That's business as usual. The gist is that Finkelstein is the "big gorilla" of Israeli archeology (see quotes about that a Talk:Omri) and every scholar who will defeat Finkelstein will earn great fame. That's why is so much attacked. And of course, because of conservative evangelicals and of Orthodox Jews, who hate every line Finkelstein writes. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:05, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
::Tgeorgescu (talk·contribs) I think you should read more of the literature, as your understanding of it seems to be "Israel Finkelstein big genius, defeat many evangelical pseudoscholars!" In reality, though Finkelstein himself doesn't like the label minimalist, he's often called a minimalist, and the scholarly majority is neither minimalist nor maximalist. And while Finkelstein is a big gorilla of the last half century of Israeli archaeology, he is not the big gorilla. [EDIT: I took a look at the Omri talk page. The "big gorilla" quote is from Robert Draper, who is not a scholar but a National Geographic journalist. It's true that Finkelstein is one of the top archaeologists, but to state that he is the undisputed greatest ever living archaeologist is as uncritical as declaring that there's "one" greatest living chemist.] Also ImTheIP (talk·contribs), you appear to have reverted the edits I made and wanted to discuss them here. That's fine. The basis on which you reverted my edits seem to have been nothing more then that they state that Finkelstein's views are contentious, which they, of course, are. You didn't appear to actually, you know, consult any of the sources cited. For example, I added the point of the following paper into the page: Erez Ben-Yosef, "The Architectural Bias in Current Biblical Archaeology", Vetus Testamentum (2019). Did you even look at the paper? The author is Erez Ben-Yosef, a professor at Tel Aviv University. I don't know if you know this, but that's the same university that Israel Finkelstein is a professor in. In fact, they're in the same department. Heck, they've even coauthored papers. Ben-Yosef is a significant contemporary scholar in Israeli archaeology. Another significant scholar who is already listed in the page as seriously disagreeing with Finkelstein's low chronology is Amihai Mazar. Are you aware that other significant contemporary archaeologists, like Avraham Faust and Yosef Garfinkel, although disagree with the Low Chronology based on excavations in the last decade? Some people agree with Finkelstein, but to say that his views aren't contentious is a bit off.Editshmedt (talk) 03:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Let's not lose focus on what the topic is - the historicity of the Bible's description of David. Historians believe that neither the United Monarchy existed nor David's empire. In other words, the Bible's description of David is completely wrong. This is not controversial. Finkelstein & Silberman argues that David can't have existed for reasons X, Y, Z, and so on. Here X is the sparse population of Judah, Y the unfavorable location of Jerusalem, Z the relative dominance of the Northern kingdom, and so on. Of course, not all of their arguments are uncontroversial. They say "The absence of A indicates B" and one of their opponents say "But C indicates A so maybe not B!" Controversy! But this doesn't change the big picture; if David existed and if he ruled in Jerusalem then his domains was relatiely small. The "controversy" is, more or less, over whether they fitted in a kingdom with the radius 20 km or maybe 40 km. ImTheIP (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Finkelstein and Silberman say that David did exist; his empire didn't. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
True, I meant "The version of David described in the Bible can't have existed." I think this consensus among historians can be described without going into polemics. ImTheIP (talk) 19:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
::::::Huh? No one said anything about the David of the Bible existing. Finkelstein's view that David was just a little tribal chief without note and that there was no United Monarchy is contentious. Finkelstein's 1996-2001 publications started the debate, not ended it.
"Garfinkel states that in contemporary research the biblical representation of the so-called 'United Monarchy' is represented as 'a purely literary composition'. I don't know any reputable colleague who holds such an undifferentiated opinion." (H.M. Niemann, "Comments and Questions about the Interpretation of Khirbet Qeiyafa: Talking with Yosef Garfinkel", Journal for Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Law (2017), pg. 250)
"Slightly later, however, toward the middle of the 10th century B.C.E., the picture changed. The highland polity—apparently the biblical United Monarchy—was growing stronger, seemingly forming alliances with the Canaanite settlements of the Shephelah, and this enabled it to get a firmer foothold in this region. This is manifested in the transformation at Tel ʿEton, and later also in BethShemesh and probably also in Tell Beit Mirsim and Tel Halif." (Avraham Faust, "Between the Highland Polity and Philistia: The United Monarchy and the Resettlement of the Shephelah in the Iron Age IIA, with a Special Focus on Tel ʿEton and Khirbet Qeiyafa", Bulletin for the American Schools of Oriental Research (2020), pg. 131)
You were saying?Editshmedt (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
This discussion predates Finkelstein, see e.g. Herzog, Ze'ev (29 October 1999). "Deconstructing the walls of Jericho". lib1.library.cornell.edu. Ha'aretz. Archived from the original on 10 November 2001. Retrieved 9 February 2019. So, Finkelstein might be the poster boy of this claim, but he was certainly not the first to claim it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
No it doesn't. The debate on the extent of David's kingdom begins with Finkelstein's 1996 publication "The Archaeology of the United Monarchy: an Alternative View", Levant (1996) pp. 177-87. Something tells me you don't know that this paper, cited nearly 300 times, exists. In case you're not convinced by Finkelstein's own words, a recent review paper of the field reiterates it: "As for the united monarchy, the current controversy began with the 1996 publication of the first major radiocarbon study of key sites by Finkelstein (1996)." (Andrew Tobolowsky, "Israelite and Judahite History in Contemporary Theoretical Approaches", Curents in Biblical Research (2018), pg. 40). I recommend you begin reading a lot of papers because your understanding of the field, and I really don't mean this rudely, appears superficial.Editshmedt (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
I am not a historian/archaeologist, I am an amateur. But that isn't a claim that could be done in isolation (i.e. just one person). See also Grabbe, Lester L. (23 February 2017). Ancient Israel: What Do We Know and How Do We Know It?: Revised Edition. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 36. ISBN978-0-567-67044-1. The impression one has now is that the debate has settled down. Although they do not seem to admit it, the minimalists have triumphed in many ways. That is, most scholars reject the historicity of the 'patriarchal period', see the settlement as mostly made up of indigenous inhabitants of Canaan and are cautious about the early monarchy. The exodus is rejected or assumed to be based on an event much different from the biblical account. On the other hand, there is not the widespread rejection of the biblical text as a historical source that one finds among the main minimalists. There are few, if any, maximalists (defined as those who accept the biblical text unless it can be absolutely disproved) in mainstream scholarship, only on the more fundamentalist fringes.Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Many of the findings mentioned here have been known for decades. The professional literature in the spheres of archaeology, Bible and the history of the Jewish people has addressed them in dozens of books and hundreds of articles. Even if not all the scholars accept the individual arguments that inform the examples I cited, the majority have adopted their main points.
— Herzog, Deconstructing the walls of Jericho
Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::Holy moly. You're blatantly confusing the debate about about the Exodus and patriarchal period with the debate about the United Monarchy. Your quotes are all therefore irrelevant. It really does seem like you are going to willfully ignore both Finkelstein's own words on the debate and the review paper by Tobolowsky. Conversing with you is, therefore, impossible. I give up. This article is clearly being protected by special interests.Editshmedt (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
As we say around here, There is no cabal.
Following 70 years of intensive excavations in the Land of Israel, archaeologists have found out: The patriarchs' acts are legendary, the Israelites did not sojourn in Egypt or make an exodus, they did not conquer the land. Neither is there any mention of the empire of David and Solomon, nor of the source of belief in the God of Israel. These facts have been known for years, but Israel is a stubborn people and nobody wants to hear about it
— Herzog, op. cit.
You ignore something: we are not an academic debate website, we are an encyclopedia. For us statements which comply with WP:RS/AC are very high on the pecking order.
Spelling it out: most scholars ... are cautious about the early monarchy. And Neither is there any mention of the empire of David and Solomon. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::::You're embarrassing yourself. Herzog's 1999 article is clearly dependent on the debate opened up by Finkelstein in his 1996 paper to anyone who knows the literature. I also have no clue how you think the other quote, about caution, is relevant. Umm, yeah, there's caution. That isn't the same as Finkelstein's views not being contentious? Editshmedt (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
The Wikipedic rule of thumb: what one scholar says it is so, it may or may not be so. What the majority of scholars in a field tells it is so, it is so for Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::::::And since there is no majority here, one begs to try to understand why you thought your proverb was important.Editshmedt (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Spelling it out: most scholars ... the majority have adopted their main points. This clearly fits WP:RS/AC. And I am afraid that Herzog did not say Neither is there any mention of the empire of David and Solomon, nor of the source of belief in the God of Israel. These facts have been known for three years.
You're conflating known for years with known for two or three years. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm amazed you're not done embarrassing yourself. Ze'ev Herzog is one of Finkelstein's colleagues at Tel Aviv and they've coauthored numerous papers together. Of course he's referring to Finkelstein's paper. And I find it comical that you think a quote from 1999 about majority is relevant, back before even 5 papers existed on this debate, compared to now, when there are literally hundreds. Herzog was part of Finkelstein's convoluted 2007 attempt to downdate the Stepped Stone Structure that Eilat Mazar discovered in 2005, which suggested a much more significant polity in Jerusalem than Finkelstein and Herzog wished there was. That attempt was subsequently destroyed by the very 2010 paper by Amihai Mazar that is now cited in the Biblical Criticism section of this article. In 2017, Richard Elliott Friedman wrote that it is now established that the Stepped Stone Structure "reflects an enormous undertaking by an established organized society" directly contra Finkelstein (in his book The Exodus pg. 98). Not to mention the fact that the excavations at Khirbet Qeiyafa, Lachish, Tel Burna, Tel Eton, Beit Shemesh, and so forth in the last decade have toppled our previous understanding of Israel in the Iron IIA period over its head. Citing an ancient media article on the opinion of the field in 2020 is the equivalent of citing Albright from the 1940s to prove that scholars accept the historicity of the conquest.Editshmedt (talk) 00:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Did Finkelstein convince the majority of Levantine archeologists in just three years? Herzog's point is that his article isn't news (in universities).
Let me tell you something: Wikipedia isn't bleeding edge, it is conservatively mainstream academic.
::I think you're finally starting to get it. It is impossible for Finkelstein to convince every scholar in three years. Which means Herzog made it up. Once you become a big boy, you'll learn that academics aren't perfect representatives of pure honesty and are actually kind of polemical. The fact that out of literally hundreds of reports published in the last 20 years, all you have is a 1999 media article by one of Finkelstein's colleagues to suggest that there's a majority, is comical. As I noted earlier, you are ignorant of the literature. This is further confirmed by the fact that you're now citing YouTube videos.Editshmedt (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
If you master the literature, then why don't you produce WP:RS/AC-compatible quotations? It would be very easy if you would state them openly. The WP:BURDEN/WP:ONUS is upon you to show that things have changed.
Your point till now: Finkelstein and Herzog are liars and I am an ignorant. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
::::Whoops, another slew of errors. No, bucko, Finkelstein never claimed that there was a majority, and therefore Finkelstein gives you no support for the existence of any majority. Neither does Herzog, who published his claim in a magazine. Hershal Shanks responded to Herzog's article in the next edition of the same Haaretz Magazine and described him as part of a "small group" of minimalists. So the same source, Haaretz Magazine, is on record saying that Finkelstein's position is both the majority and the minority of scholarship. Nice try. You have no peer-reviewed source saying that Finkelstein's views are a majority. And there is none. But you will find dozens of reports speaking about the ongoing "debate". But you find it necessary to hide the fact that Finkelstein's views are seen as contentious.Editshmedt (talk) 01:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Incidentally, all defections are from the traditional ‘majority’ to the Low Chronology ‘minority’.
— Israel Finkelstein, A Great United Monarchy? Archaeological and Historical Perspectives
Quoted from Finkelstein, Israel (17 January 2010). "A Great United Monarchy? Archaeological and Historical Perspectives". In Kratz, Reinhard G.; Spieckermann, Hermann; Corzilius, Björn; Pilger, Tanja (eds.). One God – One Cult – One Nation. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter. pp. 1–28. doi:10.1515/9783110223583.1. ISBN978-3-11-022358-3. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
You literally just quoted Finkelstein saying that his position (the Low Chronology) is a minority. Hopefully you've embarrassed yourself for the last time.Editshmedt (talk) 01:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Notice the quote marks of scorn. And according to the WP:RS/AC-compliant quote from Grabbe (2017), the minimalists have preponderantly won the dispute with Biblical maximalists. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
::::::::That is the most laughably ambiguous reference to Finkelstein's position commanding a majority that I've ever seen. Also, this has nothing to do with maximalism. If you genuinely think that Amihai Mazar et al are biblical maximalists, you've once again embarrassed yourself.Editshmedt (talk) 01:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
It was about Hershal Shanks responded to Herzog's article in the next edition of the same Haaretz Magazine and described him as part of a "small group" of minimalists. Minimalists won the game at least 90%, so minimalists aren't a small group and they did get to define the mainstream. Anyway, please WP:CITEWP:RS making WP:RS/AC claims or remain silent. This debate won't be sorted out by WP:OR. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::The only peer-reviewed reference you have for Finkelstein's Low Chronology commanding a majority is the worlds most ambiguous quote. I don't need to offer any sources to show that the majority has changed because you haven't established that there was a majority to begin with. DUh. This conversation is over.Editshmedt (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is behind the ball – that is we don't lead, we follow – [we] let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements and find NPOV ways of presenting them if needed." User:Benjiboi. I have produced here several WP:RS/AC claims, you have only produced your own witticisms. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
More proverbs to cover up for the fact that you've adduced no reliable sources for Finkelstein's position commanding a majority. This comment also suggests you're dishonest, as I've quoted half a dozen mainstream scholars that disagree with Finkelstein. Yes, all I have are my own witticisms - not like I have Friedman, Ben-Yosef, Faust, Garfinkel, Ganor, Eilat Mazar, Amihai Mazar, and so forth.Editshmedt (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Again, you master the literature, you find novel WP:RS/AC claims to topple mine. Just calling Herzog a liar won't do. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Didn't I make it obvious enough to you? There is no quote, anywhere in the literature about which position constitutes a majority. Despite the fact that Herzog wrote a very excited but non-reliable media article declaring who constitutes the majority almost at the outset of the discussion, more honest scholars tend to be a little more restrained. Since literally hundreds of papers have been published in the last two decades as the literature on this topic exploded, some scholars kind of want to let the dust settle before making any overarching claims about what's holy and true! You know, some scholars (i.e. anyone who isn't Herzog) would actually like to see what the incoming data says before jumping to conclusions! Finkelstein has repeatedly modified his own position. His latest position is in his 2013 book The Forgotten Kingdom. Wow! Finkelstein in 2013 doesn't agree with the Finkelstein who wrote the original 1996 paper, or the Finkelstein who wrote the 2006 book The Bible Unearthed, or even the 2010 Finkelstein who wrote the quote you cited! Isn't that crazy, it's almost like this is an ongoing discussion where the views of numerous scholars are being repeatedly modified as the data comes in. After a 2018 report demonstrated the usage of ashlar in construction in the 10th century BC in a Judahite site, Finkelstein will have to modify his position again. Weird how science works.Editshmedt (talk) 01:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Well, Einstein, science changes with time. Welcome to the club. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Took a look through a couple of papers. The following is the closest I think any paper will get to stating where scholars lie:
"Some scholars, following Mazar’s modified conventional chronology, date the beginning of Iron IIA to some point in the first half of the tenth century b.c.e., and its end to about 840 or 830 b.c.e. (e.g., Mazar 2005; 2011). Those who follow the low chronology believe that Iron Age IIA started in the ninth or late tenth century6 and that it covered the ninth century (Finkelstein 2005; Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2011). While there might be some additional disagreement (e.g., some would even stretch this phase deep into the eighth century [e.g., Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2004: 230]), we think that the above is a fair summary of current views on Iron Age absolute chronology." (Katz & Faust, "The Chronology of the Iron Age IIA in Judah in the Light of Tel ʿEton Tomb C3 and Other Assemblages", Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research (2014), pg. 105)
Notice how Faust provides a "fair summary", from 2014, on current views. Out of the three views in current debate, there is no majority. Mostly, scholars appear divided between the Modified Conventional Chronology and the Low Chronology. Faust actually lists the Modified Conventional Chronology first, which might indicate that scholarship is slightly tipped in favour of this position at the moment. The funniest part of this whole quote is that Faust says in it that the most extreme view and least accepted view is that of ... Herzog.Editshmedt (talk) 03:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Friend, every time I stated something here about most scholars, the majority or Finkelstein's camp is twice or thrice the size of Dever's camp it is directly WP:Verifiable in a WP:RS written by a top scholar. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
LOL, who told you that DVDs published by the "International Institute for Secular Humanistic Judaism" are a reliable source? Yeah, I can't dissent from obvious nonsense. The DVD also claims to be based on the book The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel (2012). Can you show me where this book says that Finkelstein commands a majority? I literally just proved, from the literature, that the scholarship is divided between the Modified Conventional Chronology and the Low Chronology and you're still denying that you don't have a majority.Editshmedt (talk) 03:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Although not legible, you may count all the names in Finkelstein's camp and all the names in Dever's camp, at minute 27. About the Institute: https://iishj.org/programs/masters-degree/
::::::Jesus Christ, you never give up. As I literally just told you, YouTube videos aren't reliable sources, and so you can consider that irrelevant. Secondly, you once again embarrass yourself. Trying to prove that the "International Institute for Secular Humanistic Judaism" is a reliable source, even though the name by itself refutes that, you cite a page from their website on their Masters Program. And according to THAT SAME PAGE, it ISN'T EVEN ACCREDITED! BTW, consider your "proceedings published" in irrelevant, because the book you linked to nowhere says that Finkelstein is a majority. I have a copy of the book. The whole point of the book is that there are two main positions, represented by Amihai Mazar and Israel Finkelstein, that are currently in contentious debate. Which is exactly what the WP:RS quote I gave earlier said. Don't you realize how that proves you completely wrong? The very book you're citing?Editshmedt (talk) 03:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't usually give up when I'm not wrong:
in order to set the record straight I am presenting two lists of scholars who came out in print in favor or against my system half Mazar on both sides looking can you explain this looking looking at the dream team on my side I can looking at the dream team on my side which includes half Mazar I can only hope to always be able to stand similarly alone and one more very meaningful note on this issue all the factions are from right to left all the factions are from right to left incidentally Dever himself has recently started his long cold voyage of defection in fact with Mazar halfway down and Dever defecting that additional chronology has gone down
— Israel Finkelstein, YouTube transcript
Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
::::::::Quoted FROM A YOUTUBE VIDEO, LOL. You're not citing a systematic review of the field, you're citing a YouTube video. After completely failing in all your attempts, and being presented with both a full book published by the SBL and a 2014 paper in BASOR that represent the field as divided between Mazar and Finkelstein's views, the only thing you have left is this quote from a YouTube video. I think that settles this.03:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editshmedt (talk • contribs)
OK, full quote:
4. Several scholars, primarily William Dever, suggested that the Low Chronology camp is a minority.49 The truth is, I am far from being troubled by the idea of being part of a minority that defends a case which, so I believe, is supported by the evidence. Just to set the record straight, however, among the small group of scholars who understand the intricate archaeological arguments behind the debate, the supporters of the Low Chronology make an impressive group.50 Looking at the Dream Team on my side I can only hope to always be able to stand with a similar minority. Incidentally, all defections are from the traditional ‘majority’ to the Low Chronology ‘minority’. Dever himself has recently started his long, cold voyage of defection: “Caution is indicated at the moment; but one should allow the possibility of slightly lower 10th–9th centuries BCE dates.”51
49 Dever (2001), 68. 50 See temporary and far from complete list in Finkelstein/Silberman (2002), 66–67. 51 From the abstract of his lecture at a 2004 Oxford conference.
We are not troubled by the idea of standing alone to defend a hypothesis we believe is supported by the evidence. But in order to set the record straight, we wish to provide an interim list of the supporters (or supporters in part) 0f the Low Chronology: Avitz-Singer (in Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz 2001); Fantalkin (2001 , On Aegean-Levantine relationship in the early Iron II); Gilboa and Sharon (2001, on the Dor C14 dates); Herzog (2002, on the sites in the south); Knauf (2000a; 20b); Mazar on the terminal date of the Megiddo VA—IVB horizon (Mazar and Carmi 2001: 1340); Münger On the chronological evidence of Egyptian stamp-seal amulets (Munger in press); Na'aman (2000, On the Philistine phase of the debate; 1997 on the conquests Of Hazael; 2002: 22 on the date of Construction of the Megiddo palaces); Niemann (1997: 263 in general; samples of grain from the destruction of Stratum C I —the contemporary of Stratum VA—IVB at Megiddo dated to 906—843 cal B.C.E. (l Sigma range) or to cal 916—832 BCE. (2 Sigma range), Mazar•s they fit the dating of Megiddo VA —IVB and its contemporaries the first half of the 9th century rather than to the mid•lOth century B.C.E. 2000•. 71—72 on Megiddo); Sass (in press, on the 11-th- to 9th-century epigraphic evidence); Uehlinger (1997: 102, n. 30); Ussishkin and Woodhead (1997: 70, on Jezreel and Megiddo); Zimhoni (1997: 38—39, on the pottery 0f Jezreel and Megiddo).2 Finally on this point. it is true that Mazar, Zarzeki-Peleg, and Ben-Tor and Ben-Ami have disputed the Low Chronology, but Dever failed to mention that Finkelstein responded to each of their arguments in detail (e.g., Finkelstein 1998; 1999).
— Finkelstein/Silberman (2002), 66–67
Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
::::::::: .... Dude, are your glasses on? In your "full quote", Finkelstein admits he's in the minority and says he's not troubled by being in the minority because the group he's part of is an "impressive group". In the second quote, Finkelstein doesn't dispute Dever's note that he's in the minority. He just disputes that he's literally the only one. Now that YOU have shown that Finkelstein himself said he's in the minority, in his own words, in this paper on pg. 14, there is no possible way you can still deny you're wrong.Editshmedt (talk) 04:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
I think that one of us needs taking reading with comprehension classes. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::: In literally none of the quotes you just gave does Finkelstein say he's in the majority. You just quoted Finkelstein saying that his side is "impressive" and then listing out the members of that group. I have the feeling you are dishonest.Editshmedt (talk) 04:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
If you don't sense the scorn in Finkelstein's words, that's just your POV, he, he. Again, my WP:RS/AC claims from above are WP:Verifiable. Try to match my academic consensus/academic majority claims with other verifiable academic consensus/academic majority claims. Till now, it is just your POV that a majority of mainstream Bible scholars do not disbelieve the United Monarchy. Try to make it verifiable. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Your laughable logic just keeps on giving. "Finkelstein scorns Dever for dismissing him in one sentence based on him being in a minority, therefore Finkelstein believes he is actually in the majority!" When will this circus end? Also, you still haven't made a peep about the WP:RS 2014 paper I cited from the journal BASOR where Hatz & Faust represent the field as divided between Mazar and Finkelstein's views. Why not? Too hard on your emotions to realize you're wrong? This paper is a decade more recent than anything you've cited. You've shown no evidence of familiarity of anything outside of Finkelstein's own publications. No wonder you think he's in the majority. Editshmedt (talk) 04:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
@Editshmedt:Finkelstein's view that David was just a little tribal chief without note and that there was no United Monarchy is contentious. But the article doesn't state that David was "just a little tribal chief". Whether that opinion is contentious or not is irrelevant since it is not present. Same thing with the United Monarchy. But, of course, the claim that the United Monarchy, as depicted in the Bible, didn't exist is not contentious because there is no archaeological evidence for it.
The article you cite "Between the Highland Polity and Philistia: The United Monarchy and the Resettlement of the Shephelah in the Iron Age IIA, with a Special Focus on Tel ʿEton and Khirbet Qeiyafa" doesn't argue for the existence of a United Monarchy. It argues that a Judahite "polity" colonized the eastern Shephelah which is not the same thing.
Also, my main objection to your changes is that I think sections on this format are terrible: "A states X. However, B states not X. However, C states Y. But D states not Y and maybe X. ..." That's not a great way to summarize a topic. ImTheIP (talk) 04:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
@Editshmedt: You state that the game is now between Mazar and Finkelstein, i.e. between 50% Finkelstein (remember Mazar being in both camps at the same time) and 100% Finkelstein.
Changes With the Monarchy: Religion in Crisis
By the 10th century B.c., after some two centuries of experience during a formative era, when Israelite society was largely rural and egalitarian and "every man did what was right in his own eyes" (Judges 17:6), a major change took place. There occurred what anthropologists have called in past a cultural and socio-economic evolution from "tribe," to "chiefdom," to "state." In biblical terms, the "period of the judges" was supplanted by the "United Monarchy" — the reigns of Saul, David, and Solomon, which we now know date to ca. 1020-930 B.c.. The historicity of the United Monarchy, however, has become one of the most hotly contested issues in both recent biblical studies and archaeology.
The biblical "revisionists" reject the notion altogether, declaring that this is just another "myth" concocted by the biblical writers, who wrote in the Persian or Hellenistic period and knew next to nothing about the Iron Age centuries earlier. A few idiosyncratic archaeologists (among them, notably, Israel Finkelstein) lend support to the "minimalist" view by downdating the monumental "Solomonic" architecture traditionally dated to the 10th century B.c. at Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer (I Kings 9:15-17) to the 9th century B.c., thereby robbing us of crucial archaeological data. The minimalists would date the rise of the state in the north (Israel) to the 9th century B.c. and comparable development in the south (Judah) to after the Neo-Assyrian campaigns in 701 B.c. (but then, "campaigns" against what?).
— William G. Dever, Did God have a wife? pp. 271-272
Perhaps it is good to remember that essentially minimalists won, so reading such quote in the light of their victory helps you find which side of the debate was proven right. It also exemplifies the fact that the denial of the United Monarchy predates Finkelstein. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
::Tgeorg, you are honestly one of the dumbest guys I've ever talked to. The minimalists didn't win when it comes to the United Monarchy. They won with the patriarchs and conquest. You're clearly desperate for anything to prove you right at this point, still not having made even a peep about the fact that a WP:RS 2014 paper in BASOR said that the field is divided. Your comment on Amihai Mazar is even stupider, claiming that he's in both camps. He isn't. You're clearly blind, since your YouTube video said a different Mazar was on both sides. Amihai Mazar rejects Finkelstein's Low Chronology in favour of the Modified Conventional Chronology, and he thinks that there was a United Kingdom. I'm honestly in pain over the fact that you're spewing such disinformed garbage on this talk page. Somehow, you take the gibberish you just quoted to mean that the dispute over the United Monarchy predates Finkelstein, despite the fact that Finkelstein outright says in his 1996 paper that he's introducing this view and that I even noted a 2018 systematic review of the field by Tobolowsky traces the origins of the debate about the United Monarchy to Finkelstein. You're genuinely clueless and incompetent.
ImTheIP, the article actually does say that David ruled over no more than a little chiefdom. "The evidence suggested that David ruled only as a chieftain over the southern kingdom of Judah". This is contentious. The idea that "Judah was sparsely inhabited and Jerusalem no more than a small village" is arguably fully refuted by Mazar's excavation of the Large/Stepped Stone Structure, which Finkelstein briefly tried to redate in a 2007 report before Amihai Mazar refuted him on that one.Editshmedt (talk) 05:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Friend, do not call me incompetent if you want to edit further. Obviously the "school" of biblical mininmalism predates Finkelstein in his claim there was no United Monarchy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
It is unfortunate that Wikipedia pages are guarded by individuals who become disinterested with the literature when it contradicts their beliefs.Editshmedt (talk) 05:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
P.S. ImTheIP, I've already cited several papers which accept the United Monarchy and/or argue for it. See the 2020 paper by Faust in BASOR I quoted early on.Editshmedt (talk) 06:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Seeing this epitaph on the cover of BAR (37:03, May/Jun 2011, see edited version here) immediately brought to mind one of Mark Twain’s celebrated sayings: “The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.” In this case, not only exaggerated but also so often repeated over the last 30 years that my “minimalist” colleagues and I (all pictured in our youth) are feeling like Lazarus. So why is Yosef Garfinkel so brave as to cry “wolf” yet again, when the basic principles of what its opponents call “minimalism” have become so widely adopted in biblical scholarship (it would be just as weary to cite the references let alone keep up with the reading). Well, it obviously demands some misrepresentation of what “minimalism” is (like most previous epitaphs). Its opponents regularly choose to define it in the way they think they can most easily attack it. No wonder so many people are confused about what it is. In this case, “minimalism” is defined, apparently, as the belief that David and Solomon and their “United Monarchy” did not exist. Well, “minimalists” have come to that conclusion, it is true, though there is a great deal of historical methodology, archaeological data, and textual exegesis lying behind that conclusion, and no minimalist that I know would regard the existence of David et al. as an essential tenet of minimalism. Without indulging in a detailed exposition, the issue is about how, why, and when the biblical books were written—a rather larger and more complex thesis than Garfinkel seems to appreciate, and a problem of which the historicity of otherwise any individual person or event forms only a rather small part.
— Philip Davies, “The End of Biblical Minimalism?”
In chap. 6 D.N. Freedman discusses ... There was no united monarchy under David, only a uniting monarch.
— Reviewed Work: The Age of the Monarchies: Political History (The World History of the Jewish People, 4/1) by ABRAHAM MALAMAT Review by: John F. Craghan, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Vol. 43, No. 3 (July, 1981), pp. 449-451 (3 pages)
Yup, you read well: it was 1981!
Mulhall, John W. (1995). America and the Founding of Israel: An Investigation of the Morality of America's Role. Deshon Press. ISBN978-0-9645157-0-3. 5. According to at least one reductionist, archaeological data indicates that Jerusalem was not an important city until the late eighth century B.C., after Assyria captured Samaria and destroyed the Kingdom of Israel, the "northern kingdom." Therefore, he maintains, Jerusalem was developed much later than was the city of Samaria. Jerusalem could not have been the capital of a monarchy uniting Judea and Samaria under David and Solomon during the tenth century. Moreover, there was no united monarchy before Assyria destroyed the Kingdom of Israel in 722 B.C. (And there could have been none afterward until the Maccabean period in the second and first centuries B.C.) Thus the historical factualness of Saul, David and Solomon, their wars of conquest, and the size of their empires would seem to be seriously questioned by this reductionist.
Another reductionist, J.M. Miller, thinks that many, perhaps most, traditions about David and Solomon are based on actual historical persons and events. But he thinks that their empire was much smaller than some moderate historicalists believe. Miller maintains that it extended only some fifteen miles north of Lake Hulah and some twenty-five miles east into Syria. It did not include the Bakaa Valley, Damascus, or lands nearer to the Euphrates River, as some Bible passages seem to indicate.
The reductionist group of archaeologists and biblical scholars has grown in the past twenty years. Its scholarship, especially its conclusions, have met with moderate-historicalist criticism. For what they are worth, reductionists' conclusions even more seriously call into question the claim that the Bible is the Jewish people's "deed of ownership" to the Holy Land.
Yup, you read well: it was a year before Finkelstein published the paper you mentioned. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
The quote you give by Davies fully debunks your argument that minimalism being prominent = no United Monarchy. Davies wrote there that being against the United Monarchy is not necessarily part of minimalism, contra Garfinkel. The other quotes you give are irrelevant, as it confuses the beginning of the archaeological debate over the United Kingdom with the first time someone questioned it. Finkelstein writes in a 1995 paper that he, in fact, is not the originator of the Low Chronology, in fact David Ussishkin proposed it in 1985, but it was unanimously dismissed by other scholars;
"A third theory, which can be described as the Low Chronology, was briefly presented by Ussishkin (1985:223; 1992:118-119). The absence ofPhilistine pottery - Monochrome and Bichrome alike - in Stratum VI at Lachish which dates to the days of Ramses III, led him to date its appearance to "the last third of the 12th century B.c., or even later" (1992:119). Ussishkin did not elaborate on the archaeological arid historical implications of his revolutionary proposal, and as a result, his low chronology has been unanimously dismissed, or ignored." (Finkelstein, "The Date of the Settlement of the Philistines in Canaan", Tel Aviv (1995))
Once again, your misunderstanding of the literature lead you to make inaccurate claims about it. The archaeological debate started with Finkelstein because he's the first one who made a credible case for his side, not because he was the first to propose it.Editshmedt (talk) 07:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
@Editshmedt: Conclusion: all the claims you made here about majorities and minorites are utterly unverifiable. My WP:RS/AC claims are verifiable. And finding uncontestable objective evidence for the United Monarchy would be something all TV news journals would report all over the world, and something for which would be granted the 1 million dollars Dan David Prize. So: renounce to ad hominems and concentrate upon verifiable WP:RS/AC claims. Your claims that I am ignorant and that Herzog is a liar won't replace verifiable WP:RS. You can only win this game by citing WP:RS with WP:RS/AC claims, not by calling me names. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
GBRV: "there wasn't any archaeological evidence to confirm the existence of Bablyon, Nineveh, Asshur, or other cities mentioned in the Bible". That's right, until there was evidence, there wasn't any evidence. (And it is misleading to suggest that references to contemporary cities at or near the time of writing confirm the veracity of tales that supposedly happened in a much earlier period.) If at some point there is evidence for the Exodus, then the article will say there is evidence. It is not a violation of WP:NPOV to say there is no evidence for something for which there is no evidence. It isn't even an assertion that something didn't happen. It's just a statement indicating that there isn't a good reason for believing that it did, especially for claims that are extraordinary.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
:Wrong again. You have no reliable sources about minorities/majorities. I quoted a 2014 paper in BASOR saying that the field is divided and that Herzog is actually in an extreme minority.
"Some scholars, following Mazar’s modified conventional chronology, date the beginning of Iron IIA to some point in the first half of the tenth century b.c.e., and its end to about 840 or 830 b.c.e. (e.g., Mazar 2005; 2011). Those who follow the low chronology believe that Iron Age IIA started in the ninth or late tenth century6 and that it covered the ninth century (Finkelstein 2005; Finkelstein and Piasetzky 2011). While there might be some additional disagreement (e.g., some would even stretch this phase deep into the eighth century [e.g., Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2004: 230]), we think that the above is a fair summary of current views on Iron Age absolute chronology." (Katz & Faust, "The Chronology of the Iron Age IIA in Judah in the Light of Tel ʿEton Tomb C3 and Other Assemblages", Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research (2014), pg. 105)
I've already demonstrated a dozen examples of you misunderstanding the field. I don't know why you think this is any different.Editshmedt (talk) 07:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
The difference is that most scholars ... are cautious about the early monarchy and the majority have adopted their main points are WP:Verifiable statements. Yours aren't.
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. ISBN978-0-19-997846-5. 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.
Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
"The majority have adopted their main point" is from a Magazine article, and so is unreliable. The fact that Grabbe said that scholars are cautious is correct and does not mean that a majority of scholars reject the United Monarchy, it means scholars are cautious, which is true for all scholars who both accept and reject the United Monarchy. Address the reliable 2014 paper which presents the field as divided.
Here are 9 examples of factual errors you've made so far in this conversation:
1. Only believers find Finkelstein's views contentious. In fact, half if not a small majority of scholars follow the Modified Conventional Chronology over Finkelstein's Low Chronology.
2. Israel Finkelstein is "the big gorilla" in current Israeli archaeology. In fact, the "the big gorilla" quote came from a National Geographic journalist and not an actual scholar. A number of archaeologists are equally critical in todays discussions.
3. Herzog's article suggests the archaeological debate over the United Monarchy predates Finkelstein. In fact, his article was from 1999, and Finkelstein's paper that initiated the debate is from 1996.
4. Herzog's article is reliable. In fact, it was published in a magazine, not a peer-reviewed journal, and so is unreliable.
5. The debate began before Finkelstein because some people mentioned it before Finkelstein. In fact, even if Finkelstein wasn't the first to propose it, the archaeological debate begins with him because all prior discussions were weakly argued according to Finkelstein.
6. Minimalism requires that there is no United Monarchy. In fact, Philip Davies is on record stating that a minimalist may or may not accept the United Monarchy.
7. Finkelstein scorning Dever's dismissal of him as the minority position proves that Finkelstein believes he's in the majority. In fact, Finkelstein is just scorning the fact that Dever so balatantly dismisses him based on being in a 'minority', as if that means anything to him.
8. DVDs published by the "International Institute for Secular Humanistic Judaism" are a reliable source. In fact, this is a completely unaccredited institution.
9. The book The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel (2007) supports the claim that Finkelstein is in the majority. In fact, this book presents the debate as divided and makes no claims about minorities/majorities.
I don't know why you think this is any different. Hatz & Faust say in a 2014 paper that the field is divided, and all you have is a 1999 article by a fringe scholar on this topic (fringe according to that 2014 paper) saying that all scholars believe he is right.Editshmedt (talk) 07:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
@Editshmedt:Tgeorg, you are honestly one of the dumbest guys I've ever talked to. You need to calm down and read WP:NPA. We can quibble over whether David should be characterized as a chieftain, tribal leader, or king forever, but it is irrelevant. Can you find me a source that unequivocally states that David ruled over the entirety of Samaria? If you can'ta, then I don't think you have a leg to stand on. ImTheIP (talk) 10:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Yup, and Shanks's idea that minimalists would be anti-Israel and antisemitic has been proven bunk. So his criticism of Herzog might have been credible then, it is no longer credible now, in the light of almost total victory of minimalists. And Editshmedt has a hard nut to crack, since Table 1 in Faust 2020 does not leave any room for a kingdom of David. According to Faust 2020, the early 10th century BCE is already taken by Philistia, so there is no room for a Judahite kingdom. According to him, Philistia begins to decline after the death of David. So there could be no Judahite king before Solomon. I'm curious if Editshmedt will also claim that Faust lied through his teeth. Since powerful Philistia did not allow for powerful Judah. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Tgeorgescu (talk·contribs) Tgeorg, I don't know why you're misrepresenting Faust's paper. United Monarchy means "David ruled over Judah and Israel", not "the Philistines were powerless". So that criticism is in shambles. ImTheIP (talk·contribs) IP, do you mind reading the literature? I don't need to find a specific quote saying "David ruled over Samaria" since I have several quotes affirming the United Monarchy.Editshmedt (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
United Monarchy means "David ruled over Judah and Israel" That's what you write, not what Faust wrote. It's not WP:Verifiable in Faust's paper that David ruled over the United Monarchy. That's the problem with your claims: those are not verifiable. It is not verifiable what you said about minorities, it is not verifiable that Herzog lied through his teeth, it is not verifiable that Finkelstein is part of a minority, and so on. And I do distinguish between genuine minimalists (100% minimalists) and the majority who are each 90% minimalist and 10% biblicist. That's what I meant by 90% victory of minimalists. Anyone who thinks that the Bible is still usable in archaeology is not a genuine minimalist, i.e. Finkelstein is not a genuine minimalist. And it's not a secret that Finkelstein has scorn for Dever, and Dever scorn for Finkelstein. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Interestingly, the major resettlement of the Shephelah was initiated during the Iron Age IIA, i.e., in tandem with, and especially after, the significant decline in Philistia that took place in the early phases of the Iron Age IIA. The latter’s decline and changes are commonly associated, among other causes (like economic changes in the eastern Mediterranean), with the emerging highland kingdom (Ehrlich 1996: 53–55; Mazar 2007: 135; Faust 2013a; Frumin et al. 2015: 8, and see more below), which led the Philistines to abandon the quest for political and military hegemony, and they were gradually drawn into the Phoenician economic sphere (Faust 2013a, 2015b). Whether the cause for the decline in Philistia is associated with the rise of Israel or not, it is clear that the weakened Philistines did not initiate the resettlement of the Shephelah.
— Faust 2020, p. 119
This is a quote that leaves no room for a Davidic kingdom. Why? Because a strong Philistia was hegemonic. A strong Philistia would not have allowed such a Judahite kingdom. So, unless you can produce a verifiable quote to the contrary, Faust 2020 denies that David ruled over the United Monarchy. Such thing would not have been possible to due Philistian hegemony and millitarism. If David claimed kingship and independence, they would have killed him. After 970 BCE, Philistia was weak enough to allow a Judahite kingdom. Not before that.
If you're going to refute that, I need a verbatim quote. Your own interpretation won't do.
If David were a vassal of Philistia, that would change the situation. Anyway, a strong Philistia would not have allowed an independent king of Judah. So, Faust leaves room for David as a vassal of Philistia, but not for a Davidic United Monarchy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Your claim that any of this was fringe on the fringe discussion board was refuted. As for your new claim, it doesn't make any sense. (1) Your claim, which is WP:OR, contradicts the paper, which is a WP:RS, which concludes that at the time there was both a strong Philsitine power and an emerging United Monarchy (2) A Philistine power centred around Gath is not incompatible with the existence of a Judahite kingdom in the rest (99%) of Israel (3) There's no evidence that a Philistine polity would have wanted to annihilate an emerging Judahite kingdom (4a) Even if it did want to annihilate an emerging Judahite kingdom, there's nothing to suggest that it would have been necessarily successful especially since (4b) the same Table 1 you were referring to shows that the Philistine polity began to rapidly decline around the middle of the 10th century BC, just as the United Monarchy was growing and gaining power, which actually suggests that (4c) the verifiable rise of the Judahite kingdom is linked to the fall of the Philistine polity, which means that the evidence depicts the reverse of what you claimed - i.e. that the Judahite kingdom was also hegemonic and eventually overpowered the Philistines. So, by Wikipedia's standards, your claims contradict the paper and so are WP:OR and have no bearing on our discussion. Factually, you misunderstand the geography of both polities under discussion (Philistia and the Judahite kingdom) and make unverifiable claims regarding the nature of their relationship. In addition, here is a 2019 paper by Garfinkel et al in the journal Radiocarbon which demonstrates that evidence of the transformation of Judahite Lachish in the 10th century BC helps verify the rise of the Judahite kingdom in this period. As Garfinkel et al write in the abstract, "When and where the process of state formation took place in the biblical kingdom of Judah is heavily debated ... The controversial question of when the kingdom was able to build a fortified city at Lachish, its foremost center after Jerusalem, is now resolved thanks to the excavation of a previously unknown city wall, dated by radiocarbon (14C) to the second half of the 10th century BCE." It's clear that a series of publications between 2018-2020, most of which I still have not even mentioned to you yet, are burying the idea that there was no Judahite state or kingdom in the 10th century BC. Faust affirms the United Monarchy, and of course, scholarship discusses no one who would have ruled over a United Monarchy besides David. To claim that a scholar has someone else in mind, against the vast majority of the literature, requires a WP:RS - and so I have no need to specifically quote Faust saying "David ruled over the United Monarchy". I've already demonstrated, verifiably from Dever's own words which (unlike Herzog's) are peer-reviewed, that Finkelstein is in the minority because he is a minimalist and minimalists are in the minority. Your 90% and 10% conjectures appear to be WP:OR and so have no bearing on the discussion. Minimalists are in the minority, whether or not maximalists lost. Editshmedt (talk) 05:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
This long text is self-contracitory. shows that the Philistine polity began to rapidly decline around the middle of the 10th century BC, just as the United Monarchy was growing and gaining power That is around 950 BCE for those keeping track. Faust affirms the United Monarchy, and of course, scholarship discusses no one who would have ruled over a United Monarchy besides David. This is your inference. David is supposed to have ruled from 1010 BCE to 970 BCE. He died some 20 years before, according to you, "the United Monarchy was growing and gaining power". You also seem to lack any source claiming that David ruled over the entirety of Samaria. Which means that this discussion is, at best, about semantics. This is not the United Monarchy you are looking for. ImTheIP (talk) 05:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Genuine minimalists believe that the Bible is craps. Finkelstein does not believe that, so he is not a genuine minimalist. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Also I don't think the way you have set up the section as a polemic between two camps (e.g this edit) is constructive. I detest Wikipedia articles that read: "A says X. However B says not X. But C says ..." It clouds the big picture, that archaeologists are in agreement about most details. The quibble is over whether David's kingdom/polity/tribe, if it existed, could fit within a circle with radius 20 km centered around Jerusalem or if the radius has to be 40 km. ImTheIP (talk) 05:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
To claim that a scholar has someone else in mind, against the vast majority of the literature, requires a WP:RS - and so I have no need to specifically quote Faust saying "David ruled over the United Monarchy". Textbook case of WP:SYNTH. I.e. Faust does not claim that a United Monarchy of Israel (Samaria) and Judah existed during David's lifetime. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Before proceeding, let us keep in mind that Tgeorg misunderstood the geography and the political relationship between the Philistines and the non-Philistines in Iron IIA Israel. Based on these misunderstandings, he suggested a WP:OR opinion, which contradicted the WP:RS source, that the Philistine power is incompatible with the Judahite power. However, this is the opposite of what Faust says, who finds that the Judahite kingdom began to emerge when the Philistines were at the height of their power, and as the Judahite kingdrom grew, the Philistine polity weakened. Keep in mind I cited in additional WP:RS paper by Garfinkel et al in 2019 that further supported the emergence of the Judahite kingdom in the 10th century. Numerous more references can be adduced if necessary. Let us now move on. Tgeorg - So I contradicted myself because I said something that I didn't say? "David is supposed to have ruled from 1010 BCE to 970 BCE. He died some 20 years before, according to you" - according to me? Where? Since this is a strawman fallacy, it has no bearing on the discussion and I expect a retraction and apology in your subsequent response for misrepresenting me. Nadav Na'aman has shown that chronologies, lifespans, and so forth for the rulers of Israel are formulaic and not historical. David and Solomon both reign ... exactly 40 years? Of course not. 40 is a symbolic number. Moses' life, for example, is 120 years, and the activities of his life can be divided into 3 sets of 40. So I never claimed that David reigned from 1070-970 BC, or died 20 years before this or that. Furthermore, I also never said "950 BC". That is a second strawman I expect an apology and retraction for. I said middle of the 10th century BC, which is a range. Notice how I never said any specific values. In my opinion, you do not understand the critical methods relevant to this conversation and so have a high probability of making these mistaken inferences. Since all your claims require strawmen of my position, they simultaneously do not work. William Dever said Finkelstein is in the minority in peer-review, and so I see no reason to discuss that further. Finkelstein is in the minority. Also, ImTheIP, I don't know where you see any of my edits on this page sounding like "A says X, but B says not X, but C responds to B". In fact, if you reviewed my edits, you'd find that I divide the opinions into two different camps, which is expected when there are ... two different camps on the discussion. Also, the scholarly discussion is nothing even like "could the Davidic polity exist within 20km around Jerusalem" - I've never read that in any WP:RS. Editshmedt (talk) 07:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Before proceeding, let us keep in mind that Tgeorg misunderstood ... No, quit it. Harping on supposed misunderstandings indicates that you are more after a quarrel than improving the article. See the article itself for the years of David's supposed reign; 1010 BCE to 970 BCE. Since David's reign is supposed to have coincided with the zenith of the United Monarchy, the claim that the United Monarchy was "growing and gaining power" c. 950 BCE is discordant. Now here is a map of the extent of the "United Monarchy" as described in the Bible. Can you answer in the affirmtive or negative whether you believe that any of the sources you have presented corroborates the existence of this kingdom? ImTheIP (talk) 08:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
This is Faust's only substantive use of the words United Monarchy: "The highland polity—apparently the biblical United Monarchy—was growing stronger, seemingly forming alliances with the Canaanite settlements of the Shephelah, and this enabled it to get a firmer foothold in this region." He does not say what he means by United Monarchy, he does not say how he came to that conclusion, he does not say if Israel (Samaria) was part of it (apparently not, since he does not discuss about it). So, it's at best WP:SYNTH to say that he meant that David ruled over Samaria. Also, Editshmedt, if you redefine too many of the terms, the story no longer has any resemblance to what the Bible tells.
Do you know what's the problem with the chronologies of Ancient Israel? None of them (traditional, modified or low) are falsifiable with carbon dating.
The claim that the chronologies are unfalsifiable via radiometric dating is WP:OR and contradicts dozens of papers I know of. I am not "harping" on misunderstandings. These recaps are critical for helping us get a grasp of where we exactly are. Back to this date thing. It is irrelevant that this page uncritically follows the biblical chronology of David reigning for exactly forty years between 1010-970 BC, which is honestly obviously ahistorical. I added in an edit to the article to reflect that this is ahistorical. For example, H.M. Niemann, someone on Finkelstein's sides, writes "Little can be said about the chronologies of David and Solomon but that Saul probably belongs in the first, David in the second, and Solomon in the third quarter of the 10th century B.C." (H.M. Niemann, "Comments and Questions about the Interpretation of Khirbet Qeiyafa: Talking with Yosef Garfinkel", Journal of Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Law (2017)). Notice an interesting coincidence (or perhaps it is not a coincidence?). The Philistine polity begins to decline around the middle of the 10th century BC, which is exactly the period that Niemann happens to place the reign of David. So, if Tgeorg seriously does think that that a Philistine and United Monarchy cannot coexist, which I provided a serious critique of based on the archaeological data provided in the 2020 paper earlier, then the fact that Finkelstein's side seems to prefer a dating of David's reign to the middle third of the 10th century BC should resolve any issues. ImTheIP gives a map of the United Monarchy and asks if I think that the historical Davidic kingdom was that big. In fact, I have no idea how big the United Monarchy was, neither does anyone else - but not knowing the exact borders of the polity is irrelevant to the fact that numerous scholars, especially in more recent years, have begun to see that the archaeology suggests it exists. I'm going to overlook Tgeorg's misrepresentation that I've relied on apologetics. Tgeorg issues this strawman, despite the fact that I've only been relying on dozens of scholarly papers and books throughout this conversation, to draw attention away from the fact that he has not read the literature and so is prone to making mistakes when we discuss this. I also really don't understand the recent attempt to cast doubt over the meaning of Faust's words. They're unambiguous. Throughout the length of the paper, Faust traces the quick emergence of a kingdom in Israel during the 10th century BC. In the conclusion of the paper, he provides his professional judgement that this rising polity be identified with the United Monarchy. If you're really that uncertain about what Faust could possibly mean by "United Monarchy", read the rest of his work.Editshmedt (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
A. Mazar 2014 also supports the existence of a United Monarchy and concludes that it's existence also cannot be rejected given the known archaeology (pp. 365, 369). I may continue throwing such papers in every once in a while, if only to complicate the position I interact with that I do not think rests on solid scholarly or archaeological foundations.Editshmedt (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
All that is based upon your own opinion. No WP:V quote offered, just attempts to dodge WP:V. The WP:BURDEN is upon you: you master the literature, you give us a verifiable quote. Faust obviously does not discuss about Samaria since he has no evidence that David ruled there.
The rules of the game are clear: give us a verbatim quote that David ruled over Samaria or leave this talk page. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
So the half a dozen papers I cited are my opinion? How did that happen? It's also highly inappropriate to demand someone exit a talk page for noting that the literature is incongruent with your opinion. We, as Wikipedia editors, are supposed to favour the evidence over a priori belief systems. If you would like additional advice on how to better abide by this, feel free to leave a note on my talk page and we I can give you a beneficial explanation on where to start as well as what literature you need to read. Tgeorg, in my opinion, it is inappropriate that you are trying to edit the Biblical Criticism section on this page as you do not understand any of the literature on the topic, nor have you read any of the relevant books or papers. It appears analogous to an amateur editing a page like DnaC without knowing any molecular biology. This misunderstanding manifests in your repetition of the Samaria thing, which was discredited above.Editshmedt (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Scholarly favour of the United Monarchy has been confirmed in Mazar 2010, Mazar 2014, Thomas 2016, Faust & Sapir 2018, and Faust 2020. Why are we still talking about this?Editshmedt (talk) 20:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
The reasoning is quite simple: if David did not rule over most of the surface of Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) then United Monarchy is silly metaphorical language.
And to show the absurdity of moving David's reign to about 950 BCE, that would mean that the reigns of Solomon and Jeroboam happened concurrently (at roughly the same time). Or it would mean that David's successor to the throne was Jeroboam, not Solomon. So, the historical Solomon is king Jeroboam, oh, dear.
What you stated till now: Finkelstein is part of a tiny minority, Herzog is a liar and I'm ignorant and stupid. Do you understand that none of these verifies the claim that David ruled over the Kingdom of Israel (Samaria)?
The squabbling about whether the minimalists or maximalists were in the majority or minority, is like the squabbling between Boris Johnson and Emmanuel Macron over who won the better deal in Brexit fish – tedious, and largely irrelevant. The Brexit "victory" argument will be settled by real-life facts once the British financial sector has or has not collapsed – which will take a few more years to become clear.
This United Monarchy argument is further poisoned by the modern-day political implications of the "historical reality", so a clear-cut academic agreement is unlikely to ever emerge. However the "objective facts" are fairly clear, if you are prepared to consider them objectively.
There are only a handful of inscriptions which attest to Israel / Judah in that time period. All speak of minor tribes which were easily vanquished. None make a single mention of Saul or David or Solomon, even though Solomon was supposedly important enough to rate a diplomatic marriage with a daughter of the Egyptian Pharaoh. Of the great Biblical victories by the "United Monarchy" kings, not a word was mentioned anywhere in the entire region.
The Tel Dan stele mentions a minor king of a minor state stomping on both Israel and Judah, as well as on 68 other kings. Considering the small size of the geographic area in question, and the fact that he presumably didn’t attack every single king in existence, it would seem that the title "king" in those days basically meant "headman of a small town and its surrounding pastures". Hardly equivalent to the United Monarchy of the Bible, mmm? There is also on-going dispute about what the damaged inscriptions actually say.
I have not read every paper on the subject, but after skimming the arguments on this page, I did read two of the papers referred to.
Re the “Governor’s Residency” at Tel ‘Eton, as interpreted by Avraham Faust and Yair Sapir, the following can be discerned:
Radiocarbon C14 samples taken from within a foundation deposit and from the floor make-up indicate that the earliest phase of the residency was built in the late 11th–10th century BCE (Iron Age IIA).
The authors acknowledge that the site was occupied (by Canaanites) from the Early Bronze Age (mid-third millennium BC), and that the site was quite large and significant during much of the Late Bronze Age (mainly 14th–13th centuries BCE), and that during the Iron I (roughly 12th–11th centuries BCE) the settlement was smaller but still present.
The authors admit that in the course of the Iron Age IIA, the older Canaanite centers experienced significant changes, including being fortified in the mid-10th century. They admit that these changes probably resulted from alliances between the Canaanites in Tel ‘Eton and some expanding Israelites.
The authors admit that the construction of the classical four-room house involved traditional Canaanite conventions.
The authors discovered a "foundation deposit" which was typical of Canaanite sites during the 13th–11th centuries, "probably as a result of Egyptian influence", but which was rare in the Iron Age IIA.
There is no evidence – or discussion – of Israelite kings, Israelite authority, or any evidence of the size or power of the assumed community.
Notwithstanding all of the above, the authors claim that the “four-room” plan indicates it is an Iron Age dwelling probably of Israelite construction, and they claim that the size (230 m2 ) and location make it an "elite residence", which apparently indicates "public construction" which was "typical of elaborate Israelite structures" and that this indicates the existence of a powerful political activity and substantial social complexity, which they then assume is evidence of the United Monarchy. This is called "stretching".
They also hypothesise the so-called "old house" effect, in terms of which the absence of evidence of existence is assumed to be evidence of existence.
In the paper by Amihai Mazar, the author admits that biblical accounts are "distorted and laden with later anachronisms, legends and literary forms added during the time of transmission, writing and editing of the texts and inspired by the authors’ theological and ideological viewpoint."
The author used the word "suggest/suggested" 24 times in 25 pages; "perhaps" 15 times; "could" 13 times; and "possible" 8 times in 25 pages. Not exactly a confident thesis.
The author admits that Jerusalem in those days was too small to be a regional force. The author also admits that the total population of all of Judah and Benjamin in the Iron IIA period would have been at most about 20,000 people, and that this horde "provides a sufficient demographic basis for an Israelite state in the 10th century BCE." At least half of those people would have been women, and at least half would have been children, so even if every able bodied man and boy able to wave a stick were drafted, the army would have been maximum 5000 strong. Hardly the regional super-power of the Bible stories.
However Mazar feels that, in the absence of strong opposition, "a talented and charismatic leader, politically astute, and in control of a small yet effective military power, may have taken hold of large parts of a small country like the Land of Israel and controlled diverse population groups under his regime from his stronghold in Jerusalem."
The core of this thesis seems to rely on the assumption that the ‘Stepped Structure’ and ‘Large Stone Structure’ should be seen as one large and substantial architectural complex, which should be interpreted as David’s palace. Such a profile would show Jerusalem as a rather small town with a mighty citadel, which could have been a center of a substantial regional polity. This interpretation is rejected by various credible experts.
Mazar does however admit that the most impressive of the fortifications date to the Middle Bronze Age, ie are Canaanite. They are evidence for a central powerful authority and the outstanding status of Jerusalem during the Middle Bronze Age, and they "might have been retained in the local memory until the end of the second millennium BCE and later".
Mazar proposes that these early (Canaanite) structures and traditions were inserted into the later Israelite historiographic narrative, which is also thickly veiled in theology and ideology.
Mazar thus proposes that the United Monarchy can be described as a state in an early stage of evolution, far from the rich and widely expanding state as was subsequently portrayed in the biblical narrative.
Got it: when Faust and Mazar say United Monarchy, it is pure hyperbole. So, Editshmedt, you have stumbled over the hiperinflated scholarly claim that there would be good evidence for David rulling over both kingdoms. In this respect, Herzog was right then and he still is right now: there is no evidence for such claim. Case closed. Mutatis mutandis we may say that the following is of application:
{{quote|After more than a decade of effort the Discovery Institute proudly announced in 2007 that it had got some 700 doctoral-level scientists and engineers to sign "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism." Though the number may strike some observers as rather large, it represented less than 0.023 percent of the world's scientists. On the scientific front of the much ballyhooed "Evolution Wars", the Darwinists were winning handily. The ideological struggle between (methodological) naturalism and supernaturalism continued largely in the fantasies of the faithful and the hyperbole of the press. (Alexander Denis & Ronald NUmbers, Biology and Ideology from Descartes to Dawkins, Chicago, 2010)
If you're going to post walls of text against me, I'm going to respond with walls of text. Finally, the ban for personal insults is over, and there is a lot of rejection of scholarship to catch up with. After Tgeorg was extensively shown that the literature across decades affirms a United Monarchy, he really only has one means of holding on to his a priori belief system - the "miracle of reinterpretation"! So now EVERY TIME a scholar affirms the United Monarchy, they are being completely metaphorical, and EVERY TIME a scholar rejects the United Monarchy, THEN they are being literal! But that is silly, and there's no such thing as a "metaphorical" reference to the word United Monarchy in scholarship, and so that claim has no validity. "United Monarchy" means one thing - the Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah is ruled under a single monarch. To refer to "Samaria" outside using the word "United Monarchy" would be literally redundant, and so its absence is irrelevant. Faust's previous publications include Samarian cities into his description of the "United Monarchy" (Faust, Israels Ethnogenesis, 2006, pg. 113), so the idea that it's metaphorical can be dismissed. Tgeorg doesn't realize that ANYONE who rejects Israel Finkelstein's low chronology, which would be most scholars, affirm the United Monarchy, i.e. rule in both the north and the south. That's because Finkelstein's low chronology performs a little tricks: it redates the masses of monumental architecture that scholarship has always recognized as dating to the 10th century BC to, instead, the 9th century BC. Thus, William Dever writes:
"Finkelstein’s low chronology, never followed by a majority of mainstream scholars, is a house of cards. Yet it is the only reason for attributing our copious tenth-century-BCE archaeological evidence of a united monarchy to the ninth century BCE." (William Dever, Has Archaeology Buried the Bible, 2020)
When Dever refers to the "COPIOUS" evidence for a large scale state, the "United Monarchy", a very important portion of the finds he's referring to are the monumental architecture discovered at Megiddo, Hazor, and Gezer - all Samarian cities. Dever himself was the lead excavator at Hazor. Indeed, in the last few decades, the following individuals have been lead excavators at these three sites: Yigael Yadin, William Dever, Steve Ortiz, Samuel Wolff, Amnon Ben-Tor, and Israel Finkelstein. The ONLY ONE of these excavators to date the monumental architecture at any of these sites to the 9th century BC, rather than 10th century BC, is Finkelstein (see Kalimi, Writing and Rewriting, Cambridge, 2019, pp. 24-28). Guess why Dever calls Finkelstein a minority, then. Likewise, we now have monumental architecture at the City of David in Jerusalem (which I will discuss later) and state transformation in the 10th century BC at Lachish, Tel Eton, Khirbet Qeiyafa, and the Kingdom of Edom (see Faust 2020, Ben-Yosef et al. 2019a, ibid. 2019b). The only person who has argued against these findings in print, in ANY publication, after the completion of excavations, is ... Israel Finkelstein. Surprise. As Dever comments elsewhere, Finkelstein is currently on a mission to rework the archaeology at literally every site that disagrees with his Low Chronology, and those are a lot of sites.
Moving on to Wdford (talk·contribs). Wdford makes progress by actually trying to interact with the scholarship. However, instead of letting the scholarship and scholars speak for themselves, Wdford is concerned with refuting the scholarship he disagrees with rather than working to integrate it into Wikipedia - which is what editors are supposed to do. Not only that, but Wdford, like Tgeorg and ImTheIP, admits he doesn't know the scholarship. In the process, the whole analysis is so flawed and often at complete odds with what Finkelstein or any scholar would say. The Tel Dan Inscription only names a small number of kings. The reference in the Tel Dan Inscription to defeating "seventy kings" is obviously completely numerological (see the significance of the number 7 in the Bible) and so is historically worthless. [For example, Ahab is said to have had "seventy sons" - 2 Kings 10:1.] Thus, this artifact gives no evidence of a rampant number of petty chiefs at the time. Even Finkelstein would be utterly taken aback by a suggestion like this, because the Tel Dan Inscription dates to the 9th century BC, which is exactly when Finkelstein claims that there WAS a "united monarchy" that was building large-scale monumental architecture during the Omride dynasty. Another claim Wdford makes that not only contradicts all scholarship, but even Finkelstein, is that there's something confusing about the lack of mention in Egyptian records of the United Monarchy. But Finkelstein points out that Egypt was in a pretty thorough decline at this time, and in addition, it makes almost no references to geopolitical affairs during this period anyways. So Wdford's point is irrelevant. Wdford also says that no inscription mentions this stuff in the 10th century, overlooking the fact that only two inscriptions are even known from this time (Gezer Calender and Qeiyafa Ostracon). Also, irrelevant.
Wdford says Faust & Sapir's 2018 paper doesn't discuss "Israelite kings, Israelite authority, or any evidence of the size or power of the assumed community." But that's not the point of the paper, which makes this claim irrelevant. Faust DOES discuss those questions in his 2020 paper we've been discussing as well as the forthcoming 2021 volume State formation processes in the 10th Century BCE Levant. Wdford's bulleted list of what the paper says also shows he's looking very hard to find something in this scholarly paper to confirm his views, despite the fact that the whole point of the paper is that Tel Eton undergoes monumental transformation in the 10th century BC linked to the rise of the United Monarchy. See Faust's description of his own paper elsewhere, and compare it to the selective bullet list Wdford gives: "character took place in the 10th century B.C.E. The site expanded significantly at the time, was apparently fortified (Fig. 2), and a large four-room residency (Fig. 3) was erected on the top of the mound. The evidence regarding the construction of both the city wall in Area D and especially the residency in Area A suggests that it took place in the first half of the 10th century B.C.E., and clearly before the last quarter of this century (see extensive discussion in Faust and Sapir 2018)." See pp. 119-20 of Faust's 2020 paper for this quote.
Wdford proceeds to make irrelevant point about Mazar's work, obviously trying to water it down to his liking. "Suggest/suggested" etc are all precautionary terms universal in the scholarly literature, which makes this point irrelevant. Mazar uses this terminology because he's a careful scholar and, contra Wdford, knows that the "objective facts" on the topic are actually NOT clear (see Thomas 2016 for a systematic review). Wdford makes a big deal out of Mazar's obvious observation of later theology in the texts, as if this is relevant to whether or not there was a United Monarchy or even the scholarly debate. This is mythicist logic - "the Gospels have theologizing, therefore Jesus didn't exist!" - "Samuel and Kings have theologizing, therefore the United Monarchy didn't exist!"
Finally, the Stepped and Large Stone Structures. As I noted earlier, we now also have monumental architecture known from the City of David in the 10th century BC. Wdford summarizes scholarship like this regarding the dating: "This interpretation is rejected by various credible experts." In reality, this is a totally misleading summary of the scholarship. The ONLY scholar to argue against the 10th century BC dating, after the excavations were complete, is ... drumroll please .. Israel Finkelstein. In 2007, before the second season of excavations were complete or published, a group of 4 Tel Aviv scholars, Finkelstein and 3 of his friends, wrote a paper to redate the structure. Once the 2nd season was published, both Amihai Mazar and Avraham Faust wrote a paper concluding that the 2007 paper was completely wrong. Since then, ONLY Finkelstein has published another rejoinder (in 2011). Faust again responded to him in 2012, and the final excavation report from 2015 rejected Finkelstein's interpretation as well as it doesn't accord with the evidence. And that summarizes Wdford's points. As you can see, there is an obvious pattern when it comes to this Low Chronology stuff. Almost ALL of it is being fuelled by a never-ending stream of publications by Israel Finkelstein, and ONLY Finkelstein regarding almost all of the points of debate. When other authors argue or agree with Finkelstein, they're ALMOST ALL his colleagues at Tel Aviv University. This includes Ze'ev Herzog, H.M. Niemann, Eli Piasetzky, Alexander Fantalkin, and so forth. Almost the whole theory of the Low Chronology/rejection of the United Monarchy is being kept alive by Finkelstein and his closely knit circle of friends at Tel Aviv. I can't recall the name of a single scholar at any university in Israel outside of Tel Aviv that has argued for the Low Chronology, although there are likely a few exceptions here and there (e.g. I can't find any university affiliations of Neil Silberman). This is minority stuff, most scholars conclude that there was plenty of monumental architecture in the 10th century BC. Countless scholars reject Finkelstein's views. Editshmedt (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)WP:SOCK edits stricken
Six rugby fields
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. ISBN978-0-446-54525-9. 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.{{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help) I.e. roughly the size of six rugby fields. Computation: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=6+*+%28117+meter+*+68+meter%29+to+acresTgeorgescu (talk) 08:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
:Coogan is simply repeating a point from Finkelstein's 2001 book - that Jerusalem was "barely a city". This has been refuted in the most recent scholarship. After quoting Finkelstein & Silberman 2001, Kalimi writes;
"This conclusion is highly dubious, illegitimately dismissing both the present impossibility of archaeologically confirming or denying the nature of Solomon’s building projects on the Temple Mount, and underestimating the evidence of tenth-century occupation and building activities in the City of David. These matters have already been discussed in Chapter Two, §II, and need not be repeated here, but it should at least be noted that Finkelstein and Silberman’s assertion that we lack “even simple pottery sherds” from the tenth century, is simply untrue. As Jane Cahill emphasizes, tenth-century pottery has been found in Stratum 14 of the City of David, a stratum that includes the remains of several buildings both inside and outside the fortification wall. Thus, while the archaeological investigations to date cannot yet confirm its full extent, the tenth-century city does appear to have been occupied, with notable building activity in the City of David, which – barring the present inaccessibility of excavation at the Temple Mount – is all that the biblical texts themselves affirm." (Isaac Kalimi, Writing and Rewriting the Story of Solomon in Ancient Israel, Cambridge University Press, 2019, pg. 78)
For another scholarly publication arguing in favour of the historicity of the United Monarchy, with an emphasis on Samaria, see Keimer 2020]. Also, in Kalimi's book above, Kalimi extensively rejects the minimalist/revitionist work by Finkelstein et al to reject a United Monarchy on pp. 19-93. So there you go, yet another load of scholarly publications rejecting the minority minimalist interpretation and affirming a United Monarchy in both Judah and Israel.Editshmedt (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)WP:SOCK edits stricken
It seems like your strategy is to fill this talk page with wall of texts and rapid-fire edit the article without actually discussing any of your edits beforehand. I don't think that is a collaborative strategy. There are editors here other than you who are interested in this page.
I don't agree with most of your latest edits and I will revert them. I believe that the section in question should deal with the historicity of David and present the scholarly consensus. It should not enumerate studies that you personally interpret as lending credence to the biblical version of David. ImTheIP (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
ImTheIP (talk·contribs) Did you even look at the most recent edits I made? They had literally nothing to do with anything we're talking about. They were issues of grammar, relocating a sentence that was in the wrong section, adding a citation for something Wiki claimed that was uncited. Your "walls of text" comment is irrelevant - I was responding to walls of text. Your claim that those studies supporting the position I'm noting is some sort of personal interpretation is, frankly, amazing. Reread the Dever quote above. It's got bolding in it.Editshmedt (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Actually, Coogan wrote a scathing review of Finkelstein's book, saying "Finkelstein and Silberman move from the hypothetical to the improbable to the absurd", so Coogan hardly is in Finkelstein's camp.
in my 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 quite small but he probably gained a lot of political power and somehow succeeded to control the entire country in a time when there was a gap there was a kind of a vacuum political vacuum in this country there was no Egyptian Empire anymore the Canaanites were very poor and probably he took advantage of this situation
— Amihai Mazar, YouTube transcript
You also conflate Finkelstein with Yadin. The person who redated the "Solomonic" stables was Yadin, not Finkelstein. Finkelstein just took note of the redating. "The so-called stables of Solomon at Megiddo have been redated to Ahab's" Bromiley, G.W. (1979). The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. pp. 278–279. ISBN978-0-8028-3781-3. Retrieved 2 January 2021.
This is certainly a "one against many" situation, and at the same time, conversation has been disastrous. A fringe noticeboard claim was opened, got shut down, as was an incident board which got opened up, shut down, but not without a ban on me for personal insults. I also have never seen such an extensive talk page. Something needs to be fixed here.
The Solomonic stables are certainly 9th century. Every archaeologist agrees on that. I was not referring to the stables when I cited Yadin, Dever, Wolff, Ortiz, and Ben-Tor. I was talking primarily about the monumental six-chambered gates as Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer, along some other things. So we have no disagreements on either of these points. Coogan gave a very bad review of Finkelstein? Well, wouldn't that make Finkelstein contentious? Whoever came up with "Jerusalem was barely a city", I note that Cahill and Kalimi strongly disagree, as quoted. I agree with A. Mazar that Jerusalem was a small, but mighty citadel in David's time that could act as an administrative center for the United Monarchy. Let's try to calm down and take a better approach here. Sorry for insulting you earlier, Tgeorg.Editshmedt (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
There is no miracle of reinterpretation: each scholar using the term United Monarchy has to say what he/she means by it and what's the evidence for it. Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy) is not the same as the "United Monarchy of Jerusalem and some Canaanite villages from Shephelah".
And every Levantine archaeologist seems to understand that without new, spectacular evidence, Finkelstein will win the game by default. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so we won't know what will be found in the future. Finkelstein's fate will be decided then, not now, as Wdford explained with an example of Johnson and Macron. What Finkelstein has done is spreading organized skepticism all over the field of Levantine archaeology. And, of course, scientists and historians love that. Only positive evidence will demolish Finkelstein's POV.
I mean: even if in the end he is proven wrong, he was still right in spreading organized skepticism over the field, since that's what science is about. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
The miracle of reinterpretation continues. When scholars refer to a United Monarchy, they're referring to both a sizable monarchy uniting tribes deep into both the north and south. I also hope you're kidding when you say "every Levantine archaeologist seemes to understand that without new, spectacular evidence, Finkelstein will win the game by default". Almost all scholars have rejected Finkelstein's revisionism. Dever considers Finkelstein fully debunked. Don't believe me? Dever wrote this in 2020:
“The chronological correlations seem sound. But in the mid-1990s, an Israeli archaeologist, Israel Finkelstein, began to advocate for an idiosyncratic “low chronology,” which would lower conventional dates by almost a century. His supposed evidence consisted of (1) the fact that Philistine bichrome pottery does not appear at Lachish in the twelfth century BCE, as elsewhere, so that pottery must be later; (2) the pottery conventionally dated to the tenth century BCE could also be dated to the ninth century BCE; (3) radiocarbon dates of various samples turn out to be as much as a century later; (4) the ashlar, chisel-dressed masonry of Samaria must be ninth century BCE, since the Bible shows that the site was founded only in the days of Omri. Consequently, the similar masonry of the gates at Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer must be down-dated to the ninth century, as with all other related sites. None of these arguments holds water, even though Finkelstein and his admirers have tirelessly promoted the scheme.
(1) Philistine pottery does not occur at Lachish in the twelfth century BCE simply because the Philistines never penetrated inland that far.
(2) The pottery conventionally dated to the tenth century can indeed continue to the ninth century BCE. We have long known that. But so what? The fact that it can be later does not mean that it must be.
(3) Some relevant radiocarbon dates do fall in the tenth century BCE; but they are few, and many others confirm the conventional “high date.” In any case, carbon-14 dates are notoriously difficult to interpret; and even in the best case, they cannot come closer than about fifty years, so they cannot solve the problem themselves.
(4) The appearance of ashlar masonry is no criterion. Such masonry is well attested from the fourteenth century BCE to the Hellenistic era.
Finkelstein’s low chronology, never followed by a majority of mainstream scholars, is a house of cards. Yet it is the only reason for attributing our copious tenth-century-BCE archaeological evidence of a united monarchy to the ninth century BCE. Finkelstein himself seems to have doubts. Originally, he insisted that no Judean state emerged until the eighth century BCE. Then it was the ninth century BCE. Eventually he posited a tenth-century-BCE “Saulide polity” with its “hub” at Gibeon—not Jerusalem, and not Solomon, only his predecessor! But there is absolutely no archaeological evidence for such an imaginary kingdom. Finkelstein’s radical scenario is clever, but not convincing. It should be ignored. The reigns of Saul, David, and Solomon are reasonably well attested.” (W.G. Dever, Has Archaeology Buried the Bible? 2020, Eerdmans.)
Is THAT something that should go on this Wikipedia page? That Dever thinks Finkelstein's low chronology should be "forgotten"? What do you think, Oh Wise Tgeorg? After all, it's WP:RS, mainstream, and written by one of Finkelstein's main and most prominent critics, who also happens to be a major contemporary archaeologist. So why not? Can we at least have a consensus, among editors, to simply write that Finkelstein's views are contentious, the refusal of which started this whole thing??Editshmedt (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Dever is not WP:RS for Finkelstein; neither is Finkelstein WP:RS for Dever; the two have a long feud.
Dever is at the conservative end of mainstream Levantine archaeology.
What Finkelstein did is sow doubt, so doubt wins the game by default. Only positive information can vanquish doubt.
You already recongized that the whole Tel Aviv faculty sides with Finkelstein. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
It appears as if Tgeorg has taken a full blown approach of misrepresenting Wikipedia's policies and rejecting all duties as a Wikipedia editor to make Wikipedia reflect the scholarship in order to prevent any criticism of Saint Finkelstein. I'm jaw dropped speechless at the things this guy is willing to say. Dever, one of the most reputable contemporary Israeli archaeologists, is unreliable for doing nothing more than questioning Finkelstein. This also makes him a conservative. Finkelstein's theory is built on dozens of assumptions, not doubt, that he outlines at length across all his work (almost all of which have been rejected by mainstream scholarship) but Tgeorg imaginatively pretends all that away. And these countless assumptions, which, to Tgeorg, is the same thing as doubt, have been fully answered by dozens of papers and evidence. The last point is just a misrepresentation. I said almost all Finkelstein's support comes from his closely knit circle of friends at Tel Aviv, but not that all of Tel Aviv supports Finkelstein. Erez Ben-Yosef similarly rejects Finkelstein's work. ImTheIP (talk·contribs) Do you have anything to say about what Tgeorg just said, especially point 1?
Answer the question. Are you going to admit that Finkelstein's views are contentious in scholarship or not?Editshmedt (talk) 03:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Common sense says that what Dever and Finkelstein tell about each other cannot be trusted, due to their long-standing feud.
Dispute resolution won't do any good. The feedback you've gotten so far is the exact same kind of feedback that you would get in Wikipedia's dispute resolution systems. To simplify it somewhat, Wikipedia reflects the kind of scholarship that you find at leading secular universities, such as those mentioned at WP:CHOPSY: the kinds of things you would find taught at Cambridge, Harvard, Princeton, the Sorbonne, and/or Yale. If a view is considered fringe in those kinds of circles, you can bet that it will be considered fringe at Wikipedia. Now, that may not seem fair, especially if you believe the CHOPSY outlook is wrong. But that is the way Wikipedia has been since its inception, and it would be very unlikely if you could talk the Wikipedia community out of the approach that they've used since the beginning. As William Dever put it in "What Remains of the House that Albright Built?', "the overwhelming scholarly consensus today is that Moses is a mythical figure." That's from William Dever, who is on the conservative side of much of the debate currently going on within mainstream biblical studies. The great majority of mainstream scholars have abandoned the idea of Moses as a historical figure. Alephb (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
The miracle of reinterpretation strikes again. Tgeorg has miraculously reinterpreted WP:RS to say "if X scholar engages in scholarly, peer-reviewed dispute with another scholar, they are unreliable". Alephb's quote is irrelevant because it's unreliable and not supported by evidence. And the whole argument is also a concoction - being on the conservative side of professional scholarship means nothing to this. Alephb (talk·contribs) since Tgeorg quoted you, what do you have to say about Tgeorg's claim that Dever is an unreliable source for disagreeing with Finkelstein because Dever has long rejected his views in peer-reviewed, professional scholarship?Editshmedt (talk) 04:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
This is from the O in WP:CHOPSY: 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. ISBN978-0-19-997846-5. 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.
This is from C: Whitelam, Keith W. (28 July 1998). Barton, John (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to Biblical Interpretation. Cambridge University Press. p. 42. ISBN978-0-521-48593-7. The publication of surveys of the region has allowed the study of settlement history, demography, economy, social relations and political organization in ways that were previously not possible. The same type of investigation is gradually being extended to subsequent periods of the Iron Age, freeing the study of the region from the stranglehold of biblical historiography. The period of the united monarchy is experiencing a fundamental reassessment. Previous attempts to apply anthropological findings on state formation to the rise of the monarchy remained too closely wedded to the biblical traditions,18 whereas recent studies have concluded that there is little evidence to support the assumption that a major state structure existed in the region prior to the eighth century BCE. Such a radical shift effectively removes what had been considered one of the most influential periods in the history of the region, the monarchies of David and Solomon, as the social and political location for the development of the biblical traditions.
In the past there was often an indecent haste to correlate archaeological findings with the biblical traditions, to identify a destruction level with some battle mentioned in the Bible, or to associate the fortification of a site with the building programme of some Judaean or Israelite king who is given a few verses in the Deuteronomistic history. Socio-environmental factors and the fluctuations in economic cycles have been ignored in favour of the seemingly easy option of accepting, or supplementing, the construction of the past offered by writers of the Hebrew Bible. The publication of archaeological surveys and data from excavations, allied to the literary readings of biblical texts, has contributed to an important shift in the investigation of the social world.
This is from H:
Modern Bible scholarship/scholars (MBS) assumes that: • The Bible is a collection of books like any others: created and put together by normal (i.e. fallible) human beings; • The Bible is often inconsistent because it derives from sources (written and oral) that do not always agree; individual biblical books grow over time, are multilayered; • The Bible is to be interpreted in its context: ✦ Individual biblical books take shape in historical contexts; the Bible is a document of its time; ✦ Biblical verses are to be interpreted in context; ✦ The "original" or contextual meaning is to be prized above all others; • The Bible is an ideologically-driven text (collection of texts). It is not "objective" or neutral about any of the topics that it treats. Its historical books are not "historical" in our sense. ✦ "hermeneutics of suspicion"; ✦ Consequently MBS often reject the alleged "facts" of the Bible (e.g. was Abraham a real person? Did the Israelites leave Egypt in a mighty Exodus? Was Solomon the king of a mighty empire?); ✦ MBS do not assess its moral or theological truth claims, and if they do, they do so from a humanist perspective; ★ The Bible contains many ideas/laws that we moderns find offensive; • The authority of the Bible is for MBS a historical artifact; it does derive from any ontological status as the revealed word of God;
— Beardsley Ruml, Shaye J.D. Cohen's Lecture Notes: INTRO TO THE HEBREW BIBLE @ Harvard (BAS website) (78 pages)
Quotes 1 and 2 are part of a minority, quote 3 doesn't support your claim. Not a single one of the three quotes are from archaeologists. Bibliography below. Now why don't you ANSWER what I wrote?
Here is O again, does not even mention Finkelstein, and it was apparently a done deal before his 1996 paper: J. W. Rogerson; Judith M. Lieu (16 March 2006). The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies. OUP Oxford. p. 269. ISBN978-0-19-925425-5. Today the situation is quite different. While the question of where a history of Israel should begin would be answered in terms closer to Noth than to Bright (without accepting Noth's theory that Israel was a tribal confederacy with shared sacred traditions), the burning question has become whether it is possible to proceed by following the biblical outline. The main reason for this is that recent archaeological work has indicated that the kingdoms of Israel,Moab, Ammon, and Edom did not become established until the ninth century bce, with Judah following suit a century later (Bienkowski 1992). These indications have put a question mark against the biblical account of the 'united monarchy' of Saul, David, and Solomon, not to mention the biblical account of a Davidic-Solomonic empire. This, in turn, has suggested that the beginning date for a history of Israel should be moved back to the time of the Israelite king Omri (c.880 bce), or that the reign of Hezekiah, king of Judah (c.727–698 bce) should be seen as the period during which the biblical tradition began to be composed. Both kings are mentioned in Assyrian sources. [...] There is a simple way out of this dilemma, and that is to accept that the purpose of the biblical narratives is to inform us about the religion of ancient Israel and not about its history—history as understood in a modern sense. This would be to treat the history-like narratives of the Old Testament in the same way that scholars now handle narratives that contain Israelite beliefs about the physical structure of the universe, or the geographical distribution in the world of the peoples with whom Israel came into contact or about whom they had traditions (e.g. in Genesis 10). Whereas it was once accepted that Genesis 1 and 10 provided reliable physical and geographical material about the origin of the world and the distribution of its inhabitants, discoveries from the sixteenth century onwards made it clear that this information could not be preferred to the discoveries of astronomers and of naval explorers. It was, after all, Calvin who said of Genesis 1: 'he who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere' (Calvin 1965: 79).
Minority in your own imagination. You cannot WP:Verify that Oxford and Cambridge are "minorities". Harvard: "Consequently MBS often reject the alleged "facts" of the Bible (e.g. ... Was Solomon the king of a mighty empire?);". And I just added another O after you have replied. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Simplistic error. Oxford and Cambridge have no official opinion on the question. None of the scholars you quote are archaeologists. Dever is absolutely clear: Finkelstein's Low Chronology, which is the "only basis" on which the United Monarchy can be denied, is in the "minority". See the bibliography below that shows that, quoting 16 archaeologists who reject Finkelstein's "house of cards" per Dever.Editshmedt (talk) 05:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Finkelstein isn't even mentioned. Bienkowski is. Four years before Finkelstein's paper it was already a done deal. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Dever: the rejection of the United Monarchy is a "minority" Editshmedt (talk) 05:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Again, C, H, and O from WP:CHOPSY do not agree. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
WP:CHOPSY says that if something is unworthy of being taught at one of the C, H, O, P, S, Y unis, it's unworthy of being on Wiki. The bibliography provided below shows that these universities well affirm publications destroying Finkelstein's work and/or affirming the United Monarchy. Dever calls this denial a "minority". So you lose.Editshmedt (talk) 05:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
You invoke a lecturer from Macquarie University against full professors from Cambridge, Harvard, and Oxford. And that poor lecturer does not even WP:Verify the claim about David, he verifies a claim about Solomon. Applying it to David is pure WP:SYNTH. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Complete misrepresentation. Those works were published by one of those universities - that doesn't make them professors at those universities. Your citation to Beardsley Ruml is irrelevant. He died in 1960, completely outdated. Not only that, but you cite his LECTURE NOTES. Not even something published. Another of your citations goes to Oded Lipschits, a professor at Tel Aviv. (See the fact that Finkelstein's support is almost always from his close knit set circle). Your other citation goes to Keith Whitelam, who is just a lecturer at the University of Stirling. The only professor you cite from any of the CHOPSY universities is Judith Lieu, and she has no expertise in archaeology. She's clearly completely reliant on Finkelstein. So your citation list collapses. In the bibliography I provide below, I provide the names of 24 professional archaeologists, many of them publishing in CHOPSY presses and journals, that are on my side. Michael Coogan, BTW, is a Professor at Harvard.Editshmedt (talk) 05:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Those are the editors of the books you're citing, not the authors of what you quoted. So this is all irrelevant. Also, Ruhl's lecture notes were published in a free Bible course. Is that your argument? Ultimately, you've been taken down. Of the 24 professional archaeologists cited below, many are profs at CHOPSY universities and published with their presses and journals. Dever calls it a "minority". The CHOPSY universities allow minority views to be published sometimes, but that doesn't change the facts.Editshmedt (talk) 06:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Again, Dever is not a WP:RS thereupon, since he has a huge axe to grind against Finkelstein.
The lecture notes have been written by prof. Cohen. Those weren't written by Ruml.
You still did not WP:Verify the claim that David ruled over Samaria. You tried something about Solomon, but Solomon wasn't David.
Advice:
Stop claiming that Finkelstein is a minimalist; he isn't.
Disentangle the question of the existence of the United Monarchy from Finkelstein. The low chronology and the existence of the United Monarchy are different matters. According to Bienkowski 1992, the non-existence of the United Monarchy was already a done deal, four years before Finkelstein published his paper. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Finkelstein is a "revisionist" per reliable sources (Kalimi, Writing and Rewriting, Cambridge 2019, pp. 19-93). Dever is a WP:RS. Lecture notes aren't a reliable source, especially when they're over half a century outdated. CHOPSY sources amply support what I've noted. The question of the existence of the United Monarchy cannot be disentangled from Finkelstein, because it is the universal assesment of scholarship that, given the evidence we have today, as Dever notes, you can only deny the "copious archaeological evidence" for a United Monarchy by believing Finkelstein's Low Chronology. All other assessments must accept a United Monarchy. Bienkowsky is not cited by literally any archaeologist. He is an independent scholar, which shows no university will employ him. He is irrelevant to the debate. Editshmedt (talk) 06:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Bienkowski was once a professor of archaeology, and since then was involved in advising and managing museums; there are other cultural and educative institutions beside universities. The lecture notes are not from 50 years ago, they are from a live Harvard course from Fall 2013. Namely they are the sheets used for visual presentation during the lectures. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Bienkowsky is literally never cited by anyone on this discussion. I've read several systematic reviews and whole books and his name doesn't even come up. He is irrelevant. Decades old lecture notes don't help you.Editshmedt (talk) 06:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Seven years aren't decades. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
The fact that the lecture notes were reused as lecture notes more recently in one place one time doesn't change the fact that they're decades old.Editshmedt (talk) 07:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
How do you know they are decades old? Are you a mind reader? Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
One of the authors died in 1960.Editshmedt (talk) 07:26, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Tgeorgescu (talk·contribs) Decided to take a closer look at the work of Bienkowski, since it's inconceivable that he could articulate such a view and yet be mentioned in none of the reviews. In fact, you totally misrepresented both Bienkowski and the quote you gave. Bienkowski says NOTHING regarding the United Monarchy or state formation in 10th century Israel. What Bienkowski did was argue that a centralized authority arose in the Kingdom of Edom only in the 8th centuries and afterwards. What's more, this thesis of Bienkowski's 1992 work on the topic is now obsolete after the findings and excavations of Thomas Levy et al published in 2004. Scholars now place the rise of a centralized authority in Edom in the 11th/10th centuries BC. Or perhaps the 10th? One of the two, can't quite remember at the moment. So Bienkowski has no relevance to any opposition of a United Monarchy, and constitutes not an iota of evidence for an archaeological debate surrounding the United Monarchy prior to Finkelstein.Editshmedt (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Seen Wikipedia:Commentary on the United Monarchy debate, this resembles more and more persecution mania against Finkelstein. Your line is Dever c.s. stomped over Finkelstein c.s. because... so say Dever c.s. I can assure you that such victory exists only in Dever's imagination. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Page already rewritten on my userpage with all the demeaning language towards Finkelstein excised. This setback is only temporary, and sorry Tgeorg, but the facts catch up. Doesn't the Bienkowski situation worry you? You're literally on a hair-trigger to believe anything, without any verification whatsoever, as long as you think it can be used to back up what you believe. Based on a completely misread half quote, you made the sweeping conclusion that the debate surrounding the United Monarchy was "done" before Finkelstein wrote a paper on it.Editshmedt (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Oh, you wont like this. It looks like not only Levy et al, but Finkelstein himself has written published papers specifically in response to and rejecting Bienkowski's work. See two of his papers he wrote in 1992 here and here. As for Finkelstein's low chronology, again, looks like you're in more trouble. Thomas Levy & Mohammad Najjar write: "The debate over a 'high' and 'low' chronology for the Iron Age of the southern Levant is certainly far from over (Levy and Higham et al. 2005). However, in Finkelstein's critique, he seems to be trying to force our data into his preconceived 'low' chronological model. Granted, the most recent Iron Age radiocarbon dates(n =27) for KEN processed at the Groningen laboratory may not have been available at the time that Finkelstein's TelAviv comment went to press (Higham et at. 2005; Levy et al. 2005b); however, there is a disturbing trend in Finkelstein's recent work to ignore data or simply force it into his model." This quote is from this paper, pp. 3-4. Ouch. Editshmedt (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Wait, ImTheIP (talk·contribs), why did you say my edit was not about David? It is the whole basis on which Finkelstein & Silberman propose their views, and specifically the grounds on which they reject the United Monarchy, and specifically on the grounds that they propose David was more of a chief than a king. Can you re-evaluate that consideration? I do agree it belongs on those other pages.Editshmedt (talk) 09:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)WP:SOCK edits stricken
Verification demanded
@Editshmedt: You need to WP:Verify, here and now, the claim that David ruled over Samaria. Do that with a verbatim quote, not with an appeal to what you have privately learned from archaeological papers. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
:Every single reference to a United Monarchy includes the Kingdom of Israel/Samaria. If you really need it to be spelled out for you, since you really want to come up with anything to avoid the scholarship:
"Despite peaceful relations between Tyre and the so-called United Monarchy of Israel— according to the biblical texts—the archaeology shows a certain pragmatism in the type of settlements constructed and their location, particularly on the part of the Israelites. The distribution of the fortified sites in the Iron IIA appears to reflect a geopolitical situation as portrayed in the biblical texts in which Israel is the main power contending with Tyre. This is the time when the early Israelite monarchy is still attempting to consolidate its territory and it reflects the fragmentation in power in the region. In the tenth and possibly early part of the ninth century in the Galilee, a line of fortresses separated Tyrian and Israelite territory." Kyle Keimer, “The historical geography of 1 Kings 9:11-14”, Palestinian Exploration Quarterly (2020), pp. 196.
Here, Keimer claims that in the 10th century BC, the archaeology reflects a border between Israel ALL THE WAY UP IN THE NORTH WITH TYRE. Tyre is literally at the northern border of the Kingdom of Israel/Samaria. Keimer goes on:
"The geography of the Galilee certainly made invasion from the northwest challenging. If we allow for a United Monarchy, under a historic Solomon, to control this region—and there is no evidence that precludes such a reality (see Keimer forthcoming)—then Solomon recognized that despite cordial relations with Hiram, it was prudent to secure his northern border, particularly in light of the Tyrian necessity for expansion into agriculturally productive lands. If Hiram were to gain access to greater agriculturally productive land, then Solomon, who provided Hiram with foodstuffs (1 Kgs 5:25), would lose his bargaining/trading chip, so to speak. Solomon took steps to exert Israelite control and prevent Tyrian expansion into such lands in the Galilee by erecting fortresses along the routes connecting Tyrian and Israelite territories (cf. Ben-Ami 2009)." (pg. 197)
Keimer goes on to argue that this is all true in the rest of the paper. You lose.Editshmedt (talk) 05:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)WP:SOCK edits stricken
OK, I take this as an admission that you cannot verify the claim. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Is this a troll? I quote Keimer saying that the border of Israel in the 10th century BC goes up past the entirety of the Kingdom of Israel/Samaria, all the way up to Tyre, and you take this as confirmation that I didn't verify that Samaria is included?Editshmedt (talk) 05:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Did I say David or did I say Solomon? Anyway, Keimer is not a full professor, what does he know? Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Alright, so this is a troll. So, can we now clarify in the page that Finkelstein is contentious?Editshmedt (talk) 05:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
The idea that Solomon was the one to expand the kingdom is WP:FRINGE. See Keimer, Writing and Rewriting the Story of Solomon in Ancient Israel, Cambridge University Press, 2019, pp. 19-93.Editshmedt (talk) 06:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I do not claim that you would be wrong; you see, that isn't even necessary for my point: you indulge in pure synthesis of published material. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
This is what you call "deliberate exploitation of ambiguous language". You are exploiting the fact that Keimer does not mention David by name, even though it is self-evident, per the universal assessment of scholarship that, as Keimer obviously believes, Solomon inherited the kingdom and did not expand it. This is what you're reduced to in your onslaught to deny the obvious.Editshmedt (talk) 06:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Friend, I did not formulate either WP:V or WP:OR, but they equally apply to all Wikipedia editors. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
You've completely lost. The Kingdom of Israel/Samaria is by definition included in the word "United Monarchy". And that word is used hundreds of times in the sources noted. Can you cite a single reliable source which has a view of the United Monarchy that does not include the Kingdom of Israel/Samaria, even though it is included by definition? If not, what you're suggesting is WP:FRINGE and irrelevant.Editshmedt (talk) 06:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
You either verify the claim or not; the proof is in the pudding. The WP:BURDEN is upon your shoulders to show that always United Monarchy means the same thing. WP:1AM comes again to my mind in this respect: there were three editors who told you that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Your confusion is weird, but can be corrected by simply looking at the following Wiki page: Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy) - there the definition of the term is clear. "The United Monarchy (Hebrew: הממלכה המאוחדת) is the name given to the Israelite[a] kingdom of Israel and Judah" - consequently, your claim is WP:FRINGE and is unacceptable.Editshmedt (talk) 06:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Dever writes: "The best evidence for the extension of Judahite rule into the north in the tenth century (the biblical notion of a united monarchy) is probably the four-entryway gates and casemate city walls at Hazor and Megiddo, which all agree are nearly identical to the same constructions in Gezer VIII." So Dever defines a "united monarchy" as Judahite state ruling the north. Also, Faust's 2020 paper doens't just say "united monarchy". It says "biblical United Monarchy". So he's referring to the biblical description of the United Monarchy. Checkmate. Again. This is completely WP:FRINGE. Editshmedt (talk) 07:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
You are in a position of WP:1AM, not me. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Neither Wdford nor ImTheIP have said that the "United" Monarchy can be defined without a "United" Israel and Judah, so this is 1v1, not 3v1. Also, thanks for admitting you lost. The United Monarchy cannot be defined without Samaria, per scholarly sources.Editshmedt (talk) 07:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
No? Let me just refresh my memory:
This long text is self-contracitory. shows that the Philistine polity began to rapidly decline around the middle of the 10th century BC, just as the United Monarchy was growing and gaining power That is around 950 BCE for those keeping track. Faust affirms the United Monarchy, and of course, scholarship discusses no one who would have ruled over a United Monarchy besides David. This is your inference. David is supposed to have ruled from 1010 BCE to 970 BCE. He died some 20 years before, according to you, "the United Monarchy was growing and gaining power". You also seem to lack any source claiming that David ruled over the entirety of Samaria. Which means that this discussion is, at best, about semantics. This is not the United Monarchy you are looking for. ImTheIP (talk) 05:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Mazar thus proposes that the United Monarchy can be described as a state in an early stage of evolution, far from the rich and widely expanding state as was subsequently portrayed in the biblical narrative. Wdford (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Wdford literally never denies that David ruled over the north there. Are your glasses on? He just says that it was in an early stage of complexity. This is a really sad attempt to support yourself. So Wdford said nothing of the sort, ImTheIP made a WP:FRINGE claim, you began parroting it without a second thought, and this is supposed to somehow make your WP:FRINGE opinion any better? What a mess. I think I'll leave you to your imagination.Editshmedt (talk) 10:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
You were verbally insulted - yes. But the rest of the people you try to extend the claim of verbal insult goes to show, once again, the ways you'd like to sort of stretch things to suit you. WP:FRINGE. I think you're forgetting the "United" part of the word "United Monarchy", which is what makes this WP:FRINGE suggestion so bizarre. Do you know what "United" refers to, Tgeorg? I also wouldn't try to get moralistic. You abandoned all Wikipedia's principles in order to ensure that criticism of Finkelstein stays at an absolute minimum, despite the dozens of scholars that have rejected his views. For you, Wikipedia is a platform to spread what you believe, rather than what scholars conclude from the evide.ce Editshmedt (talk) 10:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Your screeds of victory and claims of fringe are equally vacuous. Evidence isn't on your side, you should have known better. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
What happened to those cries against insults? "Screeds"? Whoops! In the end, you abandoned both reality and your own (alleged) morals.Editshmedt (talk) 10:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
If there was evidence of David ruling over Samaria, we wouldn't have this discussion. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Dever writes, concerning evidence of David's rule into Samaria: "The best evidence for the extension of Judahite rule into the north in the tenth century (the biblical notion of a united monarchy) is probably the four-entryway gates and casemate city walls at Hazor and Megiddo, which all agree are nearly identical to the same constructions in Gezer VIII." (Dever, Beyond the Texts: An Archaeological Portrait of Ancient Israel and Judah, SBL Press, 2017, pg. 349) - and throughout this book, Dever couldn't make it possibly more clear that he's talking about David, literally tens of times. So how's that for evidence? How's that for an unequivocal scholarly source saying exactly what you wished, all along, that there wasn't? In this one quote, Dever both defines the United Monarchy as to refute your wishfulness and cites unequivocal evidence for Davidic rule in Samaria. Dever's book also goes into extreme depth, refuting virtually every detail of Finkelstein's work. Finkelstein's a good scholar, but he's not on the level of Mazar, Faust, or Dever. And the evidence reflects that. But please, go on and tell me how Mazar, Faust, and Dever are all evangelical creationists which clearly explain these words of theirs. You're not very far off from that suggestion.Editshmedt (talk) 10:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
You have to plead certainty; I only have to plead that it is owing to doubt. Make an educated guess about which position scholars do prefer. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
This sounds a little like a creationist telling me that they just "doubt" that there's enough evidence for evolution and I have to be "certain", and thus concluding, because all they're doing is really doubting, that biologists would clearly favour their position - and also that evidence is irrelevant. Bye.Editshmedt (talk) 10:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Or, in this case: Dever wins only if his claim is certain; if it owes to doubt, Finkelstein wins. As I said before: all chronologies of Ancient Israel are unfalsifiable, so there no royal way out of doubt. Finkelstein could be majority, minority, but he definitely isn't WP:FRINGE. If you say he is fringe, you lose by default. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Another sweep of errors and misrepresentations. Please stop trying, this conversation is over. Finkelstein's position relies on discredited assumptions, not doubt, no matter how hard you want it to be otherwise.Editshmedt (talk) 10:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Again, you're in a position of WP:1AM. A bit of soul-searching would be indicated to find out why. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Your friends abandoned you a while back. That also wasn't grammatically correct.Editshmedt (talk) 11:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
You have no WP:CONSENSUS for your edits. Please gain consensus for your edits.
Finkelstein's a good scholar, but he's not on the level of Mazar, Faust, or Dever. is just POV, not WP:V. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
You two are really flinging it here. I was trying to get past the "he-said-she-said" debate, by looking at actual evidence. However it seems that some editors prefer to play ping-pong with rival references. This is further complicated by Editshmedt's insistence that all evidence and all scholars and all editors that contradict him/her are "irrelevant". This cabal of irrelevant persons seemingly includes the entire expert faculty of the Tel Aviv University.
The discussion refers strongly to "monumental architecture" discovered at Megiddo, Hazor, and Gezer – being primarily the "Solomonic" six-chambered gates. These gatehouse structures were actually about the size of a tennis court. If that is "monumental" in the context of the United Monarchy, then a dynasty of petty war-lords does seem to be the best description after all.
Apart from the time period, there is zero evidence actually linking this architecture to the claimed United Monarchy, or giving any indication of the size or importance of the United Monarchy.
On the other hand, the "monumental architecture" of the "mighty citadel" at Jerusalem was about the size of a rugby field. However, compared to REAL monumental architecture, such as the Temple of Karnak, this once again indicates a very minor Monarchy indeed.
To put this into perspective, the entire population of the Kingdom of Judah at its zenith (20,000 souls, including women and children,) would all fit comfortably into the Arthur Ashe Tennis Stadium in New York City, with plenty of extra space for the goats. That would qualify them as a "reasonably good crowd", but not as a kingdom, far less a regional power.
In the article "Why Lachish Matters", by Philip J. King [1], the author states that "Among cities in ancient Judah, Lachish was second only to Jerusalem in importance", and that it was "A principal Canaanite and, later, Israelite site." Deeper in the article the author notes that Level VI at Lachish, which was about 33km from Ashkelon, and which was destroyed at around 1130 BCE, seemed to be a prosperous Canaanite city under heavy Egyptian influence. There also seems to be agreement that during Level IV, dating to about 900 BCE, it was a strongly fortified, royal Judahite city with two "massive" city walls and a "massive" six-chamber gate. However during the intervening Level V, dating to the hypothetical United Monarchy, little is known about Lachish except that it was unfortified. This once again sounds like the United Monarchy period was a period of minor war-lords doing minor stuff.
Some scholars argue that the Israelites were simply Canaanites themselves, probably pastoral nomads who were driven to take up farming by the Late Bronze Age collapse of the Canaanite city-culture, and who then developed into a distinct culture. That would once again gel nicely with the FACT that the “Governor’s Residency” at Tel ‘Eton showed so many indications of Canaanite origin and influence.
I laugh at the suggestion that parts of the Tel Dan inscription are rock solid archaeological evidence (namely the lines that support Editshmedt's POV), but that other lines thereof are "obviously completely numerological" and thus are "historically worthless". Editshmedt quotes King Ahab's "seventy sons" as an example of this, but we know that Ramasses the Great had at least 100 known children, thus probably quite a few more, so it's not completely unlikely that a king with 20-30 wives and concubines could have had 70 sons or more. According to the Bible, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines, so 1000 women or so (ie about 20% of the entire adult female population of his great kingdom). That would easily result in 3000-4000 off-spring, of whom about half would have been sons. Why should we therefore assume that the Tel Dan author was being poetic about the number of "petty chiefs" he stomped on?
Egypt was certainly in decline at this time by their own high standards, but that doesn't mean they were living in caves and eating insects – the land was split, but still ruthlessly governed. This was the time of Smendes and Shoshenq, who ruled at least as far as Tel Megiddo (home of a six-chambered gate) and reportedly stomped on the Israelites at least once in the process. If Solomon was important enough to enjoy a diplomatic marriage to an Egyptian princess, at this or any other time, somebody would have noticed. Also we have many other Iron Age kingdoms to refer to, and NONE OF THEM record a United Monarchy of any scale.
Dever seemingly states that "The reigns of Saul, David, and Solomon are reasonably well attested." In fact, there seems to be zero evidence of any of the three, other than a disputed reference to a "House of David" in an inscription by a minor king who stomped on it and on 69 other petty kinglets.
Before: Some scholars have concluded that this was likely compiled from contemporary records of the 11th and 10th centuries BCE, but that there is no clear historical basis for determining the exact date of compilation. Your version: ... but it is not unambiguous as to when the compilation was complete. I don't see how your phrasing is an improvement.
Before: Other scholars believe that the Books of Samuel were substantially composed during the time of King Josiah at the end of the 7th century BCE Your version: Some of these scholars ... Who are "some of these scholars"?
Before: A number of scholars consider the David story to be a heroic tale Your version: Some scholars consider ... You are "playing with the quantifiers" to get your preferred point of view through. But the citing is fairly elaborate here and directly verifies the "a number of scholar" quantifier.
Before: Biblical evidence indicates that David's Judah was something less than a full-fledged monarchy: it often calls him negid, meaning "prince" or "chief", rather than melek, meaning "king" Your version: Finkelstein & Silberman argue that the biblical evidence indicates that David's Judah ... But the source isn't Finkelstein & Silberman but Moore & Kelle. They furthermore claim that their interpretation is universally accepted: "Since the 1980s, historians have commonly reached the conclusion that the biblical accounts of Saul and David suppose a type of government that is something less than a full-fledged monarchy."
Your version: Isaac Kalimi has also challenged Finkelstein & Silberman's characterization of Jerusalem as sparsely inhabited ... Can you provide an exact quote? Because I can't see how the source corroborates the claim.
As I wrote before, I very much object to the way you have setup the section as a polemic between two camps. Intentionally or unintentially, it muddies the waters and misleads the reader. There is a wide agreement that the historical David, if he existed, was a very different ruler from the biblical David. That is not disputed. ImTheIP (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
The phat length of this comment is primarily due to really long quotations from the literature. Despite disagreeing with the two of you, it's a breath of fresh air to get past the Tgeorgian denialism of claims like "the United Monarchy may not include Israel" or "William Dever is not a reliable source because he disagrees with Finkelstein". Wdford, you once again only seem more concerned in your comments with proving your particular point of view rather than working on how to make this page reflect the scholarly views. You also misread my comment. The minority of scholars on Finkelstein's side are by no means irrelevant. It's just an observation that the whole of the Low Chronology is pushed for almost entirely by a never ending stream of publications by Finkelstein and his closely knit circle at Tel Aviv. Usually, when a certain viewpoint is that local in its acceptance, that tends to indicate it is ideological. Simply as a point of observation, if one were to concede what you say about the architecture at Megiddo, Hazor, and Gezer, that wouldn't do anything for the position that there is no United Monarchy. It may simply be that this was the level of state complexity in the United Monarchy at the time. Nevertheless, I think your attempt to reduce the complexity of architecture down to the ground surface area is severely flawed. Khirbet Qeiyafa is barely larger than two rugby fields, but required over 200,000 tons of stone to construct. I don't see how your criticism can survive in the face of such a fact. Note the complexity that, for example, Ortiz & Wolff describe the Iron IIA six-chambered gate at Gezer: "The gate was well-built according to the built-up method as defined by Ussishkin (1990), in which the foundations are built first and then filled, creating a podium upon which the city gate was built. It was constructed of large hewn limestone boulders with ashlar masonry at the entrance. The gate contains six chambers, or guardrooms, facing each other, three on each side. The gate has two towers attached to its outer face, with a casemate wall constructed with the gate complex. Each chamber contained plastered benches, and a large stone basin was in the first northern chamber. A plastered downspout drain was at the rear corner of the gate. A well-designed water drainage system was installed shortly after the construction. The floor surface was raised and a central water channel 1 m in depth was cut running down the center of the street. This was covered with slabs. This gate was destroyed at the end of the tenth century and rebuilt as a four-chambered gate in the ninth century and used into the eighth century. The gate was reused in the Hellenistic period." Source here. No matter how hard one tries, this is monumental architecture and could never have been constructed in the absence of a centralized state and significant architectural complexity. Thus, it is aptly labelled as monumental architecture. [EDIT: Do note that there are further examples of monumental architecture at these three sites - the six-chambered gates are one although a significant example. For example, consider Palace 1723 and Palace 6000 at Megiddo.] The claim that there is zero evidence linking it to the United Monarchy is without merit. Every single lead excavator at the three sites, with the sole exception of Finkelstein, links it to the United Monarchy in the 10th century. Finkelstein only avoids this association by downdating the structures with his Low Chronology, which does not have widespread acceptance.
The point about Lachish is outdated. Your source is from 2005. More recent excavations have shown a transformation of the site during the 10th century BC. The next point is population. Wdford says the population of Judah at the time was 20,000, but that estimate is baseless. Kalimi writes "Lehmann concludes that in Iron Age IIA approximately 2,880–5,760 people lived in Jerusalem and its northern environs, 5,055–10,110 people lived in the Judean highlands south of Jerusalem, and 14,250–28,500 lived in the Shephelah (most of whom were concentrated in the Philistine cites of Gath and Ekron)" (Writing and Rewriting, Cambridge University Press, 2019, pg. 84). If you do the math, that's somewhere between 22,000 people and 45,000 people, per this estimate. On pg. 85, Kalimi cites another estimate places the whole population of the North and South at 100,000-120,000, which is far more than enough. Note that these numbers are based on surveys, which do not take into account sites/evidence lost to time (or nomadic individuals), and thus Kalimi notes that these estimates are a minimum. However, let's take, at face value, the 20,000 number you give for Judah. This is still completely misleading, as Kalimi beautifully summarizes on pg. 86:
"Further, even if, for sake of argument, one accepts all of Lehmann’s estimates, it cannot be assumed that such a population, united by a charismatic leader such as David, would be incapable of military conquests, particularly if Judah’s military forces were combined with those of the northern Israelite tribes. After all, the biblical texts never claim that David and Solomon ruled the Levant with the men of Judah alone; they affirm that David and Solomon had the allegiance of both the southern and northern tribes under one banner. This certainly did not result from David and the Judahites conquering the northern tribes, but instead from the latter peacefully accepting David as a king over them (2 Sam 5:1–3; see also 3:17–27), supporting his rule, and fighting with him. Even the minimalists admit that the northern tribes boasted a significantly higher population than Judah at that time, so any conclusions regarding the size of David’s empire based on estimates for the population of Judah alone – no matter how low – are irrelevant and misleading. If David and Solomon did win the allegiance of the northern tribes, then not only would they already have controlled much of the southern Levant, but they would also have had the manpower to exert considerable pressure on all the hostile neighboring kingdoms, as the biblical texts describe. Therefore, the key question relevant to the plausibility of David and Solomon’s empire is not how many people lived in the southern Judean highlands, but whether the biblical accounts of northern allegiance to David and Solomon are plausible."
Wdford, your points about the Tel Dan Inscription are best left unrepeated. Ramses "100 children" are also obvious state propaganda, and scholars have known for a long time that Solomon's 700 wives / 300 concubines is completely typological and also historically worthless. They reflect the 7:3 ratio typology, which is completely fictional. For example, Job is said to have had 7 sons and 3 daughters, 7,000 sheep and 3,000 camels. Solomon probably had a harem, but these numbers are all total fiction. In general, numbers from the ancient world are total and utter fiction. Amazing how Ahab had EXACTLY 70 sons, a nie round number, the person who authorized the Tel Dan Inscription defeated EXACTLY 70 other kings, also the exact same nice round number, and also amazing how it just so happens to play on the numerology of 7 - it's not 30, 40, 60, or 80, but 70. Using this as evidence is unacceptable.
Since you continue repeating your point about Egypt, I'll simply quote the lengthy refutations of this point in the scholarship. Finkelstein & Silberman write: “the absence of outside references to David and Solomon in ancient inscriptions is completely understandable, since the era in which they were believed to have ruled (c. 1005–c. 930 BCE) was a period in which the great empires of Egypt and Mesopotamia were in decline" (The Bible Unearthed, pp. 128-9). Nadav Na'aman writes: "Detailed accounts of first millennium intra-state events appear for the first time in the ninth century BCE. All Syro-Palestinian inscriptions of the tenth century refer to local affairs and shed no light on international affairs. Even if David and Solomon accomplished the deeds attributed to them in the Bible, no source would have mentioned their names. The silence of tenthcentury sources neither proves nor disproves the biblical account of the United Monarchy" (“Sources and Composition in the History of David,” in Fritz & Davies (eds.), The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States pp. 170–186). I can give more, but the point is well established and need not be further discussed. You also misunderstand Dever's point completely. He is referring to archaeological, not epigraphic evidence. If you think he's wrong, take it up with his publications. By referring to the House of David reference as "disputed", which it is not to any serious scholar, you give away your biases. The denial of Lemche and Thompson of the "House of David" has been ridiculed among scholars as minimalist nonsense.Editshmedt (talk) 07:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
ImTheIP, don't strawman me, that I'm somehow saying that the David of history is perfectly identical to the David of the Bible. The conversation is about whether David had a state in the 10th century BC with the support of the northern and southern Israelite tribes (i.e. a United Monarchy). If you think setting up the page as a dichotomy between two positions is misleading, you should take it up with the scholarship, because that's exactly how it is in scholarship. As for your points, (1) I removed the "no historical basis" text as it is incorrect (2) I don't think you understood the nature of this edit - see the edit summary (3) So writing "Some scholars" instead of "A number of scholars" is meant to get my point of view across? I have no idea what you mean by that (4) My bad, assumed it was Finkelstein & Silberman. (5) Above I quoted Kalimi saying that Jerusalem was a city at the time of David with "notable building activity". Kalimi does this in precise contrast to those who claim that Jerusalem was "barely" a city, more like a village (pp. 77-81). I haven't checked but I'm sure these pages are available on Google Books.Editshmedt (talk) 07:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
As I told you, Friend, not only you have landed in WP:1AM territory, you also landed in WP:IDHT territory. You have no WP:CONSENSUS for your edits. The only editor which you have convinced here is you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I doubt anyone, including Wdford or ImTheIP, would indulge in wishful thinking like "Dever isn't reliable because he disagrees with Saint Finkelstein". Therefore, WP:1AM is your own concoction. You have the support of no one. If you paid any attention to the comments by other editors, you'll find that it's been you who has parroted whatever someone else said when it prevents criticism of Saint Finkelstein, but neither Wdford nor ImTheIP have actually parroted what you wrote. I don't expect to gain consensus from you, someone who denies basic definitions concerning 'United Monarchy', which I have helpfully refuted by referring you to resources on your talk page.Editshmedt (talk) 07:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Here is a 2019 paper on the subject of Tel Lachish, authored by Garfinkel et al. [1] This paper is presumably neither irrelevant nor out of date. It is a long paper, so I am quoting a handful of sentences to support my point.
{Quotes}
INTRODUCTION:
Despite the great efforts invested in the construction of a chronology for the southern Levant, many of the early events in the history of the Kingdom of Judah are still dated by hypothetical historical considerations.
Some progress has been made toward an agreed chronology for the northern kingdom of Israel, however, it is still not the case for the southern kingdom of Judah.
Nearly 250 years separate the earliest and the latest proposed dates. In addition, some scholars have assumed that Level V was a small village rather than a fortified city. In order to solve this controversy a new field project conducted by us at Lachish in the years 2013–2017 uncovered a previously unknown city wall, assigned to Level V.
DISCUSSION
In the very late 11th and early 10th century BCE, under King David, Judah was a small territory in Jerusalem and the hill country, with the western Shephelah region being marked by Khirbet Qeiyafa and Khirbet al-Ra’i. This first stage, however, collapsed after a few decades, as indicated by the destruction of Khirbet Qeiyafa and Khirbet al-Ra’i at around 1020–970 BCE.
We assume that around 930 BCE a second expansion phase took place under King Rehoboam, in more or less the same territory as in the earlier phase. The fortified city of Level V was built at Lachish to replace Khirbet al-Ra’i.
{end quotes}
Ergo, per the latest scholarship, the minor fortifications of Level V at Tel Lachish were the work of Rehoboam post the "United Monarchy". The "United Monarchy" itself was a "small territory" which "collapsed after a few decades". QED. Wdford (talk) 11:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
The silence indicates you concede all previous points. This paper is just as misrepresented as the earlier paper - and you admit you misrepresent it. You preface your discussion of the paper by saying you quote a "handful" of sentences to "support" [READ: prove] what you wrote. So you went into reading the paper trying to find something to prove your case, instead of simply reading the paper and let it explain itself. So, for example, you quote the fact that the paper discusses that there are many varying views regarding the chronology of Israel. What you don't mention is that this paper presents itself as containing new evidence that the lower end of those chronologies are wrong, and that the chronology more in line with a significant kingdom in Judah in the early 10th century BC is right. That is a significant omission. And then there's a second major omission: you mention that the authors say that Judah was a small territory in late 11th and early 10th century BC. What you do not mention is that the authors then propose two expansion phases. The first in David's time that transformed Judah from being teeny tiny into a more significant polity. This phase ended when a number of sites were destroyed. The second expansion phase happened at say 930 BC to replace previously destroyed sites. In fact, this is the very last sentence in the entire paper: "Our results are consistent with an earlier kingdom, which was already in existence two centuries earlier, in the early 10th century BCE." You quoted the authors saying that Judah was small in the late 11th and early 10th century BC. What you did not mention is that they then say that in the early 10th century BC, i.e. the time of David, Judah is significantly transformed into a real kingdom. There are a couple of other misrepresentations. You describe the fortifications at Stratum V at Lachish as "minor" - the word minor never appears in the paper. The whole point of it, in fact, is that Lachish was transformed from a "small village" into a serious "fortified city" per the authors. Furthermore, the authors specifically site the transformation of Lachish in 930 BC as an event to replace the destruction of an earlier serious fortified city built under the Kingdom of Judah, i.e. Khirbet al-R'ai. In other words, the paper says the opposite of what you say the paper says.Editshmedt (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
My "silence" indicates no such thing. I concede nothing, I admit nothing, and I have misrepresented nothing. I actually quoted the paper directly, from the introduction and the conclusion. I did not scratch around in the "data" looking for a factoid to cherry-pick – I leave that to you.
Nowhere in this paper does Garfinkel state that there was a "significant kingdom in Judah in the early 10th century BC". Garfinkel certainly does mention "an earlier kingdom, which was already in existence two centuries earlier, in the early 10th century BCE". However he clearly states that in the early 10th century BCE, "under King David, Judah was a small territory in Jerusalem and the hill country", and that this first stage "collapsed after a few decades". This does not sound like a major kingdom or a powerful dynasty, but it obviously depends on your definition of a "kingdom".
Garfinkel clearly states that the Level V fortifications – which are a lot smaller than the Canaanite fortifications before and the 9th century fortifications after, belonged to "a second expansion phase" which was done by King Rehoboam post 930 BCE, so the United Monarchy did not produce even this minor effort. It is exactly to account for this glaring physical evidence that the Tel Aviv experts think the United Monarchy (if it existed as such) might have existed post 930 BCE.
Nowhere does Garfinkel et al say that Khirbet al-R'ai was a "serious fortified city" built by David or the United Monarchy, merely that there was a Judean site there during the Iron Age, which was destroyed at around 1020–970 BCE. Please also note this 2019 paper – also by Garfinkel: [2] Garfinkel here states in the paper's Abstract re Khirbet al-Ra'i, that: In the early 10th century it was a small village.
In other words, Garfinkel is saying the opposite of what you are saying.
All your quotes are completely out of context and I gave in-context quotes to correct you. You, for example, mention Garfinkel's notes of a 250-year range of chronologies, but do not mention that he supports the "high chronology". Garfinkel says small - not for the early 10th century BC, but late 11th or early 10th. Then, an expansion phase takes place in the early 10th century BC to form a "kingdom" in Judah. This isn't some sort of secret. The claim that the Davidic kingdom couldn't have been meaningful because a couple sites were destroyed is WP:OR and logically questionable. You once again call the Lachish fortifications "minor" - though that can't be backed by the paper (and so is WP:OR), and you overlook the fact that the Lachish fortification is posited as a replacement of an earlier fortification in the first expansion phase, and therefore is not something all that superior or new to what existed prior. Therefore, it is before 930 BC, and even a 930 BC point is incompatible with Finkelstein who tries to put it over half a century after 930 BC. Finally, if you think that the Lachish fortifications are smaller than prior Canaanite fortifications, you're clearly being selective in which Canaanite fortifications you're talking about. Certainly not any from the 12th-10th centuries BC. I don't see why you wouldn't concede prior points as you were not right about those, as I showed in excruciating detail from the literature. Your citation to that last paper once again ignores the fact that a transformation happens at that site, contemporary with the first expansion phase in the early 10th century BC, to form a fortified city out of a small village - linked to the rise of the Davidic kingdom. Garfinkel's work has been arguing for a serious kingdom in Judah ever since his excavations at Khirbet Qeiyafa, so I do not see how you can insist on this.Editshmedt (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Not so at all – my quotes were taken directly from the paper, fully in context. It is you who are trying to synthesize support for your POV. Garfinkel clearly and unambiguously concludes that in the early 10th century BCE, "under King David, Judah was a small territory in Jerusalem and the hill country", and that this first stage "collapsed after a few decades". The Biblical United Monarchy lasted for generations, whereas the Davidic kingdom of Garfinkel's excavations lasted only a few decades before being crushed. NOT THE SAME.
Garfinkel clearly states that the Level V fortifications at Lachish belonged to "a second expansion phase" which was done by King Rehoboam post 930 BCE, so not the work of the postulated United Monarchy. You cannot therefore validly claim that "Therefore, it is before 930 BC".
Garfinkel describes the Middle Bronze MB IIB ruins as "massive fortification". These were Canaanite structures.
Garfinkel states in his own paper that that in the early 10th century BCE, "under King David, Judah was a small territory in Jerusalem and the hill country". The "serious kingdom in Judah" only happened later – depending again on the definition of a "serious kingdom".
And this all comes from Garfinkel, who is indeed a supporter of the United Monarchy theory. Other scholars are even less supportive. Please, get with the scholarship here. Wdford (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Totally and utterly quote-mined. You quote-mine me as well, claiming that I said Lachish Stratum V is "before 930 BC", when I was clearly referring to the fortification that Lachish Stratum V was replacing as described on pg. 15.
You blatantly quote-mine Garfinkel et al. by claiming that they said that the small Judah collapsed after a few decades. But what collapsed wasn't Judah, what collapsed was the first expansion phase. Furthermore, it's hard to see if one can take any meaningful relevance out of Garfinkel et al.'s statement that Judah was "small". Garfinkel et al. say this because Judah had not yet expanded into the Beersheba Valley (pg. 16). My question: Who cares? How does that support you? Last time I checked, the word "small" didn't mean "underdeveloped, sparsely inhabited". Last time I checked, Garfinkel et al. are still saying that David constructed sites like Khirbet Qeiyafa, which had a major public buildings, double walls, a centralized administration, and needed 200,000 tons of stone to construct. I really am confused here. What in this paper supports you?Editshmedt (talk) 04:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
As one would say, QED.Editshmedt (talk) 04:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Also forgot this: that Garfinkel says Lachish in the late Middle Bronze Age, i.e. three quarters of a millennium before the 10th century BC, was a "massive fortification" is of no relevance. Pg. 4, what you're relying on, describes it as a nothing-burger starting from the 15th century onwards. As I said - your claim that Canaanite Lachish was more significant is utterly selective, ignoring 90% of its Canaanite history.Editshmedt (talk) 06:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)WP:SOCK edits stricken
^Lachish Fortifications and State Formation in the Biblical Kingdom of Judah in Light of Radiometric Datings; by Garfinkel et al; April 2019; Radiocarbon 61(03):1-18; DOI: 10.1017/RDC.2019.5, at [(PDF) Lachish Fortifications and State Formation in the Biblical Kingdom of Judah in Light of Radiometric Datings (researchgate.net)]
^Khirbet al-Ra'i in the Judean Shephelah; the 2015-2019 excavation seasons; by Garfinkel et al; Department of Ancient History, at [Khirbet al-Ra'i in the Judean Shephelah: the 2015-2019 excavation seasons — Macquarie University (mq.edu.au)]
