Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:32, 2 February 2021

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the David article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the David article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Royalty and Nobility This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Bible Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity: Saints Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Saints (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Judaism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Islam Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Jewish history High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ancient Near East Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ancient Near East–related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Middle East / Classical This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD)

This page is not a forum for general discussion about David. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about David at the Reference desk.

Template:WP1.0

The contents of the King David's wives page were merged into David. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Second or third

There's been some back and forth editing on if David is the second or third king. Anyone want to talk about it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

The first is Saul, the second is Ish-bosheth. David usurps the throne after the assassination of Ish-bosheth. What more is there to discuss? Dimadick (talk) 22:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

That's how I count it too, and yet edits like pops up. Do they have any scholarly basis (or at least narrative)? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

According to the Hebrew Bible, Ishboshet was never the "king of the Unified Kingdoms of Israel and Judah". David was acclaimed king of Judah, after that Ishboshet was declared king of Israel, then he was killed and David became king of the Unified Kingdom. David is the second king according to the Hebrew Bible, the Hebrew Encyclopedia, , etc. Sources added to the article. 2A01:CB09:B04B:815F:50D5:9E4:977B:2260 (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Britannica and JE does say second king. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, it says "second king of ancient Israel." That's the first sentence of the lead, so I think we can go with that in our article as well. Sir Joseph 22:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

We can, but I'm still interested if there's RS that takes a different view. Currently, Ish-bosheth is also the second king, this is not ideal. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Dimadick, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, and Sir Joseph: Looking at the sources that the IP added in the infobox to support the ideal that David was the second king of Israel is highly questionable. Starting with the oldest source, the Jewish Encyclopedia is dated to 1901-1906 and is therefore outdated, and the Britannica source is an overview of David's life according to J. Coert Rylaarsdam. It does not provide any scholarly thoughts on the matter or any other thoughts on scholarly disputes. The beginning even states that David flourished 1000 BC, but the site does not provide any evidence to support that date. The rest of the article is based on the primary source via the Bible, but the author of the page didn't even have the decency to provide Biblical chapters and verses to confirm any of the content, pure laziness. The Bible has different scenarios as to how David became king. Looking at the Biblical chapters/verses, David did not become king of Israel after Saul's death. He was anointed king only by the tribe of Judah. He ruled Judah in Hebron. His reign of Judah was seven years and six months before becoming king of Israel, and it shouldn't be difficult to figure out who ruled everything else while David was king of Judah. Primary source: 2 Samuel Ch. 2:2 - 11. Jerm (talk) 04:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

So, the answer is to find better scholarly sources and see what they say. Without them, the current ones "win" IMO, being not glaringly bad. Also, for a ping to work you must have ping-template and WP:SIGN in the same saved edit, they can't be added separately (WP:PINGFIX). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Also also, I think calling JE "outdated" in this particlular context is making things too simple, this isn't medical science. Here is one RSN discussion on JE: Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_196#Are_jewishencyclopedia.com_(the_Jewish_Encyclopedia)_and_newadvent.org_WP:Reliable_sources?. It's from 2015, though, there may be newer ones. Perhaps it could be added to WP:RSP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång I've restored Ish-bosheth back as predecessor, and added academic sources for support. Jerm (talk) 03:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Did you notice that the ref you inserted seems to contradict " third king of the United Monarchy of Israel and Judah"? As I read it, it agrees with IP 2A01's comment above. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:23, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

You must be referring as to how David became king with the help of Abner, but before Abner betrayed Ish-bosheth, Abner made Ish-bosheth king which would make Ish-bosheth David’s predecessor. The source also states “Ish-bosheth, Saul’s successor”. Jerm (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Jerm, apologies! I got my refs mixed up, and I was talking about the current ref #3 : King David at first ruled his own tribe of Judah only ... Eshbaal was crowned king of Israel. That contradicts "third king of the United Monarchy of Israel and Judah". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

No, the reference was correct, by Avner Falk. Ignoring how they became king, Ish-bosheth was first declared king and if you continue in the same page under “David, King of Israel”, the author refers Ish-bosheth as Saul’s successor. Jerm (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

We'll see if other editors have an opinion on the sources brought up so far. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

That’s an obscure reply. It’s like you purposely ignored my previous response so that other editors can intervene. For what though? Whatever the case may be, I do not like your reply because you didn’t confirm anything that I had previously said. Doesn’t matter now though, I provided two academic sources that support Ish-bosheth was the second King of Israel. Jerm (talk) 07:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

• Current lead "is described in the Hebrew Bible as the third king of the United Monarchy of Israel and Judah", my emphasis.
• Current body "David is anointed king over Judah. In the north, Saul's son Ish-Bosheth is anointed king of Israel, and war ensues until Ish-Bosheth is murdered. With the death of Saul's son, the elders of Israel come to Hebron and David is anointed king over all of Israel.", my emphasis.

IMO, there's still contradiction here. It seems there are decent sources that doesn't consider Ish-Bosheth king of the United Monarchy of Israel and Judah (making David the 2nd such, while still being IB's successor for the Israel part, I'm reminded of James VI and I). You think otherwise, that's fine and WP-respectable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

You still haven’t elaborated on anything. The sources state that Ish-Bosheth reigned after Saul. I’ve even guided you to where ref#3 states it, but you still haven’t confirmed a thing. Do I have to upload a screenshot? Jerm (talk) 10:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

No, we seem to have reached a dead end. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree, it seems you don’t want to confirm anything I said, but it’s most likely you purposely don’t want to confirm that Ish-Bosheth was David’s predecessor. Jerm (talk) 10:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, David was declared king of Israel by the tribe of Judah only, not the Kingdom of Judah which did not exist until Solomon died. Being declared king by one tribe didn’t mean he suddenly became the next king. If that were the case, David would’ve been reigning over Israel rather than just the tribe of Judah alone and the conflict between him and Ish-Bosheth would’ve never been present in the Bible. Also, the “United Monarchy of Israel and Judah“ is more of a coined term we use on Misplaced Pages to distinguish the Kingdom of Israel first ruled by Saul from the Northern Kingdom of Israel first ruled by Jeroboam I but that did not exist until after Solomon had died hence why the Bible is no longer considered a reliable source when it comes to academic arguments per WP:RSPSCRIPTURE because Wiki editors had always inserted their own OR according to their own interpretations of the Bible like content such as 'United Monarchy of Israel and Judah”. And like you said above, David was declared king over Judah and Ish-Bosheth over Israel which supports 2 Samuel Ch. 2:2 - 11 that David ruled only over Judah for seven years before finally becoming king of Israel after Ish-bosheth died making David the third king of Israel by the representatives (elders) of the other tribes. Jerm (talk) 14:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

It is like debating how many angels can fit of the top of a needle. It seems highly likely that a Davidic-Solomonic United Monarchy never existed, so it is much ado for nothing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#WP:RSPSCRIPTURE

Discussion about to what extent "Biblical account" sections (and similar) needs secondary sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Triplestein?

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)

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. 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. ISBN 978-0-567-67044-1. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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: Misplaced Pages isn't bleeding edge, it is conservatively mainstream academic.

The two camps of Levantine chronologies: "The Truth About Solomon's Temple" Israel Finkelstein on YouTube, minute 27. We would say Finkelstein's camp is twice or thrice the size of Dever's camp, with half Amihai Mazar in both camps. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

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. ISBN 978-3-11-022358-3. 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:CITE WP: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)

"Misplaced Pages is behind the ball – that is we don't lead, we follow – 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 ), 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)

Sorry, a YouTube video isn't a reliable source! A paper published in the Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research is a reliable source. You were fully refuted with that quote by Hatz & Faust.Editshmedt (talk) 03:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

In general YouTube videos are not WP:RS, agreed. However, a DVD published by https://iishj.org/colloquium/colloquium-2005/ is a WP:RS and you're not entitled to dissent in this respect. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:28, 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/

Proceedings published at https://secure.aidcvt.com/sbl/ProdDetails.asp?ID=061717P&PG=1&Type=BL&PCS=SBL Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

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. 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. 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.”

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.

— Israel Finkelstein, A Great United Monarchy? Archaeological and Historical Perspectives*

The list:

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 Misplaced Pages 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. ISBN 978-0-9645157-0-3. 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 ), 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. ISBN 978-0-19-997846-5. As this essay will show, however, the premonarchic period long ago became a literary description of the mythological roots, the early beginnings of the nation and the way to describe the right of Israel on its land. The archeological evidence also does not support the existence of a united monarchy under David and Solomon as described in the Bible, so the rubric of "united monarchy" is best abandoned, although it remains useful for discussing how the Bible views the Israelite past.

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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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.

Again the same problem: Editshmedt's claim that David ruled over Samaria is not WP:Verifiable in any WP:RS (apologetics WP:CB excepted). Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)?

And here is the ground for my revert: WP:FRANKIE. Namely, you equivocated two very different meanings of United Monarchy: Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy) (consisting of the areas of Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) and Kingdom of Judah) with the polity which Faust metaphorically calls United Monarchy, si duo dicunt idem, non est idem. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

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.

Wdford (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

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)

Copy/paste from A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism. Meaning: the claim that David ruled over the Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy) (consisting of the areas of Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) and Kingdom of Judah) is a fantasy of the faithful and hyperbole of the press. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages - 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. 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)

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. ISBN 978-0-446-54525-9. Retrieved 5 May 2011. Jerusalem was no exception, except that it was barely a city—by our standards, just a village. In David's time, its population was only a few thousand, who lived on about a dozen acres, roughly equal to two blocks in Midtown Manhattan. {{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+acres Tgeorgescu (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)

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. ISBN 978-0-8028-3781-3. Retrieved 2 January 2021.

Last, but not least: WP:1AM. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

1. Dever is not WP:RS for Finkelstein; neither is Finkelstein WP:RS for Dever; the two have a long feud.
2. Dever is at the conservative end of mainstream Levantine archaeology.
3. What Finkelstein did is sow doubt, so doubt wins the game by default. Only positive information can vanquish doubt.
4. 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 Misplaced Pages's policies and rejecting all duties as a Misplaced Pages editor to make Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution systems. To simplify it somewhat, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. Now, that may not seem fair, especially if you believe the CHOPSY outlook is wrong. But that is the way Misplaced Pages has been since its inception, and it would be very unlikely if you could talk the Misplaced Pages 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)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:57, 3 January 2021 (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. ISBN 978-0-19-997846-5. As this essay will show, however, the premonarchic period long ago became a literary description of the mythological roots, the early beginnings of the nation and the way to describe the right of Israel on its land. The archeological evidence also does not support the existence of a united monarchy under David and Solomon as described in the Bible, so the rubric of "united monarchy" is best abandoned, although it remains useful for discussing how the Bible views the Israelite past.

This is from C: Whitelam, Keith W. (28 July 1998). Barton, John (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to Biblical Interpretation. Cambridge University Press. p. 42. ISBN 978-0-521-48593-7. 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, 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)

Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

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. ISBN 978-0-19-925425-5. 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)

About Ruml: “Just say the report of my death has been grossly exaggerated.” The lecture notes have been published at https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/hebrew-bible/free-hebrew-bible-course-with-shaye-cohen/ Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

John W. Rogerson was a full professor. So was Adele Berlin. So is Shaye J. D. Cohen. And John Barton (theologian). And Marc Zvi Brettler. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:07, 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)

Don't be so cocksure about that. WP:FRANKIE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:54, 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

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)

Pure original synthesis, as usual. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:52, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 kingdom of Israel and Judah" - consequently, your claim is WP:FRINGE and is unacceptable.Editshmedt (talk) 06:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

According to WP:CIRCULAR Misplaced Pages isn't WP:RS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:55, 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)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:18, 3 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)

Also the degree of verbal abuse against me, Finkelstein, Bienkowski, and anyone who dared to say that Dever does not have the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, is completely unchristian. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:27, 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 Misplaced Pages'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, Misplaced Pages 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 , 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.

Wdford (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Editshmedt: Here is why I reverted your edits:

• 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. 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)

WP:STICK. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Here is a 2019 paper on the subject of Tel Lachish, authored by Garfinkel et al. 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" 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: 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.

Wdford (talk) 07:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

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)

Short bibliography of publications that have rejected Finkelstein’s Low Chronology and his rejection of the United Monarchy and/or accepted the United Monarchy

EditSchmedit's edits

About your edits that I reverted:

1. Why is the "no historical basis" incorrect?
2. It is possible that I didn't understand the nature of this edit. But it is your job to explain it to me and others who are interested in this article.
3. I guess we are in agreement here.
4. Dito.
5. In other words, Kalimi does not contradict the claim that Jerusalem was "sparsely inhabited."

ImTheIP (talk) 08:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

1. I don't see any reliable source saying that. Can you offer one?

2. I explained it in my edit summary. The "whos who" is irrelevant. The previous version says "other scholars", my version says "some scholars". So both versions have these unnamed scholars AFAIK. The problem was the switch of "Other" to "Some" - which I did because "other" assumes a distinction between the scholars being represented in this sentence with those from the previous sentence. However, the topics are unrelated. It was a simple correction.

5. A "village" is "sparsely inhabited", not a "city" with "notable building activity". Kalimi also says that there's no basis for the population estimates given at the time for Jerusalem - which is impossible to reconcile with someone who claims that it was sparsely inhabited. Imagine how comical this page would look if it read "Jerusalem was a sparsely inhabited village, but was also a city with notable building activity and we don't know what the population was". This is self-contradictory by the rules of grammar.Editshmedt (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I was directly quoting the conclusions of a respected expert, published in a respected journal. You are sounding a little bit shrill now.

To help you with your confusion, I will reiterate the major points which you can't seem to hear:

• Pg 15 of the Garfinkel paper says that "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."
• Per Garfinkel, Lachish was a really important city, second only to Jerusalem;
• Per Garfinkel, the "first expansion phase" which collapsed after a few decades was in fact the United Monarchy;
• Per Garfinkel, under the United Monarchy there was no construction at the really important city of Tel Lachish, it consisted of the ruins of Canaanite structures;
• Per Garfinkel, the "second expansion phase" was started under Rehoboam, not under the United Monarchy;
• Per Garfinkel, the "second expansion phase" was in "around 930 BCE", long after the United Monarchy;
• Per Garfinkel, the Level V construction was undertaken as part of the "second expansion phase" by Rehoboam, not under the United Monarchy;
• Per Garfinkel's other 2019 paper, re Davidic Khirbet al-Ra'i: "In the early 10th century it was a small village."

I see you are now switching attention to Khirbet Qeiyafa. Yigal Levin of the respected Bar-Ilan University (ie NOT Tel Aviv University), published a paper on the subject, where he reports that the ethnic origins of Khirbet Qeiyafa are not yet agreed upon, with many authors still favouring a Canaanite origin. Levin's own view, which is supported by other respected authors too, is that the site was actually not a city, but a "small and short-lived site" and “a short-lived military outpost”. Levin thinks it may have been a camp used by King Saul and the Northern Israelite army.

Garfinkel's olive-pit carbon-dating gave wide date ranges, much wider than the 20-years accorded to this site, and most of the samples tested included dates way later than the United Monarchy. It required a bit of mathematical manipulation for Garfinkel to date it "conclusively" to the United Monarchy period.

Levin states as follows (my highlighting):

"To summarize, Khirbet Qeiyafa is a small, roughly circular site, surrounded by a 700 m wall constructed of “casemates” that are actually the back rooms of the adjoining structures. The center of the site, which is higher than the base of the wall, is virtually empty, except for a large structure of which little remains, due to erosion and damage caused by the Hellenistic-period construction. Other than the well-built gates, the site shows no other features of urbanization. In fact, despite the excavators’ constant reference to the site as a “fortified city” , Adams seems closer to the mark in calling it “a short-lived military outpost”. The Iron Age occupation of the site was brief, around the late 11th to early 10th centuries b.c.e., whether the “twenty years” proposed by the excavators, or slightly longer, as preferred by Dagan (2009), SingerAvitz (2010), and Finkelstein and Piasetzky (2010), or whether one considers it to be “early Iron IIA” or “late Iron I.”

Per the photo's, the "well-built gate" was only a four-chambered gate, NOT the signature six-chambered Solomonic gate.

Garfinkel has now declared himself to hold a "third view", ie that "although the United Monarchy of the biblical tradition did not exist, a kingdom was established in Judah by King David". Few argue with that view-point.

These are recent papers by respected experts. You need to stop bleating about relevance, and accept the reliable sources. Wdford (talk) 10:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

You should have listened to my advice and disentangle the lot of the biblical United Monarchy from Finkelstein's lot. Garfinkel is rejecting both. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Seems like. The article is mostly clear about this. I think the David#Archaeologic_criticism section should be tuned up a little further, but otherwise it is mostly fine as is. The bulk of the argument belongs at the Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy) article, which could use a bit of work. Wdford (talk) 14:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Bait-and-switch argument. With yet more silence, Wdford has given up all his previous points once again, and simply substituted them with another dozen new ones. Wdford thinks that because he can come up with fifty new points every time he responds, this therefore proves I must be wrong about the paper. Somehow. As I showed in my last response, Wdford has now in fact quote-mined me, claimed that Judah collapsed when in fact the first expansion phase collapsed (which is obvious given the fact that all the sites he says got destroyed are all recently built border cities/military outposts), and that the "small" point is irrelevant. I still want to know why it's giantly important to Wdford or how it somehow proves his position that Judah had not yet expanded into the Beersheba Valley. What does this prove?

As I noted earlier, Wdford thinks he automatically wins because he has a thousand new points, therefore I automatically lose. But factual mistakes aren't an argument. (1) Wdford says that I don't realize that the second expansion phase was in the same territory as in the first. When did I ever contradict that claim? More quote-mining to give the illusion of being right over the other. (2) Lachish actually only becomes a really important city, second to Jerusalem, later in the late 9th century (pg. 4) than the period we're describing. So this is simply factually false in the context of the fortification at 930 BC. (3) This is also factually false. The first expansion phase is not the United Monarchy. That isn't even grammatically coherent. The "expansion phase" is the "phase of expansion", i.e. the new fortifications built trying to expand the Kingdom of Judah beyond its previous output. Garfinkel et al. couldn't be more clear about this. They literally spell out the sites they're talking about that got destroyed - Khirbet Qeiyafa and Khirbet al-Ra'i. Are these two cities the United Monarchy? Wdford thinks so. (4) Wdford says that the second expansion phase happens under Rehoboam, as if I've ever contradicted that. Another strawman. (5) Wdford says that 930 BC is "long after" the United Monarchy. Actually, 930 BC is exactly the time that the United Monarchy is supposed to have come to an end. Wdford does not seem to know even the essential dates here. (6) Wdford says that, according to Garfinkel et al., Khirbet el-Ra'i was a "small village". Yet another blatant quote-mine. The phrase "small village", per a word search, only appears on pg. 2 in the context of what scholars have wrongly assumed about Lachish Stratum V. When will Wdford stop quote-mining? (7) The opinion of other scholars is irrelevant - I know fifty times more about the scholarship on the ethnicity of Judah than you do. We're talking about what GARFINKEL thinks right now. Garfinkel thinks that David constructed Khirbet Qeiyafa requiring a massive centralized effort. (8) Wdford is confused about the wall - Since no one is claiming that Khirbet Qeiyafa be identified with the constructions of Solomon in Hazor, Gezer, or Megiddo, Wdford's point that there's a double-wall instead of a six-chambered wall is of no importance. (9) Wdford ends by quoting Garfinkel saying that the United Monarchy of the Bible didn't exist. The problem is, Wdford doesn't mention where this quote comes from, and therefore it is impossible to evaluate what Garfinkel is talking about in-context. We can all know, from experience, that Wdford has quote-mined a half-dozen times now - no reason to blindly believe what he says at this point.Editshmedt (talk) 14:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=%22although+the+United+Monarchy+of+the+biblical+tradition+did+not+exist%22&oq=%22although+the+United+Monarchy+of+the+biblical+tradition+did+not+exist%22 Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Pre-empted you on that one. I saw him cite his 2011 paper, so I went and just finished reading that paper. As Tgeorg said earlier, Garfinkel appears to have an in-betweener position, between those of the Low Chronology and the United Monarchy concerning the extent and nature of Davidic rule. Nevertheless, I'm still quite concerned over Wdford's numerous quote-mines and false representations of the 2019 paper.Editshmedt (talk) 17:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Garfinkel rejects both (i.e. United Monarchy and Low Chronology). According to Garfinkel, the United Monarchy is fantasy. If you keep deforming Garfinkel's view you will lose all credibility and a topic ban would be to the point. Maintaing that Garfinkel defends the United Monarchy is a serious WP:CIR issue, serious enough for issuing a topic ban. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Silence. You've already lost all credibility after our earlier discussions, and your repeated infringements on basic Misplaced Pages policy and abuse of the fringeboard and administrators noticeboard systems, in my view, warrant your own topic ban. Your inability to correctly read the words of those who you hate is also an issue, given the fact that I just said that Garfinkel takes a view between the Low Chronology and United Monarchy. Furthermore, your naive viewpoint leads you to make absurd conclusions like "Garfinkel thinks the United Monarchy is fantasy". In fact, Garfinkel is very clear that he doesn't know which is right and that we cannot be certain about which school of thought we choose with the available data (2011, pg. 28). His in-betweener is a cautious conclusion based on what he thinks that the archaeological data currently indicates. Given your inability to distinguish degrees of confidence in scholarly research, I give the recommendation that you should only edit pages that do not require serious understanding of the literature.Editshmedt (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

For the FIFTH TIME: Garfinkel neither accepts a United Monarchy nor an archaeological situation as posited by Finkelstein. Editshmedt (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Am I missing something? Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

No. Now stop spamming me. I'm trying to study a 2001 paper by Fantalkin and that requires focus. BTW, you should take a look at my page on the United Monarchy debate. No matter how much we disagree, it is an extremely useful page for anyone at the moment. It is, of course, in development.Editshmedt (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs) In 2001, Ayelet Gilboa and Ilan Sharon, who actually accept the Low Chronology, write: "Finkelstein’s low chronology has won some approval, but has failed to convince many" (pg. 1344 in this paper). This once again reiterates that most scholars have not found Finkelstein convincing.Editshmedt (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Forget about Finkelstein, this discussion no longer was about him. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs) Please don't represent Coogan. He thinks that the United Monarchy is a bit exaggerated, but basically historical.Editshmedt (talk) 04:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I see you have now added the accusation of "quote mining" to the accusation of "irrelevance". I'm not sure that this is really positive progress. You seem to be running out of arguments, and so you are sinking into false statements and ad hominem attacks – this is normal, but unprofessional.

The objective of a talk page is to improve the article in question, so as to build the encyclopaedia. The use of language such as "concede" and "win" and "lose" and "checkmate" raises concern about your motives.

My "silence" indicates that I have a real life, not that I "concede" on any point I have made. My points have been repeated several times, although you should note that "victory" does not belong to the editor who shouts the loudest or the most often.

I have never "claimed that Judah collapsed". I have, from the beginning, quoted Garfinkel accurately, who stated that "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." I quoted that accurately in my post of 7 January 2021 at 11:05, and several times since. I also mentioned that Level V was built at Lachish to replace Khirbet al-Ra’I, under King Rehoboam, around 930 BCE as part of a second expansion phase. Your accusation is thus dishonest. Please retract your false statements and apologize.

I never said that you "don't realize that the second expansion phase was in the same territory as in the first". This may have been a pathetic attempt at a strawman diversion, but whichever, it is a dishonest accusation. Please retract your false statements and apologize.

I never said that "930 BC is "long after" the United Monarchy", I said that the "second expansion phase" was long after the United Monarchy. I seriously doubt that Rehoboam rebuilt Solomon's "colossal empire" in his first week in office.

Garfinkel's opinion about the construction Khirbet Qeiyafa is contradicted by other scholars, who all have strong grounds for their own opinions. Their opinions are NOT "irrelevant". Since there is zero actual evidence that David was involved at Khirbet Qeiyafa, this needn't be an issue in this particular article.

I joined this discussion in the first place because I want the article to continue to report that the United Monarchy as per the Bible never existed as such, and that the Israel and Judea of the time were small tribal polities with limited territory, which developed further over the subsequent centuries. Garfinkel is honest about this. Amihai Mazar seems honest about this, although I am not convinced about the assumption that the 'Stepped Structure' and 'Large Stone Structure' should be seen as one large and substantial architectural complex. However the interpretations from the 'Governor’s Residency' at Tel ‘Eton, as per Avraham Faust and Yair Sapir, are serious stretching. It originally seemed from the talk page discussion that a suggestion was being made to change the article to give more prominence to the maximalist hypotheses of Dever etc, but it now seems that the objective of the debate was different. Sorted. Wdford (talk) 14:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Wdford and ImTheIP: there is a thread about this at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Severe reprimand or topic ban. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

About Coogan, it's more complicated, see:

David also seems to have begun the process of transforming his chiefdom into a dynastic monarchy, which, consistent with other Near Eastern models, described itself as divinely chosen. With the establishment of the monarchy came social and religious innovation. The older structures of the decentralized premonarchic confederation were now co-opted by royal institutions. The ark of the covenant was enshrined in the Temple in Jerusalem built by Solomon, providing in effect divine sanction for the monarchy. Priests became royal appointees, and there was a growing movement toward centralization of worship in the capital. Yet this centralized administration formed a kind of overlay, a veneer, on the social systems of the nation as a whole. Individuals still identified themselves as members of a family, clan, and tribe, and disputes between them were usually settled at the local level. Apart from the requirement of paying taxes and providing personnel for royal projects and for the army, life in the villages probably proceeded much as it had for centuries.

— Coogan, op.cit.

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Wdford. Obviously a discussion about the "historical David" can and should be had in the article. But that discussion is about the radius of David's presumptive kingdom - how far north and south did it extend? The biblical description, the empire hypothesis, has been discarded by historians. No historian that I know of has argued that David ruled over Samaria and thus his kingdom cannot have been the biblical United Monarchy. Many of EditSchmedit's edits seem to me to be designed to setup the description as a battle between two sides and then to undermine one of these sides. I object to that because it doesn't present a fair view of the science. ImTheIP (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

My impression is that Editshmedt is WP:MEAT or WP:Advocacy for Dever. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Wdford seems to be extremely upset right now, despite having been unable to prove much. Apparently Wdford has too much going on in his life for these discussions - and so he started an entirely new one instead of finishing the last one. Most likely, this is because there wasn't much to survive from the last conversation after my last critique. Wdford's only real success with Garfinkel is showing that, at least Garfinkel doesn't accept a United Monarchy, but other than that, I don't think Wdford has done a very good job understanding the paper or scholarship to even simple degrees. 'Wdford genuinely thinks that William Dever is a maximalist, proving he hasn't read anything Dever has written and has no understanding of the field to any degree. The basic facts of the Lachish paper are this: Judah becomes a kingdom in the early 1st century. Garfinkel calls it "small" because, apparently, it has not yet expanded into the Beersheba Valley, per his view. The first expansion phase happens with two border cities - Khirbet Qeiyaf and Khirbet el-Ra'i, in the first half of the 10th century or so. Couple decades later, these two recently built border cities are destroyed. Thus, Garfinkel describes a collapse of the first expansion phase. Later, in 930 BC, a second expansion phase takes place, Lachish V being a part of it. This is not long after the United Monarchy - it is actually contemporary with the end of it (roughly 930 BC), something Wdford forgot. Wdford will not be getting apologies - what he refers to as a 'pathetic attempt at a strawman diversion' is actually really just a response to his extremely bad phrasing, summarizing bullet lists of points in an angry way as if he's proving something to me. Being bad at communicating isn't my fault.

The Yigal Levin paper is almost completely irrelevant. There hasn't been a single scholar to take up Levin's idiosyncratic identification of Khirbet Qeiyafa with some Saulide camp. As later scholarship pointed out, the magal is more likely to be a simple military camp rather than some fortified city. I don't think, Wdford, you know the scholarship at all on Qeiyafa. I've seen more scholars accept the Judahite ethnic interpretation than other identifications, and once that's out of the way, the Davidic connection is simply based on the fact that both come around at about the same time. I also don't think you get the scholarship on the stone structures. After the final excavations on it were published, the only scholar I've seen reject the linking between the two structures is Finkelstein. Given this fact, the rejection of the link is more likely than not to be ideological. To both Wdford and ImTheIP (talk · contribs), we've already seen Mazar, Faust, Coogan, Dever, and others accept a United Monarchy - i.e. that the northern and southern tribes were briefly united during the 10th century BC. There's really no getting around that. The "United Monarchy as exactly described in the Bible" did not exist. But the northern and southern tribes are more likely than not to have been united at this time.Editshmedt (talk) 06:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

It's about time to end this conversation. The whole thing has dragged on for long enough. I'm clearly the only one with any relevant understanding of the literature here. Wdford seems to have only read Finkelstein and faithfully accepted all his claims, including that anyone that disagrees with him is a maximalist. He's also extremely agitated right now because he's just not able to convince me of what he says regarding his misunderstandings of Garfinkel and Faust & Sapir's paper. Tgeorg is now just trying to get me banned at all costs for so much as mentioning Dever's name. ImTheIP is the only one who has been respectful. I am currently in the process of performing a systematic review of the literature, all of which is being stored on one of my userpages. Once all that is complete, I will assemble a couple bibliographies and detailed summaries of everything in the scholarship and the conversation will more fruitfully proceed in the future.Editshmedt (talk) 07:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

In fact, I'm perfectly happy with mentioning both Dever and Finkelstein. What I oppose is the premature conclusion that Dever won the game against Finkelstein in respect to the United Monarchy. IMHO, nobody won that game yet. My view is that both scholars are unreliable when speaking of each other, not that only Dever is unreliable in that respect. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Tgeorg, you are EXACTLY right! NO ONE has won the question on the existence of the United Monarchy. Wdford has only read Finkelstein, so of course he automatically assumes, contra the scholarship, that there is no debate. However, it is exactly as you put it: no one has yet won, the debate is still ongoing. In fact, there are numerous publications from the last 3 years alone on the topic. Aren Maeir summarizes it best, perhaps in a way that bursts Wdford's bubble: "The question of the existence of archeological evidence for the 'united monarchy' of David and Solomon is extensively debated in contemporary scholarship. Most scholars in the mid-to-Iate 20th c. CE believed that concrete evidence of the 'united monarchy' could be identified (such as the so-called "Solomonic gates" at Hazor, Gezer and Megiddo); at present, this is a highly contested topic, dependent on complex stratigraphic-chronological issues. Some scholars continue to believe that the united monarchy was a large and prosperous kingdom, mirroring to a large extent the image portrayed in the biblical text; others suggest that there was a kingdom of David and Solomon but of a minor scale; still others question the very existence of this early kingdom and see it instead as a literary creation of the later Judean kingdom, or even post-Iron Age times, after the 6th c. BCE" (Jewish Study Bible 2nd ed., pg. 2126). So, let's get this simple fact straight. There are well over 100 publications on these topics since Finkelstein's 1995 and 1996 papers. Not a single one of us know the literature in full, but we all know that this is an ongoing, hardcore debate with numerous credible scholars on all sides. There is, therefore, nothing more to discuss, until I am done my systematic review of the literature.Editshmedt (talk) 08:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

United Monarchy - i.e. that the northern and southern tribes were briefly united during the 10th century BC. I think you are jumping the gun a bit here! To claim that brief alliances between southern and northern tribes is the United monarchy is like claiming that someone spit in your hamburger because you found a bug in your salad. There were probably well over a dozen rulers, kings, chieftains, warlords, and clan leaders in the hill country in the 10th century. Of course, it is very possible that northern and southern Israeli tribes were at some point allies. Presumably, they were also at times allies with the Canaanite city-states and maybe even with the nomadic tribes in the east. After all these rulers were small potatoes and had to worry about the Egyptians, Assyrians and other empires. ImTheIP (talk) 11:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

And so, with a last few ad-hominem attacks, a parting false-accusation or two, and a final flourish of its' tail-feathers, off it goes to do its' homework. Let's see how long it stays away.

I am happy to add the Aren Maeir quote to the article - it is fairly recent, and gives a decent-ish summary.

The lead also needs to be improved - it is a bit light on the historicity issue. Comments please?

Wdford (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

You can have the last slab of insults if you want it that badly, although the dehumanizing language ("it") was a bit surprising, even for you. If we're going to add in a lead, it should simply reiterate what Maeir says - I don't trust the collective knowledge very much of the present individuals to summarize any other issue. I mean, the historicity section itself is somewhat comical. It starts with Finkelstein & Silberman's 2001 popular book, rather than, you know, scholarship? Or any prior history of scholarship to the Finkelstein debate? And the other side is represented so sparsely as to be beyond words. It doesn't so much as even mention disagreement with the Low Chronology, the basis for Finkelstein's views, or even make it clear enough that Finkelstein is basing everything he says on his Low Chronology. A lot of work needs to go into the Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy) page first, and then, once a solid understanding is present there, we can simply extrapolate the basics to this page.Editshmedt (talk) 15:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The article isn't about the Low Chronology. The article is about David, a legendary biblical figure. The supposed point of the section in question, "Historicity," must be to present a) what evidence exists for this legendary figure and b) the scholarly consensus on what conclusions can be drawn from that evidence. I agree that the section is not very good, but I don't think your edits are improving it. I think the section should resemble the Historicity section in the article about King Arthur. In both cases are we dealing with legendary figures that may or may not have existed and whose deeds may or may not have been greatly exaggerated. ImTheIP (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I guess the bridge between the facts in the scholarship and the understandings of other editors are greater than I thought. No scholar discusses the possibility of David's non-existence anymore. That we are stuck in the mud on that in this talk page indicates something ideological going on. To state that the Low Chronology is off topic to the archaeology section is like saying the Bible is off topic to the literary criticism section. The Low Chronology is the very basis of ALMOST ALL the debate concerning the extent and historicity of the United Monarchy. ImTheIP, didn't I explain this countless times already? There has always been tons of large fortifications and mighty and monumental structures dated to the 10th century BC, which historians have always considered convincing evidence for the United Monarchy. This changes when Finkelstein proposes the Low Chronology in the 1990s, where he claims he can redate literally all of it to the 9th century. The entire acceptance of the United Monarchy pre-Finkelstein was based on the same data that Finkelstein claims that, only according to his Low Chronology, should be placed in the 9th century. The Arthur comparison is quite concocted and has been dismissed by numerous scholars as paltry and unfounded. Isaac Kalimi writes;

"Thompson makes the same claim regarding the United Monarchy, with different parallels: “To compare the Bible’s stories about David with early Iron Age Palestine is like comparing the story of Gilgamesh with Bronze Age Uruk, Achilles with ancient Mycenae or Arthur with early medieval England.” This will not do at all. Thompson and Davies have provided no detailed comparison that could demonstrate that the biblical texts concerning David or Hezekiah reflect a similar genre, a comparable dating relative to the events described, or an equivalent attitude towards their sources, as one finds in Shakespeare or in the myths concerning Gilgamesh, Achilles or King Arthur. Just because it is possible to write myth or historical fiction does not prove that this is what the biblical authors have done. Where is the evidence that the biblical authors were writing this kind of fiction? No such comparisons, nor any detailed arguments at all, are ever brought by Davies, Thompson, or the other minimalists. These anachronistic analogies are simply asserted, without concrete evidence or any real examination of the biblical texts, merely in order to justify the a priori dismissal of the biblical text as history" (Isaac Kalimi, Writing and Rewriting the Story of Solomon in Ancient Israel, Cambridge University Press, 2019, pg. 53)

In other words, the Arthur comparisons are minimalist nonsense unacceptable to mainstream scholarship. And yet, the article states it like it is the position of mainstream scholarship. Notice the logical ditch-hole?Editshmedt (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

And none of the employed chronologies are falsifiable, meaning it's Dever's word against Finkelstein's word. Finklestein was right that the traditional chronology was arrived at by taking the Bible at face value and forcefully fitting archaeological evidence to the stories of the Bible. So, even if Finkelstein isn't right, he made a step in the right direction, namely aligning chronologies to the evidence, instead of forcefully aligning chronologies to the Bible. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

No, chronologies are falsifiable. If you faithfully take Finkelstein's words at face value, then previous chronologies were based on nothing more than the Bible. If you actually read anything other than Finkelstein and his proponents, you'll realize that Finkelstein was, perhaps, not being honest. Finkelstein has one paper where he quotes Yigael Yadin saying that his dating is based on pottery, stratigraphy, and a correlation to 1 Kings 9, and then outright says Yadin was lying and he really only believed it because of the Bible. This is what passes for "rationality" and "reason" on the Low Chronology side of the aisle.Editshmedt (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

To outsiders, the debate about biblical chronology looks like a neverending story, and in such cases, epistemology or—if you prefer—common sense suggest that the question has been wrongly put. Once a wrong path has been set and followed for too long, we are unable to get rid of it, even to realize that the direction is wrong, and even less to identify the correct way. We need a moment of rest and reflection.

— Mario Liverani, The chronology of the biblical fairy-tale

From Liverani, Mario (26 April 2011). Davies, Philip R.; Vikander Edelman, Diana (eds.). The Historian and the Bible: Essays in Honour of Lester L. Grabbe. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 73. ISBN 978-0-567-33352-0. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Not a relevant quote. Why do you think chronologies are unfalsifiable? No archaeologist I've read thinks that. Are you smarter than all of them? There are comments about specific limitations of certain methods (e.g. radiocarbon), but they're not unfalsifiable by any stretch of the imagination. In The Bible Unearthed, Finkelstein said that there was no states in the 10th century BC, it was all low level tribal stuff. Now Finkelstein does think that there was a Judahite state in the 10th century BC, but not to the extent that the United Monarchy posits. Why? Evidence. Here's another way to look at the Low Chronology: does it make sense of all the strata? One big problem with the Low Chronology is that downdating the Iron I period by a century would severely compress lower strata. For example, on the Low Chronology, six strata at Hazor would be compressed to 150 years, or about 25 years each on average - not paralleled at any other site, where the minimum average age of any strata at any site is at least 40 years. Even more extreme, it would require compressing two strata of the strata at Tel Rehov to an within 30 years, or an average of 15 years each. That is highly implausible, even if it doesn't outright prove it's impossible (which can't be done in archaeology for anything). So there are plenty of ways to falsify, or show that this or that model is very implausible or this or that model is plausible. So chronologies are falsifiable. Most archaeologists see that the Low Chronology depends on a ton of highly implausible claims, so they don't adopt it. It's as simple as that.Editshmedt (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The difference is that I don't put all my money on Finkelstein, as you seem to do with Dever. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Wrong again. I know it's a form of wishful thinking that the non-Low Chronology perspective is represented by Dever, but it's not. If there's any "one" representative to it, it's Amihai Mazar. Another big contributor to the discussion is Avraham Faust, and Dever has written less than either of those on this particular debate. There is no one face of the conventional chronology viewpoint because it is represented by a wide number of scholars across numerous publications. On the other hand, and I kid you not, Finkelstein has written more of the Low Chronology papers than every other advocate of the Low Chronology combined. It's a one-man show. Chronologies are certainly falsifiable and most scholars believe that Finkelstein's Low Chronology is falsified enough. IMO, it is better called the 'Finkelstein Chronology' than the 'Low Chronology'.Editshmedt (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey Wdford (talk · contribs), might want to take a look at this paper on top of some of the material I gave you earlier: F.C. Fensham, "The Numeral Seventy in the Old Testament and The Family of Jerubbaal, Arab, Panammuwa and Athirat", PEQ (1977), pp. 113-115. Turns out seventy is a vastly more widespread symbolic/fictional number than I previously imagined, although I could tell it was fiction.Editshmedt (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Summary:

The rejection of the United Monarchy is 100% synonymous with Finkelstein's chronology.

Finkelstein's chronology has been universally falsified.

Therefore: the United Monarchy is now universally accepted.

Oh, wait, that did not happen.

Your POV is that a one-man show is preventing all serious scholars from accepting the United Monarchy. Your reasoning is intricate and to some extent persuasive, but it fails to render the reality. And that is exactly the problem: your ratiocinations bear no resemblance to reality, at least if we speak of your final conclusion. All your learned eloquence has crashed into a big, nasty modus tollens.

And, I don't see how 70 kings being fantasy helps your case, since that would mean that bytdwd is a cock and bull story. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The first couple sentences suggest you haven't been paying attention. Your comment about the 70 is laughable but just what I'd expect from you. What connection is there between Hazael saying "I defeated a crap ton of enemies" and "Jehoram and Ahaziah are part of the Davidic dynasty"? Wdford and ImTheIP have already both expressed sympathies with the fringe nonsense of David not existing. What about you? You also trying really hard to look for something to justify that as well?Editshmedt (talk) 16:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy with the idea that David existed; this being said, empirical (archaeological) evidence for it is rather scant. It is you who called the stele fiction, not me. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

There's a whole damn inscription mentioning David's dynasty that has convinced literally every archaeologist. Your way of thinking is also very odd. I mean, I don't know why I should have to walk you through all of these. 70 really just means "a crap ton" in these texts. So Hazael says "I killed a crap ton of my enemies. I even killed X and Y, who are part of the House of David!" Did I call the inscription fiction? No. Did I say it used a fictional number for the purpose of exaggeration? Absolutely. Did you know that? Probably. Did you pretend you didn't anyways? Seems so.Editshmedt (talk) 07:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

It's very simple: the part you don't like it's fiction, the part you like is not fiction. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Wdford is happy that a David-person existed. Wdford finds most persuasive the view that this David was a minor warlord, not the mighty king of a mighty kingdom, and certainly not the person described in the Biblical texts.

When you write that "Wdford and ImTheIP have already both expressed sympathies with the fringe nonsense of David not existing," you are once again making a false statement about a fellow editor. In your own post of 10:25, 3 January 2021, you stated that "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." That is risky stuff from an editor with your disciplinary record.

If Hazael was saying on the Tel Dan Stele that he defeated a "shipload" of enemy kings, rather than exactly 70 enemy kings, it doesn't change my point – that the House of David was just a very minor player among many very minor players. Since Hazael happened when the Kingdom of Judah was much bigger than was the case during the late 10th century, we can deduce that Judah during the "time of David" was really teeny tiny indeed. This supports the views of Garfinkel et al, namely that "In the very late 11th and early 10th century BCE, under King David, Judah was a small territory in Jerusalem and the hill country." Per Coogan, Jerusalem in David's time was "barely a city – by our standards, just a village", being a few thousand people living on about a dozen acres.

Wdford (talk) 12:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, I said that earlier. But then you said David may not have existed. Am I wrong about that? In any case, it really doesn't help you. I think you missed my point entirely. Hazael is just exaggerating the hell out of his feats. In the same inscription, he claims to have seven kingdoms. Obviously, he had one kingdom. And Hazael is absolutely unambiguous concerning who he actually defeated in the inscription after he's done using his exaggerated, symbolic fiction: "ram son king of Israel, and killed iahu son of g of the House of David". In other words, the following is obvious: the first half of the inscription is historically meaningless, just mighty language: I have seven kingdoms, defeated seventy kings with trillions of horses and chariots! And the second half of the inscription describes what Hazael actually did: I defeated the leaders of the Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah, the latter of whom was a member of the House of David. If you think I'm wrong about this, when it is quite clear, please cite a single archaeologist who would agree with you. This is clearly your own weakly made hypothesis, formulated at a time when you thought that the "seventy kings" was a perfectly historically accurate and literal number.Editshmedt (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

So, maybe they weren't 70, they were 69 or 72, what does this change? Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

You're reaching as hard as you can, but it just wont work. Sorry Tgeorg - the number is not an approximation. It's clear you didn't even read the paper I noted earlier, which is literally only 3 pages long. This reading is WP:OR and contradicts common sense. Nothing in the first part of the inscription can be taken as anything other than mighty language: I left the seven parts of my kingdom and destroyed seventy kings, whom had many thousands of chariots! As the original publishers of the Tel Dan Inscription noted, this former part of the inscription is simply a (symbolic) summary of their exploits. In the latter part of the inscription, as the excavators noted (and as I was able to deduce myself), the actual exploits they performed: Hazael defeated the two leaders of the northern and southern kingdoms. It looks like this WP:OR opinion flat out contradicts the inscription itself, which goes on to specify that there was one king of Israel and one king of Judah. So much for these absurdly funny reaches.Editshmedt (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe there were more kings named: you don't know because you don't have the whole stone. It's a broken piece of rock with some disputed readings. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

So your whole argument relies on conjecture. Got it.Editshmedt (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you are wrong about that. Actually, the whole argument relies on evidence, of which there is only this single shred that indirectly mentions a David-person, and which is so badly damaged that the Judean king mentioned is unreadable and is identified by conjecture. That is why Garfinkel, Finkelstein, Coogan etc etc hold the views they do. Science is based on evidence, not fairy tales and double standards. Wdford (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Wdford, why are your responses always so angry when you're plainly shown to be wrong? There are so many errors in what you just said that I have no choice but to reprint it, amended with corrections:

"Yes, you are wrong about that. Actually, the whole argument relies on evidence, of which there is only this single shred that indirectly mentions a David-person , and which is so badly damaged that the Judean king mentioned is unreadable and is identified by conjecture . That is why Garfinkel, Finkelstein, Coogan etc etc hold the views they do. Science is based on evidence, not fairy tales and double standards ."

Editshmedt (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not angry, and you have not shown me to be wrong. Gosh, this is a lot like dealing with a troll.

Herewith to correct your repetitive misunderstandings:

• In your post of 17:45, 14 January 2021 you wrote: "But then you said David may not have existed. Am I wrong about that?" Answer – Yes, you are wrong about that.

• The argument of this thread is about the historicity of the Bible's description of David, although you veer off at will.

• The Tel Dan Inscription in no way refutes my position. The Tel Dan Inscription is apparently talking about a "House of David" (although this is also disputed). It says nothing about who this David was, and the "House of David" is not assigned an ethnicity – it could have been referring to David the Midianite or David the Philistine, etc. It is reasonable to assume that it refers to David of Judea, but this is conjecture. The names of the Davidian king and his father are so damaged that the identity thereof must also be conjectured – I assume based on the time-period of the author, and the assumption that Biblical kings are historical figures.

• All three of Garfinkel, Finkelstein and Coogan agree that any Judean polity of the "conventional Davidian time-frame" would have been a small tribal faction, not the powerful empire of the Bible texts – which thus all directly supports my position on this element of the article. Everything else is your attempt at diversion.

• Archaeology is a science – see eg and . Yes, seriously. Wdford (talk) 10:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the second sentence. The rest contains another slew of errors requiring correction. The Tel Dan Inscription is absolutely, without a question describing David, and this is not a disputed reading. This is not an assumption - this is an obvious fact. Who is "David the Midianite"? "David the Philistine"? I've never seen such blatant desperation, such fringe-ness being forced on fact and science to calm one down when their presuppositions crash with reality. The facts are this: everyone agrees that Judges, Samuel and Kings preserve solid sums of historical memory going as far back as the 13th century BC. For here and here for examples, which give special focus on memory going to the 10th century BC. Also, the description of these texts is as follows: David founded a kingdom. A few decades later, the kingdom split. The successors ruling the Kingdom of Israel were not actually descendants of David, but the successors ruling the Kingdom of Judah were all actually descendants. As it happens, Misplaced Pages offers a pretty convenient graphic to display that. And guess what the Tel Dan Inscription does - it does not call the king of Israel of the "House of David", but it does do so for the king in Judah. These are not "coincidences". There is not a shred of reasonable doubt concerning a single serious archaeologist that the inscription is both referring to the House of DAVID, not some Philistine shuckery you want to replace that with, and that this is the same David that Samuel and Kings want to speak of. Your interpretations are such an insult to evidence that I hardly can believe they were written down. They are only meant to serve a priori reasoning. You can't assign an ethnicity to a dynasty; "House of David the Judean". This is logically non-understandable. The Assyrian records speak of a "House of Omri" too. They don't mention the "House of Omri the Israelite". When the "House of Omri" phrase is used, it's just used like that. And there is clear reason and evidence behind the reconstruction of the names. Jehoram in Israel was Hazael's contemporary (scholars seem to agree that the biblical description of this period and Hazael's attacks are broadly accurate), and the contemporary of Jehoram was Ahaziah. Not only that, but get this impressive match: as it happens, the -yahu ending of the King of Judah is distinguishable, and the only king aroun the time of Jehoram with such a name ending is ... wait for it .. Ahaziah! So the reconstructions are based on an easily solved puzzle of evidence, not conjecture. This is very simple - I am explaining things in this conversation I didn't believe I would have to explain in my whole life. Finally, Garfinkel, Finkelstein, and Coogan. Not a single one of them could possibly agree that Judah was a "tribal faction". Once again, you have a weird assumption that people who reject your views actually accept your views. We've already seen Coogan accepts a somewhat exaggated united monarchy, but a united monarchy nonetheless - just like Mazar, Faust, and so forth. So Coogan thinks that the two kingdoms at the time, however big they were in reality, were actually one political unit. Garfinkel and Finkelstein are clear - both think Judah was a kingdom in the 10th century BC. Finkelstein hasn't always believed that, but he has made a dozen concessions since he started the whole debate to begin with. No tribal factions - kingdoms, in the 10th century at the very least. Epigraphy is not a science, and reading the Tel Dan Inscription is not a science. Archaeology is obviously not "just a science", it's a combination of humanities, social sciences, and physical sciences.Editshmedt (talk) 14:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Let me reinforce this claim in respect to my own work. The mainstream view of critical biblical scholarship accepts that Genesis-Joshua (perhaps Judges) is substantially devoid of reliable history and that it was in the Persian period that the bulk of Hebrew Bible literature was either composed or achieved its canonical shape. I thus find attempts to push me out onto the margin of scholarship laughable.

— Philip Davies, Minimalism, "Ancient Israel," and Anti-Semitism

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Davies’ book, In Search of “Ancient Israel,” the entire index of biblical references (which appears to be comprehensive) barely fills a page and a half. Further, even where Davies refers to particular texts, there is no sustained engagement with their details, whether on philological, source-, redaction- or even historical-critical levels. Thus, one of Davies’s fullest discussions of a biblical text is a comparison of the biblical and Assyrian accounts of Sennacherib’s invasion of Judah in 701 BCE, where he explicitly states that “I am not really interested in contrasting the biblical and Assyrian accounts.” But proper historical method demands that one perform just such a comparative analysis that Davies dismisses as uninteresting. How can one write a history of a period without dealing in detail with the surviving texts that describe that period, whether or not one accepts their historicity? He has presented a conclusion without offering any detailed analysis of the sources to back it up. Instead, he offers no more than a rough outline of each, before asserting that, while these accounts probably refer to “something that happened,” each is a “literary construct” that serves primarily ideological needs. Therefore, any reconstructions made on their basis are no more valid than attempting to reconstruct “what really happened” in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar ... This will not do at all. Thompson and Davies have provided no detailed comparison that could demonstrate that the biblical texts concerning David or Hezekiah reflect a similar genre, a comparable dating relative to the events described, or an equivalent attitude towards their sources, as one finds in Shakespeare or in the myths concerning Gilgamesh, Achilles or King Arthur. Just because it is possible to write myth or historical fiction does not prove that this is what the biblical authors have done. Where is the evidence that the biblical authors were writing this kind of fiction? No such comparisons, nor any detailed arguments at all, are ever brought by Davies, Thompson, or the other minimalists. These anachronistic analogies are simply asserted, without concrete evidence or any real examination of the biblical texts, merely in order to justify the a priori dismissal of the biblical text as history. (Isaac Kalimi, Writing and Rewriting, Cambridge University Press, 2019, pp. 52-53

Quoted by Editshmedt (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Nice, but Davies did not say what he himself thinks, he stated something about The mainstream view of critical biblical scholarship. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

So why quote Davies, who gets everything wrong? You could've quoted Dever for that.Editshmedt (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Wait a minute, Davies might not be acting honest here. Dever writes: "Their basic presupposition (for so it is) is that the ‘Deuteronomistic history’ (Joshua through Kings), our fundamental source for the history of ancient Israel from the settlement horizon to the Fall of Jerusalem in 586 B C E , does not date as mainstream scholars hold to the Iron Age, or ca. 8th-7th centuries B C E . Rather, it is a strictly literary product of the Persian period, or increasingly the Hellenistic era in the 2nd century BCE" (The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating, pg. 415). What was that about Persian-time composition? Finkelstein himself rejects that. Finkelstein et al argue in 2016 based on new findings that the Deuteronomistic history is pre-Babylonian invasion. It gets harder and harder to trust these minimalists.Editshmedt (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The conclusion is that you have a lack of respect for WP:RS, when they happen to disagree with your POV. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The two "reliable sources" contradict each other. So if we want to choose which one is correct, we have to use our brains. Davies, who admits in that very quote that he is usually dismissed, makes a certain claim about what is mainstream. Dever, an actual mainstream archaeologist, says it is not mainstream. Finkelstein agrees with Dever on the point of dating. So we have Davies word versus Dever and Finkelstein. Who do we accept? I think it's obvious. Earlier, Wdford made flawed claims about the size and importance of the Stepped Stone Structure, based on nothing more than its ground surface area, which I refuted earlier by way of comparison to the size of Khirbet Qeiyafa. However, there is now more evidence, on top of the plenty given earlier, to show just how wrong he was. Mazar describes the SSS: "A building of these proportions is unparalleled in comparison with other architectural remains from Israel and its neighbors from the 12th to 10th centuries b.c.e. Only from the 9th century do monumental fortified enclosures appear in Israel and Judah at administrative centers such as Samaria, Jezreel, and Lachish. The distinctiveness and magnitude of the Stepped Stone Structure tell of Jerusalem’s unique status as an administrative center during the building’s use" (pg. 264, this paper).Editshmedt (talk) 21:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Regardless, this new research shows that Misplaced Pages editors of different opinions have strived for consensus over time. That's opposed to Facebook or Twitter, where people are siloed into their own self-reinforcing echo chambers. ... Consider this a version of the “miracle of aggregation” – that large groups of people are able to act rationally and solve problems despite having vastly different interests.
  • Robert Gebelhoff, Science shows Misplaced Pages is the best part of the Internet, The Washington Post (19 October 2016)

The majority of modern biblical scholars believe that the Torah – the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy – reached its present form in the post-Exilic period.

The five books are drawn from four "sources" (distinct schools of writers rather than individuals): the Priestly source, the Yahwist and the Elohist (these two are often referred to collectively as the "non-Priestly" source), and the Deuteronomist. There is general agreement that the Priestly source is post-exilic, but there is no agreement over the non-Priestly source(s).

• Genesis is a post-exilic work combining "Priestly" and "non-Priestly" material.
• Exodus is an anthology drawn from nearly all periods of Israel's history.
• Leviticus is entirely Priestly and dates from the exilic/post-exilic period.
• Numbers is a Priestly redaction (i.e., editing) of a Yahwistic/non-Priestly original.
• Deuteronomy, now the last book of the Torah, began as the set of religious laws (these make up the bulk of the book), was extended in the early part of the 6th century to serve as the introduction to the Deuteronomistic history, and later still was detached from that history, extended yet again, and edited to conclude the Torah.

This group of books, plus Deuteronomy, is called the "Deuteronomistic history" by scholars. The proposal that they made up a unified work was first advanced by Martin Noth in 1943, and has been widely accepted. Noth proposed that the entire history was the creation of a single individual working in the exilic period (6th century BCE); since then there has been wide recognition that the history appeared in two "editions", the first in the reign of Judah's King Josiah (late 7th century), the second during the exile (6th century). Noth's dating was based on the assumption that the history was completed very soon after its last recorded event, the release of King Jehoiachin in Babylon c. 560 BCE; but some scholars have termed his reasoning inadequate, and the history may have been further extended in the post-exilic period.

Copy/paste from Dating the Bible. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

References

1. 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
2. Khirbet al-Ra'i in the Judean Shephelah; the 2015-2019 excavation seasons; by Garfinkel et al; Department of Ancient History, at
3. The Identification of Khirbet Qeiyafa: A New Suggestion; by Yigal Levin; Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research; · August 2012; at
4. Enns 2012, p. 5. sfn error: no target: CITEREFEnns2012 (help)
5. ^ Carr 2000, p. 492. sfn error: no target: CITEREFCarr2000 (help)
6. Dozeman 2000, p. 443. sfn error: no target: CITEREFDozeman2000 (help)
7. Houston 2003, p. 102. sfn error: no target: CITEREFHouston2003 (help)
8. McDermott 2002, p. 21. sfn error: no target: CITEREFMcDermott2002 (help)
9. Van Seters 2004, p. 93. sfn error: no target: CITEREFVan_Seters2004 (help)
10. Campbell & O'Brien 2000, p. 2 and fn.6. sfn error: no target: CITEREFCampbellO'Brien2000 (help)
11. Person 2010, p. 10-11. sfn error: no target: CITEREFPerson2010 (help)

You are getting shriller and shriller. You are also deviating down random footpaths to nowhere – not a good sign. Please stick to the topic.

It seems that where the Tel Dan inscription supports your POV it is super-reliable, and where it undermines your POV it is a literary construct or propaganda. It seems you have now also stooped to being the judge of which scholars are reliable and which are not – based purely on the extent to which each scholar supports your own POV. Needless to say, this is not how proper encyclopedias work.

The Tel Dan inscription does not refer to the Kingdom of Judah at all. It mentions Israel specifically, but the "House of David" (assuming that is a correct translation) is not ascribed to any kingdom as such. I suspect that omission is highly significant in this context.

There is zero information about "David the human" outside of the Biblical texts. Were it not for the Bible, he would be totally unheard of. The Tel Dan Inscription does not describe David in any way, other than to mention that one of his descendants was at that time a "king" of somewhere – whatever that meant in terms of the language of the stele. The rest is just Biblical.

I am not sure that "everyone agrees that Judges, Samuel and Kings preserve solid sums of historical memory going as far back as the 13th century BC." Some undoubtedly hold that view, but by no means "everyone". Maybe it depends on what is meant by "solid sums"?

Since the Israelites were actually just a sub-set of the Canaanite tribes, David was actually a Canaanite. This explains all the Canaanite features of the Governor's Residence which is ascribed to the time of David. It is also borne out by David being descended from Ruth, who was a Moabite, and David was willing to leave his aged parents in Moab for safety. Ruth married Boaz, son of Rahab of Jericho – also a Canaanite. Since the Biblical Israelites placed great emphasis on marrying inside the tribe, the fact that the Biblical authors stress these particular factoids re their big hero is very interesting indeed.

It is also borne out by David having served in the Philistine army, being a loyal subject of the Philistine king, and being granted a Philistine town of his own (Ziklag) for his services.

Mostly, it is borne out by there being zero evidence outside the Bible attesting to the man David, or his kingdom – even if it was just a little kingdom – other than the passing mention of a descendant in the Tel Dan inscription – which according to you is mostly unreliable propaganda anyway.

Archaeology is indeed a science, and science is based on evidence. I see you have now personally over-ruled Encyclopaedia Britannica as well.

Mazar may have been factually correct when he described the "distinctiveness and magnitude of the Stepped Stone Structure" as telling of Jerusalem’s "unique status as an administrative center during the building’s use", but this obviously depends on what he is comparing against? The Stepped Stone Structure (which he conflates with other ruins to magnify its magnitude) is minute compared to the administrative structures of Egypt, Troy, Hattusa, Assyria etc. What exactly is Mazar's definition of a "neighbour"?

Garfinkel, Finkelstein, and Coogan have all stated that Judea in the time of the 10th century BCE was teeny tiny. David may well have called himself a king, whatever that word actually meant in the 10th century BCE, and he may have described his territory as a kingdom, but that was seemingly self-aggrandizing propaganda – or to use your own phrase: "mighty language".

Wdford (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The first sentence is very ironic. I see you still don't understand the Tel Dan Inscription. In your narrow way of thinking, either it is all perfectly literally true to the faithful word, or it is all propaganda. This actually reminds me of a point Israel Finkelstein made. Some people accused him of being inconsistent as he takes some parts of the Bible seriously and not others. His response was this: that you must take some parts seriously and some not so much is the WHOLE CONCLUSION of two hundred years of scholarship! The same applies to everything else. This cartoonish world of thinking of yours, Wdford, where everything must be either perfectly absolutely literal or completely metaphorical/symbolic/fiction/propaganda may sound like honey to people relying on you to maintain their a priori worldview, but it is nothing short of intellectually irresponsible to the critical ear. The fact is as follows. The Tel Dan Inscription basically reads as follows, in Hazael's words: "I came out of the seven parts of my kingdom and slew seventy kings who had many thousands of chariots and horsemen. I killed Jehoram and Ahaziah of the House of David, burned their towns and turned their land into desolation." That's what can be reconstructed. Now, the critical reader will notice the obvious. For one, I've already cited a paper on the use of the number 70 as far back as F.C. Fensham which amply documents the symbolic use of the number 70. It isn't even an approximation, it's just completely symbolic. Consider this: per the Bible, the land of Elim has 70 palm trees (Ex. 15:27), the weight of the bronze used in the Tabernacle is 70 talents (Ex. 38:29), Jacob had seventy children (Ex. 1:5), Israel has seventy elders (Ex. 24:1) and on and on and on. Fensham documents 52 examples of this. He further documents many examples outside of the Bible, in the ancient near eastern context. For example, Baal is said to invite the seventy sons of Athirat for the feast for the inauguration of his house. Anat commemorates the death of Baal by slaughtering 70 wild oxen, 70 oxen, 70 sheep, and so forth. The Panamuwa inscription mentions the murder of 70 of the kinsmen of Barsur. And on and on. The Tel Dan Inscription is no more than another example of this. The critical eye will also notice that the "seventy" of the kings Hazael slew is paired with the "seven" districts of his kingdom. The critical eye will quickly note that Hazael's kingdom isn't actually divided into "seven" parts at all. It's just meant to parallel to seventy. Also notice this: though Hazael claims to have turned all of Israel into a land of desolation, we know that isn't even close to being true. It's like when Egypt claims in the Merneptah Stele to have literally annihilated Israel - in the 12th century. Maybe they won a fight or something, but that is total and utter exaggeration. In reality, it is fully possible that Hazael made up his victories against Jehoram and Ahaziah. I don't really know, but it could be the case. In that case, the whole thing would be more or less fiction. But no matter how fictional Hazael's military victory was, Hazael was well aware that Ahaziah was part of the "House of David". And here's the amazing thing about it: Not a single critical archaeologist or historian disagrees with me on this. Not one. This topic is, therefore, over.

Didn't say the Tel Dan Inscription mentions a Judahite kingdom, so I don't see why you brought that up. But it absolutely blows out of the water any WP:FRINGE suggestion that there was no David. Once again, stop talking to me about the Tel Dan Inscription. I already know your views are formed a priori here. I follow the scholarship, you follow your weird theories.

I don't really care if David's descendants were Canaanite. By the 10th century BC, archaeologists are well agreed that "Judahite" had developed as an ethincity, and Judahite ethnicity is associated with a number of features of material culture from the time that can be reconstructed. For example, pig consumption has been noted in both Philistia and the northern kingdom of Israel in the 10th century BC, but there is virtually none in the region of Judah. That can be considered one of the several distinctive features of material culture of a Judahite from the time, and there are many.

Britannica doesn't cancel what's in the peer-reviewed scholarship. Archaeology is a truly a multidisciplinary field to its core.

You ask for Mazar's definition of "neighbour". Mate, how on planet god damn Earth are "Egypt, Troy, Hattusa, Assyria" neighbours of the land of Israel? The neighbours are the Philistia (on the coastal plain), Moab, Aram-Damascus, and Edom. I may be forgetting one or two. Those are the regions that, you know, surround the borders of Israel?

Umm, no. Coogan said that Jerusalem is teeny tiny, which wouldn't really be relevant, since not even the Bible says it was big. Coogan affirms a United Monarchy, that much is clear. Finkelstein in the past has made comments about the size of Judah, but he now seems to think it ruled over the central highlands or something. That's not particularly "teeny tiny". Garfinkel would go a lot further than Finkelstein in terms of the size of Judah (just above the Beersheba Valley and extending to the borders of the Philistines in the west), and Faust argued last year that Judah extended into the Shephelah. In addition, a 2020 find in Tel Dan last year also raised the possibility, per the excavators, that the northern Israelite tribes extended as far up as Dan. I don't think you know anything about what these scholars think about the size of the kingdom. Quite frankly, I doubt you even understand the geography we're discussing. Do you know, for example, where the Judean Highlands are? The difference between the Shephelah and the Negev? These aren't trick questions - these are the easiest geography questions I can think of.Editshmedt (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

As I noted earlier, after the excavations at the SSS and LSS were complete, only Finkelstein has since objected to the 10th century dating, whereas Amihai Mazar, Avraham Faust, and Eilat Mazar have rejected his interpretations. As it happens, we can now add Nadav Na'aman (as per his 2014 BAR article The Case of Davids Palace) and William Dever (in his 2017 book Beyond the Texts where he calls Finkelstein's arguments convoluted). How amazing that Finkelstein just so happens to be the only one on the other side! Amazing coincidence!Editshmedt (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

What is really ironic is actually your new insult "a priori", which you have used seven times so far (literally seven times, not symbolically.) I am the editor who is focusing on the actual evidence (the little bit that actually exists) and you are the editor who clings to the conjecture of that portion of the scholars who support your POV – even disputing that archaeology is based on actual evidence.

I agree with Finkelstein that much of the Bible cannot be taken as history. I'm not sure that this necessarily applies to every other non-Biblical inscription as well, and I don't agree that you should be free to cherry-pick which bits of everything are "historic" and which bits are symbolic.

It seems YOU don't properly understand the Tel Dan Inscription. To clarify:

• The Tel Dan Inscription DOES NOT say "I came out of the seven parts of my kingdom". The script is damaged on that line as well – what remains reads "and I departed from the seven my kingdom." It could have meant seven cities or seven valleys or seven taverns etc etc. It doesn’t matter how many parts Hazael's kingdom was actually divided into, as this issue is not present in the text - although Hazael's kingdom was actually pretty big.
• The Tel Dan Inscription DOES NOT say that Hazael "slew seventy kings". The script is damaged on that line as well – what remains reads "and I killed nty kings". It could have meant seventy kings, but it could have meant twenty or thirty etc as well, rendering your seventy-symbolism rant somewhat moot.
• The Tel Dan Inscription DOES NOT say that Hazael's enemy kings "had many thousands of chariots". The script is damaged on that line as well – what remains reads "who harnessed iots." Assuming it is indeed referring to chariots, the total number thereof is once again pure conjecture.
• The Tel Dan Inscription DOES NOT say that Hazael "turned all of Israel into a land of desolation". The script is damaged on that line as well – what remains reads "And I made their land into ". The rest of the "interpretation" is just pure conjecture. The original could quite likely have said "And I made their land into vassal states and they paid me tons of tribute".

In fact, it seems that all you DO accept from the Tel Dan Inscription is a passing reference to the "House of David", which you synthesize with Bible stories to support your POV.

I generally agree with the concept of "neighbours", but it is hard to accept that this is what Mazar actually meant. Aram-Damascus is obviously Assyria, and in the period from the 12th to 10th centuries BCE the rulers of this state included Tiglath-Pileser I, a famous builder, and his successors. They had cities like Ninevah, with huge civic buildings. Philisitia in this period included the great cities of Ashkelon, Ashdod, Ekron, Gath, and Gaza, which all had huge buildings too. What do you suppose Mazar actually meant by this strange statement? Presumably he was actually comparing to "neighbours" much closer to home, such as the rural villages nearby to Jerusalem?

Coogan describes the Royal City of David as "barely a city – by our standards, just a village". Once again you cheerfully cherry-pick from the source – clinging to Coogan but happily dismissing Coogan's views on Jerusalem as "irrelevant". I believe this is called "quote-mining"? Of course Garfinkel et al state clearly that "In the very late 11th and early 10th century BCE, under King David, Judah was a small territory in Jerusalem and the hill country." Judah sounds quiet tiny to me.

It seems you have no actual point worth adding to the article. Shall we move on to other things, or do you want to simply keep repeating your POV while thinking up fresh insults? Wdford (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, pretending that your fringe opinions are somehow remotely related to evidence or scholarship is very unconvincing. We've already seen your uncritical methodology: either the whole Tel Dan Inscription is 100% propaganda or it's 100% absolutely literal and true. As Finkelstein points out, the fact that you must take one part of the same text reliably and another part not reliably is the WHOLE CONCLUSION of two centuries of scholarship! Your points about the Tel Dan Inscription are a grasp for survival at this point. Every single living scholar agrees with me about the Tel Dan Inscription. Whether it says districts (Biran's reconstruction) or cities doesn't matter, the "seven" is what's pertinent. You now are angry about the "seventy" reconstruction, even though you're the one who brought up the seventy thing in the first place. Your claim that it could equally say twenty/thirty/whatnot simply flies in the face of logic, as if the inscription was originally written in English and so you can sub in any number ending in the letters -nty. The 'seventy' reconstruction is actually based on the surviving grammar. If I wrote fiftn, you can easily guess that the original number is 'fifteen'. See Biran (1995), pg. 16. The desolation language can be similarly confirmed, but is not needed anyways. And in the end of the day, Hazael still says there is one king of Judah and one king of Israel and claims to have defeated them. Assyrian inscriptions from the 9th century confirm beyond a reasonable doubt that the north was one single kingdom, the northern kingdom of Israel, and similarly, there is no living archaeologist that thinks 9th century Judah was politically fractured. In other words, this inscription gives you nothing.

You then write that Aram-Damascus is "obviously" Assyria. This once again proves that even the basics are beyond you. Right, and Egypt is "obviously" the same thing as China. I have never seen someone confuse Assyria with Aram-Damascus in my life. I mean ... HOW? LOL! I feel like I'm on a show. Mazar's statement is only "strange" for those who have a hard time bringing themselves to the facts. Read it again and meditate on it. Maybe you'll have an epiphany.

The idea that I've quote-mined Coogan is hilarious. I guess you don't know what quote-mining ... actually is! A quote-mine is quoting part of what someone thinks, when in fact they do not think that. It's like what you did with the Governor's Residency paper. Despite the fact that the authors identified Tel Eton in the Iron IIA period as a Judahite site, you totally obscured the entire discussion with Canaanite this and Canaanite that - as if the ethnicity that the individuals in the settlement had centuries ago was extremely relevant or important or something or that it had any relevance to the fact that we have here another example of a Judahite site being significantly expanded in the 10th century. But regardless of Coogan's views on Jerusalem, he does think there was a United Monarchy. Once again, we're back to a cartoonish world, where I either must believe EVERYTHING Coogan says or believe none of it. But the fact that one accepts one thing a scholar says and questions another thing is, again, the WHOLE EDIFICE of scholarship! As for what needs to be added to the article, plenty of things. We need to make it clear that Finkelstein's views on David are solely based on his Low Chronology, which most scholars reject. We need to note the abundance of scholars who accept the United Monarchy, the scholarship brought in forth of this view, and so forth. We need a better summary of the LSS and SSS. At this point, it just reads like there's an even-handed disagreement among scholars, when in fact Finkelstein has not very much support at all (as usual).Editshmedt (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

As we saw, Garfinkel rejects both Finkelstein's POV and your POV. Coogan is more nuanced than you seem to imply, I offered a quote from the same book you quoted and wonder of all wonders, it has the c-word inside it! Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't have a horse in this race, I am merely agreeing with Finkelstein and the majority of others that the Bible is not literal history. However I also point out that you are cherry-picking which bits are "historical" and which are propaganda, of the Bible, of third-party inscriptions and of the work of scholars. That is standard practice for POV-pushers, but not really correct practice.

You are being a bit ridiculous to state that "Every single living scholar agrees with me about the Tel Dan Inscription." A number of scholars, some of them still living, dispute the interpretation and "reconstruction" of the text.

However we can deduce from this convoluted discussion that the Tel Dan Inscription actually tells us nothing about the King David of the Bible or anything about his kingdom, and the Tel Dan Inscription nowhere mentions Judah by name.

Per scholarship, the Israelites were a fractured fragment of the Canaanite population, and per the Bible stories Judah was a fractured fragment of the Israelite population. Since the entire United Monarchy segment of the Bible stories seems to have been "mighty language" and propaganda written centuries later by a specific vested interest, "reconstruction" of the Tel Dan Inscription based on Bible stories would be seriously prone to error.

Mazar's statement related to the time period of the 12th to 10th centuries BCE. During this time Assyria invaded Aram-Damascus, and several of their Assyrian rulers were notable for their construction projects. It's not rocket science. Cool your frothing please. That period also saw major developments in the great cities of Philisitia, which were also "neighbours" in a sense. Since Mazar is a competent scholar, we need to try a bit harder to understand the point being made here. Obviously your own POV drives you to interpret the statement using the borders of the Grand Davidic Empire as per the Bible stories, but clearly Mazar was referring to something much closer – and much smaller.

This does not surprise the rest of us, because Mazar does admit that the most impressive structures evidencing a central powerful authority in Jerusalem date to the Middle Bronze Age and are Canaanite, which "might have been retained in the local memory until the end of the second millennium BCE" and been inserted into the later Israelite historiographic narrative. Mazar supports a United Monarchy of sorts, but describes it 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.

Obviously we do have different understandings of quote-mining. Your understanding, as you have admitted here now, is that you are entitled to cherry-pick from the work of scholars to support your POV, but when other editors point out the "other" facts they are quote-mining. ("But the fact that one accepts one thing a scholar says and questions another thing is, again, the WHOLE EDIFICE of scholarship!"). Mmmm.

Re the Governor's Residency paper, the scholars who wrote the paper acknowledged the many Canaanite features of the site, and even went so far as to formulate the "old house" hypothesis to explain why this "typical Judahite" structure was also so typically Canaanite. You cited part of what they said, and I merely pointed out the other half of what they said, for balance. Other scholars have also pointed out that not every "four-roomed house" is at a Judahite site, and that not every Judahite site has four-roomed houses.

What you seem to be missing is that Finkelstein wants the United Monarchy to be true, and he is proposing the Low Chronology specifically to allow the "evidence" to support a Davidic empire – specifically because the evidence currently available does not support any significant statehood in the Conventional Chronology time period.

Do you have anything else, or do you want to simply keep repeating your POV while thinking up fresh insults? Wdford (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

People who go out of their way to claim they have no horse in the race/bias/POV tend to be the most biased people - something I've observed. You keep complaining about my POV when your POV shines like the morning sun. In any case, no legitimate scholar disagrees with me about the Tel Dan Inscription. I don't count the guy who cried forgery the moment it was discovered based on nothing but wishful thinking (Thompson). The facts are this: the Judahite dynasty of monarchs was founded by a certain David (per the Tel Dan Inscription). In the 9th century BC, there was two kingdoms and two kings, not twenty or seventy. Let's stop disputing the obvious and try to move on to something productive.

You seem to be still trying to survive when it comes to Mazar's plain and simple statement. No building in Philistia in the 12th-10th centuries was on the scale of the SSS, and Assyria was never on the border of Israel in the 12th-10th centuries. (They only had conflicts with a polity that was - i.e. Aram-Damascus, which you now suddenly realize ... isn't "obviously" the same as Assyria.) In the 12th-10th centuries, in all of Israel and its neighbours, the SSS was the biggest thing. Try to read these plain and simple words without jumping for an alternate explanation: "A building of these proportions is unparalleled in comparison with other architectural remains from Israel and its neighbors from the 12th to 10th centuries b.c.e. Only from the 9th century do monumental fortified enclosures appear in Israel and Judah at administrative centers such as Samaria, Jezreel, and Lachish. The distinctiveness and magnitude of the Stepped Stone Structure tell of Jerusalem’s unique status as an administrative center during the building’s use".

You continue to insist that the definition of quote-mining is "not believing everything or rejecting everything a scholar says". That's not what it means. Re the Governors Residency paper, the authors specifically wrote that it is a Judahite site. Can we stop obscuring what is clear now?

And now Wdford is claiming that Finkelstein wants the United Monarchy to be true and that the (widely rejected) Low Chronology puts more architectural remains than the alternatives. (Even though the alternative would place the SSS, six-chambered gates at Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer, the two ashlar palaces at Megiddo, and a bunch of other things in the 10th century BC, compared to ... nothing on the Low Chronology.) This is clearly propaganda.Editshmedt (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, so just more repetition, and a few fresh insults. Sad.

I see scholars who disagree with you about the Tel Dan inscription are now "not legitimate" in your eyes. Mmmm.

In the 9th century BC, there were lots of "kingdoms" and lots of "kings". Hazael stomped on quite a few of them, and Shoshenq stomped on quite a few more.

In the 12th-10th centuries Aram-Damascus was invaded by Assyria – they did not simply have "conflicts". In that period Assyria were known to be big builders. In the 12th-10th centuries the Philistines arrived and built huge cities. None of this is controversial. It is impossible to assume that for three hundred years Assyria ruled Aram-Damascus and Philistia was built from rubble into massive cities, but nobody ever built a wall 50 meters long? Seriously?

In addition, Jerusalem itself possessed massive Middle Bronze fortifications, much of which continued in use through the Iron Age. The SSS wasn't even a building as such, more of a simple terrace. It is thus nonsense to say the SSS was the biggest thing in Jerusalem, far less the biggest thing in the entire Near East.

Obviously Mazar must have meant something different. Let's analyze these plain and simple words, without inserting your POV: "A building of these proportions is unparalleled in comparison with other architectural remains from Israel and its neighbors from the 12th to 10th centuries b.c.e. Only from the 9th century do monumental fortified enclosures appear in Israel and Judah at administrative centers such as Samaria, Jezreel, and Lachish. The distinctiveness and magnitude of the Stepped Stone Structure tell of Jerusalem’s unique status as an administrative center during the building’s use".

Obviously the "neighbors" in question could not have included the huge cities of Philistia etc as per above, which had walls greater than 50 meters, so the Israel "borders" in Mazar's statement must have been much closer to Jerusalem. I grant the statement that the SSS was very "distinctive", but that would be a function of the unique topography. I accept the statement about "Jerusalem’s unique status as an administrative center", but that says nothing about the size of the Davidic Empire, only that there were no other administrative centers really close by. Easy, yes?

I certainly have never stated that quote-mining means "not believing everything or rejecting everything a scholar says". That is another lie from you. Per Misplaced Pages, Quote mining simply means "Quoting out of context" – which is something you do quite a lot.

Re the Governors Residency paper, there is no argument that it was a Judahite site at date of destruction. However the authors claim that the house was constructed hundreds of years earlier, as per their "old-house" hypothesis, projecting into maybe the 10th century BCE. Furthermore:

• The authors admit that the site was occupied (by Canaanites) from the Early Bronze Age (mid-third millennium BCE), and that the settlement was still occupied into the Iron Age.
• The authors admit that in the course of the Iron Age the older Canaanite centers experienced significant changes, probably resulting 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 admit that they 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.

This is important CONTEXT, seeing as how the authors are claiming that the house was much older than the destruction date. There is no evidence – or discussion – of Israelite kings, Israelite authority, or any evidence of the size or power of the assumed community.

Finkelstein's current view of the United Monarchy seems to be that a United Monarchy may have existed with Northern Israel in charge, ruling from Samaria, and with Judah as a minor vassal state. Per Finkelstein this would have happened in the 9th century BCE, and Finkelstein's view on the SSS, six-chambered gates at Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer, the two ashlar palaces at Megiddo, etc etc, are that these were actually misdated by a few decades, and that they were part of the later expansion. In fact, he raises issues such as why Megiddo had fine stone-work but the purported "capital" at Jerusalem had poor quality stonework by comparison, among other things. Everyone who has read Finkelstein knows this.

In fact, Mazar in your very own quote states that "Only from the 9th century do monumental fortified enclosures appear in Israel and Judah at administrative centers such as Samaria, Jezreel, and Lachish." Most people would view the six-chambered gates at Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer etc as monumental fortified enclosures, at least by the standards of Israel, so even Mazar is agreeing that they could not have been Solomonic. Mmmmm.

Per Finkelstein and others, Judah (and Jerusalem) only became prosperous after Northern Israel was destroyed, partly because many Northern Israelite refugees moved to Judah. Then the much-later "historians" of Judah, free from any risk of contradiction, spun the histories to make Judah look like they had been the lead partner at the time, when actually it wasn't so.

Do you have any fresh suggestions, or are you reduced to merely repeating yourself? Wdford (talk) 13:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

You seem to think that by simply repeating easily falsified claims endlessly, that somehow makes you win. I do not think it does.

I don't know when you'll just admit you're wrong on literally everything. (1) We've already discussed the Tel Dan Inscription. "Seventy" is fiction. And yes, the "seventy" reconstruction is well-established - see Biran (1995), pg. 16. (2) The Shoshenq inscription is from the 10th century, not the 9th, and gives no evidence of a ton of kingdoms or kings anyways. According to Amihai Mazar (2010), that Shoshenq/Shishak invaded Israel in the 10th century is a decent indication that there was a real polity to invade to begin with. Sometimes, you shouldn't deny facts like "9th century had two kingdoms with two kings". I can only imagine Israel Finkelstein himself laughing you out of the room when you tell him of this theory of yours. (3) Here is a quick map of the ancient world that can be used to find Assyria's exact border between the 12th-10th centuries BC: https://www.ancient.eu/map/. This can be used to easily verify that Assyria was never a neighbour of Israel in the 12th-10th centuries. It barely even reached the northern extent of the later Phoenician kingdom. So that didn't work. (4) You claim that structures greater than the SSS can be found in Iron Age Jerusalem that were reused from the Bronze Age and Philistia. But you don't actually mention these mysterious structures you're specifically talking about. The reason why is obvious. They don't exist. (5) The cities (plural) of Philistia were not "huge". Gath was huge. The others were not nearly as much. Another indication that I'm talking with someone who just doesn't know the topic at hand. (6) According to you, I quote mined Coogan because (a) I accept what he says about the United Monarchy and (b) I reject what he says about Jerusalem in a completely different publication. Clearly, your personal definition of quote-mining is not either believing everything or rejecting everything a scholar says. (7) Avraham Faust et al. think that Tel Eton was Judahite in the 10th century BC. They think Tel Eton is evidence for the expansion of the United Monarchy in that time. Don't know how you missed this. Ah, right - because you quickly skimmed it looking for things to "prove" yourself right. You also clearly entirely misunderstand their old house effect, which refers to why similar structures at sites other than at Tel Eton aren't easily found at other 10th century sites. (8) Finkelstein's current view is not that at all. What Finkelstein thought in 2001 doesn't count as his current view. Nadav Na'aman wrote a paper in 2013 arguing that Judah was strongly independent in the 9th century BC. (9) I know that Finkelstein thinks these structures were misdated. Almost no archaeologist thinks he's right. The Low Chronology is widely rejected among archaeologists. (10) I don't think you know what a monumental fortified enclosure is. Mazar has argued in print that all these structures, the SSS, the six-chambered gates and Megiddo palaces, etc, all date to the 10th century. Once again, a stunning clumsy error that shows you don't know the basics of Mazar's views.

When your giant response can be swiftly taken out in a single paragraph, that's a problem. Once again, this is what Mazar said. I like quoting it again and again because it cleans away your POV: "A building of these proportions is unparalleled in comparison with other architectural remains from Israel and its neighbors from the 12th to 10th centuries b.c.e. Only from the 9th century do monumental fortified enclosures appear in Israel and Judah at administrative centers such as Samaria, Jezreel, and Lachish. The distinctiveness and magnitude of the Stepped Stone Structure tell of Jerusalem’s unique status as an administrative center during the building’s use"

For just a second, don't resort to another thing you made up: that structures you don't know about must have paralleled the SSS in Philistia because this can't possibly be true and you can't possibly be wrong. Maybe you simply are wrong.Editshmedt (talk) 16:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

And around you go, like an old-timey vinyl record with a scratch. Still disregarding any scholar who doesn't support your POV, still cherry-picking from papers, still telling lies about other editors, still ignoring the FACT that all of Finkelstein, Garfinkel, Masar, Coogan and others have clearly stated that in the 10th century BCE Judah was a backwater and Jerusalem was a village, not the capital of an empire. Wdford (talk) 17:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

All of that has been refuted. Scholarly consensus rejects you on almost every point you make. You rely on the Low Chronology, which the vast majority of experts reject, and whenever a scholar disagrees with you, you simply reinterpret them like there's no tomorrow (e.g. Mazar's words on the SSS). Amihai Mazar, Avraham Faust, Eilat Mazar, William G. Dever, and Nadav Na'aman place the SSS in the 10th century BC in Jerusalem. So all of them think that Jerusalem was a small citadel at the time. To this, we can add plenty of other scholars like Isaac Kalimi and Jane Cahill. You simply cherry pick from Coogan. When he affirms the United Monarchy, we pretend he doesn't exist. When he says Jerusalem is not a city "by our standards", then you win! Every scholar rejects your flimsy opinion on the Tel Dan Inscription, every scholar rejects your views on the multiplicity of kings in 9th century Israel, you rely on a heavily rejected Low Chronology, and so forth. The names you cite are sheer cherry-picking. Aren Maeir writes that the United Monarchy remains a mainstream view of archaeology. But we can simply pretend away when Mazar, Faust, Dever and others agree with me. And no, bucko, no scholar says that 10th century Judah was a backwater. Confusing 10th century BC with 1st century Galilee is not scholarship. (And even then, the idea of 1st century Galilee being a backwater is outdated.) Garfinkel and Finkelstein both think that 10th century Judah was a kingdom now. Kingdom, not a backwater. When will you stop acting like scholarship and even the names you cite would refute you on almost every step of the way?Editshmedt (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh boy, you're not going to like this. Nadav Na'aman writes: "The Egyptian topographical list indicates that the campaign was directed against the Kingdom of Israel and the settlements of the Beer-sheba Valley, the Negev Highlands and the lower Naúal Besor area. The campaign skipped over the territories of the Philistine kingdoms (the coast and most of the Shephelah) and avoided the difficulties and dangers involved with wide-scale operations in the central hill country. The conquest was conducted mainly in the lowlands, and the Egyptian troops penetrated the highlands only in one place: the area north of Jerusalem. The topographical list indicates that the troops reached the highlands through the Beth-horon pass and advanced as far as the southernmost hill country of Ephraim. Except for Jerusalem, no other important centre lies in the invaded highlands region. Hence, Shishak’s campaign confirms the biblical picture of Jerusalem’s importance in the late 10th century BCE (Na’aman 1998: 261‒262, 269‒270; Mazar 2007: 124)" (Na'aman, "The Kingdom of Judah in the 9th Century BCE: Text Analysis versus Archaeological Research", Tel Aviv (2013), pg. 265) Editshmedt (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

And around you go.

Some scholars place the SSS in the 10th century BCE, and others do not. You merely follow your POV, and ignore the powerful evidence-based arguments to the contrary. Any scholar who doesn't agree with you is automatically "refuted" by those who do agree with you. Do you ever consider that the reality might actually be the other way around?

A "small citadel" indeed – basically a village with a small defensive wall, built on much larger Bronze Ages ruins. Hardly evidence of a grand empire. On the other hand, Philistine cities like Gath were huge and heavily fortified. How do you construct and fortify a huge city without building walls? Duh.

Coogan did NOT say that "Jerusalem is not a city "by our standards", Coogan actually said that Jerusalem was "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." Hardly evidence of a grand empire.

I never said there were a "multiplicity of kings in 9th century Israel", I said there were a multiplicity of kings in the 9th century. The Tel Dan Inscription mentioned the author defeating a multiplicity thereof, including Israel and the "House of David" among many others. You have no shame about misrepresenting other editors, do you?

Yes, some scholars do say that 10th century Judah was a backwater. Any little backwater can call itself a kingdom, and any little chieftain can call himself a king. There are lots of kings in South Africa today – some recognised by the government, some not, and all largely powerless. Idi Amin called himself the King of Scotland, and see also Principality of Sealand and Leonard Casley. Duh again.

In fact Cahill writes that: "The Armana letters demonstrate that Late Bronze Age Canaan was divided into a network of kingdoms of various sizes and strengths lead by local rulers who were regarded by Pharaoh merely as municipal rulers like Egyptian mayors but were regarded both by their subjects and by the rulers of neighbouring cities as kings who ascended their thrones through the dynastic principle… ". (Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period edited by Andrew G. Vaughn, Ann E. Killebrew; Society of Biblical Lit, 2003; at page 33) This might give you a fresh insight into the "mighty language" of the kings of the region.

Oh boy, you're not going to like this. Silberman and Finkelstein write: "The conclusion seems clear: Sheshonq and his forces marched into the hill country and attacked the early north Israelite entity. He also conquered the most important lowland cities like Megiddo and regained control of the southern trade routes. But his triumphal inscription did not and would not have mentioned Jerusalem or Judah, an isolated chiefdom that posed no immediate threat – or was already resigned to the reality of Egyptian rule." (David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible's Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition; by Israel Finkelstein, Neil Asher Silberman; Simon and Schuster, 2007; page 81).

The Bible on the other hand says, at 2 Chronicles 12, that "When Shishak king of Egypt attacked Jerusalem, he carried off the treasures of the temple of the LORD and the treasures of the royal palace. He took everything, including the gold shields Solomon had made." It also says that the LORD told Shemaiah the prophet that he had decided to spare Jerusalem from destruction at the hands of Shishak, but that Jerusalem "will, however, become subject to him, so that they may learn the difference between serving me and serving the kings of other lands.” I'm not sure which "biblical picture of Jerusalem’s importance in the late 10th century BCE" Na’aman is referring to, but even Chronicles, that most Judahite of records, admits that Jerusalem groveled to Shishak. Mmmm.

Of course, Chronicles was written centuries later, but everyone still remembered that Jerusalem had groveled to Shishak, so the Judahite scribes had to find some acceptable "spin" to explain the debacle. In reality Shishak probably banged on the gate, said "become my vassal or I will sack you like all the other cities who thought they were powerful", and Jerusalem groveled.

Wdford (talk) 16:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I knew you couldn't resist responding. Finkelstein's dating of the SSS and LSS to the 9th century BC is solely dependent on his Low Chronology. You claim there are powerful arguments regarding all this, but I don't believe you really think that. I think you're just saying it. I have carefully studied the relevant papers on this topic. I don't think you have. I don't think you know the first thing about the SSS and LSS or the literature on them. If I asked you what architectural unit is proposed to link the SSS with the LSS, I don't think you'd be able to tell me. In any case, as I said, Finkelstein's dating of (part of) the SSS and the LSS to the 9th century is solely dependent on his Low Chronology. Let him tell you himself: "E. Mazar now accepts that this earth accumulation may include material from the early Iron Age IIA. It seems that A. Mazar' s demand, that in order to date the LSS to a post-Iron Age date we should expect to find "at least a few post-Iron I sherds in these layers" has now been fulfilled. This means, again, that the massive walls can hardly antedate ca. 900 BCE" (Finkelstein, "The "Large Stone Structure" in Jerusalem: Reality versus Yearning", ZDPV (2011), pp. 7-8). Let me elucidate this for you. The fill under the SSS and LSS has pottery that ranges all the way from the Middle Bronze Age and abruptly terminates at, per Finkelstein himself here, with the early Iron IIA. Initially, it was said that the latest pottery is Iron I pottery, but some very early Iron IIA sherds are now apparently known. This lead Mazar to making the point: we can't really date the structure that much after, then, because it wouldn't make sense for the region from which the fill was taken to go with centuries without a sherd from a single later layer finding its way in. Finkelstein appears convinced and so cites that in fact early Iron IIA pottery is known from the fill, and so he says that the structure cannot predate 900 BC. But this is only valid on Finkelstein's Low Chronology. On Mazar's modified conventional chronology, the Iron IIA begins 980 BC, and so "early" Iron IIA pottery would be from the first half to mid-10th century BC. Finkelstein however puts the beginning of the Iron IIA at around 900 BC, and so the finding of ~900 BC pottery under the LSS tells Finkelstein that it cannot predate 900 BC. If Finkelstein accepted the Modified Conventional Chronology that almost every other archaeologist accepts, he would have said that the structure cannot predate 980 BC, not 900 BC. This is his argument.

A small citadel is not "basically a village". It's a small citadel. Jerusalem is not "basically a village". Jerusalem, if it included the Temple Mount at the time, would be 12ha. That's not the biggest city in the world, but that is actually significant in size. In the Late Bronze Age at the very least, even 7ha was considered typical for a large city. But here, we're talking about 12ha. Granted that there are a number of cities at the time bigger than 12ha, but that does not diminish the fact that we have a decently sized city by any standard for the time. Keep in mind the fact that Jerusalem had no residential space in this time. It was solely chosen as an administrative capital, which goes a long way to explaining the population and size. You then repeat the error about the magnitude of Philistine cities. As I explained to you before, the only giant Philistine city was Gath. Not Ashdod, not any of the others. Just Gath. Your citation of Jane Cahill later in your comment backfires, because Cahill describes 10th century Jerusalem as a legitimate city with notable building activity. She also thinks the SSS dates to the 10th century. Finally, it is well accepted among a large number of scholars, if not the majority of scholars, that a Jerusalem of this size was in fact fine and perfect for the capital of a larger kingdom, even a United Monarchy. See: (1) Uziel & Itzhaq, "Iron Age Jerusalem: Temple-Palace, Capital City", Journal of the American Oriental Society (2007), pp. 161-170 (2) Nadav Na'aman, "The Contribution of the Amarna Letters to the Debate on Jerusalem's Political Position in the Tenth Century B. C. E.", Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research (1996), pp. 17-27 (3) Amihai Mazar, "Jerusalem in the 10th Century b.c.e.: The Glass Half Full" (2006), pp. 255-272 (3) Isaac Kalimi, Writing and Rewriting the Story of Solomon in Ancient Israel, Cambridge University Press, 2019, pp. 76-81.

The conversation about the Tel Dan Inscription is over. No archaeologist would give an inkling of credibility to the claim that there were more than two kingdoms or kings in ancient Israel. (And I didn't misrepresent you when I said Israel. That is a fact. I meant the wider-encompassing term Israel which includes both the northern and southern kingdom.)

Who thinks Judah was a backwater? Citation needed. Don't just spit unverifiable names. Real citations needed. We already know that Garfinkel and Finkelstein think of it as a kingdom, so that wont do. In fact, Garfinkel thinks that it was responsible for the construction of Khirbet Qeiyafa, which required over 200,000 tons of stone. Give just one WP:RS source for this claim. Go on. Backwaters don't usually erect six-chambered gates, ashlar palaces, structures like the SSS and the LSS, and a small citadel like Khirbet Qeiyafa which required 200,000 tons of stone to construct, and so forth.

Your citation of Finkelstein & Silberman is simply things they've been claiming for years. What they don't address is Na'aman's sophisticated argument to the otherwise. Let me highlight it for you: "Except for Jerusalem, no other important centre lies in the invaded highlands region. Hence, Shishak’s campaign confirms the biblical picture of Jerusalem’s importance in the late 10th century BCE". Your citation of Chronicles, which comes far later, is meaningless. Furthermore, all it says is that Shishak gained control of Jerusalem. That proves literally nothing. You now apparently think that "United Monarchy" means the same thing as "invincible superpower that can defeat any empire on earth!" Please explain how you brilliantly came to the "conclusion" that Jerusalem must have been able to defeat Egypt. You really are willing to say anything, aren't you?

OUCH. Time for another quote you wont like, this one summarizing the scholarly consensus against the Low Chronology. Matthieu Richelle summarizes the topic: "On the other hand, the low chronology has never convinced the majority of archaeologists. In fact, Finkelstein’s hypothesis has perhaps been welcomed more among biblical scholars and the general public, and a few historians as well, than among his fellow archaeologists. In 2001, Ziony Zevit noted that 'practically all archaeologists, old and young, who are working on the Iron Age, have rejected his change of dates as being unfounded'. In 2005 Finkelstein felt obliged to respond to the criticism 'Finkelstein stands alone'. Five years later, William Dever wrote: 'the archaeological consensus today is still in favor of the conventional chronology'. Likewise, in 2014, James Hardin noted that 'most archaeologists still lean towards the more traditional chronology'. Finally, in 2017, Lester Grabbe noted that the rival chronology (the 'Modified Conventional Chronology,' on which see below) 'seems to have been fairly widely accepted'." (Matthieu Richelle (translated by Sarah Richelle), The Bible and Archaeology, Hendrickson Publishers, 2018, pp. 86-7). Given the fact that archaeologists have a consensus against Finkelstein's Low Chronology, I kindly ask you to explain why you think it is true. After all, he who opposes almost all experts is the one that has the explaining to do.Editshmedt (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Selig, Abe (23 February 2010). "'J'lem city wall dates back to King Solomon'". The Jerusalem Post | JPost.com. Retrieved 18 July 2019. Nonetheless, other archeologists posit that the biblical narrative reflecting the existence of a powerful monarchy in Jerusalem is largely mythical and that there was no strong government to speak of in that era.

Aren Maeir, an archeology professor at Bar Ilan University, said he has yet to see evidence that the fortifications are as old as Mazar claims. There are remains from the 10th century in Jerusalem, he said, but proof of a strong, centralized kingdom at that time remains "tenuous."

Otherwise, what has this debate to do with the article? Nothing, guess, should be closed per WP:NOTFORUM. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

More squeaking and repeating from Editshmedt. On and on.

Re the Tel Dan Inscription: My post at 22:00 on 18 January 2021 stated: "In the 9th century BC, there were lots of "kingdoms" and lots of "kings". Hazael stomped on quite a few of them, and Shoshenq stomped on quite a few more." You did indeed misrepresent my statement.

A backwater can still be a kingdom, if the chieftain calls himself a king. It is still a backwater, regardless of the "mighty language". I have cited many authors who agree – from Coogan to Garfinkel to Finkelstein to even Mazar. All your semantics will not change that.

Oh yes, Jerusalem at that time was just a small village, with a small population, and Judah was a small bunch of tribesmen in the hills. Many scholars agree, as has been discussed extensively above. The Temple Mount was allegedly built by Solomon, if he really existed, if it was built in this period at all, so it was not an issue in Davidic times. You are also being ridiculous to say that "Jerusalem had no residential space in this time". It had a population, so where did those people live? Did they commute in from the surrounding rural villages every morning on the bus?

Re the Low Chronology: The difference is less than 100 years. Simplistically, ancient dating is based vaguely on eclipses and calculations based on years of reign-lengths etc, which are all not very certain. In the case of David and Solomon (assuming he was even real), the reign-lengths and other dates are based solely on the Bible stories, and are highly doubtful indeed. These uncertain dates are then used to date strata, which are identified by pottery. However pottery styles didn't change overnight across entire regions, the new styles were phased in gradually, which could take many decades, especially in far-flung places like Judea. The existing old pottery would still be used until it broke – poor people especially would not simultaneously smash all their existing pottery because it was suddenly out of fashion. According to Lowell K. Handy in The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium, in the Forward at page xix, "the current set of diagnostics cannot be limited to the 10th century alone; it is not distinguishable from 9th century forms in most instances." Since the pottery styles are quite unreliable for establishing hard dates with any precision, and since the ancient records and reign-lengths are quite unreliable for establishing hard dates with any precision, to fight like hamsters over a few decades of dating based on a shard or two of pottery is utterly ridiculous. However that is what happens here. Add in some religious fundamentalism about Biblical historicity, and a sprinkle of academic ego, and you get a flock of Editshmedts counting heads.

So you finally admit that Gath was a huge city with huge constructions. So what of your "unique" Jerusalem structures now? The LSS and the SSS – even if they are assumed to be a single structure – are only worth about 0.2 hectare. Every fortified Philistine city built in Mazar's period of 12th-10th BCE was much larger than that. Your quote from Amihai Mazar came from "Jerusalem in the 10th Century BCE; The Glass Half Full", by Amihai Mazar, pp 255-270. Mazar states at page 268 that "It should be noted that several cities in Iron Age I–IIA Israel were either similar to Jerusalem in size or were much larger, and some of them were fortified. This was true of the major cities of the Philistines—Ashdod, Gath, and Ekron (the latter decreasing in size during the 10th century)." You knew this, but pretended otherwise. That is quote-mining.

Various people who actually excavated in Jerusalem, including Kenyon, Macalister, Steiner, Duncan and Shiloh, have variously dated the LSS and the SSS from the Jebusites to the Hasmoneans. Not everyone agrees that the LSS and the SSS were built as a single structure, or even that each component was itself built in a single phase. However your POV drives you to fixate on those scholars whose conclusions happen to support your own. A Mazar himself states at Pg 265 "Can the Stepped Structure and the missing building retained by it be identified with the “Fortress of Zion”? To me the identification is plausible in light of the chronological considerations and the nature of the structure as detailed above." The Fortress of Zion was of course a Jebusite citadel, which was taken over by David.

Since all your hypotheses are essentially based on the Bible, including the very existence of Solomon and the United Monarchy, it is strange to see you writing off the Bible stories as "meaningless". Obviously I never suggested that "United Monarchy" means the same thing as "invincible superpower that can defeat any empire on earth!" Your frothing and hyperbole is of course entirely to be expected.

Wdford (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I've already discredited all your points, Wdford. There's no need to act as if this discussion is competitive.

As I said over, the discussion on the Tel Dan Inscription is over. I've fully refuted your points on it, and no scholar takes seriously that there was anything less than two kingdoms with one king each. This is just desperation based on nothing. Give up.

You've finished yourself off when it comes to the Philistine cities. I don't think you just understood what happened. At first, you came around claiming that there were tons of really large Philistine cities. I said no, that's completely wrong, there's only one really big Philistine city - Gath. So, you were wrong there. However, you then made another confusion. You claimed that because I said Gath was a really really big city at the time, that must mean it had structures on the scale of the SSS. I don't know how your brain gets away with these non-sequiturs. Africa is a much bigger place than the United Kingdom, but the United Kingdom has far more monumental architecture than what currently is found anywhere in Africa. Your idea that Gath being big must prove that it had architecture on the scale of the SSS, despite the fact that no such architecture has ever been found, is fanciful. I don't know when you'll come to grips with the fact that there was no structure on the scale of the SSS in the 12th-10th centuries, either in Israel or the neighbors of Israel. Yes, Mazar is a careful scholar. He knows what he's talking about - if there was anything in Gath to suggest otherwise, he wouldn't have said this. But there isn't. And you can't point to any. Because they don't exist. There is no architecture from the 12th-10th centuries in Gath on the scale of the SSS. I don't think you have any idea how massive the SSS is, anyways, as your confusion indicates that it wasn't very impressive - despite being extraordinarily so.

We've already seen that Finkelstein's dating of the SSS/LSS is solely based on the Low Chronology, which in turn is dismissed by almost all archaeologists. I've straight up quoted Finkelstein saying that. You claim I'm focusing only on the people who agree with me, but there is literally not a single scholar besides Finkelstein to argue for a post-10th century date after the completion of Eilat Mazar's excavations. Not one. And the reason why is obvious: he himself says that his dating is based on his Low Chronology. A. Mazar, E. Mazar, Faust, Na'aman, Dever, Cahill, etc and the eventual conclusion that Jerusalem was, though small, clearly an administrative center. Ancient sites don't need a residential area for the small population. As I noted earlier, there simply was no residential area in 10th Jerusalem. This is just a fact, I don't know why you have a consistent problem with facts. This is not to say that there were no homes. But it certainly is to say that there was no "general population" in 10th century Jerusalem. The inhabitants were all individuals there were largely part of the administrative apparatus or connected to those who were. I can't see how you missed this. Administrative centers in antiquity, just like I'm telling you we know is true for Jerusalem here, are common. This isn't rare. This isn't unknown. But as usual, you don't know the basics when it comes to ancient times and so made another basic error.

Your discussion on the chronology is so confused that I barely know when to start. Israel's Bronze/Ironze chronologies has literally nothing to do with the regnal years in the Bible or eclipses. Where did that confusion come from? A 60-80 year difference between the chronologies is significant enough to tell that the Low Chronology fails in numerous ways. The Low Chronology results in extreme compression of lower strata (temporally), completely incoherent strata synchronizations, completely butchered views on pottery chronology, and so forth. You quote Lowell Handy, not realizing that what he says is blatantly incompatible with the Low Chronology. You really know nothing about this, do you? Per the Low Chronology, Iron IIA pottery begins around the turn of the 9th century and lasts for the rest of the century. In this case, Iron IIA pottery would not belong to the 10th century BC at all. However, Handy is saying that, in terms of the fact of the matter, Iron IIA pottery is largely continuous from the 10th to 9th centuries BC. This is in fact a specific prediction of the Modified Conventional Chronology, which posits that Iron IIA pottery starts around 980 BC and lasts until 840 BC. Therefore, Jezreel has 9th century pottery that looks very similar to 10th century pottery at Megiddo. All that shows, of course, is that the pottery in both the 10th and 9th centuries were largely contiguous. You quoted a clear affirmation of the Modified Conventional Chronology, confusedly thinking it helps you out. It in fact refutes the Low Chronology.

There is nothing you can do to change the fact that the overwhelming majority of archaeologists have rejected the Low Chronology. The Low Chronology, in turn, is the only basis on which you can disentangle the SSS, LSS, and all the other structures we've discussed from the 10th century. But please keep telling me about how William Dever and Amihai Mazar are maximalist religious fundamentalists in order to preserve your precious, if fragile views.Editshmedt (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, except for your obsession with the Low Chronology, do you have WP:RS-based edits to make in the article David? None of the editors who disagree with you put all their money on either the Low Chronology or Finkelstein. You behave like this article is about the Low Chronology, while that is at best WP:COATRACK and WP:TE at worst. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

You have insulted some of my points, evaded some of them and twisted some of them, but I don't think that "discredited" is the correct term.

Re the Tel Dan Inscription – I have never suggested that there were less than two "kingdoms", I stated that there were probably scores of "kingdoms". There might not have been exactly precisely seventy kings in this region at any given moment, but both Hazael and Sheshonq defeated a large number of kings, and there would surely have been other kings they never fought with at all. This is yet another strawman diversion.

Re the Philistine cities – obviously they had structures larger than the SSS. The SSS is just a retaining wall, of very limited length. The Philistine cities were big fortified cities with fortification walls all around, thus those fortifications would naturally be much more extensive than the SSS by far. Mazar specifically lists Ashdod, Gath and Ekron in this category, thus not just Gath. Mazar also notes other fortified cities in the region that were bigger than Jerusalem in that period. Your cherry-picked quote is thus convincingly contradicted by the very same author in the very same paper.

Mazar also noted that there is no evidence that Jerusalem itself even had a city wall during this period, and various authors (including Mazar) have suggested that the SSS could actually have been an earlier Jebusite structure to begin with. Mazar at page 270 states that: "The evidence for dating the newly discovered monumental building is almost identical to that of the Stepped Structure: the terminus post quem is the early Iron Age I pottery in the earth layer below the foundations. However, because this layer also abutted the lower courses of the stones of this building and there are no later sherds, it seems plausible that the building was founded around the date of this pottery, that is, during Iron Age I (12th–11th centuries BCE). The Iron IIA pottery (10th–9th centuries BCE) dates the repairs or period of use of this building." Clear enough?

Your understanding of a "residential area" and a "general population" are also a bit strange. At a time when most people lived a rural lifestyle and had rural jobs, virtually all towns existed only as places of religious congregation and trade, and thus taxation. However various authors accept that Jerusalem had a "resident" population of around 4,000. Less than 1,000 of these would have been adult males, and accepting that they would have needed some tradesmen and some cooks and some soldiers and some priests etc, that leaves about the correct number of bureaucrats needed to "govern" a small tribal "empire" of about 20,000 people. Presumably your "definitions" will change over time as editors continue to demonstrate your errors.

You really do have an obsession with the Low Chronology. As I have stated repeatedly, I don't support or reject the Low Chronology, I seriously question the relevance of this debate at all, seeing as how it is generally recognised that dating cannot be that precise to begin with.

Furthermore, since the purported dating of the purported United Monarchy is based on hypothesised calculations based on unreliable Bible stories, I don't share your anguish over potential compression of lower strata by a few decades, wobbly strata synchronizations, and the impact on the acknowledged-unreliability of pottery chronology etc.

I would of course also point to your specious statement that "Jezreel has 9th century pottery that looks very similar to 10th century pottery at Megiddo." If we put aside the desperate need to manufacture a slot for David and Solomon, and if we instead review the actual evidence objectively, it could also be interpreted that "Jezreel has 9th century pottery that looks very similar to 9th century pottery at Megiddo." Not so?

Wdford (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

OUCH. So I've already proven that the "seventy" in the Tel Dan Inscription is symbolic and does not refer to anything more than what Hazael claims elsewhere to have done in the inscription. Nevertheless, my drive to understand the scholarship has lead me to reading more of the literature on the Tel Dan Inscription beyond Biran's 1995 paper. It turns out that the "seventy" reading is under heavy fire from scholarly circles. Andre Lemaire, "The Tel Dan Stele as a Piece of Royal Historiography", JSOT (1998) says that "the reading ’seventy’ is based only on a very small fragment of a letter which is interpreted as part of an ’ayin but could also be part of another letter". Hadi Ghantous also argues against the "seventy" reading on pg. 61 of his book The Elisha-Hazael Paradigm and the Kingdom of Israel, which you can find on Google Books. Matthew Suriano, however, has defended the "seventy" reading in a 2007 paper. However, he's brought attention to a fact that I am utterly amazed has been right under our noses the whole time. Suriano writes: "Several Northwest Semitic sources contain the motif of “killing seventy persons,” and as the initial publication states, the number seventy is symbolic, expressing “totality, all inclusiveness.” Nevertheless, the significance of the phrase is much more specific. All of the examples cited by Biran and Naveh involve a political coup: Abimelek killed the seventy sons of Gideon (Judg. 9:5),32 Jehu killed the seventy sons of Ahab (2 Kings 10:6–7; cf. v. 1), and the unnamed usurper of Samªal killed Bir-Sar and his seventy brothers (or “kinsmen”) (KAI 215:3). The literary motif of killing seventy individuals metaphorically represents the elimination of all other claimants to power" (pp. 167-168). It's amazing how the one time I blindly believed what you said, i.e. that Hazael is talking about defeating kings in Israel/Judah, it turned out to be utterly wrong. First of all, the seventy reading is heavily rejected by many scholars. And for those who accept it, it has a very specific meaning. Hazael was a usurper, and it has been shown that the seventy military motif symbolically refers to defeating all other claimants to power. In other words, on this reading, defeating "seventy kings" is a reference to Hazael defeating his rivals in ancient Syria on the way to his succession to the throne of Aram-Damascus. This has nothing to do with any dispute in Israel/Judah. This is why one does not blindly deny the absolute consensus of all archaeologists regarding the fact that the 9th century involved two kings and two kingdoms based on a spurious reading of one inscription. Your claim that Shishak mentions multiple kings is equally wishful. No such reference in Shishak can be found.

You can keep saying that Philistia had structures on the scale of the SSS, but you don't have any evidence, so I know it's not true. You just have conjecture, whereas I have architectural fact on my side. Guess which one is more likely to be reliable.

I don't even know the relevance of your quoting Mazar on the structure being an earlier Jebusite fortress. That was in 2007. As I quoted Finkelstein pointing out in his 2011 paper, we now know that there is early Iron IIA pottery in the fill under the SSS/LSS. Thus, William Dever accepts a 10th century date in his Beyond the Texts. Nadav Na'aman, in 2014, proposed that the SSS be identified with the Millo that Solomon was said to have constructed. As it happens, Eilat Mazar also agrees with the Millo interpretation. The problem in having conversations with those who are shockingly ignorant is that you have to walk them through ... everything.

Just like any other administrative center, 10th century Jerusalem had no residential population. Hate to keep repeating facts to you. Your discussion on ancient towns/cities is once again so confused that it's hard to know where to start. The idea that "virtually all towns existed only as places of religious congregation and trade" is straight up nonsense. Which "authors" think Jerusalem had a residential population of 4,000 or that the number can magically be divided into normal demographics as if we were not talking about an administrative center where almost everyone would be involved in the administrative apparatus or connected to those who were? An "administrative center", like 10th century Megiddo, is a site where most of the constructions are public buildings. The simple fact of the matter is that Jerusalem was an administrative center and citadel, and the inhabitants there were not part of a residential general population but in fact were tied to the administrative apparatus.

The Low Chronology is the only basis on which the six-chambered gates, ashlar palaces at Megiddo, fortification of Beersheba, construction of the SSS and the LSS, and so forth can be placed in the 9th century rather than the 10th. Unless you defend the Low Chronology, I'm simply going to assume that they're all 10th century.

You write "I don't share your anguish over potential compression of lower strata by a few decades, wobbly strata synchronizations". Why isn't that a problem? Because it destroys the Low Chronology which is the unacknowledged basis of all you write? Almost every living archaeologist thinks its a problem. OOops. Strata compression is a giant problem. Downdating upper strata by a century would force so many lower strata into such a short period of time at several sites that it's a wonder that this can even be proposed. The implausibility is through the roof. Per synchronization, the Low Chronology would require strata with Philistine pottery to be contemporary with strata that have pre-Philistine pottery. That's like dating a city that uses cars alongside another city that uses horses for transportation. Archaeologists often outright dismiss the Low Chronology on that fact alone. And the problems don't stop there.

Sorry, wait, what do you mean by the "acknowledged unreliability of pottery chronology"? Unreliable according to what, exactly? You are aware that Finkelstein's Jezreel pottery argument ... is based on pottery chronology, right?

Re Jezreel pottery. Sorry, this "specious statement" is actually what you just quoted Lowell Handy saying - i.e. that Iron IIA pottery is continuous from the 10th to 9th centuries BC. It seems that the Modified Conventional Chronology is so widely accepted that you don't even realize when you quote from it. The continuity of the pottery has been noted by numerous archaeologists going back to the 1950's (all of whom Finkelstein ignored) and was actually proven by Amihai Mazar himself who demonstrated such pottery at Jezreel and Megiddo is also found at Tel Rehov in the 10th century BC. Even Finkelstein admitted a 10th century date for these Tel Rehov strata. Per Finkelstein's own papers, he puts the strata between 925-900 BC - 80 years before Jezreel's destruction. Of course, even a 920-900 BC dating is considered specious and too low by all other archaeologists, who note that this involves force-fitting two of Tel Rehov's strata in a 25-year period (whereas two strata are no less than 80 years in any other site). Mazar places the beginning of these strata at 960 BC, which seems to be the consensus. Even then, scholars have basically stopped debating this argument of Finkelstein's ever since he conceded the 10th century date for these Tel Rehov strata. It's amazing how Finkelstein has conceded this all the way back in 2003, and yet you continue repeating the specious argument. Once again, I have to walk you through everything.Editshmedt (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

You're the only one here arguing that the Low Chronology is of enormous importance. If you don't produce WP:RS about David, this discussion should be closed according to WP:NOTFORUM. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

You are really starting to babble now. Never a good sign.

It is common cause that the Tel Dan Inscription is badly damaged and seriously incomplete. We will probably never know what else it said. However your frothing about the "symbolic-seventy-seven" is getting comical. After typing oceans of text lecturing us on how the word "seventy" could be deduced with total confidence from the remaining evidence, you now cite a source saying that "the reading ’seventy’ is based only on a very small fragment of a letter which is interpreted as part of an ’ayin but could also be part of another letter". Are you really trying to build the encyclopaedia here, or do you argue on these pages just to pass the time?

According to other non-Biblical evidence, Hazael campaigned much further afield, including Philistia, so there is no justification to assume that the kings of the Tel Dan Inscription originally were limited to just Israel and Judah. Also, the non-Biblical sources re the campaigns of Sheshonq also indicate that he invaded other Canaanite kingdoms, and did not limit himself to Israel. This is well known fact. I think your strawman has run his course, yes?

Here is a website with many modern photos of the Stepped Stone Structure etc, so that you can see exactly how small it really is.

Numerous experts have written that the Philistine cities were huge, and were fortified. Huge fortifications around huge cities will be huge, unlike the SSS. Assaf Yasur-Landau writes in "The Philistines and Aegean Migration at the End of the Late Bronze Age" at page 285 that Ekron "reached an area of about 20 hectares". He also wrote that during the "late eleventh century", Gath grew to "cover an area of 23 hectares". Per Yasur-Landau, before the eleventh century Ashdod and Ashkelon were only "about six to eight hectares each", but that they also grew bigger in the "late eleventh century" and were fortified etc. Lily Singer-Avitz suggests that Ashkelon might have reached as large as 60 hectares. At Ashdod, Lily Singer-Avitz describes a wall dating to "late 11th-early 10th" century as "a massive city wall 4.5 meters wide", and that the remaining ruins of this wall were found to extend quite a distance. Since early Jerusalem was only about 4 hectares, and the SSS did not encompass even a small percentage of early Jerusalem, fortifications surrounding cities of 20-23 hectares would have been comparatively very large indeed. Your pretending to the contrary is pitiful.

Numerous experts have stated that the SSS was part of the original Jebusite fortress, not just Mazar. Even the Bible stories tell that David took over the existing Jebusite fortress/citadel, and made it his own. Numerous experts have stated that the Millo was part of this same original Jebusite fortress, ie that the SSS is part of the original Jebusite Millo. Your POV drives you to home in on the authors who support your POV, but that is only a part of the bigger picture.

It is also comical how you continue to insist that nobody lived in Jerusalem except for all the people who lived in Jerusalem. What are you actually trying to achieve down this particular rabbit-hole please?

I have no problem with the Modified Conventional Chronology, or any other Chronology – it's not important to this article. I fully accept that "Iron IIA pottery is continuous from the 10th to 9th centuries BCE". I'm sure this problem is not limited to Iron IIA pottery either. It is only your determination to perpetuate the Low Chronology strawman that hinders progress here. I found it interesting how you tried to trick me into "defending" the Low Chronology. Mmmmmmm.

Finally, you put huge emphasis on the "Solomonic" six-chambered gates, but you neglect to mention that other six-chambered gates existed outside of Solomon's territory – including a six-chambered gate in Ashdod, where Solomon would never have ventured. How did all these cities have near-identical gates, when Solomon (assuming he existed at all) never built things in Ashdod? Who did control both Ashdod and Megiddo in this time period, along with many other places, and came from a monumental-building culture? Who could it possibly have been? Oh wait, was it perhaps Sheshonq? Could it maybe have been him? He did erect a stela at Megiddo ... I wonder if ….. Wdford (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Biran's reconstruction was wrong, so what. Tel Dan inscrip says "two kings" or "mighty kings". You later claim Hazael campaigned in Philistia, which I'm pretty sure is a factual error, and then make assertions I've never heard of regarding the Shishak campaigns without citations. Yawn, that tends to indicate it is fictitious. You keep forgetting that you need to prove that Philistia had SSS-sized buildings, not big borders. The simply reality of the matter is that Mazar said that there is no Philistine construction from the 12th-10th centuries on the scale of the SSS. P.S. The images you gave of the SSS show it is gigantic. Put on your glasses. Do you not see the size of those rocks?

You then bloop again on Jerusalem. I feel no need to repeat my education of you from last time. We now know there is Iron IIA pottery in the construction fill of the SSS now (information not available to Mazar in 2007 before the reports were finalized in 2012), which means it dates to the 10th, not the 12th-11th centuries, per Mazar (2007). More recently, Mazar has admitted that the most likely dating is 10th century, as has everyone else (except Finkelstein of course, because his Low Chronology would give the structure a 9th century date instead). Given a 10th century dating, identification with the Millo that Solomon constructed (per 1 Kings 9:15, 24) is most probable. You also blatantly misrepresent my words on Jerusalem's population, somehow getting the fanciful idea that I said Jerusalem had a population but it didn't. Only a Wdford could read that into my statements. Wdford also repeats his claim that Jerusalem was 4ha, which means he dogmatically excludes the possibility, which archaeologists have not validated or discounted, that Jerusalem included the Temple Mount - making it 12ha. FYI, if it was 12ha, it would be a medium sized city rather than a small city. If Solomon did build the Temple as stated, then the 12ha size would be correct. Keep in mind that a large number of scholars have been shifting to accepting that Solomon did in fact build the Temple because of architectural finds being made in the last few decades. Garfinkel & Mumcuoglu make a pretty damn good case for Solomon constructing the temple in this paper: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/10/3/198. I found it pretty convincing, although I had no thoughts on the topic prior to reading this. Give me your thoughts when you read it yourself.

It seems you have no problem with the Modified Conventional Chronology and you admit that Iron IIA pottery is continuous from the 10th-9th centuries per all scholars now. Per this statement, you also have no problem with a 10th century date for all the aforementioned structures.

You then come up with another weird fringe theory that SHOSHENQ! was the one to construct six-chambered gates in both Ashdod in Philistine territory and the ones in Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer. This is despite the fact that Shishak never even stepped into Philistia. Nadav Na'aman briefly describes the geography of the campaign: "The Egyptian topographical list indicates that the campaign was directed against the Kingdom of Israel and the settlements of the Beer-sheba Valley, the Negev Highlands and the lower Naúal Besor area. The campaign skipped over the territories of the Philistine kingdoms (the coast and most of the Shephelah) and avoided the difficulties and dangers involved with wide-scale operations in the central hill country" (Na'aman, "The Kingdom of Judah in the 9th Century BCE: Text Analysis versus Archaeological Research", Tel Aviv (2013), pg. 265). That was an unfortunate goof.Editshmedt (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The Tel Dan inscription DOES NOT say "two kings" or "mighty kings". Even the Bible stories say that Hazael campaigned successfully in Philistia. If you are so knowledgeable about all these things, you should be aware of this basic fact. (2 Kings 12:17 – "About this time Hazael king of Aram went up and attacked Gath and captured it. Then he turned to attack Jerusalem.") We also have confirmation from archaeologists such as Bar-Ilan University Professor Aren Maeir, the expert on Gath – see eg . It's really time for you to retire this sad strawman.

The photos I linked show that the SSS is much less than "gigantic". See those people at the top? They are adult humans – kindly providing you with some scale. The individual rocks are not what Mazar was talking about, but they are not particularly impressive either, and they are quite possibly Jebusite to begin with. Mmmm?

Meanwhile, over at Gath, Maeir has been finding properly massive buildings. Herewith some quotes from Maeir, in :

• "They show that the buildings and the fortifications were very large, built with extremely large stones."
• "The monumental architecture is of much larger dimensions than almost anything found in the Levant during this era."

I particularly like this paragraph, on the potential origins of the Goliath story: "Perhaps the authors of the Bible saw the remains of the outsized 11th century building on the ground, speculated Maeir, and thought to themselves, “Enormous stones? Who could move such things? Only giants could move it.” Similar mythological narratives have developed at other ancient wonders, including Stonehenge and Easter Island, he said." Mmmmm?

And yet again - more of your tired ranting about the Low Chronology. The Temple (of which there is zero actual evidence) was purportedly built by Solomon (assuming he really existed) and not by David, so it is not relevant to this article.

Re the campaign of Shoshenq into Palestine, he recorded his feats on the Bubastite Portal at Karnak. The toponym list names approximately 180 places he captured or destroyed, of which only about 25 can still be read today. Much of the inscriptions have been eroded over time, but Megiddo is still legible, as are Beit She'an and Gibeon and Socoh, and Aijalon, which is in the Shephelah. In a summation written by GW Ahlström Ahlström notes that both K Kitchen and B Mazar believe that the Shoshenq army used Gaza as one of their base camps (pages 5;7;12;13). Coastal Gaza was a major Philistine city, and may have already been under Egyptian control or allegiance before the campaign started. Na'aman is entitled to an opinion, but other scholars have other opinions.

PS: So who do you suppose built the gate at Ashdod that is exactly like the Megiddo gate, seeing as how Solomon could not and did not?

An interesting insight on Pg 13: Ahlström writes that pharaohs "customarily did not penetrate the hills of Judah because of the sparse settlement and the lack of large cities".

Shoshenq also set up a stela bearing his cartouche at Megiddo to commemorate his victory. See also How come you have never heard of this?

Ahlström believes (pg 13) that Shoshenq’s motive for the war was to “build his own trade network in Palestine. Since most trade routes bypassed the mountains of Judah, Rehoboam’s Judah would not have been as big a concern as a campaign target. Nothing would really have been gained in conquering the hill country of Judah, with its sparse population." However Ahlström notes that the Bible story at 1 Kings 14 mentions "Shishak" actually attacking Jerusalem, and acknowledges the possibility that Jerusalem may indeed have been included in the campaign, and that this name may have been on that part of the list which has not survived.

Re the "case" made by Garfinkel & Mumcuoglu for Solomon constructing the temple, the article was an interesting read. The descriptions and models look exactly like Egyptian temples. According to the text there were also similar temples in Turkey and Syria etc – far away from Solomon's territory. Comparing against the temple at Motza confirms the historicity of the biblical tradition, but it DOES NOT confirm the historicity of the Solomonic temple in Jerusalem. Garfinkel is really stretching a bit here. I also found it interesting that the only "actual temple building" of this general description, namely at Motza, was from the 9th century BCE. I suspect that the Motza temple may actually have been the "Solomonic" temple which the later Jehudite Bible scribes decided to describe as being in Jerusalem - and Solomonic. As you say, it’s a very short walk to Jerusalem from Motza, and why would they maintain two temples so close together? Mmmmmm.

Wdford (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Facts I pointed out that you gleefully evaded: (1) The Tel Dan Inscription, per tons of scholars, in fact says "two kings" (Lemaire) or "mighty kings" (Na'aman). Most reject seventy; the one scholar after Biran's initial report I found that accepts the 'seventy' reading is Suriano, and Suriano thinks it refers to opponents in Syria and simply means, not seventy actual kings, but non-kings who were simply competing with Hazael for the throne of Aram-Damascus. (2) You once again bargled again that the SSS is a Jebusite fortress, i.e. that it is pre-Iron IIA, despite the fact that as I've pointed out now, and as Finkelstein pointed out in 2011, and as Eilat Mazar published in 2012, the construction fill of the SSS has early Iron IIA pottery. By definition, a structure post-dates the construction fill its built over.

I saw the humans for scale in the SSS photo - the SSS is huge. Per your Maeir quote: the building at Gath is bigger than "almost" anything else found in the Levant at the time. Seems like Maier is aware there's something bigger. So this desperate googling attempt totally backfired. Tell you what. Why don't you actually find the paper of that structure, take a look at its measurements, and get back to me on whether you think it's on the scale of the SSS or not. I also find this quite comical. You found a structure in Gath that's smaller than the SSS and are proclaiming that it is gigantic. But the SSS, which is bigger, you proclaim to be small. Please explain that to me.

So you have no evidence that Sheshonq campaigned in Philistia (obviously the Bubasite portal, apparently you just learned the name of it, doesn't mention any such thing). You also don't seem to realize that the Ashdod gate may well be 9th century, and that there's a 9th century six-chambered gate at Lachish as well. Don't even get me started when it comes to the similarity between these five gates. The three gates at Gezer, Hazor, and Megiddo are all significantly closer to each other than the ones at Lachish or Ashdod.

Solomon Temple. Oh boy. You suddenly develop a weird obsession with the Motza date, even coming up with the nonsensical theory that it is the real Temple that the Bible describes, and ... totally forgetting the fact that the Garfinkel & Mumcuoglu paper also mention a similar temple is known in 10th century Khirbet Qeiyafa. Garfinkel & Mumcuoglu essentially demonstrate the historicity of the Solomonic Temple in one sentence: “The presence of a large, stone-built temple in the 9th century BCE at Motza, one hour’s walk from Jerusalem, completely changes the picture of cult in the Kingdom of Judah. If there was a temple at a secondary administrative site, there would certainly have been a central temple in the kingdom’s capital.” That is a BRUTALLY powerful argument, enough to settle this whole conversation. Jerusalem in the 10th century included the Temple Mount and so was a medium-sized, 12ha administrative site. It turns out that this is also the majority opinion of archaeologists: "Most scholars basically accept that Solomon erected a temple, though it may certainly be debated to what extent the biblical descriptions of its dimensions, decorations, and wealth reflect the realities of Solomon’s period" (Isaac Kalimi, Writing and Rewriting the Story of Solomon in Ancient Israel, Cambridge University Press, 2019, pg. 73).

Every time you say "Mmmmmm", I imagine a greasy old man licking his lips.Editshmedt (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

EditSchmedit, while it is not up to me to advise others how they are spending the time, Lord knows I'm not making the best use of mine, why don't you focus your attention on other articles? Even if you are 99% right, almost nothing in all these wall-of-texts are even slightly related to David, the legendary Judahite leader. You seem to know a lot about archaeology and there are a lot of articles that are bad and needs to be improved. For example, your recent edits at Tel Dan Stele were constructive and I didn't revert them (only reworded them slightly because it's not true that the "70 kings" rendering has been "dropped"). ImTheIP (talk) 05:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

More insults, and more rabbit holes.

On 17 January you stated that the reconstruction of the Tel Dan Inscription was solid, that "the 'seventy' reconstruction is actually based on the surviving grammar", and that my suggestion that the original text might have included some other number "simply flies in the face of logic". Now suddenly, "per tons of scholars", one person suggests it could have actually said "two kings" and one other person suggests it could have actually said "mighty kings". This is starting to look like one of those kiddy-games where you fill in the words of your choice on a template and you make up your own story. And this is the ONLY "evidence" that King David ever actually existed? Nice.

Even the Bible stories agree that pre-Davidic Jerusalem was a Canaanite settlement with a fortress, which David took over and adopted for himself. There was zero time delay between the two owners. We know that there is a lot of uncertainty about when exactly David reigned, or when he came to Jerusalem to begin with, as there is zero evidence in Jerusalem that he even existed at all. We are also told that David built further alongside those existing fortifications, and that subsequent Judean kings made holes in the walls, as well as repairs and extensions of their own, at various subsequent "Iron Age" dates. We know that the dating of Iron Age II is NOT precise, with a lot of blurred lines and continuity at the start and end with the "neighbouring" Iron Ages. We know that there is disagreement about the identification and the time periods of "early Iron IIA pottery" to begin with. Ergo, some authors are confident that the SSS is Davidic, some attribute it to Solomon, and some think it is Canaanite/Jebusite. Like the Tel Dan Inscription, the evidence is vague enough to allow all POV's to prosper.

The SSS is actually quite small. On top of this, the SSS is not actually a building, it is just a wall of stones stacked up against the hillside, and buttressed for support.

Maeir is comparing the temple at Gath against "anything found in the Levant during this era." The definition of the Levant varies, but even the "smaller" definition includes all of Phoenicia and Syria, as well as a chunk of Turkey. If the temple at Gath is larger than almost anything built in Phoenicia, Syria or Turkey, then it was immense. It is a huge stretch to assume that the "almost anything" referred to the SSS – which isn't even a building.

So we do have actual evidence that Shoshenq campaigned in Philistia. Not only does the Karnak list include Laban and Rafia, but experts including Kitchen, B Mazar, Ahlström etc agree. Twist away, troll.

There is a lot of scholarly contention about the so-called "Solomonic" gates. Apart from the usual problems of confused strata and the precise assignment of pottery styles, there are many similar gates (none of them identical), and some of them could not possibly have been built by Solomon (assuming he even existed). The Bible stories don't mention these gates, and the arguments fr dating all of the gates to a post-Solomon period are strong.

The temple at Motza was small, it had evidence of worshiping "false gods", and the floor plan copied those of the "neighbouring" peoples. Per the Bible stories, the main Jerusalem temple also copied the pagan temples. Khirbet Qeiyafa did not have a temple, merely a couple of rooms that may have been used for "cultic purposes". Garfinkel's subsequent deduction is that there would "certainly have been a central temple in the kingdom’s capital". There probably would have been a temple in Jerusalem, to provide for the needs of all those RESIDENTS. However nothing discovered at Motza gives any indication of when this Jerusalem temple may have been built, how large it may have been, or who may have built it. It therefore settles absolutely nothing.

If a King Solomon really existed (despite the utter absence of evidence thereof), then it is likely that he would have built a temple of some sort. It may have been a huge structure (despite the utter absence of evidence thereof), or it may have been a smaller and more humble structure. Even Kalimi admits to significant uncertainty. Other scholars are more outspoken on the issue. You, as usual, are cherry-picking. Wdford (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Yup, I agree with both: Edtishmedt has read a lot of archaeological papers, but he has an axe to grind against the Low Chronology and generally speaking, he often cannot make heads or tails of what he has read. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The first paragraph is just something else. My statements were based on a reading of the 1995 report publishing additional fragments of the Tel Dan Inscription. If that paper is all one knows, then that is certainly the impression one gets. Sudden shifts of understanding are simply part of the process once you bother widening your horizon. Remember when you thought that Aram-Damascus was "obviously" Assyria? Remember when you thought it was "specious" that Iron IIA pottery in Jezreel was also part of the 10th century, not just the 9th? Now these are obvious to you. The simple fact of the matter is that you've had fifty opinion shifts over the course of this conversation. Criticizing me for updating my opinion in light of the evidence is, apparently, all you've got now.

Once again, a 10th century date is not reconcilable, unless you can prove otherwise, with a Jebusite identification. I myself followed Mazar on the Jebusite identification until I learned of this updated evidence. When you learn new evidence, you don't try to force-fit it with your views (in this case, 10th century + Jebusite construction). If it's incompatible with the evidence, just find a better view.

The SSS is quite gigantic. I find this absolutely amazing. You post a finding by Maeir of this absolutely gigantic, megalithic 11th century architecture at Gath ... which is actually smaller than the SSS. But the SSS is small and what you found is gigantic. How does that make any sense? Now, this structure at Gath was only excavated in the 2018-2019 seasons. It is not actually fully published yet, and perhaps we can expect it to be published in the next few years. At Gath, fortifications typically have walls of the size of about 2m in width (Welch et al., "The Limits of the~ Ancient City: The Fortifications of Tell es-Safi/Gath 115 Years after Bliss and l\llacalister" in Exploring the Holy Land, Equinox, 2019). From what we know so far in this recently excavated monumental architecture at Gath, the authors consider it seriously significant because this Iron IB fortification appears to have walls that are actually up to 4m in width. Maeir writes: "In the most recent seasons of excavations (2018–2019), additional megalithic-like architecture was discovered. In several areas in the lower city (Areas K, B, and D East; figs. 5–6), evidence of massive fortifications dating to the Iron IB were revealed. These fortifications, which appear to be ca. four meters wide, are substantially more massive than those used in the Iron IIA city, the city destroyed by Hazael (ca. 830 BCE)" (Maeir, Aren. "Memories, Myths, and Megalithics: Reconsidering the Giants of Gath", Journal of Biblical Literature (2020), pg. 679). So, we know these crucial facts: Iron IIA fortifications at Gath are substantially smaller than what they just found from the Iron IB period, which has walls up to 4 meters wide. Let's look back at the SSS/LSS then. The main wall of this complex is known as Wall 20. Want to know how wide Wall 20 is? 5 meters. Good game.

Nadav Na'aman said that Shishak never mentions any Philistine sites. You make a series of claims: (1) the Shishak inscription mentions cities called 'Rafia' and 'Laban' (2) these are to be identified with Philistine sites. What's the evidence for this? Nadav Na'aman's scholarship is a priority over your assertions. Even the scholars you quote for your position are admittedly conjecturing. This conversation is of no importance. A six-chambered gate in 9th century Lachish is known. We don't need Shishak to build six-chambered gates. Also, the six-chambered gates at Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer are again much closer to each other than the 9th century one at Lachish or the one at Ashdod (which may itself be 9th century). You overlooked all of this. You also rewrite history: Shishak is no longer some invader who attacks a bunch of sites per the Bubasite Portal and biblical sources, but in fact (according to you) completely conquered the region, reigned there for years, and began erecting tons of six-chambered gates (but apparently nothing else?) without leaving behind any biblical traditions of this happening, any Egyptian pottery, any distinctive Egyptian styles of construction. This is crackpottery.

For some reason, you kind of obsess over the fact that the Jerusalem Temple was built with similar architecture to other sites all over the Levant and Mesopotamia - this is "PAGAN!" architecture! No one has ever told me how architecture could be pagan, but you do you, LOL. You've seemed to calm down with the Motza temple and dropped the crackpot claim that it is the real biblical temple. Garfinkel & Mumcuoglu make an excellent point: if a little secondary administrative site like Motza had a temple, then the capital of the whole kingdom, Jerusalem, would CERTAINLY have one. So there must have been one in 9th century Jerusalem at the latest. I don't understand your claim that there is no evidence for Solomon. The fact that Solomon's Temple building so strongly resembles the known architecture of temples from that period is surely evidence. Finkelstein himself, when he was still on his full on Low Chronology crusade, says that archaeologically we can say Solomon existed: "Archaeologically, we can say no more about David and Solomon except that they existed" (Bible Unearthed, pg. 143). And Isaac Kalimi says that this 10th century Solomonic Temple is the majority opinion of archaeologists. I'm not cherry picking Kalimi at ALL. Granted there is a discussion over the size of Solomon's Temple (and I never indicated there wasn't) - but that he BUILT it means that Jerusalem included the Temple Mount, making it a medium-sized 12ha city. Ultimately, you did not do your homework. You simply believed what you read online without doing the hard work of reading the scholarship. Given the fact that half the people debating this on the internet are flat out mythicists, you should've been wary of the fact that what you'd learn on the internet is blatant indoctrination rather than education. You should've read the literature. And no, the Temple would NOT be needed for a non-administrative population. Khirbet Qeiyafa was a temporary military fortification-city and it clearly had cultic buildings. Editshmedt (talk) 17:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to add a lengthy quote by Kalimi: "Gershon Galil examines the biblical description of Solomon’s Temple in Kings in the light of ancient Near Eastern building stories, and concludes that it is reasonable that the “Temple was built in the days of Solomon, and the building story was composed by Solomon’s scribes: no king in the ancient Near East caused his scribes to compose a building story or inscription in honor of another king ... it is even less conceivable that a king would build a temple or a palace and attribute it to one of his predecessors.” In contrast, Galil provides numerous examples of ancient Near Eastern kings who denigrate the temple-building activities of their predecessors in order to exalt their own. Therefore, the idea that a later king of Judah actually built the Jerusalem Temple, and attributed it to Solomon, is not only unsupported by any biblical text, but also unparalleled in the ancient Near Eastern building accounts. One could also ask why, if a later king of Judah wished to attribute the Temple to a predecessor, would they not have attributed it to David, rather than Solomon? Instead, the emphasis in both the early and late biblical historiographies that David was unable to build the Temple, while Solomon did so, parallels many other ancient Near Eastern temple-building accounts that contrast the Temple builder with his predecessors" (pp. 74-75). Now that is ALSO quite strong.Editshmedt (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, well, so the original Temple in Jerusalem was monotheistic?

Between the 10th century and the beginning of their exile in 586 there was polytheism as normal religion all throughout Israel; only afterwards things begin to change and very slowly they begin to change. I would say it is only correct for the last centuries, maybe only from the period of the Maccabees, that means the second century BC, so in the time of Jesus of Nazareth it is true, but for the time before it, it is not true.

— Prof. Dr. Herbert Niehr, Tübingen University, Bible's Buried Secrets, Did God have A Wife, BBC, 2011

So, it is quite weird a claim that the Jews were having a monotheistic Temple in the 10th or 9th century BCE.

There is absolutely no archaeological evidence that David and Solomon weren't polytheists. And the Temple described in the Bible is most definitely not aniconist. So, if we define Judaism as "faith in only One God + aniconism", the Temple of Solomon wasn't a temple of Judaism. Judaic aniconism could have developed only after the destruction of the Temple of Solomon, so much later after the Temple got built. If any aniconists would have been around when the Temple got built, the Israelites would have just killed the aniconists. Any aniconist trying to mess with the building would have been killed as a traitor or blasphemer.

The irony is that the Temple of Solomon was the greatest stumbling block for the development of Judaic aniconism, and maybe, just maybe, greatest stumbling block for the development of monotheism. The Judaism witnessed by Jesus would have not been viable if the Temple of Solomon were still around. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Granted there is a discussion over the size of Solomon's Temple (and I never indicated there wasn't) - but that he BUILT it means that Jerusalem included the Temple Mount, making it a medium-sized 12ha city. Ultimately, you did not do your homework. So the argument is that because the Temple Mount, that was built in the first decades of the first millenia, is 15 hectares, 10th century BCE Jerusalem must have been 12 hectares. I don't think that flies. ImTheIP (talk) 13:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Looks like you didn't do your homework either. The Temple Mount was originally 7 hectares and was expanded to todays 14 hectares by Herod the Great. But thanks for telling me that my argument doesn't "fly" based on a 2 second google search.Editshmedt (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I must not have done my homework, since I had no idea that excavations were conducted on the Temple Mount. Nor that these excavations had produced evidence for a 7 hectare platform dating to the 10th century. ImTheIP (talk) 06:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

So wait, you're telling me I need to debate yet another well-known fact here because your 2 second google search went awry and didn't take into account the possibility that the Temple Mount today may not necessarily have been the same size as it was 3,000 years ago? I now need to debate the fact, as found in hundreds of publications, that Herod doubled the size of the Temple Mount or that a Jerusalem including the Temple Mount would be 12 hectares? And I need to do this based on your misconception that you need to excavate a site to know how big it is? How many "facts" stop counting when it comes to these topics?Editshmedt (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe he did. Anyway, you're begging the question that 7 ha from 1st century BCE mean 7 ha from 10th century BCE. I mean inhabited hectares. Coogan said that all Jerusalem had then 12 acres. That is 4.856 hectares. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

And yet more insults and yet more repetition.

To objective persons, the obvious problem lies in your assertion about "yet another well-known fact". The Temple Mount that exists today was largely a creation of Herod, plus maybe some subsequent repairs and modifications. There is ZERO evidence that Solomon built anything at all, and to the extent that a Temple existed in pre-exile times, it was probably quite small and conservative. However, based purely on Bible stories and CONJECTURE, it is supposed that Solomon built a huge temple on a huge mount. As has been the case throughout this long and tiresome discussion, the argument is about EVIDENCE vs CONJECTURE. There is still ZERO evidence for Solomon or his temple, and the millions of scholars who CONJECTURE a Solomon and a Temple based on Bible stories alone, does not change that FACT.

I have not had "fifty opinion shifts" – my opinion has always been that there is ZERO evidence for the United Monarchy, and that scholarly opinions in support of the United Monarchy are based on CONJECTURE not evidence. The Tel Dan Inscription says zero about Saul or Solomon, and it says zero about David or Judah. It merely mentions that one of the author's enemies was a king descended from the "House of David". It says zero about what a "king" means in that context, it says zero about what the "House of David" means, and it says zero about Jerusalem or Judah – although it clearly mentions the Kingdom of Israel. We accept that the inscription is badly damaged, and that even what we have left is open to quite varied interpretation, but thus far no scholar has attempted to suggest that any of the many blank spaces mentioned a huge kingdom of Judah based in Jerusalem, or that David's successor was a wise and wealthy chap named Solomon.

In the time period mentioned by A Mazar, Aram-Damascus was possessed by the kings of Assyria – that is accepted fact. The Assyrians were major builders – that is also a fact. Your snide little dig is meaningless here.

I never ever said that "Iron IIA pottery in Jezreel was also part of the 10th century, not just the 9th." That is a lie. I actually wrote, on 23 January: "It could also be interpreted that "Jezreel has 9th century pottery that looks very similar to 9th century pottery at Megiddo.""

The SSS is NOT "quite gigantic", it’s merely a retaining wall consisting of stones stacked against a hillside. It's not even a proper building. The Pyramids of Giza are "quite gigantic" – if you look at it objectively, the SSS barely registers as "quite large".

Kenyon interpreted most of the SSS structures to be Jebusite. Using pottery found in the fills in the buttressing "compartments", both Shiloh and Kenyon dated the construction of the complex to the "transitional period between the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age I (13th–12th centuries BCE)." This falls into the Jebusite period. They deduced that this structure was built onto the old Jebusite structures.

Steiner thought that some of the terraces may have been built by the Egyptians, who controlled Canaan at the end of the 13th century BCE.

A Mazar notes that pottery from Iron I was found in the constructional fills of the SSS, and abutting the foundations of the LSS, but nothing more recent. A Mazar is of the opinion that "the Iron I pottery is as close as it can be to the construction date of the large architectural complex". Iron Age I starts in around 1300 BCE, i.e. much earlier than the Davidic period, i.e. in the Jebusite period, so A Mazar suggests that the complex should be identified with the Jebusite "Fortress of Zion" – which is itself attested in the Bible stories as pre-existing David. Clear enough?

E Mazar desperately wanted to find the palace of King David, so she looked at the Large Stone Structure and declared it to be the palace built by the Phoenicians for King David, based on no evidence at all. E Mazar admits that the terraces seemed to have incorporated the remains of earlier construction in the area, such as Late Bronze Age walls. She declares this to be "one of the most sophisticated structures known from the Iron Age in all the Land of Israel" – wisely refraining from including the structures of Philistia and Assyria in that comparison. She concludes with the statement that: "This extraordinary complex no doubt belonged to a centralized, economically strong regime, which would have been led by only the most visionary of rulers." Quite how she deduces that the ruler was "most visionary" is unclear – it reads more like a fangirl than a scientist.

Finkelstein subsequently criticised E Mazar quite severely. He noted that structures from the Hellenistic, Roman and later periods penetrated down to bedrock in places, destroying earlier remains and sometimes built onto earlier walls, such that "in many cases it was difficult to distinguish by sight the Herodian walls from the Iron Age ones". He also noted that "In many places Late Hellenistic and early Roman pottery was found as deep as the massive walls interpreted as belonging to the LSS. In one spot a complete Herodian cooking pot was found among the large boulders; in another place a late Iron II bulla was found between the stones." Finkelstein notes that in some places the area was extensively excavated in the early 20th century and then backfilled, so the strata and potsherds are not necessarily in their original strata anymore.

Significantly, Finkelstein rejects the assertion that the SSS and the LSS are a single structure, pointing out that the so-called junction of the two is complicated by Hellenistic construction and modern restoration work. This was confirmed by A. Mazar.

Here is a great quote form Finkelstein: "Whoever claims that the "magnitude and uniqueness of the combined 'Stepped Structure' and the 'Large Stone Structure' are unparalleled anywhere in the Levant between the 12th and early 9th centuries BCE"; or that "he combined building was the main structure in Iron Age I Jerusalem and is indeed the most impressive building from this period throughout the region" speaks about a structure that cannot be seen today and that may have never existed."

He ends with: "Based on solid archaeological arguments alone, that is, without relying on the biblical text, no seasoned archaeologist would have associated the remains in question with monumental architecture of the 10th century B.C." Satisfied?

A lot of construction in Israel is distinctively Egyptian in style, including also the temple at Motza. However I agree that we don’t need Shishak to build six-chambered gates – other parties might easily have done so, including Canaanite or Phoenician builders. My point, before you went down the rabbit hole again, was that there is ZERO evidence that these gates were built by Solomon. The fact that the six-chambered gates at Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer are closely grouped is meaningless – they are far from Jerusalem, which was supposedly Solomon's capital city, and there are no gates (or even proper walls) in Jerusalem dating to the purported period of Solomon. As usual, this is a case of EVIDENCE vs CONJECTURE.

You state that "The fact that Solomon's Temple building so strongly resembles the known architecture of temples from that period is surely evidence." However there is no sign of "Solomon's Temple", so what are you comparing with? Oh yes, just more Bible stories. CONJECTURE. There is ZERO evidence that Solomon built a Temple Mount of any size at all – his temple may not have needed such a thing.

I agree that "it is even less conceivable that a king would build a temple or a palace and attribute it to one of his predecessors.” I am not suggesting that a later king of Judah actually built the Jerusalem Temple and attributed it to Solomon – this is merely your latest strawman. I am suggesting that Solomon's Temple was very modest, but that much later the scribes were trying to create a myth of past glory, and grossly exaggerated the size of Solomon's efforts.

I also agree that the people of the time of David and Solomon were polytheist's, as we have ample evidence of pagan worship practices in places like Motza, and the Bible stories also tell that Solomon built pagan temples to please his many foreign wives. Maybe Motza itself was a temple which Solomon built for a pagan god to please a pagan princess, as per 1 Kings 11? Maybe that is why a second temple was built so close to Jerusalem – it is for a different god, but close enough that the princess in question could commute?

I summary, there is ZERO EVIDENCE that Solomon existed, there is ZERO EVIDENCE for Solomon's temple or temple mount, there is ZERO EVIDENCE that David was a king of a large kingdom, there is ZERO EVIDENCE that David or Solomon built the LSS or the SSS, and there is ZERO EVIDENCE that the United Monarchy was ever more than a handful of hill-tribes working together against more powerful opponents. All the scholarly theories to the contrary are CONJECTURE based on Bible stories rather than evidence.

Are we done now, or do you want to repeat yourself yet again? Wdford (talk) 13:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Looks like Wdford is floundering after being completely refuted.

There's plenty of evidence for Solomon. The verifiability of the Solomon Temple traditions in Samuel and Kings, according to the majority of scholars and the evidence, implies that there was a Solomon and that this Solomon built a Temple on the Temple Mount. We already know there was a 9th century temple in Motza, there were cultic sites in 10th century Khirbet Qeiyafa, and that the architecture of the Temple in Kings is highly analogous to the temple architecture of the general region in that time. As Garfinkel & Mumcuoglu note, if there was a temple in a secondary site like Motza in the 9th century BC, there hardly couldn't have been one on in the capital of the kingdom. And as Galil notes, there's no possible way that this temple would have been built by a king after Solomon who then attributed it one of his predecessors, Solomon, rather than himself. We don't know the extent of Solomon's temple, but the evidence unanimously verifies that there was a Solomon who built a temple of some sort on the mount in 10th century BC Jerusalem. If David existed, it could hardly be wishfully supposed that Solomon didn't exist. It clearly doesn't make sense. And we know David was around because of the Tel Dan Inscription. Wdford reaches by desperately trying to convince everyone that we don't know what "House of David" means ... despite the fact that "House of X" is a well-known ancient near eastern formula to denote a line of kings (a dynasty) that goes back to a specific founder of the dynasty, i.e. the X in "House of X". For example, the Assyrian records speak of a "House of Omri". The meaning is clear to someone who isn't Wdford.

The points about the SSS are even more desperate than before. Earlier, Wdford summoned up the wishful thinking that Aram-Damascus was "obviously" Assyria. Why did Wdford think this was obvious? Did he have evidence? Did he even know what Aram-Damascus was? No. He just saw that both territories started with an 'A' and so thought "Huh! Must be the same!" So we know Wdford makes wild assertions that he has fully convinced himself of based on nothing more than a hunch. After I noted that this is gibberish, Wdford now has a new wishful thinking: that Assyria somehow conquered Aram-Damascus in the 12th-10th centuries. What is Wdford even talking about? This is an event that ... never happened. It's like saying that China conquered Atlantis. What? Who? When? Where does this suggestion even come from? I don't know. I can take a look at a perfectly good professional map of the ancient near east between the 12th-10th centuries BC here: https://www.ancient.eu/map/. According to this map, Assyria never controlled the region that was Aram-Damascus in the 12th-10th centuries BC. So why would I believe Wdford? So why does Wdford think this is so? No one knows. Seriously, no one. Can anyone here figure out why Wdford thinks Assyria controlled Aram-Damascus in the 12th-10th centuries BC? I've dug up a paper a read and saved a few weeks ago that should educate Wdford. Wdford needs to know he can't make up entire histories based on a hunch. He can learn, but only by being educated. The following is an extended summary of the history of the conflicts between Assyria and Aram-Damascus in the late 2nd millennium BC, as described by Wayne Pitard, Professor Emeritus at the University of Illinois' Classics Department:

"Our knowledge of the Aramean tribes and states of this region comes substantially from non-Aramaic sources, particularly from Assyrian annal texts, which describe the conflicts between the Assyrians and various Aramean groups between the 12th and 8th centuries BCE. The inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser I and Ashur-belkala (1073–1056 BCE) describe persistent Assyrian conflicts with the Arameans. Tiglath-Pileser states in one of his inscriptions: “I have crossed the Euphrates twenty-eight times, twice in one year, in pursuit of the Ahlamu-Arameans.” Although the Assyrian texts do not discuss the strategic reasons for their conflicts here, presumably the primary problem Tiglath-Pileser faced was the practice of Aramean tribes raiding caravans along the principle trade routes. Thus the attacks on the Arameans were almost certainly to stabilize the security of the region. However, it is evident, in view of the number of campaigns described in Tiglath-Pileser’s inscriptions, that the sending of troops annually to clear out the raiding parties proved quite ineffective. A fragmentary section of a Middle Assyrian chronicle has been interpreted as describing a large-scale invasion of Aramean tribes into the center of Assyria during the final years of Tiglath-Pileser I, a period in which a serious drought brought about substantial chaos in the region. Some scholars have reconstructed the text to say that the Arameans actually captured Nineveh during this time. However, the understanding of this text remains uncertain, and the role of the Arameans in the events described is unclear The Aramean tribes continued to cause problems during the reign of Tiglath-Pileser’s son and second successor, Ashur-bel-kala (1073–1056 BCE), who fought with the same tribes in largely the same regions as his father had. In the “Broken Obelisk” inscription, Ashur-bel-kala lists battle after battle with Arameans in the vicinity of various cities along the Habur and Euphrates valleys, and in one case even near a town on the Tigris. It seems clear from the wording of these passages that the Arameans were not the inhabitants of the towns mentioned, but rather had been creating problems in those regions. The inscriptions of Ashur-bel-kala cease after the king’s 5th or 6th year, and for about a century afterward, Assyria falls into eclipse. Whether this decline occurred primarily because of Aramean assaults or whether the tribes simply took advantage of a situation brought about by other circumstances cannot be determined from the surviving sources. It is clear, however, that during this period of weakness, Aramean tribes began to settle into regions that had previously belonged to Assyria." (Pitard, Encyclopedia of the Bible and its Reception Vol. 2, pg. 638)

(Interestingly, this encyclopedic summary of Assyria was an assigned reading I had for an online course on EdX I took hosted by Aren Maeir that talks about these sorts of things.) To be honest, not even I expected the facts to backfire on Wdford like this. I kind of feel bad about how bad it is, actually. According to Wdford, Assyria had nicely conquered Aram-Damascus in this time. According to planet reality, not only were the Assyrians involved in desperate, long-sustained and completely ineffective military endeavours to bring down the Arameans (the people of Aram-Damascus), but in the end of it, Assyria ended up entering a period of serious decline (which may or may not have been caused by the Arameans themselves) and Aram-Damascus ended up seriously expanding into Assyria, not the other way around. Wow.

So what else do we have about the SSS? Ah yes, Wdford insists it is not gigantic. That cannot be taken seriously anymore. In Wdford's previous comments, Wdford was extensively and ineffectively appealing to Gath as a source of greater architecture than the SSS. This entirely backfired, enormously. Turns out, in the Iron IIA period, the monumental architecture at Gath usually involved walls that were up to 2 meters wide. Don't get me wrong, that is admittedly pretty big. Then, Wdford found some media article that noted that in the 2018-2019 Gath excavations, an Iron IB (11th century) piece of monumental architecture was found where the walls were twice as wide: 4 meters. This was Wdford's evidence of truly giant stuff happening at Gath compared to whatever was in Judah. And yet, the walls of the SSS are 5 meters wide, edging out the most recently biggest discovered monumental architecture at Gath itself - the biggest Philistine site in Philistine history. This is why Amihai Mazar said that it was the biggest in Israel/Judah and its neighbours in the 12th-10th centuries. So I have now extensively, and directly proven Mazar's claim. In the end, all Wdford can due is spam-quote Israel Finkelstein. It's really weird because Wdford, an amateur, accuses Eilat Mazar of desperation. And yet he quotes Israel Finkelstein - the most desperate man alive when it comes to interpreting away the SSS and LSS. As I noted, since the completion of Eilat Mazar's excavations, the following scholars have commented: Finkelstein, Amihai Mazar, Avraham Faust, Eilat Mazar, Nadav Na'aman, and William Dever. Finkelstein is, drumroll please, ... the only one to deny the findings. Finkelstein is absolutely desperate to get the SSS and LSS out of sight. Dever even noted that Finkelstein's views about the SSS are desperation to save his Low Chronology. Amihai Mazar and Avraham Faust have fully refuted Finkelstein's claims about the SSS and LSS. And once again, Wdford keeps spamming Jebusite gibberish. Wdford's spamming of Jebusite identification is odd, given the fact that a Jebusite identification of the SSS would contradict everything that Finkelstein has ever worked for when it comes to understanding the SSS. So Wdford is entangled in self-contradiction. Also, Wdford says that the Bible on the (highly verifiable) Temple traditions is "conjecture", but when it comes to a Jebusite identification with pre-Davidic Jerusalem, it is perfectly reliable and faithful and true. But the facts are the facts. The SSS and LSS were constructed in the 10th century (per the early Iron IIA pottery in their construction fill, meaning they cannot predate 980 BC and likely come a few years later) and so are part of the Judahite kingdom.

Wdford, you completely backtracked on the Megiddo pottery. Stop contradicting yourself. You can only date the Megiddo pottery as 9th century due to a correspondence with the 9th century Jezreel if that is strictly 9th century pottery style. Since it's actually 10th-9th century pottery, the no 9th century date can be assigned. Weird how this "9th century pottery" is found at 10th century Tel Rehov. So odd. Backtrack. You also had to admit that your Shishak conjecture was nonsense. For someone who likes to pretend to hate conjecture so much, every word you've said about Shishak is nonsense conjecture. The six-chambered gate at Ashdod is quite dissimilar from the ones in Israel. And it might be 9th century, like the 9th century six-chambered gate at Lachish. And the Bubasite portal, which was commissioned by the Egyptians themselves under Shishak, says Shishak performed a campaign in Israel/Judah, not that he annexed the region and started spending years constructing things there. No Egyptian evidence for such annexing exists, not to mention it contradicts the Bubasite portal. Yeah, you SURE have a thing against conjecture. Please. The whole edifice of your reasoning is conjecture. Given the fact that three six-chambered gates, two ashlar palaces, the SSS and LSS were constructed in the 10th century, as well as a fortification at Beersheba, construction of Khirbet Qeiyafa, and so forth, there is plenty of evidence behind a United Monarchy which is why Aren Maeir said it is a mainstream view of contemporary archaeologists.

Stop trying. You'll simply prove you know little and contradict yourself more.Editshmedt (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

What Schliemann did for Troy, nobody did for the United Monarchy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Have you heard of Yigael Yadin? A lot of people tried to dispute Yadin but his work seems to be holding up mighty well, especially with the defeat of the Low Chronology. P.S. I'm sorry for being mean when refuting your claims about the size of the Temple Mount. Unfortunately, all scholars say that a 10th century Jerusalem including the Temple Mount caps at 12 hectares (=30 acres), not 12 acres, like you incorrectly quoted. Editshmedt (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not Coogan, ask him why he wrote that. It's a verbatim quote from a book from October 2010 (i.e. many months after Eilat Mazar's discovery). And I know that nobody did that for the United Monarchy, since schoolchildren from every country would already know his name. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Coogan accepts the United Monarchy. And the figure is 12 hectares. You're not quoting him so I don't know if he made the typo you claimed he made. You can see here for Lester Grabbe clearly saying "12 hectares". Also, just do some simple math with me here. Herod "doubled" the Temple mount to 144000m^2 = 14.4 hectares. If that is "double", then the original (half) is something above 7 but less than 8 hectares. Right? Also, Yadin single handedly excavated the three six-chambered gates at Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer. I am not absolutely sure, but he may have also excavated the two ashlar palaces at Megiddo. Most excavators at these sites still date these structures to the 10th century BC. Yadin was definitely an unprecedented influence on those who today accept the United Monarchy. I don't think the schoolchildren excuse works here.Editshmedt (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

So I see you decided to repeat yourself again – complete with ad hominin attacks and strawmen.

No, there is ZERO actual evidence for Solomon. Absolutely ZERO. The Bible stories have been verified in some aspects, such as that Jerusalem really did exist, and the Kingdom of Israel really did exist, but there is ZERO evidence for Solomon. Just because David existed (at least in some sense) doesn’t automatically mean that Solomon existed too, or that all Bible stories are now factual. If you continue to carry this "rationale" through you will start to believe that Noah built a huge ark, with two kangaroo's shacked up between two tigers and two anacondas.

Obviously David had a successor, who might (or might not) have been named Solomon, and I would think that there was indeed a temple of some sort in Jerusalem at all times – whether a Jebusite temple or an Israelite temple or whatever. Since the Israelites were themselves Canaanites, they might easily have all used the same temple building. David was purportedly from Bethlehem, which is close to Jerusalem, so David may well have been a Jebusite himself. If the Bible stories about Solomon are vaguely correct, there were probably many temples to many different deities. The 9th century temple in Motza certainly shows every sign of having been pagan at some point.

Per the Bible story at Genesis 14:18, when Abram meets Melchizedek king of Salem. Melchizedek is described as a "priest of God Most High". It would seem that the Jerusalem Canaanites were of the same religion as Abram and the later Israelites, so it would not be surprising if the great Temple of Jerusalem was originally a Jebusite structure itself.

The fact that the architecture of the Temple in Kings is analogous to the temple architecture of the general region in that time, does not prove that the Temple in Kings actually existed as described, merely that the post-exile scribes were familiar with the general temple architecture of the time, and spun their tales on that basis. The architecture in Game of Thrones is "analogous" to the architecture of the early Middle Ages in Europe, but that doesn't prove that the Game of Thrones stories are historical fact.

Once again, you repeat your strawman about a temple being built by a later king who might have magnanimously attributed it to Solomon. We can all see through this pathetic strawman effort, but by all means keep on embarrassing yourself.

You have also produced a new strawman, claiming that I don’t know what "House of David" means. I know exactly what it means. I also know that the Tel Dan Inscription does not mention the Kingdom of Judah, although it does mention the Kingdom of Israel, creating the strong possibility that the House of David was a small dynasty ruling a small hill-tribe, rather than a kingdom comparable to Israel.

And then you serve up even more juvenile frothing about Aram-Damascus. Where did I possibly hear about Assyria conquering Aram-Damascus? Go read Middle Assyrian Empire and Aram (region) and Tiglath-Pileser I to get you started.

Finally you admit that sites cannot be confidently dated to the 10th century, because the 10th century pottery is the same as the 9th century pottery. Furthermore, Tel Rehov was inhabited continuously from the 13th -9th century BCE, and seeing as how strata are dated by pottery finds, it is meaningless to talk about "10th century Tel Rehov". This is another of your rabbit-holes.

Since you now admit that the six-chambered gates cannot be dated accurately anyway, and since there is solid proof that some of the six-chambered gates could not possibly have been built by Solomon, and since there is ZERO actual EVIDENCE linking any of these gates to Solomon, any attempt to use the gates as "proof" of a United Monarchy is based on Bible stories and CONJECTURE. On the other hand, totally unlike Solomon, Shoshenq did leave a stela at Megiddo, which he would not have done unless the Egyptians had re-established a long-term presence there. Job done. I think.

Re your perpetual little hobby-horse of the Stepped Stone Structure:

• NO, it's not gigantic. It really isn't.
• Maeir was talking about an actual building at Gath, which had walls and a roof. The SSS was never a building, just a retaining wall leaning against a hillside. It didn't even stand up on its own.
• The Wall 20 was not a building either, it was a platform built to level the uneven terrain. Maeir wasn't talking about platforms at Gath, of which there would have been many, but of buildings.
• Platforms are not hard to build, especially when they are largely backfill. The part that was 5-meters wide was only a few meters long, so again – really not gigantic at all.
• It is clear from many excavations that the SSS in particular was built in phases over centuries, and various authors have stated that the LSS is a separate and later construction. Finkelstein describes Wall 20 as Hasmonean. E Mazar has presented no solid evidence to the contrary, and Mazar/Faust agree that the LSS was built in phases – although there is disagreement over when each phase took place.
• The pottery found beneath the SSS is dated to the 12th-11th centuries BCE, and pottery found in the backfill could have come from the many subsequent repairs and additions, as well as the replacement of churned debris by previous modern excavations, so therefore many experts do not accept the dating of E Mazar. See for a full refutation of the Mazar/Faust conclusions.
• The Jebusite-citadel identification is not my imagination, it comes from numerous reliable sources - as you well know.

Here is that great quote again from Finkelstein, as it obviously didn’t sink in the first time: "Whoever claims that the "magnitude and uniqueness of the combined 'Stepped Structure' and the 'Large Stone Structure' are unparalleled anywhere in the Levant between the 12th and early 9th centuries BCE"; or that "he combined building was the main structure in Iron Age I Jerusalem and is indeed the most impressive building from this period throughout the region" speaks about a structure that cannot be seen today and that may have never existed."

Your citing of Grabbe was interesting. On page 79 Steiner was cited as saying Jerusalem did not exceed 12 hectares. This is a very generous estimate, considering that most authors place the size as being much smaller, that Steiner called it "a small town" and that Steiner has herself written that Jerusalem was no larger than Megiddo or Hazor at that time. Perhaps she meant acres and was misprinted by an editor – who can say? However Steiner was talking about the Jerusalem of the "tenth and ninth centuries", so perhaps she was also including the expansions undertaken in the 9th century BCE?

On that same page Steiner states that Jerusalem had no fortifications until the mid-8th century BCE, and even then the fortifications were based on Bronze-Age structures. Steiner thereby directly contradicts E Mazar, as have many other authors.

On page 77 of Grabbe, just two pages further up, Grabbe states that "The main question is what kind of settlement Jerusalem was in Iron IIA: was it a minor settlement, perhaps a large village or possibly a citadel but not a city, or was it the capital of a flourishing – or at least an emerging – state? Assessments differ considerably …" You are therefore seriously misrepresenting when you write: "Unfortunately, all scholars say that a 10th century Jerusalem including the Temple Mount caps at 12 hectares". That mendacity does unfortunately fit your trend.

Wdford (talk) 14:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

You now identify not only the SSS, but also the Temple and even David as Jebusite - all without any evidence. I'm sure that's enough to settle that. I'll arbitrarily accept the Jebusite identification of the SSS. This identification refutes all your appeals to Finkelstein on the SSS because his views are wholly incompatible with a Jebusite identification. Glad to have cleared that up.

Kalimi said that the majority of scholars accept that Solomon built the Temple and Finkelstein in the height of his Low Chronology bonanza admits "Archaeologically, we can say no more about David and Solomon except that they existed" (Bible Unearthed, pg. 143). I will try to explain this to you again. Solomon is mentioned in the Deuteronomistic history, which, whenever we can check, nails all the kings in Israel/Judah in their exact sequence all the way back to David. I think it's wishful thinking to posit Solomon as an exception. The high verifiability of the Temple traditions also makes it pretty obvious. When traditions are highly verifiable, we don't a priori wishfully conclude that they're fiction anyways. The way the data converges is pretty hard to miss. The Deuteronomistic history itself is 8th-7th century BC in date. The architecture can be cross-verified from Khirbet Qeiyafa, Tel Motza, numerous other sites in the Levant, in Syria, and many other places even into Mesopotamia. I don't see why a pure literary writer would go through all the trouble to deeply study all this architecture to make up a temple. Also consider the fact that there is a temple in a secondary site in 9th century Judah, which makes it all but obvious that there must have been one in the capital of the kingdom, Jerusalem, and if it was built by anyone other than Solomon, it is inexplicable that it is attributed to Solomon rather than that other king. There is also more lines of evidence, but it takes a steady dose of trying really hard to deny all this. Sometimes, Wdford, the experts are right and it's better to trust in expert opinion rather than your own opinion.

Listen dude, I’m trying to prevent you from embarrassing yourself on Assyria here. No ill will. I gave you a map. You don’t get to dismiss a map because you confused the Aramean city states tthat the Middle Assyrian Empire was fighting with in Upper Mesopotamia with the Arameans in Aram-Damascus. Those are entirely different groups of Arameans. A quick google search will show that it wasn’t until Tiglath Pileser III in 732 BC until Assyria reached an annexed Aram Damascus. Better luck next time.

I’m glad you admit you were wrong about the pottery dates. By the way, you blundered on Tel Rehov. Its strata is radiocarbon dated, not pottery dated. Amateur mistake you made, I know, but it is fine. Both Mazar and Finkelstein agree that the radiocarbon dates put the pertinent Tel Rehov strata in the 10th century, so this is a clear archaeological consensus that we will both accept from here on out. You should also double check your facts on the dating of the six chambered gates. Radiocarbon is also enough to help us all out with a 10th century date for Megiddo’s date, and putting the Hazor strata in the 9th century would require absurd strata compression. So I’m still comfortable with the evidence putting all three gates in the 10th century BC. I find it weird that you actually thought pottery is the only possible way we can know a date at a site.

Shishak leaving behind a victory stela at Megiddo isn’t evidence he annexed the region. Can you show me real evidence and some Egyptologists to back you up on this one? I get the feeling I’ talking to a crackpot.

Everything you write about the SSS is solely dependent on Finkelstein's work on it, which Dever calls a "convoluted" attempt to defend his Low Chronology. I think that settles much of that. If you want to understand the SSS, you need to read anyone but Finkelstein. Consider his completely misleading and widely rejected redating of Wall 20 (the upper part of the SSS) as a later construction phase, which rests on two points: Wall 20 stones have a different orientation than the lower part of the SSS and the stones are bigger in it then in the bottom which Finkelstein simply asserts doesn't make sense, but without much evidence. Amihai Mazar takes these arguments out:

"Finkelstein et al. suggest that the ‘Stepped Structure’ had two building phases. Its lower part is a later addition, since it was constructed of smaller stones.21 The stones in the lower 17 courses are indeed 0.20–0.35 m in size while those in the upper 35 courses are 0.35–0.7 m long (a few are up to 1 m long), yet this difference is just a technical matter; the lowest course of large stones was constructed just above the highest course of smaller stones and thus the former could not predate the latter. There is no evidence for two construction phases, and both parts are superimposed by Iron Age II dwellings. The reason for the change in stone size is perhaps related to the challenge faced by the builders when they approached the steep vertical rock scarp behind the upper part of the structure.22 The purpose of the ‘Stepped Structure’ was probably to support the foundations of a large building constructed on top of the hill by covering the vertical natural scarp with its inner cavities and karstic features and extending the area to the east. The change in orientation between the lower and upper parts is mentioned by Finkelstein et al. as additional evidence for two construction phases. Yet, this change is gradual: The lower courses of large stones follow the same orientation as the courses of the smaller lower stones, and as we proceed upwards the courses start to turn to the northwest, in accordance with the topography. Thus, the suggestion for two construction phases is intangible."

Given Mazar's rebuttal, which Finklstein pretended didn't exist in his 2011 response, how do you defend the redating of Wall 20?

P.S. I said that if Jerusalem includes the Temple Mount, it is 12 hectares in size. Not a word in the quote you give in the end contradicts this fact. Editshmedt (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The Deuteronomistic history is not historically reliable. It was written in exile times, and even those authors who believe that the first draft was compiled slightly before the exile agree that the texts were "redacted" (i.e. altered and deleted and replaced) during the exile – and probably even subsequently as well. The exile editors had a certain POV, and accurate history was not their main priority.

The fact that SOME details in the Deuteronomistic history can be verified, does not mean that the entire story was historically accurate. A lot of details in Shakespearean works can also be verified, such as names and places and events, but that does not mean the entire story as told by Shakespeare was historically true. All fraudsters – pious and otherwise – are aware that incorporating some verifiable facts into a story makes the rest of the detail more believable as well. They seem to have caught you quite well.

The Deuteronomistic redactors did not have to "deeply study all this architecture to make up a temple" – they simply used the temples around them as models. As you admit, the Biblical descriptions of the "Solomonic" super-temple closely follow the template of the Mesopotamian (Babylonian) and other temples. I would be more impressed if the Solomonic template was vastly different to the pagan temples all around the exile scribes, but no – they copied the pagan templates almost exactly.

A majority of scholars probably do accept that Solomon built a temple at Jerusalem, or perhaps maintained or expanded an existing temple. However they do so based on Bible stories and CONJECTURE, not evidence, because there is zero evidence. I'm sure there was a temple in every town, before the post-exile leadership forced centralised worship in Jerusalem – it would be strange if there were none. I'm sure Jerusalem had temples to various gods, going back to David and before. This is simply yet another transparent strawman. But there is still zero EVIDENCE of this Solomonic temple.

In addition, I have never stated that any temple builder attributed his own work to Solomon, but rather that the "redacting" was done by the scribes long after. This is just one more transparent strawman. You have created a veritable straw army of the things.

Some of those Judean and Israelite kings have indeed been verified by third-party EVIDENCE, but not all – and specifically not Solomon. No inscriptions, no pottery, no scrolls, no clay tablets, nada. This is quite significant, seeing as how Solomon was supposedly the greatest, wealthiest, most powerful, most glorious of all Judean kings ever. However somehow he qualified to marry a pharaoh's daughter, he attracted visitations and donations from the Queen of Sheba, and yet he never left behind any inscriptions of his own, or got mentioned in the third party histories at all – even though some of his less-significant descendants were mentioned. Strange, yes?

Re Assyria, I will go with the experts rather than your interpretations. Furthermore, this point is only relevant to demonstrate yet another neighbour who also built huge structures, far larger than the SSS, but you have been striving heroically to make another rabbit-hole out of it. However your maps do clarify for you that Egypt was a neighbour too, having control of Philistia during part of the 12th-10th century period mentioned, and they certainly built big stuff too. I mean, proper big stuff.

Please don’t claim admissions that didn’t happen. Re Tel Rehov, its strata are pottery-dated as always, and then an attempt was made to date some of the strata using C14 dating as well. The strata were from many centuries, including from the Bronze Age, and the C14 dating delivered a spread of dates – as would be expected. Just another one of your many rabbit-holes. Radiocarbon dating would indeed help us all out with a solid date for Megiddo’s gate, if they could find carbon deposits that are conclusively attributable to the construction period of the gates in question. Since that is exactly what is in dispute, the issue is still undecided. You cannot carbon-date stone itself - everyone knows that – there is nothing weird about it, just simple science. And there is still ZERO evidence linking these gates to Solomon.

Per Kevin Wilson, Yohanan Aharoni believed that the aim of Shoshenq's campaign was "strengthening the Egyptian domination of Philistia, while gaining control of the important trade routes that pass across Palestine". Per Kevin Wilson, Kenneth Kitchen views the reason for the campaign as part of a foreign policy to renew Egyptian domination of foreign lands. Building walls and gates in key cities would be a logical part of this process.

My views about the SSS etc ARE NOT "solely dependent on Finkelstein's work on it" – this is merely your favourite go-to strawman. Lots of experts attribute the SSS to the Jebusites. Even A Mazar and A Faust held that view, based on the EVIDENCE. However A Mazar and A Faust have since accepted E Mazar's dating based on a few potsherds that might be intrusive, and many other experts have not accepted her dating. The origin of Wall 20 (which is not part of any building or any fortification) is still disputed. Some follow E Mazar, and others do not. Your go-to strawman of the Low Chronology is wearing desperately thin. And there is still ZERO evidence linking either the SSS or the LSS to David or Solomon.

Since there is ZERO evidence that a Temple Mount existed in Solomon's time as it does now, and since various experts hold that Jerusalem was much smaller than 12 hectares in those days, your parting remark is as meaningless as all your other strawmen.

Wdford (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Your desperation is amazing. As I noted, the Deuteronomistic history is impeccable when it comes to the existence of the kings and their sequence. "Solomon as exception" is wishful thinking. I don't know what redaction you're talking about - if later redactors transposed the entire construction of the Temple from a later king to the period of Solomon, that would be obviously verifiable via redactional analysis. Isaac Kalimi's book that I've been citing is itself a giant study of redactional analysis on the Solomonic biblical traditions. He seems ... rather unfamiliar with what you're talking about. You also come short when it comes to the architectural parallels again, because the Garfinkel & Mumcuoglu paper easily notes that the Iron II temples are much less close to the Solomonic Temple then the earlier ones, from Tel Motza in the 9th century BC and earlier. For example, the Solomonic temple has side chambers. These are completely lacking from later temples, but are found in the one at Tel Motza and earlier temples. Nothing more needs to be said on that. Your "Solomon didn't leave behind inscriptions and wasn't mentioned by Egypt" has already been answered by Na'aman & Finkelstein, as I quoted earlier, but you left unmentioned. I think I can tell why.

I don't know why you even bother on Assyria anymore. You say you trust the experts, not me, and yet what I'm saying is basically cut and paste from the scholarly sources. You'll find that every living expert thinks Assyria's territory was in Upper Mesopotamia in the 12th-10th centuries BC and that the only went further south with the Neo-Assyrian Empire, only annexing Damascus with the exploits of Tiglath-Pileser III. For example, consider this quote: "On three occasions between 841 and 837, Assyrian troops laid siege on Damascus, now ruled by a new king, Hazael, but did not manage to conquer the city" (A Companion to Assyria, pg. 171). Weird how Assyria, according to you and your imaginary experts, ruled Damascus in the 12th-10th centuries BC, and yet in the 9th century BC, Aram-Damascus was alive and kicking, fully repelling Assyrian invasions. Do you propose that the experts are wrong? Do you propose to reconstruct an imaginary rebellion of Aram-Damascus against Assyrian occupation in the time you claim Assyria ruled it and the 9th century BC, otherwise unmentioned in the archaeological record?

Mazar is obviously not talking about Egypt. The Egyptian presence in Canaan utterly collapsed in the early 12th century due to the onslaught of the Sea Peoples/Philsitines and only vestiges remained until the mid-12th century, after which Egyptian presence disappeared: "We have already noted in chapter 2 (fig. 2.9) several Egyptian residencies and forts at Canaanite sites that survived the onslaught of the Sea Peoples and persevered until the mid-twelfth century or so (figs. 3.1 and 3.2). Among them are Beth-Shean VI, Tel Aphek X12, Tel Mor VIII–VII, Tell el-Ḥesi IV, Tell Jemmeh J–K, Tell el-Farʿah (South) Building YR, Tel Seraʿ IX, and Deir el-Balaḥ VII. Despite this “twilight” of Egyptian presence in the southern Levant, the Asiatic empire had been lost, in large part due to the invasions of the Sea Peoples whom Ramesses III claims to have defeated. Before we discuss the end of all these Egyptian residencies circa 1175–1140, we need to look closely at contemporary peoples who may have been a factor" (William Dever, Beyond the Texts, pp. 131-132). When Mazar refers to Israel's neighbours in the 12th-10th centuries BC, I don't think anyone could claim that these collapsing Egyptian remnants qualified as a "neighbour" of any sorts. Mazar is obviously referrring to, well ... Israel's neighbours. And none of the vestigial Egyptian forts in Canaan in the early 12th century were on the scale of the SSS. So it's hard to even know the relevance of this. If you want to absolutely insist that you hate Mazar's use of the word "neighbour" and that it must include the main main power of the overseas vestigial vassal sites, then no one really cares and everyone knows what Mazar is talking about.

The Tel Rehov strata going back to the Bronze Age are irrelevant. I don't know why you thought that was worth bringing up, unless you somehow think the existence of other strata from other time periods makes stratigraphic dating in general impossible, which I wouldn't be surprised if you believe. The only relevant strata at Tel Rehov are the ones that contain the pottery assemblages we know from Jezreel. As for the studies radiocarbon dating those strata, see here, here, and here. There are also several more essays publishing more radiocarbon dates from Tel Rehov in the volume The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating (2005). Mazar et al. put the beginning of the strata at 960 BC and terminating around the end of the century, whereas Finkelstein's analysis, incompetent as usual, force-fits the two relevant strata between 925-900 BC. Nevertheless, the spread clearly can only be located in the 10th century BC. Do you have evidence otherwise?

The six-chambered gates are from the 10th century. Finkelstein admitted that the radiocarbon dates for the strata below the gate-containing strata proves the modified conventional chronology is true. However, while he accepted a massive dating back of this Megiddo strata, the one right below the strata containing the six-chambered gates, he refuses to concurrently update his own chronology on the beginning of the gate strata. He does this by basically doubling or tripling the length of the Megiddo strata he agreed to downdate in order to keep the gate strata in the 9th century BC. That is obviously insane and requires no further comment, as other archaeologists have pointed out. As I noted, you would also need to perform a complete assault on the Hazor strata to put its gate in the 9th century. For these reasons, all these six-chambered gates, plus the one in Gezer, can be placed in the 10th century. Obviously, the only candidate for their construction is Solomon.

What Ahlstrom actually wrote: "Both K.A. Kitchen and B. Mazar have Shoshenq heading north to Gaza and then going north through the Shephelah to Aijalon" (pg. 5). In other words, you lied about what Kitchen and Mazar claimed. I checked another of Kitchen's publications to make sure of what was being meant here. Kitchen writes: "Any Egyptian army that marched by the customary route into the Levant (along the Sinai Mediterranean coast road) always came first to Gaza, then into the very region that had become Philistia in the twelfth century" (On the Reliability of the Old Testament, pg. 110). In other words, Kitchen and Mazar are referring to nothing more than that Gaza was the entrypoint of the Egyptian incursions into the rest of the Levant. Reading more of Kitchen's publications, I found that you were utterly dishonest in your claim that any of these people think Shishak or anyone annexed the region. In fact, they assert nothing more than temporarily holding Gaza so that the campaign could be carried out. Once the campaign was complete, they simply left.

Everything you say about the SSS is dependent on Finkelstein, plain and simple. You did not comment on Mazar's response to Finkelstein's convoluted redating of Wall 20, so I'll assume you realized you were wrong but really don't want to admit it.Editshmedt (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE: I decided to read the rest of Ahlstrom's paper and was disgusted by the sheer dishonesty of your claims. There is clearly no limit to what you will manipulate in order to establish your sheer and utter propaganda. Ahlstrom continues: "Whatever his specific political excuse, is attack along the major trade arteries indicates that he intended to re-establish Egyptian economic dominion in the area, whether or not he set out with the deliberate intention of resubjugating Palestine politically and making it once more an Egyptian province. Although Shoshenq may have devastated some sites in Palestine, his campaign does not appear to have established a long term Egyptian political presence in the region. Judah may have temporarily lost control over the Negeb and other parts of the hill country proper, but these setbacks do not appear to have outlasted Shoshenq's reign. There is no known indication, textual or archaeological, that his son, Osorkon I, ruled over any part of Palestine. Thus, under Shoshenq, Egypt was only able to regain its former might during a brief interlude. In light of the absence of any longterm Egyptian control, we can suspect that the campaign was carried out hastily and that no garrison troops were stationed in the country to keep it firmly under Egyptian rule. Such an inability to maintain control of Palestine after the campaign may have been symptomatic of Shoshenq's failure to have established firmly his rule at home over Egypt." (pp. 14-15). In other words, you lied about the whole thing. There is nothing here. Nothing to see. Shishak tried to revive Egyptian dominion, but it utterly failed, according to your source. But you refused to tell me that this is what your source says. Pure manipulation. Editshmedt (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (royalty) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (royalty) articles
• Royalty work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Bible articles
• Top-importance Bible articles
• WikiProject Bible articles
• B-Class Religion articles
• Top-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• B-Class Christianity articles
• Top-importance Christianity articles
• B-Class Saints articles
• Top-importance Saints articles
• WikiProject Saints articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• B-Class Judaism articles
• Top-importance Judaism articles
• B-Class Islam-related articles
• Top-importance Islam-related articles
• WikiProject Islam articles
• B-Class Jewish history-related articles
• High-importance Jewish history-related articles
• WikiProject Jewish history articles
• B-Class Ancient Near East articles
• Top-importance Ancient Near East articles
• Ancient Near East articles by assessment
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
• Middle Eastern military history task force articles
• B-Class Classical warfare articles
• Classical warfare task force articles