This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hey. I decided to bring this here because it appears as if you have a personal issue with me. I would appreciate it if you did not misrepresent my position. On this fringe noticeboard claim, you said that I said there is incontestable objective evidence for the Kingdom of David. In fact, it is well documented that I made no such claim and repeatedly represented the field as being divided. In response, you said that I said there was no evidence for the monarchy. But I didn't say that either. So, for you, I either must believe there is absolutely irrefutable incontestable evidence or that there is no evidence. But that's a false dichotomy, I recommend you take a look at that fallacy. Editshmedt ( talk) 07:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The position that there is evidence for it seems to me a WP:FRINGE position. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 07:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Here is a 2020 paper concluding in favour of the United Monarchy published in an issue of the Bulletin for the American Schools of Oriental Research. I understand it is easy for amateurs to make these errors, but I advise that you consult the literature before making black and white statements that appear to conform to a priori belief systems. Editshmedt ( talk) 07:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

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.
— [[User: ImTheIP ( talk) 04:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)]]

Quoted by Tgeorgescu ( talk) 07:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey. I recommend you do not quote ImTheIP as he does not understand the literature, nor does it appear as if he has read the paper. The paper concludes "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." Editshmedt ( talk) 08:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

To readers: the fringe discussion board was closed because it appears as if what was suggested as my fringe position by Tgeorg was the position of roughly half the scholars in the field. Thus, it cannot be called fringe. Editshmedt ( talk) 20:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey Tgeorgescu. It is inappropriate to demand that someone leave a talk page when you disagree with them. (See your recent comments on the David talk page.) Editshmedt ( talk) 20:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@ Editshmedt: You either provide the quote or leave; choice is entirely yours. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

A dozen quotes were given. Would you like me to list them? Editshmedt ( talk) 20:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey, is there any particular chant you prefer when you are in the middle of sacrificing every pseudoscientific belief on the altar of mainstream science in service of wikipedia? Thanks-- 2605:8D80:604:1D5E:2C42:CAE8:C888:2512 ( talk) 08:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

You posted some garbage in my talk-page which I already knew. So what? We have to talk about how researchers conciliate primary sources and the Bible is one of them too, nobody talked about biases or pseudoscience. Take care of your own steps. Leonardo T. Oliveira ( talk) 23:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Ben-Tor, Amnon

• “Hazor and the Chronology of Northern Israel: A Reply to Israel Finkelstein”, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research (2000), pp. 9-15

Ben-Tor, Amnon & Ben Ami

• “Hazor and the Archaeology of the Tenth Century B.C.E.”, Israel Exploration Journal (1998), pp. 1-37

Ben-Shlomo, David

• “The Iron Age Sequence of Tel Ashdod: A Rejoinder to ‘Ashdod Revisited’ by I. Finkelstein and L. Singer-Avitz” Tel Aviv (2003), pp. 83-107

Coogan, Michael

• “Assessing David and Solomon: From the Hypothetical to the Improbable to the Absurd”, BAR (2006), pp. 56-60

Dever, William G

• “Visiting the Real Gezer: A Reply to Israel Finkelstein”, Tel Aviv (2003), pp. 259-282

• Beyond the Texts: An Archaeological Portrait of Israel and Judah, 2017, Society of Biblical Literature Press

• Has Archaeology Buried the Bible?, 2020, Erdmans

Faust, Avraham

• “The Large Stone Structure in the City of David: A Reexamination”, Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins (2010), pp. 116-130

• “Did Eilat Mazar Find David’s Palace”, BAR (2012), pp. 47-70

• “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 ‘Eton and Khirbet Qeiyafa”, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research (2020), pp. 115-136

Faust, Avraham & Yair Sapir

• “The ‘Governor’s Residency’ at Tel ‘Eton, The United Monarchy, and the Impact of the Old-House Effect on Large-Scale Archaeological Reconstructions”, Radiocarbon (2018), pp. 801-820

Garfinkel, Yosef et al.

• “Debating Khirbet Qeiyafa: A Fortified City in Judah from the Time of King David” (2016)

• “Lachish Fortifications and State Formation in the Biblical Kingdom of Judah in Light of Radiometric Datings”, Radiocarbon (2019), pp. 695-712

Hardin, James & Joe Seger

• “Gezer Rectified: The Dating of the South Gate Complex” in (eds. Gitin et al.) Confronting the Past: Archaeological and Historical Essays on Ancient Israel in Honor of William G. Dever (2006), pp. 51-60

Kalimi, Isaac

• Writing and Rewriting the Story of Solomon in Ancient Israel, 2019, Cambridge University Press, pp. 19-93

Keimer, Kyle

• “The historical geography of 1 Kings 9:11-14”, Palestinian Exploration Quarterly (2020), pp. 186-206

Mazar, Amihai

• “Iron Age Chronology: A Reply to I. Finkelstein” Levant (1997), pp. 157-167

• "The 1997-1998 Excavations at Tel Rehov: Preliminary Report" Israel Exploration Journal (1999), pp. 1-42

• “The Debate over the Chronology of the Iron Age in the Southern Levant” in (eds. Lvy & Higman) The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology, Text, and Science (2005), pp. 15-30.

• “Archaeology and the Biblical Narrative: The Case of the United Monarchy” in (eds. Kratz & Spieckermann) One God - One Cult - One Nation: Archaeological and Biblical Perspectives (2010), pp. 29-58

• “The Iron Age Chronology Debate: Is the Gap Narrowing? Another Viewpoint” Near Eastern Archaeology (2011), pp. 105-111

• “Archaeology and the Bible: Reflections on Historical Memory in the Deuteronomistic History” in (ed. Maier) Congress Volume Munich 2013 (2014), pp. 347-369.

Mazar, Amihai & Christopher Bronk Ramsey

• “14C Dates and the Iron Age Chronology of Israel: A Response” Radiocarbon (2008), pp. 159-180

• “A Response to Finkelstein and Piasetzky’s Criticism and ‘New Perspective’” Radiocarbon (2010), pp. 1681-1688

Mazar, Eilat

• “The Stepped Stone Structure” in (ed. Mazar) The Summit of the City of David Excavations 2005-2008: Final Reports Volume I: Area G (2015), pp. 169-188

Zarzeki-Peleg, Anabel

• “Hazor, Jokneam and Megiddo in the Tenth Century B.C.E.”, Tel Aviv (1997), pp. 258-288

POSTSCRIPT: The conclusion of mainstream Levantine archaeological scholarship on the views of Israel Finkelstein, as summarized by William G. Dever:

“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.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editshmedt ( talk • contribs) 05:26, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

What do you think about the fact that by severely rejecting scholarship, you lead me to creating this bibliography and tracking all the sources? Editshmedt ( talk) 07:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that you think too highly of yourself. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 07:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

It's a relief to post all this here. Denial of scholarship is rampant. I think you need a healthy reminder that spamming a discussion in order to prevent constructive editing will not change the reality of the discussion itself. The facts are the facts, whether or not you're interested in allowing them to be represented on Wikipedia. Editshmedt ( talk) 07:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Yup, you have WP:THETRUTH. The difference between you and me is that I don't consider myself wise. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 07:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Here is additional items for the bibliography above I recently found in the last hour or so:

Blakely, Jeffrey

• "Reconciling Two Maps: Archaeological Evidence for the Kingdoms of David and Solomon", Bulletin for the American Schools of Oriental Research (2002), pp. 49-54

Halpern, Baruch

• David's Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King, Eerdmans, 2001

Mazar, Amihai

• Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, Yale University Press, 1992

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Editshmedt ( talk) 06:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Why would you change factual information which is being updated for clarity? Do you have some ulterior motive for historical negationism? I am editing based on genuine resources, such as the actual references provided at the bottom of the wiki page. Stop reverting my edits.

The fact that he is born in Naissus, Moesia Superior, Roman Empire ( present-day Niš, Serbia) should be clearly displayed throughout the page, instead of its muddled portrayal. As well, the infobox is supposed to display present-day place of birth, according to Wikipedia rules. Therefore, Niš, Serbia must be shown. 75.156.45.126 ( talk) 14:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Granted, my edit of the "Special Creation" page was a mistake, as I never intended to post it. My intent was to perform all editing offline, then paste it into a formal edit. What I posted was a rough draft of ideas, again, which I did not intend.

I did find a problem with the "explanation" you gave of what is and is not allowed in terms of content. Specifically, the reference to fundamentalism.

Oxford Languages defines the word in this way: Fundamentalism - strict adherence to the basic principles of any subject or discipline.

The wiki page defining fundamentalism says: Fundamentalism usually has a religious connotation that indicates unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs.[1] However, fundamentalism has come to be applied to a tendency among certain groups – mainly, although not exclusively, in religion – that is characterized by a markedly strict literalism as it is applied to certain specific scriptures, dogmas, or ideologies, and a strong sense of the importance of maintaining ingroup and outgroup distinctions.

[1] "Once considered exclusively a matter of religion, theology, or scriptural correctness, use of the term fundamentalism has recently undergone metaphorical expansion into other domains ..."

Without a "religious" qualifier, it can only be assumed that the reference is generically speaking to dogmas, ideologies, and the "belonging/not belonging" distinctions. The idea of maintaining a strong dogma of inclusion and exclusion is necessary in order to keep order. I understand that. My hope is that you weren't referring to "religious dogma", or "religious fundamentalism". This was not made clear in your text, so I must assume you didn't mean it in that way. In effect, the reference was slightly ambiguous, but no one is perfect. Whether someone is perceived as holding to a dogma is a function of interpretation, which can also be tainted by the personalities and preferences of those who choose to interpret messages. I have found that those in a position of power or authority over others sometimes use situations to promote a personal agenda, rather than simply carry out an administrative function. I assume that is one of the reasons why wiki has their list of rules: to administrate the development of the wiki resource. I would hope that the personal agendas of those who consider themselves "in power" are left out of the wiki activity. Power grabs often end in personal agendas taking precedence over logic and reason. The general tone I see in crucial wiki documentation gives impressions of an "ivory tower" structure in the making. This type of hierarchical structure has been known to fail consistently over time. The only historical structures known to have the elements of success are those where individuals work together to accomplish worthwhile goals (those with a significant level of cooperation and concern). Hierarchy for the sake of having hierarchy is a historically proven failure. Nero playing the fiddle while Rome burned is one of numerous examples of where leadership failed those it should have been helping most. Rome conquered, then they fell. Napoleon conquered, then he dwindled to relative obscurity. Alexander the great slayed many, then he passed away ... The contribution of a war-monger to human civilization can only be listed among those that are despised by the civilized: those who have advanced beyond the need to fight for something that is not currently possessed. War can come in many disguises. I have seen enough to know that very well. Wikipedia has enough questionably dogmatic content that could easily be used as a means of harboring hatred or animosity. That in itself is cause to be cautious. with the hope that there is a noble blood in the wiki organization, I'll make an attempt at progress in full view of the "rules and regulations" (guidelines that can be used as a blunt instrument over the heads of the uninitiated:) There's nothing like a level playing field to make a game fair for all players.

Another problem I am having is with the energy applied to moving things in a specific direction. This can be shown regarding the ["Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is"] rule. As this is a general rule, which should be consistent across all wiki pages, this should also be employed in the "Obelisk of Axum" page. The opening paragraph ends with the sentence: "The obelisk ends in a semi-circular top, which used to be enclosed by metal frames." There seems to be no reference verifying this "truth". A more robust method would be giving an inline explanation of the type of metal being spoken of. Also, the text as given, "used to be", puts the article in a lower class than I would expect from a quality publication. The language is chummy, rather than formal. I suggest changing it to something like "was originally". If the peak of the obelisk was framed with metal, there should be a way to verify not only that it was there initially, but the type of metal used, along with a diagram of how it looked in the original state. If the obelisk was actually framed with metal, it would seem to have been installed on the flat faces, rather than the curved faces because there are holes on the exposed face shown in the commons photograph, which could have been from bolts holding the metal in place. Also, if it is known that the framing existed at one time, the circumstances of its removal would be a desirable bit of additional information. The author didn't address these issues, which places further emphasis on verifiability.

In the "Overview", there is the text "The stelae were probably carved and erected during the 4th century CE by subjects of the Kingdom of Aksum, an ancient Ethiopian civilization."

While using the word 'probably' can seemingly verify many things, it lacks imparting a sense of authority for the reader. Also, there is no accompanying reference indicating the level of probability. The word is used again in the next sentence " ...probably borrowed from the Kushitic kingdom of Meroe." A much better way to explain the association is, "is similar to", rather than "probably borrowed from". Again, the chumminess of the text places the article in an informal setting, making it sound less scholarly than I would think is acceptable according to the "not truth, but verifiability" rule for inclusion (or acceptability) of article content. Pointing to a similarity with a reference allows the reader to research the issue for themselves, if interested, rather than drawing (jumping to) conclusions for them.

From my experience with wiki article content, the above seems to be the case in far too many instances.

One last note on "talk pages". If I may suggest, it would seem more profitable (and productive) for talk pages to be associated with the article proper, rather than as a response to a stimulus. Having formal talk pages allows potential editors the correct venue of seeking guidance prior to an edit, rather than as an afterthought to the fact. Associating a talk page (even a blank one) would allow the topic to be discussed more efficiently in terms of how it might be improved. The lack of such a thing led to my getting caught in the Charlotte's web of non-conformity by virtue of a configuration. As wiki is currently set up, you seem to be one of my "nannies".

BRealAlways ( talk) 16:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I wrote a very helpful essay, which will likely be significantly expanded in the future, concerning the scholarly debate surrounding the united monarchy. After launching two unsuccessful fringe noticeboard discussions and one unsuccessful administrator noticeboard discussion to get other editors to shut me down, since I noted the scholarship is incongruent with your views, why did you have to then go ahead and try to delete my whole essay? I note that your speedy deletion has been immediately reverted by other editors who were surprised by this behavior. Maile66 reverted your speedy deletion because, contrary to your characterization, it was "Definitely not an attack page; should not have been tagged as such". It is extremely irresponsible to perform an attempt to shut another user down, to this degree, for disagreeing with you or characterizing another scholar as even "extremely biased" when that is exactly what other scholars say. Per Thomas Levy & Mohammad Najjar; "there is a disturbing trend in Finkelstein's recent work to ignore data or simply force it into his model" (pg. 14 in this paper). You should step back, calm down, relax, have a cup of water, and then continue your editing. Editshmedt ( talk) 00:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Ben-Tor, Amnon

• “Hazor and the Chronology of Northern Israel: A Reply to Israel Finkelstein”, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research (2000), pp. 9-15

• "HAZOR XII–XI with an Addendum on Ben-Tor's Dating of Hazor X–VII", Tel Aviv (2001), pp. 231-247

• "Hazor and Chronology", Ägypten und Levante / Egypt and the Levant (2004), pp. 45-67

Ben-Tor, Amnon & Ben Ami

• “Hazor and the Archaeology of the Tenth Century B.C.E.”, Israel Exploration Journal (1998), pp. 1-37

Ben-Shlomo, David

• “The Iron Age Sequence of Tel Ashdod: A Rejoinder to ‘Ashdod Revisited’ by I. Finkelstein and L. Singer-Avitz” Tel Aviv (2003), pp. 83-107

Blakely, Jeffrey

• "Reconciling Two Maps: Archaeological Evidence for the Kingdoms of David and Solomon", Bulletin for the American Schools of Oriental Research (2002), pp. 49-54

Bruins, Hendrik J. & Albert Nijboer, Johannes van der Plicht et al.

• "Iron Age Mediterranean Chronology: A Reply", Radiocarbon (2011), pp. 199-220

Bunimovitz, Shlomo & Avraham Faust

• "Chronological Separation, Geographical Segregation, or Ethnic Demarcation?: Ethnography and the Iron Age Low Chronology", Bulletin for the American Schools of Oriental Research (2001), pp. 1-10

Coogan, Michael

• “Assessing David and Solomon: From the Hypothetical to the Improbable to the Absurd”, BAR (2006), pp. 56-60

Dever, William G

• “Visiting the Real Gezer: A Reply to Israel Finkelstein”, Tel Aviv (2003), pp. 259-282

• "Histories and Non-Histories of Ancient Israel: The Question of the United Monarchy" in (ed. J. Day) In Search of Pre-Exilic Israel: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar, T&T Clark International, 2004, pp. 65-94

• Beyond the Texts: An Archaeological Portrait of Israel and Judah, Society of Biblical Literature Press, 2017

• Has Archaeology Buried the Bible?, Eerdmans, 2020

Faust, Avraham

• “The Large Stone Structure in the City of David: A Reexamination”, Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins (2010), pp. 116-130

• “Did Eilat Mazar Find David’s Palace”, BAR (2012), pp. 47-70

• “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 ‘Eton and Khirbet Qeiyafa”, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research (2020), pp. 115-136

Faust, Avraham & Yair Sapir

• “The ‘Governor’s Residency’ at Tel ‘Eton, The United Monarchy, and the Impact of the Old-House Effect on Large-Scale Archaeological Reconstructions”, Radiocarbon (2018), pp. 801-820

Frese, Daniel & Thomas Levy

• "The Four Pillars of the Iron Age Low Chronology" in (ed. Thomas Levy) Historical Biblical Archaeology and the Future: The New Pragmatism, Routledge, 2016, pp. 187-202

Gal, Zvi

• "The Iron Age 'Low Chronology' in the Light of the Excavations at Ḥorvat Rosh Zayit", Israel Exploration Journal (2003), pp. 147-150

Garfinkel, Yosef & Igor Kreimerman

• “Debating Khirbet Qeiyafa: A Fortified City in Judah from the Time of King David” (2016)

Garfinkel, Yosef & Katharina Streit, Saar Ganor, Michael G Hasel

• "State formation in Judah: Biblical Tradition, Modern Historical Theories, and Radiometric Dates at Khirbet Qeiyafa", Radiocarbon (2012), pp. 359-369

Garfinkel, Yosef & Michael G Hasel, Martin G Klingbeil, Hoo-Goo Kang, Gwanghyun Choi, Sang-Yeup Chang, Soonhwa Hong, Saar Ganor, Igor Kreimerman, Christopher Bronk Ramsey

• “Lachish Fortifications and State Formation in the Biblical Kingdom of Judah in Light of Radiometric Datings”, Radiocarbon (2019), pp. 695-712

Halpern, Baruch

• David's Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King, Eerdmans, 2001

• "The Gate of Megiddo and the Debate on the 10th Century", in (eds. Lemaire & Sæbø) Congress Volume Oslo 1998, Brill, 2000, pp. 79-121.

Hardin, James & Joe Seger

• “Gezer Rectified: The Dating of the South Gate Complex” in (eds. Gitin et al.) Confronting the Past: Archaeological and Historical Essays on Ancient Israel in Honor of William G. Dever (2006), pp. 51-60

Kalimi, Isaac

• Writing and Rewriting the Story of Solomon in Ancient Israel, 2019, Cambridge University Press, pp. 19-93

Keimer, Kyle

• “The historical geography of 1 Kings 9:11-14”, Palestinian Exploration Quarterly (2020), pp. 186-206

Kletter, Raz

• "Chronology and United Monarchy: A Methodological Review", Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins (2004), pp. 13-54

Levy & Highman (eds.)

• The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology, Text and Science, 2005, Cambridge University Press

Levy, Thomas & Mohammad Najar

• "Some Thoughts on Khirbet En-Nahas, Edom, Biblical History and Anthropology: A Response to Israel Finkelstein", Tel Aviv (2006), pp. 3-17

Levy, Thomas & Thomas Higham, Christopher Bronk Ramsey, Neil G. Smith, Erez Ben-Yosef, Mark Robinson, Stefan Munger, Kyle Knabb, Jurgen P. Schulze, Mohammad Najjar, and Lisa Tauxe

• "High-precision radiocarbon dating and historical biblical archaeology in southern Jordan", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2008), pp. 16460–16465

Mazar, Amihai

• Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, Yale University Press, 1992

• “Iron Age Chronology: A Reply to I. Finkelstein” Levant (1997), pp. 157-167

• "The 1997-1998 Excavations at Tel Rehov: Preliminary Report" Israel Exploration Journal (1999), pp. 1-42

• “The Debate over the Chronology of the Iron Age in the Southern Levant” in (eds. Lvy & Higman) The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology, Text, and Science (2005), pp. 15-30.

• “Archaeology and the Biblical Narrative: The Case of the United Monarchy” in (eds. Kratz & Spieckermann) One God - One Cult - One Nation: Archaeological and Biblical Perspectives (2010), pp. 29-58

• “The Iron Age Chronology Debate: Is the Gap Narrowing? Another Viewpoint” Near Eastern Archaeology (2011), pp. 105-111

• “Archaeology and the Bible: Reflections on Historical Memory in the Deuteronomistic History” in (ed. Maier) Congress Volume Munich 2013 (2014), pp. 347-369.

Mazar, Amihai & Christopher Bronk Ramsey

• “14C Dates and the Iron Age Chronology of Israel: A Response” Radiocarbon (2008), pp. 159-180

• “A Response to Finkelstein and Piasetzky’s Criticism and ‘New Perspective’” Radiocarbon (2010), pp. 1681-1688

Mazar, Eilat

• “The Stepped Stone Structure” in (ed. Mazar) The Summit of the City of David Excavations 2005-2008: Final Reports Volume I: Area G (2015), pp. 169-188

Na'aman, Nadav

• "The Contribution of the Trojan Grey Ware from Lachish and Tel Miqne-Ekron to the Chronology of the Philistine Monochrome Pottery", Bulletin for the American Schools of Oriental Research (2000), pp. 1-7

Oredsson, Dag

• "Jezreel – Its Contribution to Iron Age Chronology", SJOT (1998), pp. 86-101.

Ortiz, Steve

• "Methodological Comments on the Low Chronology. A Reply to Ernst Axel Knauf", Biblische Notizen (2002), pp. 34-39

• "Does the “Low Chronology” Work? A Case Study of Tell Qasile X,Tel Gezer X, and Lachish V" in (eds. Maier & Miroschedji) "I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times: Archaeological and Historical Studiesin Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, Eisenbrauns, 2006, pp. 587-611

Press, Michael

• "The Chronology of Philistine Figurines", Israel Exploration Journal (2014), pp. 140-171

Rainey, Anson

• "Stones for Bread. Archaeology versus History", Near Eastern Archaeology (2001), pp. 140-149

Zarzeki-Peleg, Anabel

• “Hazor, Jokneam and Megiddo in the Tenth Century B.C.E.”, Tel Aviv (1997), pp. 258-288

POSTSCRIPT: The conclusion of mainstream Levantine archaeological scholarship on the views of Israel Finkelstein, as summarized by William G. Dever:

“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.)

A more general bibliography on the Iron Age chronology debate can be found here: https://www.cjconroy.net/bib/chron-low.htm

________________________________

The previous 'short' bibliography had about 25 items. This one has 47 scholarly items, representing the authorship of just under 50 Levantine archaeologists. Editshmedt ( talk) 19:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

From Help:Reverting:

"Consider carefully before reverting, as it rejects the contributions of another editor. Consider what you object to, and what the editor was attempting. Can you improve the edit, bringing progress, rather than reverting it? Can you revert only part of the edit, or do you need to revert the whole thing?"

Only revert part of an edit if you can. Someone who has been on Wikipedia for four years should know this. Editshmedt ( talk) 19:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey Tgeorg. It seems that you are having trouble elsewhere understanding whether or not the United Monarchy includes both the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, suggesting that my edits claiming that it is are not verifiable, and that the term could, contra the name, simply refer to an Un-United Kingdom of Judah by itself. I hope that the scholarly literature will assist you in understanding. William Dever accepts the historicity of the United Monarchy, whereas Finkelstein & Silberman oppose it. However, both accept the obvious that the United Monarchy does in fact include both Judah and Israel.

William 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." (Dever, Beyond the Texts: An Archaeological Portrait of Ancient Israel and Judah, SBL Press, 2017, pg. 349)

Finkelstein & Silberman write;

"His program was to expand to the north of Judah, to the territories where Israelites were still living a century after the fall of the kingdom of Israel, and to realize the dream of a glorious united monarchy: a large and powerful state of all Israelites worshiping one God in one Temple in one capitalJerusalem --and ruled by one king of Davidic lineage." (Bible Unearthed, pp. 69-70). "So Josiah embarked on establishing a united monarchy that would link Judah with the territories of the former northern kingdom through the royal institutions, military forces, and single-minded devotion to Jerusalem that are so central to the biblical narrative of David" (Bible Unearthed, pg. 144). In the following quote, Finkelstein & Silberman say that the United Monarchy ceases to exist when Judah and Israel are no longer politically united: "The northerners then gathered tp proclaim for themselves a monarch and chose Jeroboam, son of Nebat, who had served in the court of Solomon. The united monarchy of David and Solomon was completely shattered. Two independent states were created: Judah, which was ruled by the Davidic dynasty from Jerusalem, with its territory limited to the southern part of the central hill country; and Israel, which controlled vast territories in the north" (pg. 151).

Feel free to ask any further questions about what the scholarship suggests. Editshmedt ( talk) 07:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Friend, not only you have landed in WP:1AM territory, you also landed in WP:IDHT territory. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 07:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to disrupt your day, Tgeorg, but WP:IDHT is irrelevant. I was only meaning to make the literature more accessible to you as you expressed uncertainty as to what the term 'United Monarchy' means. Hopefully, it's all cleared up now. Editshmedt ( talk) 07:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Is this you? -- 70.24.84.202 ( talk) 17:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

That's what Wikipedia is meant for. Don't like it? Then don't come here. I know that I'm not wanted as an editor of Conservapedia and of New World Encyclopedia, and I don't troll those websites just because they are creationists. Same applies here: you are not wanted as an editor of Wikipedia, your POV/worldview is not appreciated here. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:40, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

No, actually it's me burning trash. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll never get the credit for it, but I invented Intelligent design ca 1971 at age 12. Ahead of my time, I was. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Concerning your comments on my edits to the article on the Book of Daniel, I left an explanation and request on my talk page. In case you were not notified, please visit there to review. Thanks. Jetstream423 ( talk) 22:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:603:F17B:CF3:7E29:D9DF:D7B5 ( talk) 00:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)