Talk:Israelite

Danny, you said you insist that David was a myth, unless proof is offered. What do you make of the Tel Dan inscription, which dates to within about 200 years of the biblical date for David, and which explicitly mentions the "House of David"? Also, what are your credentials for speaking as an authority here? You may indeed be one, but you have presented no basis for supposing that you have the right to speak quite so pontifically on this subject. --Len

Actually, the Tel Dan inscription was the first piece of somewhat contemporary written evidence confirming the biblical account, but as you say, it is about 200 years (actually, I remember a bit more, but I could be wrong) off the date. The mi-Beit David shard confirms that there was a dynasty that attributed itself to David, but that in itself is meaningless. It could just as well have been a legendary history--200 years is a very long time, particularly in the ancient world. The question then becomes is there any corroborative evidence for the empire he supposedly ruled. There are structures, etc. that have been attributed to Solomon's era, though the more contemporary theories claim these to later kings of Israel (not the United Monarchy), Omri at the earliest, possibly even post-Assyrian (by these I mean Gezer, Megiddo, Hazor, etc.). If you would like, I have an (as yet) unpublished manuscript here that summarizes many of the reasons for this, and I can probably dig it out. While David may have been a warrior chieftain, the biblical account of his empire has not been corroborated by evidence from the region or from neighboring kingdoms (Aram, etc.). Other than that, contemporary views are fairly anachronistic. You will find no one who will give a population of more than a couple of thousand for David's capital of Jerusalem, and that was apparently the largest city in the supposed empire. I don't claim sole expertise, but my background is Jewish history, particularly the biblical period. Hebrew University and various religious seminaries. I've published on it, edited materials on it (hence the unpublished manuscript) and worked extensively with Geoffrey Wigoder, who took over from Cecil Roth at the Encyclopedia Judaica. As for writing pontifically, I do take exception to RK's comments that he was "reading all my claims charitably." One thing I have always taken offense to is people who spend a year in Israel post-college, learn three words of Hebrew, read the Oxford Companion to Judaism, and consider themselves experts in a field I have spent 20 years studying, virtually all of it on location. Man, I'm beginning to sound like Julie. Danny

I started an article on this a while back. See Tel Dan Stele--Josiah 05:23, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

British Israelism

British Israelitism was not originally anti-Semitic, even though its successor ideology today forms the basis of Christian Identity. In some sense, early British Israelites could be regarded as philo-Semitic, and even today, other, similar ideologies are at least neutral. For example, the Mormons incorporate some principles of British Israelitism in their ideology as well. Danny

Hi All, I happened on this page doing some research. I was doing some research on this subject last night. Have you ever heard of the Behistun Rock Inscription that listed the nations that Darius the Great defeated? It is listed in three languages. The fascinating thing is that the Scythians are listed and refered to at the Saka in Persian, the Gimiri in Babylonian and the Khumri in Assyrian. The Khumri are referred to in other Assyrian monuments and clay tablets as the Bit-Khumri and Bet-Omri. The Hebrew translation would be house of Omri - Beth Omri. However, the other referrals to the Khumri, well these refer to the captivity of the Israelites. The Scyths were called Saka by many nations. Interestingly, Romans and Greeks called the Saka, Saxons. I would imagine when someone was piecing this all together in the early 1800s, they must of had an epiphany. I have a book here signed by Eleanor Roosevelt written in the 1920s about the subject. The author even states that the two day weekend favored in Great Britain was such because of the respect for the Sabbath that the Jews and Jesus kept. This man was a 'British Israelite' nicknamed "The Roadbuilder."

So, if the above is true, the Saka - Scythians - Saxons were Israelites who were taken captive by the Assyrians who eventually migrated to the Northwestern European areas of the world. When the Behistun Rock, (Also known as Bisitun or Bahistun) was deciphered, I think it created excitement in England. Sadly, the doctrine today has racist adherants. Herbert Armstrong, however, was not a racist neither was he an anti-Semite. In fact he went to Israel often and met with and ate dinner with dignataries and others in Jerusalem. Some of his top executives were also of Jewish descent. The majority of his writing of the US and Britain in Prophecy came from the book; Judah's Septer and Joseph's Birthright written by J.H. Allen in the early 1900s. More on that later. Joe

Israelites as progenitors of Jews

Wait a minute, why was this removed? "The Israelites were the progenitors of rabbinic Judaism, and today are known as Jews." This isn't controversial at all, except among the biblical minimalists, who view the Bible not only as historically unreliable, but as a total fiction and a hoax. Their view, however, is new, radical, and just as unsupportable what they claim in unsupportable. Are we really going to say that there was no Biblical kingdom of Israel, no Israelites, and that the Jews are some grpup that popped out of nowhere? I have to reject this deletion. While I agree that we can not rely on the Bible alone for historical accuracy, to imply that everything in it is false has no support whatsoever. RK

No one is implying that, RK. It is factually wrong.

Several subgroups of the historic peoples called Israelites were ancestors of the contemporary Jews.

I don't get it; here you agree that the Israelites were ancestors of the contemporary Jews. You just deny here that all of them were ancestors of the Jews. Well, of course. This article explicitly states that most Israelites were carried away as slaves and whose descendents became assimilated away and did not become Jews. In fact, I was the one who originally added this point. You are arguing that the article should say something, when it already does. I agree with you, Ok? RK

The association of Israelite religion with rabbinic Judaism is both tenuous and debatable. Genealogical ancestry does not imply religious ancestry. You can just as easily argue that they were the progenitors of Christianity and Islam. Danny

I think you do not understand. Point One: The vast majority of Israelites are not ancestors of Jews--a subset of them may be/are. I would not have the problem if you were to say that Jews were descended from the tribe of Judah. Danny

I do understand point one. In fact, I agree with you. Months ago I added information on this right in this entry. I will rewrite in accord with what you propsoe abive; however (as described in the entry) today's Jews are not only from the tribe of Judah; rather, they are descendents from all the Israelites in the Kingdom of Judah, which included some refugees from all of the other Israelite tribes. RK

Point two: You are mixing apples and oranges here, combining genealogical and religious lineage. It would be more correct if you were to say that the Israelites (or tribe of Judah, Levi, and whatnot) were ancestors of the people today who adhere to rabbinic Judaism. Yes, rabbinic Judaism is an offshoot of the ancient Israelite religion, but so are Christianity and Islam. Religious lineage does not imply genealogical lineage. Oh, and the statement is totally like me. Danny

I agree with thi; perhaps you were reading a bit more than I meant into what I had previously written. My previous comments were trying to say the same thing. In this netry I was concerned here with geneology, and not at all concerned with religious claims. Muslims and Christians are not biological descendents of the tribe of Judah and the various other Israelite refugees; the people alive today that fit this definition are the Jews. So I don't disagree with what you say here; I think we misinterpreted each other's words.RK

RK, RK, RK. I really don't want this to turn into a flame war. I do know a little something about this topic though, based on a number of long years studying it. Unfortunately for you, I do not need you to read my claims "charitably," and this is not your topic for you to agree to work with me. I wrote "Jews claim descent." I stand by that. I did not write, as you seem to think, that "Jews are not really descendents of the tribe of Judah, but that they only "claim" to be so." There is a difference between what I wrote and that statement. Call me a minimalist if you will, but I would argue that Jews are descended from clans that inhabited what is now Israel/Palestine in biblical times, established kingdoms there, and were defeated by various regional powers at different points in history. I would also argue that these clans shared common myths of origin, including common ancestry. At the same time, these clans also absorbed other indigenous peoples in the region, with whom they shared no common descent: Araunah the Jebusite and Doeg the Edomite, two prominent individuals named in the mythological history of David (and until there is proof he actually existed, I stick by that claim) are iindicative of the absorption of local peoples. You might want to read the book of Ezra to see how widespread the phenomenon was by early Second Temple times. Skipping ahead a few centuries to the era immediately preceding the birth of Christ, we find an interesting phenomenon in Roman society. Many educated Romans were disillusioned with their ancient gods and sought alternative philosophies to fill their religious needs. These included Mithraism, Manichaeism, and indeed Judaism. Some converted completely; other adopted the belief system but not the rigid practices of Jewish ritual law (a very important distinction, which had an impact on the later spread of Christianity). Some estimates claim that up to 10 percent of the Roman Empire at that time claimed its belief system as Jewish, and, indeed, certain concessions were made to the Jewish people as a result (mostly in terms of Temple ritual). Slightly later, some of the most prominent Jewish leaders were of non-Jewish origin, including Herod, Onkelos, Akiva, and Meir. Conversion was not frowned upon then. In fact, it was somewhat common. Onias IV in Alexandria, Queen Helena of Abiadne, the garrison at Elephantine (Yeb) are just a few more examples. In other words, there was a major influx of peoples, who identified themselves as Jews. While I do not agree that the Khazars form the basis of Ashkenazi Jewry, the collapse of Khazaria several centuries later certainly did lead to a group of Turkic refugees seeking shelter among their coreligionists in Eastern Europe. Then there were the Cossacks, a band of galloping rapists if there ever was one. One of the reasons that Judaism is so strict on issues of matrilineal descent is because of the Cossacks. At least you can tell who the mother was, and what do you do with all those babies? (some Rishonim actually discuss the possibility of patrilineal descent). In other words, Jews are descended from a clan of ancient people known as the Tribe of Judah, but they also have other, diverse origins. As for your sources, I was taught to go with primary sources, not populist encyclopedic definitions (tertiary sources). It makes you at least sound more scholarly.

Another thing, no less important. RK, I know a lot about anti-Semitism. Really. It is my line of work, quite literally. I develop curricula about the Holocaust and other manifestations of racism and genocide. I don't buy into anti-Semitic lines. I will concede that there have been some manifestations of anti-Semitism in Wikipedia, though I disagree with your assessment of many, many comments too (I, for instance, have a lot of serious problems with Zionism. Does that make me anti-Semitic? Before you even begin to answer, let me tell you that you know nothing about my problems with Zionism, so don't even start guessing what they are.) In most cases, I do not think remarks that really could be interpreted as anti-Semitic were made maliciously. They may be misinformed, but that does not make them anti-Semitic. On the other hand, even if they are (and I believe that some of Helga's remarks were), I try to work with those people and show them through actions and words that their preconceptions about Jews are misinformed. It seems to work for me (I was very flattered to get a holiday greeting from Helga), and I invite you to try it too. Finally, please apologize to the Ramban (the Hebrew acronym for Moses ben Nachman). If you step back a moment, you may see how your response could be seen as being over the top. Danny

RK was slandering Rabbi Moses ben Nachman? Where? RK accused you of being anti-Semitic? Where? JeMa 17:28, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)

More on Israelites as progenitors of Jews

Here is a proposed addition to the beginning of this entry: RK

The Jews are the direct descendents of the tribes of Judah, as well as refugees from other tribes (see below). The historical origin of the various tribes of Israel, it must be noted, are not fully agreed upon. Most biblical scholars now agree that the Biblical history of the Israelite tribes conflates history with mythology. To what extent this occurs, however, is still being debated. Some scholars hold that the Israelite tribes that inhabited what is now Israel/Palestine in biblical times, established kingdoms there, and were defeated by various regional powers at different points in history. They hold that these clans shared common myths of origin, including a common ancestry. At the same time, these clans also absorbed other indigenous peoples in the region, with whom they shared no common descent. Thus, although Jews are descendents of Israelites, the origin of the Israelites may need to be looked at in a different light than is commonly held. Other scholars hold that a more traditional reading of the Bible's origin story for the Israelite tribes is historically justifiable.

RK, you have just misread and misrepresented everything I just wrote. Your suggestion is filled to the brim with errors. I really suggest you just leave it, instead of misrepresenting the material so brazenly. Danny

I generally don't agree with RK as he often seems biased, but the above paragraph doesn't seem that bad, except for being somewhat long-winded and more of a disclaimer than a source of information, however I hardly would say it is misrepresentative or error-ridden. If you are at all serious Danny, you are going to have to explain what is so bad about the above paragraph. Vera Cruz

No problems. My remarks will be in bold:

RK wrote The Jews are the direct descendents of the tribes of Judah, as well as refugees from other tribes (see below). [No, the Jews are not direct descendants from any one single ethnic group. See what I wrote above. The predominant ethnic group may be some biblical tribe of Judah, but in 3,500 years there was sufficient intermarriage and intermingling with other ethnic groups to make this claim meaningless. On the other hand, Jews do claim descent from Judah and often tend to ignore any absorption of other groups.] The historical origin of the various tribes of Israel, it must be noted, are not fully agreed upon. Most biblical scholars now agree that the Biblical history of the Israelite tribes conflates history with mythology. [Find me a serious scholar that doesn't] To what extent this occurs, however, is still being debated. Some scholars hold that the Israelite tribes that inhabited what is now Israel/Palestine in biblical times, established kingdoms there, and were defeated by various regional powers at different points in history. [No, every scholar holds that.] They hold that these clans shared common myths of origin, including a common ancestry. [Ditto.] At the same time, these clans also absorbed other indigenous peoples in the region, with whom they shared no common descent. Thus, although Jews are descendents of Israelites, the origin of the Israelites may need to be looked at in a different light than is commonly held. [Judah or Israelites--decide.] Other scholars hold that a more traditional reading of the Bible's origin story for the Israelite tribes is historically justifiable. [Such as? Finally, see my comments above for 2,500 years of Jewish history that is ignored here in stating this claim.]

P.S. I feel very uncomfortable in general about this whole race-based origin hypothesis. It's playing with fire. Danny

I believe the key disagreement than is The Jews are the direct descendents of the tribes of Judah, as well as refugees from other tribes (see below). [No, the Jews are not direct descendants from any one single ethnic group. See what I wrote above. The predominant ethnic group may be some biblical tribe of Judah, but in 3,500 years there was sufficient intermarriage and intermingling with other ethnic groups to make this claim meaningless. On the other hand, Jews do claim descent from Judah and often tend to ignore any absorption of other groups.]

Danny, you seem to be confusing the tribe of Judah and the tribes, i.e., the Kingdom of Judah. In other words, the statement "The Jews are direct descendents of the tribes making up the kingdom of Judah, together with many refugees from the kingdom of Israel, together with foreigners who intermarried with the Jews," would seem to be quite consistent with your viewpoint. You seem to be taking a needlessly harsh view of this statement suggested by RK. I recognize that "Jews" are more an ethnic group than a "race", or a distinct gene pool. That they are generally descended from the people of the kingdom of Judah, however, does not seem like such a radical statement to be making.

Good morning, Len. I don't think I am confusing the two if only because most of those refugees absorbed by Judah came to identify themselves with the tribe/kingdom of Judah. In other words, individual tribal identities disappeared. No Jew today will claim descent from any other than two tribes, Judah and Levi, and the same was true for a very long time, possibly even late biblical times (based on a possible interpretation of Ezekiel concerning the redistribution of tribal lands). I also agree with the basic statement you give from RK to a point, though it ignores that same 2,500 years of history. For more on that, see below.

Also, you seem to be putting a lot of weight on supposed intermarriage during the diaspora; I would be very carefuly with this unless the degree of intermarriage is actually known. There are strong arguments that it was not as prevalent as you seem to suppose: (1) Jewish customs against exogamy, (2) laws in most diaspora countries forbidding marriage with Jews, (3) the fact that Jews who intermarry often assimilate, leaving the population of "Jews", and (4) genetic arguments such as the prevalence of Tay-Sachs disease among Jews.

This is below. While we cannot be sure of the exact rate of intermarriage, at certain period it may also have been high. While Jewish custom frowns on exogamy, under certain conditions it is quite prevalent. Look at the U.S. and Western Europe today. There is evidence that the rates were similarly high at other, more remote times and in other, more remote communities (meaning outside of Poland and the Pale). Laws forbidding marriage with Jews and Jewish assimilation into the dominant culture are also factors, but these were not universal throughout Jewish history. As far as I remember, Tay Sachs is exclusively an Ashkenazic disease, which has no bearing on Middle Eastern, North African and other key communities. I don't deny Jewish descent from ancient Israelites either. I just claim that its scope is exaggerated and that people who enter the Jewish community tend to assume that origin for themselves too. Over 2,500 years, however, there has been a lot of mixing and mingling.

The fact that many people have converted to Judaism is not being contested. But this does not mean that I deserve your harsh comments about being totally wrong; it only means that we should be careful in how we phrase things. RK

Finally, I like your section about the "Myth of the 10 Lost Tribes", but it seems needlessly argumentative. Your principle objection seems to be that "10" is a miscount; that seems a piddling objection. The kingdom of Judah is referred to in scripture as "one tribe", when in fact it contained members of at least three tribes. Can you say, "figure of speech"? However, the substance of the section is useful. You also appear to ignore the scriptural claims of at least three separate waves of emigration from the north kingdom, accounting for almost all of the 12 tribes plus Levi. This textual evidence would suggest that all 12 tribes were represented in the Babylonian diaspora, and presumably in the return. --Len.

As for the 10 tribes, sure the term is a figure of speech. I was simply trying to clarify what the count was. As for the Babylonian diaspora, while all tribes may have been represented, they seem to have abandoned their individual identities by then. See Ezra, for example, where there are long list of returnees, identified as subclans of Judah and Levi. Even then, the rate of exogamy was extremely high--it is one of the central themes of the book--and this is among what may be supposed to be a highly identified group. In fact, many (most?) Jews did not return at that time. Danny

The loss of self-identification as "Assherites", for example, does not imply that nobody is descended from that tribe, nor that the tribe became extinct. So how does that observation affect the assertion that modern jews are descended from various of these tribes? --Len.

First off, one should note that there are Jews who are NOT descendents of the tribes of Judah, as in, they converted to Judaism. However, surely many Jews probably are direct descendents of the tribes of Judah, of course, I am dubious as to what that has to do with Israelites since Israel is a term defining citizens of Israel regardless of whether they are Judaic or notVera Cruz

To clarifiy, there are not any Jews who are descended from converts alone. There is no second Jewish people composed of converts, who exist in parallel with Jews descended from the Israelites. Rather, over time a few people at a time joined the Jewish people, and married with people who were Israelite descendents. The number of converts is not trivial, but it also is not so large as to swamp out the origin. It is fair to say that Jews today are still basically descendents of those Israelites who lived in the Sourthen Kingdom of Judah. RK

Jews as a people versus Jews as a race

Yeah, that's pretty much it. It is very doubtful that any Jew today is descended exclusively from the Israelites. This paragraph only covers the biblical (Old Testament) period. There are 2,500 years to go after that. As for your second point, Israelite is the ancient people. Citizens of Israel are Israelis. Danny

I think arguing that a, say, Hasidic Jew, is a purebred Jew, is about as false as arguing that a blond-blue-eyed German is a purebred Aryan. Of course, it should be noted that some Jews do think they are the master race.Vera Cruz 05:27 Dec 16, 2002 (UTC)

This true. Yet who here is making claims that Jewish people are some sort of racially pure ethnic group? Why is Danny going on about race issues? I honestly don't understand this at all. Perhaps Danny has been reading between the lines so much that he has ended up conflating my argument with some others he may have heard, and that he may have had legitimate reason to disagree with? RK

Only as much as it should be noted that members of any other ethnic group think that too. Then again, race is a construct that does not exist in Jewish culture. Danny

Please see the new section on The Bible and History in the article on the History of ancient Israel and Judah. Thoughtful comments and constructive criticisms are welcome. Danny, this includes you. RK

This is better, RK, but please answer me a couple of questions: a) what is meant by descent--patrilineal, matrilineal, a majority of ancestors? b) Is there any individual Jew alive today who can state with no compunctions that he or she is descended in any of those aforementioned ways from the original Tribes of Israel mentioned in the Bible? I am not changing the text, but I would really like you to understand my concerns regarding the text.

Extremely good questions, and obviously something that needs clarifying in the articles. (A) I am presently using the term descent in the biological, and not halakhic context. Thus, people later identified as Jews may be descended from people in Judah the solely from patrilineal descent, solely from matrilineal descent, or both. I do not agree with the traditional Jewisg view that matrilineal descent must have been the legal standard since the time of King David and before. (It may have been, but we have no proof of this.) Rather, I agree with the view of Robert Gordis (a Conservative Jewish Bible scholar and rabbi) who held that we can only prove that matrilineal descent pre-dated the time of Hillel and Shammai, but not much before then. (B) I think the mainstream view is that pretty much all Jews today are in great part direct descendents of the peoples of the nation of Judah, along with a small but steady stream of converts and people who unofficially intermarried in with the Jews. However, I also have been trying to find a way to say that the Israelite tribes in Judah are not necessarilly the same as the 12 tribes mentioned in the Torah itself, and that many historians doubt the historical existence of the patriarch Jacob and his 12 sons. So I am saying that Israelite tribes historically existed at some time...but the popular conception of the origin of these tribes with Jacob himself is not considered historically relibale. (My personal view is that the Biblical patriarchs were probably real people, but that the tales and legends passed down about them are not historically relibale, and that the early Biblical geneologies are especially unrelibale, if not mythical.)

Many historians doubt the historical existence of the patriarch Jacob and his 12 sons on what basis do they doubt? Is is a sincere question. OneVoice 15:24, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Is there any individual Jew alive today who can state with no compunctions that he or she is descended in any of those aforementioned ways from the original Tribes of Israel mentioned in the Bible? Can any of us state with certainity who our parents are? While we were each present at our birth; we dont remember much. We each rely upon the statements of others as to who our parents are. Maternity may have serveral witnesses, though baby-swaps in hospitals are not unknown. (As an aside, complete sequencing of mitochondrial DNA in both mother and child might well give us a certainly of relationship.) Paternity is an even more difficult issue. Genetic testing can tell us the probability of blood relationship, but not a certainity. Nonetheless we often state without compunction who are our parents, grandparents, etc. With this understanding there are a large number of individuals that can state without compunction that they are direct patrilinear descendents of at least one of the 12 children of Jacob. These people are the Kohanim (Priests). What genetic studies (http://www.bioethics.umn.edu/genetics_and_identity/case.html#cohanim) have been done are consistent with this statement. Remarkable indication of the accuracy of tradition transmitted from parent to child over ~2,600 years (time per the article referenced). OneVoice 15:24, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Oh, and while I'm add it, the bit about biblical minimalism et al is incredibly simplistic for my taste. I generally believe that opinions fall on a spectrum, rather than in two (or more) distinct camps. The latter view can lead to inaccurate understanding of the differences and can even lead to false attributions of opinion (i.e., if he is a biblical minimalist, he must believe that David never existed). Can you please clarify that there is a wide range of opinions regarding the Bible that traverses the two camp (not including fundies--I will say no more about them out of politeness and propriety). I will not get into an argument about Shanks either, but I am sure you know that his qualifications to speak about archeology are questioned by many archeologists. The distinction I would make is that BAR is a popular work and not some high-falutin', peer-reviewed archeological journal. Wikipedia is also a popular work, but we lose something if our sources are also popular works rather than the more "serious" (note the quotation marks) scholarly works. Danny

This issue, like most mature (or beginning to mature) historical fields of study, is developing into a spectrum of positions, and so must be noted. Agreed on all your points. RK

I wonder what the case is that the British Israelite movement is antisemitic. It is clear that some organizations which derived some of their theory from the British Israelites have also adopted antisemitic themes, but what about the main branch which is represented today by the British-Israel-World Federation (http://www.britishisrael.co.uk/)? I have no special interest in them, I just think that we should not introduce an organization as antisemitic without a strong case. --zero 10:59, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I wonder if all this name-calling would be akin to saying that current American are of British decent even when it is clear that this is not so. Who were the Jews originally? Who exatly made up the Jews in the Exodus? Who was Moses? et al. The Jewish people were never the hemogunous society that they would like to think they were, even though they tried to ensure this even to this day. What racial attributes do Jews have? It would seem that they were heavily integrated with local peoples as per the Books of the Prophets. What say you here? --Numerousfalx 18:53, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Membership in a tribe

This page has at least two serious problems. The first is that membership in a particular tribe is determined by ones father. If one's father was from the tribe of Asher, all the children are of the tribe of Asher. There is no reason to believe that the tribes did not intermarry. In fact there are numerous examples of women from one tribe marrying men from another. It is reasonable to assume that each tribe is represented in some portion of the present Jews through their mothers, grandmothers, etc.

Ok. So what is the problem? RK

The problem is that the page gives the impression that the 10 tribes were completely lost to rest of the Jews. This is clearly not the case. In addition the use of the word tribe is horribly inaccurate due to the connotations that the work carries in English. Clans might be a better choice...too late for that though.

If you read further down into the article, you will see that this is not so. This article explicitly states that some of the other ten tribes were not lost to the Jews, and that the so-called tribe of Judah included people from all the tribes of Israel! Here is the precise quote:

'In 722 BC the Assyrians, under Shalmaneser, and then under Sargon II, conquered Israel (the northern Kingdom), destroyed its capital Samaria, and sent the Israelites into exile and captivity. Much of the nine landed tribes of the northern kingdom become "lost." However, what is less commonly known is that many people from the conquered northern kingdom fled south to safety in Judea, the Southern Kingdom, which maintained its independence.

Thus, Judah then was populated with Israelites from Judah, Benjamin, Shimeon, some of Levi, and many from all of the other tribes as well. Today's Jews are descended from the inhabitants of this kingdom.

The term "Israelite" is not offensive

Second, the term Israelite is itself offensive to Jews. The Jews do not recognize a distinct worthy of a different term to refer to the Jews of one historical period vs another. Christians have often used words such as Hebrews and Israelites to refer to Jews that lived before Jesus . This distinction is important to Christian theology. Due to the implied difference in Christian theology the term is offensive. How can this be addressed within the framework of the Wikipedia?

The term Israelite is not offensive to Jews. In fact, Jews still sometimes refer to themselves as Israelites! This was especially common in the 1800s and early 1900s. Where did you hear otherwise? RK 00:26, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)

Zangwille (sp?) in addition to others have embraced the term Israelite much as some American Blacks have embraced the term nigger. I am surprised to hear that there are Jews that refer to themselves as Israelites (though in America, nothing should be a source of surprise ;) The term is a Christian term coined to differentiate between the good Hebrews (Abraham, etc), and good Israelites (David, etc) and the evil, deicide Jews.

I'm with RK on this (miracles happen). I would need proof of this claim that "Israelite" is a perjorative invention. I doubt it very much. Originally it was intended with a wider meaning than "Jew" (which refered to the tribe of Judah only) but the meanings of both words evolved like with all words. One can compare this with the use of "Israel" to mean Jews collectively (esp. pre-1948). The word "Hebrews" is not offensive until proven otherwise. It certainly was not regarded offensive by the several political movements within Zionism that adopted it to distinguish themselves from the diaspora. Of course all of these words can be found in perjorative contexts but that's just because there is so much perjorative literature; it doesn't prove the words are specifically perjorative. --Zero 03:03, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The Term "Israelite" is not in any way offensive to Jews. The term is used in the most popular Jewish translations. I'm a Jew, and I'm not offended by the term.--Yoshiah ap 22:02, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Material moved to the LDS Church article

JeMa your revision of the LDS section on this article has mistated Mormonism in several respects. Further, why censor relevant material by deletion and moving especially without discussing it first? B 21:57, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)

Without commenting on anyone's additions or deletions of particular points, I can support the moving of this material. This article is not the proper place to give a detailed discussion of how to convert to LDS Mormonism, or what being a LDS Mormon means to Mormons. That is off-topic. AKAIK, nothing is being censored. Information is merely being discussed in the proper article. As an aside, I find it incomprehensible that Mormons teach that one can literally become an ethnic Israelite by converting to Mormonism. Can someone also become Asian, or Arab at will? How can a religion teach this, unless it teaches that such conversion produces an actual biological change? And wouldn't this be in the realm of testable science, rather than theology? RK 01:36, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)

By the way, RK, you're actually wrong about people not being able to become Arab at will, at least historically. Most of the Arab world are not genetically descended from original Arabs, but were arabized through centuries of conquest and cultural assimilation when the original caliphate was established. That point is not immediately relevant to discussion about Israelites though. And BoNoMoJo is right; the LDS Israel paradigm is not strictly an ethnic distinction, but also sometimes implies adoption into a particular tribe. The LDS Israelite paradigm is described in detail in the Allegory of the Tame and Wild Olive Trees, found at Jacob chapter 5 (http://scriptures.lds.org/jacob/5) in the Book of Mormon. Gilgamesh 03:14, Apr 17, 2004 (U.S. MST)

No one will disagree with the truism that off topic material shouldn't be included and that "convert to LDS Mormonism, or what being a LDS Mormon means to Mormons" is off topic. JeMa mischaracterized the material some which is about how Mormons believe they become Israelites and is relevant to this article. Looking back at the deleted/moved material most of it (the last four paragraphs in particular) is stuff written by Danny and some of it has nothing to do with Mormonism at all but is about the Manmasseh people of India...how is Manmasseh material on Israelites supposed to be irrelevant to this article but somehow relevant to the article on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It's not...that was just stupid and sloppy to move that stuff there. I could care less about what happens to that material in this article...I've got other articles I'm more interested in. I only happily reviewed/added the Mormon doctrine on Israelites at Danny's request. At any rate most of the deleted/moved material that was included in the first and now only two remaining paragraphs was relevant and the revision is now a mistatement. As to your literally comment, it's not spelled out what is meant by literally and does not necessarily mean ethnicity in Mormonism. (This is part of the mistatement going on in the current revision.) So, despite your disposition to criticize Mormonism, you shouldn't be so anxious to find it incomprehensible...not yet any ways. Also many Mormons don't divide the world between science and theology; i.e., if the claim (whether religious or not) is empirically testable (at least in practice) then test away. Indeed Mormonism tends to be very antagonistic to metaphysical entities like the mainstream Christian concept of God precisely because it is not empirically verfiable/falsifiable, etc. B 03:23, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)

I would hardly label my conservative edits as "stupid". The long discursion was off-topic. No one was censoring you. JeMa 17:28, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I'm just especially cranky lately because of a slew of edits that irritated me on various articles . Please overlook any insults. Maybe I'll come back later and try to work out any unsettled issues in this article in which I was involved. B 20:50, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)

No problem. And feel free to move back some of the material if you really think that it is relevant. JeMa

I wrote a lot of the LDS Israelite material mostly before I registered a user name at Wikipedia, and I must say that I fully appreciate everyone's views and interests on this subject, and wish to work with them to resolve perceived conflicts of relevancy. Since this is a Wikipedia article and Wikipedia is for everyone, I think every established tradition here is valid and no one tradition should be marginalized in preference to anyone else's tradition, regardless of mutual controversy. We can do this together. But please, let's read and discuss issues what should be here and what shouldn't be here before anyone goes ahead on their own and moves content from here to other articles without thought as to keeping other articles as neat and tidy as this one. Thank you. Gilgamesh 18:53, Apr 16, 2004 (U.S. MST)

Expansion of non-Jewish Israelite section

There's been quite a bit of argument as to whether it's relevant to mention Mormon Israelite traditions on this page. And then I remembered that there are even more groups with strong Israelite traditions that also differ from Judaism. So, I thought that maybe the best way to revise the non-Jewish Israelite segment was to dedicate a brief paragraph to each group (and it can easily be expanded to include more), with a short description of who the group is, where they live, what they believe in differently, and how they relate bilaterally to Jewish religion and Jewish society and (if relevant) multilaterally to other Israelite traditions in general. This way, every group (Rabbinic Jews, Samaritans, Karaites, Mormons, and others) can get a concise mention with introductory information in equal parity with other groups, regardless of their numbers large or small. And if someone wants to learn more about any one group, they can follow wiki links to other articles with a more detailed explanation on that group. I've already added a brief paragraph about the Samaritans and the Karaites. I also modified the Mormon paragraph again, and endeavoured to keep it as brief as I could while still portraying the same elements of information as the other paragraphs. One could conceivably see information being added about Manmasseh and other people as well, but to be honest, I know almost nothing about them other than the briefest information from the Flags of the World website. Gilgamesh 04:18, Apr 20, 2004 (U.S. MST)

Khazars

There is no mention of the hypothesis (by Arthur Koestler?) that the Ashkenazim descend mainly from Jewish Khazars. -- Error 00:52, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

from what i've heard, the khazars originally spoke a language known as khazar, but adopted the hebrew language when they converted to judaism.

i'm pretty sure that there are a lot of jews that aren't of even partial khazar ancestry. (anon 5 April 2005)

Rastafari

Didn't the Rastafari believe that Black people were the lost tribes? -- Error 00:52, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

there is a rastafarian sect known as the 12 tribes of israel.

i don't know much about it so far, though i'm trying to learn more.

i'm under the impression that rastafarianism teaches that blacks are all 12 of the tribes of israel. (anon 5 April 2005)

Most definitely. Is there a mistake here? There was on another page a whikle back the inaccuracy that they believe they are only one which I changed, --SqueakBox 16:17, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Israelite in Category:Mormonism

Upon careful consideration, I do not dispute the removal of Israelite from Category:Mormonism, considering that it is also not in Category:Judaism, nor in Category:Samaritan, etc., but only in indirectly-related categories such as Jewish history. However, if Israelite were to be added to such categories at a future time, then it would only be fair to add it all the categories who have similar self-associative sacred beliefs regarding the Israelites. - User:Gilgamesh 11:26, 14 June 2004 (UTC)

What constitutes a "Gentile" and to whom

The following essay on this thought is a bit long, but I hope it makes you, me and everyone else a better Wikipedian and thinker of NPOV-concern issues. :) I've given this subject a lot more thought on this issue. Consider this: How would an Orthodox Jew define a "Gentile"? And how would a secular Jew? A Reform Jew? And a Karaite Jew? And a Samaritan? And a Falasha? It would seem to me that each different school of Jewish thought has different approaches to what defines a Gentile, and what defines a non-Gentile. (Like, for instance, would Samaritans consider Jews to be Gentiles because they are not Samaritans? Rhetorical question, though I don't know the answer if it were a non-rhetorical question anyway. :P) Now, while labels are very rude sometimes, in the context of Wikipedia we need a good collection NPOV terms (preferably not too long-winded) to represent a person who constitutes a "member" or a "Gentile" in each philosophy. In regards to Jewish perceptions of what constitutes a Gentile, I read up on the issue, including the Law of Moses, which seems to be the most fundamental law in this case (correct me if I'm wrong). So I thought, maybe "non-Mosaic" is a good term for this. On the other hand, Christians and Muslims (and LDS) believe that the Law of Moses is (or was) the law, but believe it has been amended, whether by Jesus of Nazareth as believed to be the Messiah or by Muhammad as believed to be the Prophet of God. Once originally a sect of Judaism, the followers of Jesus adopted new beliefs and abandoned some older rites in favor of new ones, making them no longer considered to be Jews (again, correct me if I'm wrong). And in most cases, these religions are in agreement and call themselves "Gentiles". But a few (such as the mentioned LDS religion) hold on to many traditions common in both Judaism (Priests of the Rite of Aaron, Holy Temples believed to be after the manner of Solomon's Temple, the 12 Tribes, etc.) and in Christianity (such as Jesus, the Christian Atonement, etc.), and believe in a sacred role of Israel, and call themselves "Israelite", and recognize Jews, Samaritans, etc. also as Israelites, but call everyone else "Gentile". But since "Gentile" has already been suggested as NPOV and ambiguous (not to mention politically-charged in some cases), then what could be a NPOV term everyone adopt that defines a person who does not believe themselves to be part of Israel? "Non-Israelite" may not work, because it would seem to imply POV that LDS are attested as part of Israel in a perceived fact that no one would dispute, which is not (and will probably never) be the case. At times like these, I wish I knew more Greek and Latin prefixes so I can coin new technical terms for complex+wide distinctions such as these. :) The key here being, while everyone can dispute who is a Gentile and who is not, there has to be NPOV terms that imply who BELIEVE they are not Gentiles. We're not all "in the clear" here anyway; a lot of skeptical thinkers question whether there was originally an "Israel" to begin with, or whether they were merely an invention of myth and legend (obviously I don't believe it's a myth though). Thank you for your attention, and I apologize for my complete failure in structuring coherent paragraphs, and I hope you have thoughts on this matter. ^_^;; - Gilgamesh 05:16, 17 June 2004 (UTC)

Who is a Jew?

The definition of a Jew, within Rabbinism,Karaism,Samaritanism,and Falasha are all the same, the difference being controversies of paternal vs. maternal lineage. Actually, the Shomerim (Samaritans) don't consider themselves to be Jews, but Israelites, as they believe they are from the tribe of Joseph. As to Mormons, how many do you know who go around claiming to be "Jews"? They all claim to be Ephraimites (also a trend within "Hebrew Christianity"). All of the LDS people I know use the term "Jews" to refer to people who practice Judaism, and the rest of the world generally does also.

Well, it's true that the majority claim to be Ephrathites or Manassites. But every single tribe is believed to varying degree, either by descent or adoption (as with people like the Biblical Ruth). And yes, Mormons usually use "Jew" to apply to "Judaism", but there are Mormons who believe they are part of Judah, without necessarily even recorded Jewish ancestors (such as my brother's wife, who is believed to be Tribe of Judah). However, there are "Jewish Mormons", but there are not many of them. The only remotely famous Jewish Mormons I know of are Daniel Rona and Marvin Goldstein, and they both Ashkenazic. And as for "Hebrew Christianity", I've honestly never heard that term before. :P LDS don't regard Israel as strictly ethnic, but more like a sacred role of faithful gathering and family sealing and stuff... - Gilgamesh 01:51, 18 June 2004 (UTC)

In the kindest of ways, your priests and temples are entirely different than Jewish priests and temples. Any male can become a priest in Mormonism, whereas it is determined by lineage according to the Torah. As far as I know, none of the ceremonies and requirments outlined in the Torah are carried out in your temples.

You're right, and yes you were very kind. ^_^ Actually, the LDS believe the Aaronic Priesthood to be a special divine restoration to faithful non-Levites to fill the niche until the Levitical Cohanim can make a sacrifice in the Temple again (or something like that, I'd have to read up again). And many traditions are different because LDS believe (whether anyone else agrees or not; this isn't an argument and I'm not trying to convince anyone on theological points ^^) that doctrine is amended throughout time through divine prophesy, as it was with Abraham, and Moses, and Isaiah and the other OT Prophets, and with the belief in Jesus Christ as the Messiah and with the belief Joseph Smith Jr. as a Prophet, Seer and Revelator. - Gilgamesh 01:51, 18 June 2004 (UTC)

However, I do see your point about the word "gentile". Perhaps the different definitions could be listed on a page somewhere?--Yoshiah ap 21:55, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, there's already a fairly simple explanation at Gentile, but only the esoteric religious definitions. We still seem to be short of NPOV alternatives that-don't-require-lots-of-words-and-dashes. :P - Gilgamesh 01:51, 18 June 2004 (UTC)

Lost tribes

I removed the following two paragraphs:

Most people believe that the southern Kingdom was only populated by the tribe of Judah and Benjamin, but this is not exactly so. Prior to King Saul, Israel was divided by its tribes with certain leaders from various tribes becoming judges of the tribe or surrounding tribes to fight the enemies of Israel. This is reflected in the book of Judges. Saul was selected as king, but after he acted rashly, the Bible says that God rejected his kingship and sought one who would replace him. David was then selected to be king, and his descendants were to rule over the House of Israel. For two generations, Israel had been united first under David for 33 years and remained so under Solomon for 40 more years.

Eventually, Israel suffered a civil war in 922 BC which split it into two parts. Jeroboam, Solomon's assistant, rejected the leadership of Solomon's son Rehoboam who wanted to tax the people heavily and this led to the revolt of the northern tribes and to the establishment of the (northern) Kingdom of Israel. It consisted of nine landed tribes: Zebulun, Issachar, Asher, Naphtali, Dan, Manasseh, Ephraim, Reuben and Gad, and some of Levi (which had no land allocation). This makes ten tribes, which later became known in the Jewish mind as "the lost ten tribes". However, Manasseh and Ephraim technically count as just one full tribe, so there were really eight full landed tribes, and part of one tribe without land. Samaria was its capital.

and the following text

However, what is less commonly known is that many people from the conquered northern kingdom fled south to safety in Judea, the Southern Kingdom, which maintained its independence.

For the following reasons:

This is a retelling of the stories of the Bible as if they were history (thinly guised with sporadic "according to..."). I find the reference to the precise year 922 BC particularly POV.
This is against the standard counting of the tribes of Israel which does not include Simeon and considers Ephraim and Menasseh to be separate tribes (as the author openly admits).
The allegation that some of the lost tribes fled etc. requires some proof.
This feels strongly like wishful thinking (oh no, they were not really lost were they?)

For historical reasons let me note that these ideas were incorporated into the text by RK around May 2002. I replaced it with a more NPOV text. Gadykozma 13:59, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Will the real Children of Israel please stand up?

I suggest we pick one page and make it the location of these ~~silly~~ discussions, and make other pages point to it. I had in mind Children of Israel (currenty this is what most of this page is about), but I don't have any particular preference. What do people say? Should I put the question in Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible? Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism? Both? Gadykozma 00:42, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Mainstream" Judaism

Ok, what are we defining as mainstream Judaism people? Nearly 90% of Jews are Reform. Does this mean that Orthodoxy, Masorti, Reconstructionist, and Karaite Judaism should be in there?--Josiah 05:26, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

You are conflating two different topics. There is no such thing as a mainstream "Judaism people". There is Judaism - as a religion, and Jews, as a people. They historically have been one and the same (except for those lost to conquest, assimilation, etc.) Today this identity is no longer taken for granted. There are many people in my own family who are 100% Jewish, yet they do not affiliate with Judaism as a religion (they are agnostics.) RK 04:06, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

This is the article Israelite, not Jew or Who is a Jew?. This is basically off topic.
The statement about 90% of Jews being Reform is simply false. Israel has about 5 million Jews, almost all of whom are either Orthodox or simply secular.
The only sense in which there is such a thing as "mainstream" Judaism is that there are matters where Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform (and possibly others) are in agreement with one another. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:56, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Levite subtribes

The tribe of Levi (Levites) is divided into 3 subtribes: Gershon (Gershonites), Kohath (Kohathites), and Merari (Merarites).Gringo300 22:09, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

At the time of Moses they were. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:20, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

linking

The following was recently added in the midst of the article: [http://scriptures.lds.org/gsi/israel guide to LDS scriptural references on Israel], resulting in a link guide to LDS scriptural references on Israel (http://scriptures.lds.org/gsi/israel). Normally, we don't put external links with text in the middle of the article; on the other hand it looks like a relevant citation. It probably belongs either in a "references" or "external links" section, appropriately cited from the body of the article. Could someone possibly sort this out (I'm just looking at this on a 10 minute break, don't have time to get it right myself right now). -- Jmabel | Talk 20:05, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Israelite"