Talk:List of modern names for biblical place names
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sorting
editSuggestion to order list by scriptural mention (e.g. Genesis, Exodus) by default, and have a separate table for Old and New Testament. If possible also a good idea if "sort arrow" (not sure what it's termed) could be added to top row so sorting can be changed by users as they'd like. Just my 2 cents. Contributor613 (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- Great idea. I think that it is an excellent idea to make two separate tables; one for the Hebrew Bible, and another for the Christian Bible.Davidbena (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- Contributor613, shalom. In compliance with your directives, I separated the two sources. The place names are arranged in alphabetical order. This is much better than having everything "kila'im."Davidbena (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Suggested Merge
edit- Opposed to merger. I, personally, am against merging this article with List of biblical places, because its approach and format are different. Whoever started the article obviously intended to also mention place names in the Christian Bible, for which reason we decided to make two separate sections for easy recognition of these place names and their respective origins.Davidbena (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Judea and Samaria
edit@Davidbena: I think your changes contravene WP:ARBPIA2 (see also WP:ARBPIAINTRO). All the other provinces / regions in the table are the modern names, not the ancient names. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- My friend, the article's main emphasis is on "biblical place names" as the title implies. Biblical sites were, as you know, in existence before the 1st and 2nd centuries CE. It just so happens that the article also translates the places into their common names.Davidbena (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Davidbena: OK, but we should be consistent. In a single column, either we should use biblical region names, or modern region names. But this should be throughout. Since this article is a "list of modern names for biblical place names", perhaps the answer is to show both columns? Onceinawhile (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- Davidbena, this is crazy. EG, Khirbet Almit is in Mateh Binyamin Regional Council, not "Judea" etc, etc. Also, along what Onceinawhile says: "North Sinai Governorate" or "Khūzestān Province" doesn't sound like Biblical names to me.... Huldra (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- Actually, Huldra, it's borderline. I can agree to changing it to "Samaria." As for Onceinawhile's suggestion, I agree that there should be consistency. The problem, however, is that the naming conventions limits us to either "Samaria" or "Judea." North Sinai was actually neither, so, we settled for the next best thing. Perhaps though we can make a suggestion there (in the Naming Conventions) that they make a provision for new regional names (e.g. Galilee, Gaulan, etc.). As for the "modern names", we have listed them, just as they appear in the modern vocabulary, and their regions have also been noted as either "Palestinian territory" or "Israel," although in my view this seems totally unnecessary. Giving two distinct titles for the same country, when prior to 1948 it was all one county, is - to say the least, trying to force a political issue. Remember that it was Great Britain who first suggested dividing the country into an Arab and Jewish sector, which had never been done before, and only temporarily done by Jordan (1948-1967). The ideal solution would be to make the country apolitical and neutral to all readers by writing Israel/Palestine, since both titles were used for the country long before the political morass.Davidbena (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- Josephus mentions the extent of boundaries of Judea, as it breaks off from Samaria. I'll try and determine whether Khirbet Almit was included in this boundary.Davidbena (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- I am not sure I follow your logic here...to me it looks as if you are forcing the Biblical names "Judea" and "Samaria" into an area where it wasn't meant ......creating confusion instead. Gath (city) present name is Ramla?? This is just stupid. I suggest that we place their current Governorate/District in the Province/Region field, Huldra (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- On the contrary, if you look at the edit history, at first there was only the "Administrative districts/regions" mentioned for each place, and there was complete uniformity and consistency at that time. Then, our friend Onceinawhile came along and he changed all that, by adding separate countries for one and the same country, and removing the "Administrative districts" for the country of Israel. It created far more confusion. The idea behind this article is to stress the biblical cities, and to recognize them today. Since the country is still disputed between the Israelis and Palestinians, but controlled by Israel, it would have been better had he remained as neutral as possible about it. People recognize the country for what it is. To avoid confusion, in my humble opinion, the country designation should NOT have been turned into a political issue, but designated as "Palestine/Israel". As for the boundary of Judea, I see in Josephus (Antiquities 14.3.4) where he says that the "first entrance into Judea [as one comes from Samaria through the midland countries] is Coreæ." Elsewhere, Josephus says (Wars 3.51) that "the frontier village of Anuath Borceos is the limit of Judea on the north" (See: Wars of the Jews, 3.51). As for Ramla, it was thought to be the ancient Gath, which had long been destroyed, until the emergence of the new city (Ramla) over its ruins. At least, that's what some historical geographers claim. Davidbena (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- This is how it looked before any of us were involved. All three columns on the right showed the modern names. Today that is still mostly the case, except where a minority of the fourth column shows comtemporary region names. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, I had just noticed the same. That was a much better version! I suggest we return to that (including the extra places) Huldra (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- This is how it looked before any of us were involved. All three columns on the right showed the modern names. Today that is still mostly the case, except where a minority of the fourth column shows comtemporary region names. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- On the contrary, if you look at the edit history, at first there was only the "Administrative districts/regions" mentioned for each place, and there was complete uniformity and consistency at that time. Then, our friend Onceinawhile came along and he changed all that, by adding separate countries for one and the same country, and removing the "Administrative districts" for the country of Israel. It created far more confusion. The idea behind this article is to stress the biblical cities, and to recognize them today. Since the country is still disputed between the Israelis and Palestinians, but controlled by Israel, it would have been better had he remained as neutral as possible about it. People recognize the country for what it is. To avoid confusion, in my humble opinion, the country designation should NOT have been turned into a political issue, but designated as "Palestine/Israel". As for the boundary of Judea, I see in Josephus (Antiquities 14.3.4) where he says that the "first entrance into Judea [as one comes from Samaria through the midland countries] is Coreæ." Elsewhere, Josephus says (Wars 3.51) that "the frontier village of Anuath Borceos is the limit of Judea on the north" (See: Wars of the Jews, 3.51). As for Ramla, it was thought to be the ancient Gath, which had long been destroyed, until the emergence of the new city (Ramla) over its ruins. At least, that's what some historical geographers claim. Davidbena (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- I am not sure I follow your logic here...to me it looks as if you are forcing the Biblical names "Judea" and "Samaria" into an area where it wasn't meant ......creating confusion instead. Gath (city) present name is Ramla?? This is just stupid. I suggest that we place their current Governorate/District in the Province/Region field, Huldra (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- Josephus mentions the extent of boundaries of Judea, as it breaks off from Samaria. I'll try and determine whether Khirbet Almit was included in this boundary.Davidbena (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- Actually, Huldra, it's borderline. I can agree to changing it to "Samaria." As for Onceinawhile's suggestion, I agree that there should be consistency. The problem, however, is that the naming conventions limits us to either "Samaria" or "Judea." North Sinai was actually neither, so, we settled for the next best thing. Perhaps though we can make a suggestion there (in the Naming Conventions) that they make a provision for new regional names (e.g. Galilee, Gaulan, etc.). As for the "modern names", we have listed them, just as they appear in the modern vocabulary, and their regions have also been noted as either "Palestinian territory" or "Israel," although in my view this seems totally unnecessary. Giving two distinct titles for the same country, when prior to 1948 it was all one county, is - to say the least, trying to force a political issue. Remember that it was Great Britain who first suggested dividing the country into an Arab and Jewish sector, which had never been done before, and only temporarily done by Jordan (1948-1967). The ideal solution would be to make the country apolitical and neutral to all readers by writing Israel/Palestine, since both titles were used for the country long before the political morass.Davidbena (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- My friend, the article's main emphasis is on "biblical place names" as the title implies. Biblical sites were, as you know, in existence before the 1st and 2nd centuries CE. It just so happens that the article also translates the places into their common names.Davidbena (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I will change the Province/Region field back to its former longstanding consensus....unless I hear some opposition, Huldra (talk) 22:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- The original edits only mentioned the modern-day status (Administrative district/region) as opposed to "Samaria" and Judea". Of course, this depends on what we wish to stress here. Wikipedia's Naming Conventions is very explicit here. The original editors and myself included preferred the older edits, before the changes made by Onceinawhile.Davidbena (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- No, I think you are misunderstanding. In the cases where one place was known to be in Biblical "Samaria" or "Judea," we can say that...in the article about the place itself. Not elsewhere. And the article history is very clear: nobody used "Samaria" or "Judea" in the article before you started editing.....Now the district/region field is a mess......two Biblical names, and the rest modern names.....Ugh. Huldra (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- I disagree with you that there is a mess. It is true, however, that we were using the modern-day designation, such as Judea and Samaria Area,which gave more consistency. When this was decided against, in preference for the Wikipedia Naming Conventions (as mentioned explicitly by Onceinawhile in his edit summary), then it became necessary to go the full-gamit. If there is no objection, I will restore the modern-day designation of Administrative areas. Davidbena (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- No, I think you are misunderstanding. In the cases where one place was known to be in Biblical "Samaria" or "Judea," we can say that...in the article about the place itself. Not elsewhere. And the article history is very clear: nobody used "Samaria" or "Judea" in the article before you started editing.....Now the district/region field is a mess......two Biblical names, and the rest modern names.....Ugh. Huldra (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
- The original edits only mentioned the modern-day status (Administrative district/region) as opposed to "Samaria" and Judea". Of course, this depends on what we wish to stress here. Wikipedia's Naming Conventions is very explicit here. The original editors and myself included preferred the older edits, before the changes made by Onceinawhile.Davidbena (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
@Davidbena: your last edit was helpful, but I think it now directly contravenes the Naming Convention you linked to? Onceinawhile (talk) 20:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- In this case, since the article deals with both old and new, and since there was a consensus to resort back to this usage for consistency, Wikipedia respects community consensus. It looks much better.Davidbena (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Question about "Country Name"
editQuestion about "Country Name" |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
In the current article which treats on the modern names for biblical sites, there is an entry for the "Country Name." As is known, many of these biblical sites are in Israel, also known as Palestine, being the same geographical country. However, there has been an attempt to politicize the "Country Name," by writing either "Palestinian territories" or "Israel," as if it were two separate countries. It is my view that we ought to be apolitical about the "Country Name," and that wherever these two designations apply in this particular article, we should write both "Palestine/Israel." In this way we keep this issue neutral, in accordance with Wikipedia's policy in Palestine-Israel articles. Any other views on how we should proceed here? Please add your comment.Davidbena (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
We have actually two issues here, in addition to the above country status, we also have the field Province/Region in the Old Testament places. Should be use Judea/Samaria there (in addition to present Governorates), or should we use the present Governorate, for all? Huldra (talk) 23:25, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
My opinion on these two questions is that we should stick with the modern designations and status quo, e.g. Israel or Palestinian Territories, and the modern name for the region or province. Debresser (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
References
|
Davidbena, you have now introduced Judea and Samaria Area under Province/Region. This is a construct which is recognised by exactly ZERO other nations (outside Israel). This will have to go. Huldra (talk) 20:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- Why do you say that no one recognises it, when even the Palestinian Authority recognizes it! It is Israel's law, and it is upheld by all in this country. We do not live in a fantasy world! This is a reality, and even the nations accept it. This has only to do with provincial administration, not a political state.Davidbena (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- They are illegal settlements under international law (thieves, in the eyes of much of the world). And having Judea and Samaria Area under Province/Region, then having Palestinian territories under Country Name: again, it makes zero sense. Huldra (talk) 21:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- No one referred to settlements. We're referring to the equivalent of "Governorate" in the territories controlled by Israel under the Oslo Peace Accords of 1993. As I recall, you supported this idea here. You seem to be confusing Statehood with provincial administration, which latter we are talking about here.Davidbena (talk) 21:07, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- As for why we have Palestinian territories under Country Name is because the areas under discussion are not yet a separate and sovereign (independent) State.Davidbena (talk) 21:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- From the Judea and Samaria Area article: "Judea and Samaria Area [...] is the Israeli government term for the administrative division encompassing Israeli-controlled Jewish-majority civilian areas of Area C of the West Bank, excluding East Jerusalem." Huldra (talk) 21:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- And my vote here, was referring to the administrative areas which were in place before you Davidbena, started all this mess. That is, say using say Hebron Governorate for Hebron, etc, etc. Huldra (talk) 21:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Huldra:, Actually, if you look closely at the edit history, the Administrative settings that I restored were there before I even touched this article. They apply to all citizens of the country, until a further peace agreement can be reached.Davidbena (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- This is how it looked like on 9 January 2017, the last version befor you started editing. Hebron was in Hebron Governorate. Now it is in Judea and Samaria Area! Ridiculous. Huldra (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- So I'm correct in saying that I did not introduce the use of "Administrative regions." It was there before me. The only innovation that I took was to separate the Old Testament biblical towns from the New Testament towns, and even this was at the request of another involved editor.Davidbena (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- No, AFAIK you were also the person who unilaterally changed Hebron Governorate to Judea and Samaria Area. Huldra (talk) 21:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- Perhaps you mean a certain biblical village in the "Hebron Governorate." If I changed the region for Judea and Samaria Area, it was unintentional. I see nothing wrong with restoring the designation to Hebron Governorate, if it makes you feel any better.Davidbena (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- No, AFAIK you were also the person who unilaterally changed Hebron Governorate to Judea and Samaria Area. Huldra (talk) 21:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- So I'm correct in saying that I did not introduce the use of "Administrative regions." It was there before me. The only innovation that I took was to separate the Old Testament biblical towns from the New Testament towns, and even this was at the request of another involved editor.Davidbena (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- This is how it looked like on 9 January 2017, the last version befor you started editing. Hebron was in Hebron Governorate. Now it is in Judea and Samaria Area! Ridiculous. Huldra (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Huldra:, Actually, if you look closely at the edit history, the Administrative settings that I restored were there before I even touched this article. They apply to all citizens of the country, until a further peace agreement can be reached.Davidbena (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed. Whatever your stance on the politics, it makes no sense to use the Israeli region name when we clearly state the places as being in the Palestinian territories. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- East Jerusalem is defined under Jerusalem District. Note that it says there: "The population of 1,083,300 is 66.6% Jewish and 31.8% Arab." This, too, is merely for administrative purposes. The Palestinian Arabs throughout the entire country are affected by these terms, and therefore they are still valid. It brings conformity to the whole list, unlike before where we had simply "Samaria" or "Judea" and which kindled the ire of our fellow editors.Davidbena (talk) 21:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- East Jerusalem has been annexed to Israel under the Jerusalem Law. The West Bank has not. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Onceinawhile:, But does that really matter? Under the Oslo Peace Accords, these administrative regions affect all populations - Jews and Arabs alike. In the case of the Judea and Samaria Area, it states there: "The Judea and Samaria Area is administered by the Israel Defense Forces Central Command, and military law is applied. Administrative decisions are subject to the Command's chief." You see, this is the situation at present because of the current state of hostilities. It will change when the situation gets better. Still, dislike for the current situation doesn't make it null & void. Davidbena (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- East Jerusalem has been annexed to Israel under the Jerusalem Law. The West Bank has not. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- I am changing it back to what it was, before you, Davidbena, changed it unilaterally. AFAIK, you have zero support from anyone else for your view, Huldra (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- You have no right to revert the current edit until a consensus can be reached. Meanwhile you have none. Besides, the Administrative regions are a system in place for all peoples in this country, Jews and Arabs alike.Davidbena (talk) 21:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- Which country? Onceinawhile (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- I thought this was obvious. We're talking here about the country which has gone by many names: Canaan, Land of Israel, Palestine, Judea, the Promised Land, the Holy Land. You see, it's all one and the same country.Davidbena (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- To pick just one example from this article, the residents of Taffuh are not citizens of Israel. You should go there tomorrow and see for yourself. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Onceinawhile:, I have already changed the designation for Taffuh, placing it in the Hebron Governorate. With that said, it doesn't change the reality on the ground, does it? These places are still under joint Israeli-Palestinian Authority control. Be well, my friend.Davidbena (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- To pick just one example from this article, the residents of Taffuh are not citizens of Israel. You should go there tomorrow and see for yourself. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- I thought this was obvious. We're talking here about the country which has gone by many names: Canaan, Land of Israel, Palestine, Judea, the Promised Land, the Holy Land. You see, it's all one and the same country.Davidbena (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- Which country? Onceinawhile (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- You have no right to revert the current edit until a consensus can be reached. Meanwhile you have none. Besides, the Administrative regions are a system in place for all peoples in this country, Jews and Arabs alike.Davidbena (talk) 21:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- East Jerusalem is defined under Jerusalem District. Note that it says there: "The population of 1,083,300 is 66.6% Jewish and 31.8% Arab." This, too, is merely for administrative purposes. The Palestinian Arabs throughout the entire country are affected by these terms, and therefore they are still valid. It brings conformity to the whole list, unlike before where we had simply "Samaria" or "Judea" and which kindled the ire of our fellow editors.Davidbena (talk) 21:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- They are illegal settlements under international law (thieves, in the eyes of much of the world). And having Judea and Samaria Area under Province/Region, then having Palestinian territories under Country Name: again, it makes zero sense. Huldra (talk) 21:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
If it makes Huldra feel any better, we'll designate Hebron as being in the Hebron Governorate.Davidbena (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- To repeat, to use Judea and Samaria Area under any Province/Region is unacceptable, Huldra (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- It seems that you are just interested in fighting, as - upon further consideration - I see that there has never been an entry for Hebron, which you claimed should have been classified under the Hebron Governorate. Sigh. The earliest edits, before my involvement, were as they are now for the "Province/Region."Davidbena (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- That really isn't fair...the last thing I want is "fighting for the sake of fighting" (I am actually here to write an encyclopaedia!). And if you look at the last version before you srtarted, 9 January 2017 ...then search for Hebron and Hebron Governorate...you will find it. Huldra (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- Done I had overlooked the word, since I was looking for "Hebron" instead of "Qiryat Arba".Davidbena (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- That really isn't fair...the last thing I want is "fighting for the sake of fighting" (I am actually here to write an encyclopaedia!). And if you look at the last version before you srtarted, 9 January 2017 ...then search for Hebron and Hebron Governorate...you will find it. Huldra (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- Dislike for the current political situation agreed upon by the State of Israel and the Palestinian Authority doesn't render it "null-and-void." It is the current reality in our State.Davidbena (talk) 21:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- It seems that you are just interested in fighting, as - upon further consideration - I see that there has never been an entry for Hebron, which you claimed should have been classified under the Hebron Governorate. Sigh. The earliest edits, before my involvement, were as they are now for the "Province/Region."Davidbena (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Davidbena, until you get consensus for your proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(West_Bank)#Proposed_Amendment, this discussion is a waste of time. J&SA currently contravenes the guideline, and must be removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- If you feel that my suggestions are "wrong" or "out of place", or that they "contradict" Wikipedia's policies, then feel free to take the issue to a higher body for resolution. So far, I do not see that our current edits contradict Wikipedia policy in any way.Davidbena (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- It looks like we reached an agreement on this one. Phewwww! Good work, User:Huldra, who is really a "work-horse". Hahah.Davidbena (talk) 22:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- Phewwww indeed! ...now, hopefully, I can go back to what I was doing: adding sources to various articles on old monasteries...Huldra (talk) 22:37, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- It looks like we reached an agreement on this one. Phewwww! Good work, User:Huldra, who is really a "work-horse". Hahah.Davidbena (talk) 22:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- If you feel that my suggestions are "wrong" or "out of place", or that they "contradict" Wikipedia's policies, then feel free to take the issue to a higher body for resolution. So far, I do not see that our current edits contradict Wikipedia policy in any way.Davidbena (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
First identified with modern location
edit@Davidbena:, thanks for your work on this over recent months - it is very interesting.
I have a suggestion for you. Since the modern identification of these sites are often disputed, it would be helpful to add a column stating when it was first identified with the modern location.
For many, of these, the first formal identification will have been in Biblical Researches in Palestine. And for those that were identified previously, Robinson will often provide the backstory.
Onceinawhile (talk) 09:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, many of these sites are indeed disputed. The problem, however, is that for some there are multiple identifications. I think that perhaps to mention some of these contested identifications it would be wise to mention them in an adjoining footnote. Of course, the main identification should always follow the preponderance of academic research. Feel free to add these other "suggested identifications" in their proper footnotes. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 17:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Suggested edit
editUser:Zero0000, how, in your opinion, can we make the following edit more appropriate, not argumentative and not dubious?
- Palestinian territories [NOTE]: Strictly speaking, the phrase ‘Palestinian Territories’ refers to the areas that fall under the administration of the Palestinian Authority, some places jointly run by Israel and the PA. Places here named may include the Judea and Samaria administrative area of the West Bank, an area agreed to and regulated by the Interim Agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority in Sept. 1995, and which are semi-autonomous regions. These areas hold a Jewish population of 501,856 (BBC 2017),[1] and an Arab/Bedouin population: 40,000 (excludes Area A and B), and a predominant Arab Palestinian population. The territory has been under Israeli control since the 1967 Six-Day War but not annexed by Israel, pending negotiations regarding its status. On the one hand, the territory is also part of historic Israel, the borders of ancient Israel overlapping those of Galilee and the modern West Bank.[2] In spite of the complicated legal, political, and human rights situation in the West Bank, it remains home to some important archaeological and spiritual sites – holy to Muslims, Jews, and Christians. The West Bank also encompasses significant, ancient biblical cities such as Jericho, Bethlehem, Hebron, and Nablus, alongside more modern cities like Ramallah and Ariel,[3] a fact which leads to politically contentious issues. The same territories have an old and rich Arab culture, dating back more than 1,000 years. Tel Shiloh in the West Bank, for example, has yielded remains spanning over a 3,700 year period. It was not only the site of Israel's ancient Tabernacle, but it also holds three Byzantine-era churches and two mosques.[4] Since the future status of the region is a key factor in the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is currently not recognised by the UN and most nations as part of the modern State of Israel, but is also not yet autonomous, although the Israeli government views the same lands as "disputed territories," for which reason these territories are currently held under joint Israeli-Palestinian Authority jurisdiction.[5] Some areas remain illegal under Israeli law for Israeli citizens to enter, whereby security arrangements and travel permits for local Jewish residents are coordinated between the Palestinian Authority and Israel via military administration of the West Bank (COGAT).[6]
References
- ^ BBC Academy – Israel and the Palestinians
- ^ Moon Israel & the West Bank: Including Petra, Genevieve Belmaker, Hachette UK, 2016
- ^ Genevieve Belmaker, Israel & the West Bank: Including Petra, Avalon Publishing: Hachette UK, 2016
- ^ Ben Zion, Ilan (27 March 2019). "Ancient West Bank site draws Christians, and controversy". Associated Press. Retrieved 27 March 2019.
{{cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=
(help) - ^ The Application of Israeli Law to the West Bank: De Facto Annexation? by Gilead Sher and Keren Aviram, Institute for National Security Studies (Dec. 4, 2014)
- ^ IDF to Sharpen Message Against Entering Area A
--Davidbena (talk) 01:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- David, I'm sure you know that "Palestinian Territories" refers to the entire West Bank (incl. EJ) and Gaza according to the UN and the overwhelming majority of sources. The fact that you found one source (BBC) with a different meaning doesn't mean you can ignore the majority. Also, a good thing about this page is that (for once) it can be written in a way that doesn't touch on modern political disputes. So I think that adding a footnote about those disputes is a negative step. Zerotalk 02:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- So, if the problem is with the population count, we can either update it or remove it altogether. As for what you said about not "touching on political disputes," either way you choose to look at it, it still hammers home the political morass of the country, as it gives a distinct "political" term for the ancient land of Israel/Palestine by calling part of the country "Palestinian territories." Our solution at least tries to show the historical connection of the land with all of its indigenous peoples.Davidbena (talk) 02:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Why the list excluded Ethiopia?
editEthiopia has been mentioned in either Old Testament and New Testament about 20 times. For instance, the country has been mentioned in King James Bible. Why this list excluded Ethiopia? The Supermind (talk) 06:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- The exclusion was not done intentionally. It's just that the list is so-far inexhaustive and requires others to put-in the other place-names, be wherever they might be.Davidbena (talk) 12:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
New name: "Identified biblical places"
edit@Davidbena, Onceinawhile, and Huldra: "Identified biblical places" would be much more useful.
"List of modern names for biblical place names" is not just very long and terribly awkward, but it adds nothing, as in literature dealing with biblical sites, the word always used is "identified", "identification", so WP users would most likely search for that. Also, the "modern names" as such are in no way important, what is interesting here is where to look up on the map place-names from the Bible, and the wikilinks to the respective articles, both offering a geographical and background orientation in a familiar modern context for long-gone places & events. That is the actual benefit of this page, and the name should be in accordance with that. Arminden (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Arminden:, I agree with your suggestion to rename this article. Let's see what our fellow editors have to say about it.Davidbena (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- How about "List of identifications for biblical places" or "Identifications for biblical places"? "Identified" is too definitive; many of these are based on very little evidence. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
I think "List of identifications for biblical places" is the best of the names suggested so far. Zerotalk 03:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Of course it's more accurate, and (see David's comment here-below) many if not most identifications are little more than speculation, but I cared for brevity when I suggested the name change in the first place. Replacing one endless name with another isn't really worth the hassle, or is it?
- Ideally, I would prefer an article "Identification of biblical sites", with an explanation of how it has been done throughout the centuries, and with the list attached to it. But there comes the over-politicised Place names of Palestine and grabs the lion's share from this topic, but w/o openly acknowledging what it's about and making a mess of it, because, you know, 'Bible' and 'Palestine' don't go under the same hat. Does that sound ridiculous to you to? Well, yes, because it is. But maybe we can still import the parts which fit well here from there and have a nice "Identification of biblical sites" article, a topic which obviously interests a lot of people, laypersons as much as academic researchers. If that's not in the cards, which very long name we agree on is a bit less interesting.
- What about "Modern location of biblical sites"? It lacks the (search-)word "Identification", but that can be sorted with a redirect, and we really don't need to be over-cautious about the title, we can place all the needed caveats in the intro. Arminden (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- What ever word we use, I would prefer plural, ie "identifications" (not "identification"); or "locations" (not "location"). Many of these biblical places are still very unsure (and I suspect: will remain so). (eg, Shuafat is 3+ proposed places), Huldra (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- I can agree with using "Identifications" (rather than "Identification"), as even in our most latest archaeological reports, some sites are still disputed by contemporaneous archaeological journals.Davidbena (talk) 18:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- What ever word we use, I would prefer plural, ie "identifications" (not "identification"); or "locations" (not "location"). Many of these biblical places are still very unsure (and I suspect: will remain so). (eg, Shuafat is 3+ proposed places), Huldra (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Outdated identifications (see Gath)
editGath (city): Tell es-Safi is the mainstream opinion, supported by much of the ongoing excavation results. Ramla it can't possibly be, as that is an Umayyad new foundation. Findings in the wider area around Ramla are far less convincing than Tell es-Safi, and only Ramla is Ramla. Ishtori Haparchi (1280-1355!!) had no way to know, he was smart and well-read, but as much as one could be in the early 14th century. In the 1950s, B. Mazar also had little to go by in terms of archaeological excavations.
I didn't fully remove Ramla, I leave that to those who need convincing, but we should. Arminden (talk) 18:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- As most of our modern-day identifications of biblical sites, unless we're talking about Jerusalem and Hebron, almost all are tentative identifications, with disputing opinions by scholars. We can't do much about that, except to list the divergent opinions. As for Ramla, the present city was, indeed, built in Umayyad period, but beneath the new foundations there is also a ruin (excavated site) that pre-dates the modern, Ummayad-period. When Ishtori Haparchi says that the ancient Gath was Ramla, no doubt that is what he had in mind, or else some similar archaeological site nearby. Here, we're simply talking about oral tradition passed down throughout the ages. I'm not saying that one has to believe Jewish oral-tradition, but what I am saying is that it, too, is a source worthy of note.Davidbena (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- I would agree to listing identifications from oral tradition in a separate column, except that the table would be too wide then. As for Haparchi, sorry David but I think it more likely shows his ignorance of archaeology rather than his knowledge of it. Incidentally, the older remains are not in Ramla but a few kilometers to the south. Nothing was there in Haparchi's time and if there was something there he wouldn't have called it Ramla. Zerotalk 03:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- As far as I know, both Isaac alias Ishtori and the equally famous E. Robinson went a lot by the existing place-names from their own time. Ishtori was a Provencal, not a local, who knew the Jewish written sources in and out and probably talked to locals of all ethnoreligious backgrounds, and managed to pinpoint quite a few correct locations that way. Where all those who used existing place-names were bound to make mistakes, is where later toponyms resembled biblical or classical ones, but without sharing a common origin. Ramla probably resonated in Isaac's analysis with some biblical heights, Rama(h) or Ramat(h)-something, but it was actually named by the Umayyads who founded it after the Arabic word for sand. Oral tradition works quite well, or rather: memory of names coupled with adaptations in accordance with folk etimologies giving new meanings to old names when languages or circumstances change. I'm the last man to argue against it, but it's far from always being a safe bet. Anyway, archaeologists are under permanent peer scrutiny and have to offer a mix of material evidence, supported by the ancient and scriptural sources, otherwise they can never reach a consensus. Tell es-Safi though is for the time being a relatively safe front-runner. So I'm not disregarding oral traditions of any kind, but they're by now only one of several useful "tools in the toolbox", to use an en vogue term. And if current research gives preference to A over B, I'd say WP has to go with A first. Arminden (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- I would agree to listing identifications from oral tradition in a separate column, except that the table would be too wide then. As for Haparchi, sorry David but I think it more likely shows his ignorance of archaeology rather than his knowledge of it. Incidentally, the older remains are not in Ramla but a few kilometers to the south. Nothing was there in Haparchi's time and if there was something there he wouldn't have called it Ramla. Zerotalk 03:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Gibeah & Gibeon clearly different
editI don't know enough about Gibeah, but there is no doubt about Gibeon = el-Jib.
I have disentangled the two. The problem is: there was a lot of comment to the wrongly mixed-up Gibeah & Gibeon, and I cannot tell what was referring to which, as the only source that matters isn't accessible online:
- "Disputed identification. See H.B. Tristram, The Land of Israel: A Journal of Travels in Palestine, London 1865, p. [https://archive.org/details/landisraelajour01trisgoog/page/n220 169]; cf. David ben Abraham al-Fasi (1936), The Hebrew-Arabic Dictionary of the Bible known as Kitab Jami al-Alfaz (Agron) of David ben Abraham Al-Fasi, the Karaite, Solomon Skoss (ed.), New Haven: Yale, introd. p. xxxviii; cf. {{cite book |author= Tsafrir, Y. |author-link= Yoram Tsafrir |author2= Di Segni, Leah |author3= Green, Judith |title= Gabath Saulis |work=(TIR): Tabula Imperii Romani: Judaea, Palaestina |publisher=[[Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities]] |location= Jerusalem |year= 1994 |isbn= 978-965-208-107-0 |page= 127 |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=8XJtAAAAMAAJ }}"
Tristram is long outdated, doesn't even deserve a mention. The medieval al-Fasi even less. And I have no access to Tsafrir et al. - are they offering new theories, or just listing old ones? I guess the former. Negev & Gibson write the obvious: the mainstream opinion since Albright is that Gibeah (of Saul) = Tell el-Ful, with a couple of authors (Miller and Arnold) holding out with a different opinion, i.e. Jaba NE of er-Ram. Israel Finkelstein has contradicted Albright in 2011{{cite journal |last= Finkelstein |first= Israel |author-link= Israel Finkelstein |title= Tell el-Ful Revisited: The Assyrian and Hellenistic Periods (with a New Identification) |pages= 106–118 |journal=[[Palestine Exploration Quarterly]] |publisher=[[Palestine Exploration Fund]] |location= London |volume= 143 |number= 2 |year= 2011 |doi= 10.1179/003103211X12971861556918 |url= https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233648523_Tell_el-Ful_Revisited_The_Assyrian_and_Hellenistic_Periods_with_a_New_Identification |access-date= 27 December 2021}}{{subscription required}} (I can't remember how I got the PDF, but the abstract does the job as well). He seems to me to agree with Miller (1975) and Arnold (1990) that Gibeah is the same as Geba = Jaba, but he's focusing on indentifying Tell el-Ful rather than on finding Gibeah, and he finds el-Ful to be almost out of the question, w/o claiming that this can be proven without a doubt.
So: mainstream for Gibeah (of Saul) = Tell el-Ful, with Miller (1975) and Arnold (1990) offering an alternative ID (bibl. Gibeah = bibl. Geba/Gaba = modern Jaba), and Finkelstein (2011) concludes that "the identification of Gibeah/Gibeah of Saul at Tell el-Ful (is) highly questionable, probably impossible."
If anyone wants to add any comment to Gibeah, and a source etc. to el-Jib (which is a firm ID, no counter-theories anymore), pls do, I won't. Arminden (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- I now have access to Tsafrir et al.'s book, and all they write is essentially "GABATH SAULIS - Tell el Ful. Titus’ last camp before Jerusalem, thirty stadia to the north. See also Gaba of Benjamin." The book is only a gazetteer of Hellenistic to Byzantine sites, so I guess it focuses on identifications common at the time and of course on what was almost consensual in 1994, before Finkelstein moved in to trouble the waters, but after Miller and Arnold. Btw, the page is 127, not 126; I have fixed it here-above and added some details, in case smb wants to put it back in. Arminden (talk) 20:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Much of the list is outdated or "popular science" level
editThere are no straightforward identification options for many sites. Ishtory, E. Robinson, the 19th-c. PEF, Albright were all very honourable people in their own time, but time has passed and science has moved forward. We should use many more question marks and be more cautious. Even the respective WP articles are often more up-to-date and more cautious than the categorical and often wrong statements of this list. That is most definitely the case with almost all of the Exodus sites, but I found several such mistakes re. sites connected to events placed by the biblical narrative in more recent times, which raises somewhat the chances of them being historically accurate. Very honourable effort, but please, much less categorical re. really old places. Arminden (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
flags
editHow many times do readers need to see the flag of the same country? I propose that all flags be removed. Zerotalk 03:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)