DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

  1. Home
  2. Wiki


This history is severely flawed. It needs to be reviewed by historians. It is propaganda to suggest Jews did not originate in Israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C3:8601:EAA0:C84E:3134:C166:59F7 (talk) 14:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article should be present-tense

[edit]

Israelites (בני ישראל) is the endonym of Jews and Samaritans up to the present day, not just our ancestors. The common English usage of the word to refer only to the ancient Israelites does not justify the misleading nature of the article.

n.b. That distinguishing between Jew Israelites and Samaritan Israelites is in fact a main reason "Israelite" is not in popular usage to refer to them. Also that as an example French preserves "Israelite" to refer directly to modern Jews. 67.85.229.38 (talk) 04:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you have noted, "common English usage" is the operative order of the day on en.wiki. what the French do, however errant, is their business. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that Samaritans call themselves Israelites, in English too.
It is also true that Jews, as a reaction to anti-Semitism, have revived the term Israelite in the 19th-20th centuries, considering it as less tainted by negative clichés, and not just in French, definitely also in German, for the official name of their organised communities. French and German culture were, and to a smaller degree still are, very influential Europe-wide and worldwide, making this use common in several other countries. Some other, non-Jewish small communities chose to use this self-designation as well, see for instance Black Hebrew Israelites and New Israelites. This makes the fact relevant and notable for Wiki too, including enWiki. Nevertheless, on enWiki this cannot be more than a side note, the vast majority of cases where the term is used in English being in a historical context, biblical or not. So a section called for instance "Use of the term by modern-day communities" can be useful as such, but equating modern Jews with Israelites is plain wrong in every respect. Arminden (talk) 11:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was not suggesting we move the Jews page to this one. It can remain focused on the ancient Israelites. No, equating modern Israelites with ancient Israelites is not "plain wrong," it is objectively correct except for the time period. 67.85.229.38 (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reiterating this point; the article describes its topic erroneously. Suggest introduction closer to "The ancient Israelites were a Hebrew-speaking ethnoreligious group, consisting of tribes that lived in Canaan during the Iron Age. In modern terminology the Israelites are divided into two main groups, the Jews and the Samaritans." for sake of clarity. 67.85.229.38 (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Original Israelites

[edit]

Please do your research. The ORIGINAL Israelite people are direct descedents of Jacob, named changed to Isarael, son of ISAAC and grandson of ABRAHAM of the orginal Bible. The tribes that you so carelessly describe are direct descedents from Jacob's 12 sons thus all diectly related in kinship, race and geneology. 2601:640:C986:71E0:2989:7750:DAC5:F26A (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Children of Israel"

[edit]

Is this a historically verifiable endonym used outside of a scriptural context? If not then the lead should say "known in religion as" rather than "also known as" Orchastrattor (talk) 23:35, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History section scope

[edit]

I'm not sure why this continues past the 6th century into the Persian period and onwards. Do any of the sources refer to the subject past this point, or is this an unsupported extension into WP:SYNTH territory? Iskandar323 (talk) 17:44, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Triggerhippie4: My attention was drawn to this by your recent linking to the Roman period – my internal response to which was to ask: why does that period even crop up on the page? Iskandar323 (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Triggerhippie4: You have time for this, but not to actually respond? If you think protections are merited on the page, you should ask for them, but at the moment, none exist on the page. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:30, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term Israelites does not entirely become supplanted by the terms Jews or Judeans even after the Persian period. In fact, some authors continued referring to Jews interchangeably as Israelites well into the modern era. It was not an uncommon usage in the 19th and 20th century. [1] Andre🚐 19:40, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That Ngram only pertains to general usage. The specific question here is: do the sources in those sections the term? – an open question, because I haven't moved to check myself yet. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I can definitely tell you that some 19th and 20th century authors use Israelites to mean "Jews," not strictly in an ancient sense. Andre🚐 20:00, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but also moot? Usage is entirely context dependant. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Grabbe, A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period, Volume 2, which exists in several editions, refers to "Israelite and Judaic traditions" on p.246 of the 2008 edition. This volume also includes some general discussion on the merits of "Israel/Israelites" vs "Judah/Judahites/Jews" on p.152. I can't access the exact page that is cited in the article in that edition, but there are other references viewable in the 2006 edition so the 2008 results are not exhaustive either. So I'm inclined to give the article text the benefit of the doubt, and we can just add more sources if there are any deficiencies. It's not at all uncommon to refer to Israelites in the Persian period in RS. For example, Yahwism After the Exile: Perspectives on Israelite Religion in the Persian Era. Andre🚐 22:21, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You touch on another interesting point that 'Israelite' starts as a general term, before morphing into one to describe just the Samaritans of other term for the denizens of Samaria, as opposed to the Judahites. The page is currently somewhat remiss in not mentioning this in the lead; not sure if it is in the body or not. Beyond this, Persian period looks sound then, as a liminal period where sources talk in terms of post-exilic trends. That leaves the Greek and Roman periods. For the latter, it's generally all about the 'Samaritans' by then – including on the page as present. So bare minimum, the page needs to make some effort to explain that Israelite in general -> Israelite meaning Samaritan. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:46, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it is so cut and dry as that. Israelite is always a general term for Jews (and Samaritans), as well as a translation of a religious concept in Judaism (as distinct from kohanim and Levites). When it has a specific meaning for inhabitants of the northern kingdom aka Samaria during its existence, that doesn't eliminate the general use, but is additive. The terms Children of Israel, B'nei Yisrael, etc. still exist in the Roman and the medieval period. For example, this source or this one deal with the Hasmonean period but refer to the Israelites as a people or in Jerusalem. The Hasmoneans called their polity Judea and they straddle the Greek and Roman period, but the people were still called the people of Israel. this source (lxxxvi) explains that non-Jewish Israelite Samaritans were basically conquered by the Hasmoneans and offered to become Jews or leave the country starting in 110 BCE. (More here) Andre🚐 05:09, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]