Talk:Israelites

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


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]

The Are/Were problem…

We have a particular semantic issue that requires ready resolution.

“Israelites” in English is commonly used solely in a historical context to refer to the Levantine ethno-religious groups that were successors to Canaanites and (depending on your source) Hebrews, and the predecessors to modern day Jews and Samaritans.

The problem is that both modern Jewish and Samaritan populations still refer to themselves - especially in a religious capacity - in Hebrew as B’nai Israel (Children of Israel) or Am Israel (People/Nation of Israel).

English usage skews differently. Most Jews refer to themselves as Jews in English (and other western languages), and Samaritans refer to themselves as Samaritan Israelites.

Rarely will either group refer to themselves as solely “Israelites” in English. As stated above, the Samaritans have recently come around to referring to themselves as “Samaritan Israelites”, but this is merely because if they were to only go by “Israelites”, there would be confusion. Numerous Samaritan community representatives have rejected (and on occasion taken great offense to) the appellation of Samaritan and take great pain to publicly clarify that their community self-identifies as B’nei Israel, or - alternately - “Shamerim” (Watchers/Keepers).

This article seems to insist that the Hebrew translation of “Israelite” is “B’nei Israel”, and consigns it only to a historical population. That isn’t remotely the fact in historical or contemporary usage.

Either this article needs to change to reflect both the term’s historical and contemporary usage, or a separate “Children of Israel”, “B’nai Israel”, “Am Israel” etc page needs to be created to reflect the terms contemporary usage status. Mistamystery (talk) 01:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

absolutely correct and obvious. writing the article mainly about the ancient Israelites is fine, pretending israelites don't currently exist is not. the french language has "israelites" in common usage for jews btw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.36.42 (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
English usage skews differently. Most Jews refer to themselves as Jews in English (and other western languages), and Samaritans refer to themselves as Samaritan Israelites. We follow English usage on Wikipedia- the only place where any other usage needs to be noted might be in a terminology section.—-Ermenrich (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, with all due respect to the Samaritans, most people call them the Samaritans, even though they still refer to themselves as the Israelites. They have an equal claim to that name as the Jewish claimants do, but I think the Wikipedia article handles it appropriately by using Israelite to refer to the Ancient Israelites and not the modern Israelis, Samaritans, or Jews. Andre🚐 01:23, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not the usage, the issue is the tense of the article. The Israelite article only refers to the historical designation in english, while insisting the hebrew is also solely a historical term.
Again, is the answer to expand the definition on this page to both a historical as well as a contemporary term? Or do we start a new page to cover the contemporary usage?Mistamystery (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Israelite in English IS a purely historical term, so there’s no reason to change the tense in the article.—Ermenrich (talk) 01:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand. So conventionally, we use WP:COMMONNAME, so the goal is to try to ascertain how things are most commonly referred to. Israelite, as far as I know, and Hebrew people (as opposed to the Modern Hebrew language) is usually used in a historical anthropological or paleoarcheological sense. And yeah, there are some groups that do use it in self-descriptive way in a contemporary way like the "Black Hebrew Israelites" that are actually not Jewish, Hebrew, or Israelite (though they are black). Unlike Samaritans, who are I guess equal if not greater to Jews in terms of their descriptiveness to be "Israelites" or "Hebrew people" given they still use Samaritan Hebrew which is Paleo-Hebrew, but we don't get into all of that. We just use their most common appellation. So Samaritans are Samaritans, Jews are Jews, Hebrew is a language (liturgical or modern or classical), etc. Andre🚐 01:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know it’s convoluted, so let me try and make this as simple as possible:
Hebrew is a language. It is also the name used to describe the Canaanite and nomadic West Semitic speaking groups that later came to be known as the Israelites (“the Hebrews”). Because Israelites are said to have descended from the Hebrews (and Hebrew has been maintained as the liturgical language of both Jews and Samaritans, as well as the daily language of modern Israelis) the term has also retained contemporary usage for Israelite groups today, particularly Jewish ones, especially in the US. (See YWHA, Hebrew National, HIAS, Washington Hebrew Congregation, etc.)
Both Jews and Samaritans are Israelite sub-groups. While there is Biblical claim that all Israelites are descendants from Biblical patriarch Jacob/Israel, more literally (and historically) both Jews and Samaritans claim descent from a once unified single religious community (as well as a kingdom) called “Israel”. It’s important to know that this is the exact order of importance and priority that this term is used and maintained within these communities. “Israel” is used to denote first and foremost a religious family and community, hence “B’nai Israel” or “Children of Israel” being the literal translation of the Hebrew term claiming to be the appropriate source word for “Israelite”. Communally, it is rarely used in regard to membership of a former Iron Age nation state called “Israel.” The ethno-religious community informed the name of the country, and not vice versa.
“Jew” is fundamentally an ethno-national term before it is an ethno-religious term, and has, over time, gained a (sometimes confusing) mixed usage, more so in English and other Western languages than within the Jewish community itself. As the ethno-religious term “Israel” (as in “nation/people of”) precedes the creation of the distinct ethno-national term “Jew” (as in an Israelite citizen of Judah), historic and contemporary community usage of the terms tends to skew as outlined above: ethno-national self-identification skews “Jew”, and ethno-religious self-idenfication (espeically in religious settings) skews “Israel” (the term “Jew” is rarely used in Jewish religious practice, and communal self-identification in Jewish religious ceremony and invocation is almost exclusively “Israel” (see: Shema, Priestly Blessing, Kol Nidre, etc.)
Samaritan is a term popularized in the west almost solely by the New Testament, which was authored at a time where there was significant hostility toward the Samaritan community by both Jews and - later - Christians. It should be no surprise that very little attention was paid to how the Samaritan community self-identified. They have only ever identified as “B’nai Israel” (Children of Israel), and only it seems generated their secondary appellation of “Shamerim” (Watchers/Keepers) in response to “Shomromin” (Eng, Samaritans, from Hebrew Shomron, Eng: Samaria) an exonym applied to them that they never asked for in the first place.
It should also be noted that the small but vocal contemporary community of Samaritans in Israel & Palestine take moderate offense at the term “Samaritan” and consider it pejorative. This is not as bad as calling Roma “Gypsy”, but is on the same spectrum, not too far off, and is fundamentally considered a false and inappropriate exonym.
The issue here is that the Western academic tradition, largely guided by a Christian academic system that by-and-large excluded Jewish academics until the 19th century, decided that the appropriate translation for “B’nai Israel” was “Israelite”. This would not be a problem by itself if it weren’t for the secondary issue that these same academics, pursuing a Christian Supersessionist agenda, also decided to apply usage of the term “Israelite” solely for historical analysis of obsolete Iron Age communities and practices prior to the Second Temple period.
This is fundamentally problematic and not in line with the usage of the original Hebrew term by the two still very much active Israelite communities. And given the fact that the proper direct Hebrew translation for Israelite is - quite literally - “Israeli”, (and does not appear (for obvious reasons) will replace “Israelite” as the direct translation o choice any time soon), it seems more than prudent to address the issue of contemporaneous usage of the term in a sensitive but reasonable fashion in this article and elsewhere.
We can very easily revise the page to say that the term “Israelite” is used to discuss both historical and contemporary populations, but to relegate this page to only historical discussion not only gives sway to a one-sided colonialist and supremacistic interpretation of the term, it just plainly isn’t factual to the daily usage of its Hebrew counterpart.
To recap for ultra-simplicity:
This article insists that the English term “Israelite” is derived from “B’nai Israel” in Hebrew.
This article insists that “Israelite” is only a historic term, but “B’nai Israel” is still used today as a self-identifier for both Jewish and Samaritan Israelite communities (and, in fact, never stopped being a self-identifier for these communities since antiquity).
We should probably address this, if not try and find a place to address both usages in the article.
Mistamystery (talk) Mistamystery (talk) 02:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the term “Jew” is rarely used in Jewish religious practice, and communal self-identification in Jewish religious ceremony and invocation is almost exclusively “Israel” (see: Shema, Priestly Blessing, Kol Nidre, etc.) That was not my experience growing up in Reform Judaism. "A rabbi is a special kind of Jew." That is what my Hebrew School (there's that Hebrew again) taught me. The issue here is that the Western academic tradition, largely guided by a Christian academic system that by-and-large excluded Jewish academics until the 19th century, decided that the appropriate translation for “B’nai Israel” was “Israelite”. My understanding that "b'nai" means "family of," or "house of," particularly a house of worship. So "Family of Israel" or "House of Israel" or "Children of Israel" are reasonable translations. Many Jewish synagogues are called similar things. Andre🚐 03:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, totally. For clarity, I meant prayers and scripture. The word “Jew” (Heb, “Yehudi”) is effectively non-existent so far as scripture and prayer are concerned. So far as the Tanakh and all Jewish religious scriptures and holy books are concerned, ethno-religious community and national identification is almost exclusively “Israel”.
Your Synagogue anecdote - if anything - reinforces my earlier point about (sometimes confusing) mixed usage, specifically amongst the Jewish community. Jews will frequently alternate usage of “Israel” and “Jew” freely, but as stated above, there definitely is a preference when it comes to ethno-national identification (“Jew”).Mistamystery (talk) 03:22, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The use of terms translated "Israelite" in modern Judaism and Samaritanism is already mentioned in the etymology section, so there is no reason for any further change to the article.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not sufficient. On the terms of this article’s insistence that Israelite and B’nai Israel are of direct translated value (which I think is problematic on its own merits) there is an issue that needs to be resolved by one of the following avenues:
1. Make clear on this page (and in the article intro) that the term “Israelite” refers both to ancient and contemporary descendant groups (Jews, Samaritans, and claimants), not just historical groups.
2. Render this page solely as a historical analysis of Iron Age Israelite groups, remove the insistence that B’nai Israel and “Israelite” are of direct translative connection, rewrite the etymology section to go into the genesis of the English term, and then creating a separate page “Children of Israel” (the direct translation of the Hebrew term) that then goes into historical and modern Israelite identity and community identification separately.
Modern Jews and Samaritans connect their descent from Ancient Israelites through the same prominent usage of the same Hebrew term they have used since the Iron Age - “B’nei Israel (בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל )
The issue here is the English term Israelite and its supposed hebrew counterpart have wildly differential usage depending on the community. Israelite communities either rarely or reluctantly use the term in English, and have a doctrinal emphasis on usage of the Hebrew term exclusively. Western academia almost exclusively uses the English term on a solely historical basis, has vague relationship with the historical and contemporary intra-communal usage of the Hebrew term, and - on these grounds - renders contemporary connection to “Israelite” via its supposed Hebrew counterpart identity to be a footnote.
As stated above, this is a Decoloniality issue. We are dealing with western exonyms and definitions that have been reinforced by predominantly western powers and institutions. Sensitivity and space must be applied to pry these two terms apart and give appropriate context without insisting on one-sided view because of western historical and academic precedent.
Happy to take a stab at appropriate re-drafts for review and commentary.
Mistamystery (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you just need some reliable sources to cite rather than just our opinions. Andre🚐 17:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but are you arguing that Judaism is not "Western"? You need reliable secondary sources, as Andrevan states, not just your opinions. We aren't here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Like it or not, Israelite is here used to refer to a historical people group, in accordance with general scholarly usage. Other usage is already noted in the etymology section.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:24, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You misread Andrevan’s reply. He’s saying I don’t need to keep on relying this talk page’s opinions and just rely on the sources if there are revisions needed. The sources are abundant; I just think it’s important to have awareness on the talk page before changes are instituted.
I’m not sure where your interpretation or response is even coming from. We are talking about a culture that does not share roots in either the academic tradition being cited, or the language being used. We don’t use the words “Gypsy” or “Bombay” anymore for these same reasons.
Israelite can reasonably be attested as a historical signifier. The translation indicated on this page is not. This needs to be reconciled and suggestions or ideas on how to do that would be welcome, because this page fundamentally is insufficient. Mistamystery (talk) 17:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think for all of us, why don't we start referencing sources. I agree that gypsy is an anachronism and a misnomer. "Israelite" is a bit more complicated, since people do use it today as you say, and if you have reliable sources it would be fine to expand the article to include information on the contemporary usage. But why don't we start a discussion specifically about those sources which I'm sure will be more productive. Andre🚐 19:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We are WP:NOTADICTIONARY - the fact that the word "Israelite" has multiple potential meanings is not a problem when the primary meaning is the ancient Israelites. If there are other common meanings, we have disambiguation links and we give some information on them in the article already. This is true even if you can show sources documenting different usage.
In other words: There is no reason to change the topic of this page from the ancient Israelites to include discussion of other groups claiming Israelite heritage or other usages of Israelite based on the fact that such usage exists.
And many of the scholars who write on the Israelites in English are Jewish or even Israeli, so I really have no idea how you can claim that We are talking about a culture that does not share roots in either the academic tradition being cited, or the language being used.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if minority self-definitions were allowed to intrude on primary definitions, all manner of things would intrude, including New Israelites, British Israelism, etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Proposing archiving this talk chain and starting a new one to discuss contemporary vs historical usage of term “Israelite” based on sources, and how it may be appropriately applied to the article - particularly the introductory sections.
Recommend all parties provide abundant sources based on assertions going forward, withhold from any railroading, and maintain civility as we proceed.
Mistamystery (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“B’nai Israel” literally translates to “Sons of Israel” (Heb: Ben - “son”), but has attained common usage as “Children” as well)Mistamystery (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Retracted Material

Please note, the following study was retracted by its authors and is no longer suitable for citation: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11543891/#:~:text=Archaeologic%20and%20genetic%20data%20support,but%20not%20in%20genetic,%20differences. Mistamystery (talk) 14:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Missing: term for Israelites + Jews, together

In Jewish religion as well as several strands of historiography, the assumption of continuity or even identity is made between Israelites and Jews. Terms like "Nation/People of Israel" (caps not always a must) can't currently be linked to any Wik. article, because neither Israelites, Jews, or Israelis covers more than part of the intended meaning. Arminden (talk) 09:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOST Jews and Samaritans of today are descendants of ancient priestly class? Or wrong edit?

A 2004 study (by Shen et al.) comparing Samaritans to several Jewish populations (including Ashkenazi Jews, Iraqi Jews, Libyan Jews, Moroccan Jews, and Yemenite Jews) found that "the principal components analysis suggested a common ancestry of Samaritan and Jewish patrilineages. Most of the former may be traced back to a common ancestor in what is today identified as the paternally inherited Israelite high priesthood (Cohanim), with a common ancestor projected to the time of the Assyrian conquest of the kingdom of Israel." (With 1 ref, see below.)

That looks like a major probable misunderstanding of the study results.

This sentence now says that MOST Samaritans of today are descendants of the ancient priestly class. I'm quite sure that it meant to say that only Samaritan priestly families share that heritage - and are paternally related to Jewish families called Cohen. However, if the current meaning is indeed the correct interpretation of the study, that would be beyond sensational and would require ample elaboration.

If most Samaritans can be "traced back to a common ancestor [among] the paternally inherited Israelite high priesthood" and "the principal components analysis suggested a common ancestry of [all] Samaritan and [all] Jewish patrilineages", that places most Samaritans and Jews (and not just Sam. priests & Jewish Cohen families) in the same group of patrilinear descendants from ancient Cohanim.

The ref:

Arminden (talk) 09:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading the "most" as referring exclusively to the aforementioned common patrilineal ancestries, not to the populations of either group at large. Assuming that is what the source says, there's no real obstacle to changing the article's wording to make this clearer. Sinclairian (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israelites&oldid=1220407433"