Talk:Mount Ebal site

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Theleekycauldron (talk) 05:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Aerial view of the Mount Ebal site

• ... that the Mount Ebal site, an archaeological site on Mount Ebal dated to the Iron Age, was believed by its excavator Adam Zertal to be Joshua's Altar, as described in the Bible? Source: https://www.eisenbrauns.org/books/titles/978-1-57506-243-3.html: "In 1985, Zertal published an article in which he suggested that the structure on Ebal may have been the altar of Josh 8:30–35."
• ... that the Mount Ebal site, an archaeological site on Mount Ebal, has been suggested by contemporary archeologists to comprise the remains of Joshua's altar, an Israelite cultic site described in the Bible? Source: https://www.eisenbrauns.org/books/titles/978-1-57506-243-3.html: "In 1985, Zertal published an article in which he suggested that the structure on Ebal may have been the altar of Josh 8:30–35."

Created by Tombah (talk). Self-nominated at 15:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC).

• I'm not clear whether the fact that this is basically old material copied from Mt. Ebal makes a difference. However I am clear that the identification as Joshua's altar is very disputed among archaeologists who just see it as some sort of cultic structure and unlikely for various reasons, including probably being the wrong mountain for the altar. Doug Weller talk 16:06, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
• Tombah, according to Wikipedia:Did you know#Eligibility criteria, a new article "may not consist of text spun off from a pre-existing article", so this nomination does not appear to be eligible, please can you explain if you think it is eligible. TSventon (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

• I agree that this article seems to be a WP:REDUNDANTFORK that probably should be merged back into Mount Ebal. There is plenty of room in the parent article to explain the context of the archaeological site. Havradim leaf a message 01:39, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

• TSventon, that particular criterion means that you can't copy text from an existing article into a new one and submit that as new. You can, however, start a new article with text from an existing one and then expand on it so the pre-existing text is a modest part of the whole. WP:DYKSG#A5 notes that the pre-existing text must be expanded fivefold to qualify for DYK, and I don't believe that level of expansion has been done: the article started with 3481 prose characters copied in, and while some of the material hasn't survived, with the article currently at 11041 prose characters, only 2209 original prose characters need to remain. It looks like more than that does, so this does not qualify regardless of whether it's a fork or not. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, that was what I was trying to say, thank you for explaining it more clearly. TSventon (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Absence of evidence as evidence

The theory that an absence of pig bones can be used to denote an Israelite site, as opposed to a more general Canaanite or Philistine site, is outmoded archaeology, as outlined in this Haaretz article, which points to the latest research on how both Israelite sites can contain pig bones, and Philistine sites contain an absence of them. Pigs were generally a small part of the local diet. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Check here [1] and you will notice why your statement may not be true at all. Potatín5 (talk) 13:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

How so? "On the extensively discussed topic of pork consumption among the Philistines and the lack thereof in Israel and Judah he stresses that simplistic interpretations (pig [equals] Philistine, no pig [equals] Israelite/Judahite) are in need of revision, because the evidence shows a more complex picture." That's just what I said, only with less distinction. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

That's only one half of the quote. The other half adds: "He nevertheless believes that there is a clear dichotomy in the early Iron Age between pig-eating Philistines and abstaining Israelites/Judahites, even as he assumes that the biblical prohibitions date to the late Iron Age, when the biblical writers used the earlier Israelite abstention from pig as a way to define their culture as unique." So although lack of pigs at one site is not a definitive proof of an israelite ethnic afilliation, it is nevertheless a more common feature for israelite sites than for non-israelite ones. Potatín5 (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but it's also "a complex picture", so any form of generalization is ultimately useless, apart from as a comment on that same generalization. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

This is also just a book review, and you are letting some key words slip by you: "He nevertheless believes that there is a clear dichotomy in the early Iron Age between pig-eating Philistines and abstaining Israelites/Judahites, even as he assumes that the biblical prohibitions date to the late Iron Age, when the biblical writers used the earlier Israelite abstention from pig as a way to define their culture as unique." So, on the one hand we have "a complex picture" (archaeology); on the other, beliefs, assumptions and anecdotal biblical heresay. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Not all beliefs are faith-based beliefs. There are beliefs based on evidences as well. And that's the case of that scholar. Potatín5 (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

The word belief conveys a sense of conviction, but a lack of surety that said conviction is supported by the necessary empirical evidence. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the knowledge sharing! I didn't know that. Very interesting. Anyway, regarding the appearance of this argument in the article - as the original excavator believed this to be another evidence for the site being Joshua's Altar - I believe it should stay. Maybe we can add some kind of a disclaimer afterwards, which states that in recent years, this tool is no longer considered effective. Tombah (talk) 05:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Adam Zertal was a career archaeologist, but not an academic. It would be better to defer to peer-reviewed scholarly sources on matters of interpretation. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I'm concerned about relying so much on not just old research but so far as I can see a 2000 book that hasn't been commented on by academics. So far as disclaimers go, that's generally a bad idea. We shouldn't add a claim that we know has been overtaken by more recent research. Doug Weller talk 13:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: And do you think that the more recent book published by this archaeologist [1] could be employed as a source in the article? Potatín5 (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@Potatín5: I'm sure this book might contain some interesting nuggets or thoughts that might be attributed to the author, but in terms of any factual claims about the archaeological site, this would be pedaling backwards in terms of source quality. It appears that Zvi Koenigsberg, while mentored by several professors, is not an academic himself. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:18, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

This review[1] is by a kook who believes that dinosaurs had a civilization[2] but he does call Koenigsberg "a biblicist, one of those curious people who think the bible is true despite the vast array of evidence to the contrary, and feels the need to prove it is." He also says Zertal appears to be one. That's my interpretation about Koenigsberg also given this. Doug Weller talk 10:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

That was my impression of Koenigsberg too (it seems fairly implicit). Incidentally, your kook also has some interesting writings on Ebal, in which he notes an entirely separate hypothesis that it is a Canaanite shrine of Baal. It might be interesting (and key for neutrality) to see if any academic sources attest to these possibilities. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

My bad. Used the Wikipedia as a source there, which was sloppy. Though it is a bit surprising for a biography about a tenured professor to neglect that information. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Extremely surprising. Doug Weller talk 17:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Zertal again

I just discovered he has a new book out which I think we should avoid.[3] But he's dead and it's published by a tour company. It's also being sold by Ralph Hawkings.[4] Zertale was an academic, which is not mentioned in our article on him.[5] He was Professor, Dept, of Archaeology at the University of Haifa (and its chairman from 1996-1999). He received his Ph.D. from Tel Aviv University in 1988. So that's good. This is worth reading.[6]. "While many in Israel celebrated Zertal’s findings as confirmation of the Biblical narrative, and validating Jewish ties to the land, his claim never gained widespread acceptance by the archaeological community. Aharon Kempinski, an archaeologist at Tel Aviv University, was one of the many who perceived Zertal’s assertions as baseless.” And "Steven Fine, a professor of Jewish history at Yeshiva University, finds that “archaeology in Israel is becoming increasingly sectarianized” for political gains, he told me. Fine asserts that archaeologists such as Zertal still have importance for contemporary Israeli culture but are increasingly being exploited by “everyone from Haaretz to Arutz Sheva”—the political spectrum of the Israeli media—to suit their ideological leanings. In this type of climate, Zertal’s work risks being used for partisan aims." This is certainly true, see his use by Lipkin Tours and various fringe groups. Doug Weller talk 15:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

The infamous curse tablet

I think the controversy over the fake deserves a section. Sunlight over silence, right? Temerarius (talk) 20:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)