The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about List of inscriptions in biblical archaeology. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about List of inscriptions in biblical archaeology at the Reference desk.

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Bible Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Judaism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Christianity Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Ancient Near East Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ancient Near East–related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Jewish history Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Religion: Interfaith Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive. Israel High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Wikipedia. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Wikipedia requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Wikipedia requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Palestine High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Archaeology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Lists This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I think the Nag Hammadi library should be removed because it is a collection of gnostic writings. Sweetmoose6 (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is more appropriate to say they are gnostic writings about figures described in the Bible. Is that an accurate statement and fair compromise? Sweetmoose6 (talk) 00:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there are some criteria, this article will become just an article on Iron age artefacts, inscriptions, settlements, etc in the Middle East. In other words, meaningless. Can we discuss some? My own opinion is that it shouldn't include structures. Dougweller (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably right as to criteria, what is your suggestion? I think that will be tough to define. Structures- how about moving the structures to another section on the same page? Or seperate list? For instance the Arch of Titus is a structure, but I would also call it an artifact. Sweetmoose6 (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be so long. First, what is significant? Not every structure in early Jerusalem, right? I'm probably wrong about structures, it's the significant bit that is probably important. Dougweller (talk) 05:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would think age, location, interest by scholars, and novelty are important factors by themselves and in combination with each other. The structures issue is more difficult. Any ideas?

Sweetmoose6 (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably structures where we have RS both connecting them with the Bible & suggesting some significance? Not just,say, a random Biblical period structures in Jerusalem. Dougweller (talk) 10:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The way I look at it is as an evidentiary issue: whether or not said object/structure tends to prove or disprove some claim. A Biblical period structure near Jerusalem certainly must be evaluated in some way. Are we talking about a large pile of rough rock or a carefully wrought complex? What age are we talking about? What is its location and description? I agree RS is important and I am certain we can come up with some factors which make sense. Sweetmoose6 (talk) 03:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article provides a list under the following pretext:

The following is a list of artifacts, objects created or modified by a human culture, that are significant to the historicity of the Bible.

For whome? For a non-Jew/non-Christia person ― a very common occurrence ― such a purpose is worthless and pro-Bible-POVvy. For a Liberal Theological Christian, like me, the purpose smells falsehood and one of a very long sequence of violations of [2 Cor3:6]. Intro absolutely needs fixing! ... said: Rursus (bork²) 12:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You, like everyone else, may freely edit the introduction.Sweetmoose6 (talk) 01:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the image of the Shroud of Turin from the list of Biblical artifacts. The most recent dating of the shroud is around 1200 AD +/- 50 years.Ineuw (talk) 22:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed it again. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed these two items from the list because both are deemed to be fakes.Ineuw (talk) 22:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited a few entries, starting at the top, my aim being to correct errors where I see them and to improve the English. Please feel free to correct my corrections :). PiCo (talk) 05:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to see the artifacts listed in roughly chronological order, rather than alphabetical. --Alecmconroy (talk) 17:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea- if you've got the time go for it!Sweetmoose6 (talk) 03:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly agree that the artifacts should be arranged chronologically; in fact, when I attempted to do so, someone reversed it back. I guess you have to say "Mother, may I" before it sticks.WittyMan1986 (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw on Yahoo! News that they'd discovered something; I think it was just Hebrew writing much older than aything they'd previously found. Would that be Biblically significant? Masternachos (talk) 05:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's on the list, the Khirbet pottery sherd. [1]. Don't leave your email on Wikipedia please, you can enable your email on your talk page through preferences. The language is disputed. Dougweller (talk) 06:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would venture to say that anything having to do with this region of the world will be disputed, particularly if it concerns the Bible, considering how often the places described in the Bible have been ravaged by war. This was a hub of the ancient world and no doubt many of the records are simply lost, so we have what we have. What is amazing is that a single find can re-write all that we know. That fact alone shows how little we know.Sweetmoose6 (talk) 03:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Thanks a lot!Masternachos (talk) 04:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the connection between the Code of Hammurabi and the Bible? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the connection is that while the Code of Hammurabi is a legal code preceding the Thorah, the foundation of traditional Jewish law, some of its laws are similar to those in the Thorah. For example, the Code of Hammurabi contains the following laws:

If a man puts out the eye of an equal, his eye shall be put out. (...) If a man knocks the teeth out of another man, his own teeth will be knocked out.

In Exodus 21:23-25, it says:

And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Although it is of course to be expected that some similarities arise between large collections of legal provisions (especially in a similar historical context), it could perhaps be argued that the Thorah is related to this and other earlier legal codes. I agree however that its significance currently unclear in the article. And, of course it needs a source, as otherwise it would be considered OR. Lindert (talk) 06:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This item can be found twice in the list. I don't change it, there might be a reason for it. (Bende76 (talk) 12:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I removed the second one; it's most likely just a mistake (and the second one didn't contain any extra info anyway). Lindert (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, I was checking my emails on Yahoo! when this story shows up: http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110330/ts_yblog_thelookout/could-lead-codices-prove-the-major-discovery-of-christian-history Seems like it's important. BUT, I don't know- this page might have to 'wait' to put it on the page to see if this blows over or really is important, or maybe it's ALREADY on the page (the article says they were first discovered five years ago?) and I just don't know it. Said article didn't exactly give a 'name' for these things, which is very annoying. So, somebody who knows something should, you know... Masternachos (talk) 03:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An image used in this article, File:Cyrus cilinder.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm involved in the trial of the new version of the Article Feedback Tool. As you may or may not know, this article has been part of that trial. The following piece of feedback came from an anonymous user. You may wish to take it into account in the future development of this article.

warren's shaft is no longer considered a candidate for the צינור which Yoav used to access the city. New excavations suggest that (as per Rashi on the verse), the צינור was in fact a tower with a walled corridor connecting to the city.

As well, it behooves the editors to include the golden bell, gladius, and "purity seal" recently uncovered in jerusalem, as well as the palace of adiabene.

Thanks. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere in the list? --RThompson82 (talk) 03:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's mostly more of a legend about Biblical events than something mentioned in the Bible itself. All that appears in the Biblical text is the cup of the last supper... AnonMoos (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It could be mentioned only under disputed artifacts section.Tritomex (talk) 02:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just shortened the name - per WP:BRD.

I would like to spend time improving the format of the article too - I plan to create a structure similar to our best list articles e.g. List of Presidents of the United States or List of World Heritage Sites in the United States. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I've reverted you. This needs discussion. For instance, I find this " Meyers... coins the phrase “biblical artifacts” to denote cultic appurtenances described in biblical texts and for which we have no certain archaeological parallels." And to quote Carol Meyers directly, "Similarly, in approaching "biblical artifacts" — those buried in texts rather than in dirt". That's clearly not applicable to this list but would be under your title. In the end I'm not too worried about the name but major name changes such as this one need discussion first. Anyway, discussion time now. You can put in a move request of course as well. Dougweller (talk) 11:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, as you say - discussion time.

First, I think this is a great article, and I would like to work on it to improve it further. Not only the structural / format point above, but also to add artifacts - the table of contents of "Lost Treasures of the Bible" should be very helpful here.

As to the title, I really don't like the current version. I recognize it has had this title for a long time but:

1. it fails WP:TITLE "Conciseness" (it is longer than necessary)
2. it fails WP:TITLE "Consistency" (I am not aware of other articles with this pattern)
3. it fails WP:TITLE "Naturalness" (surely noone would google this name)
4. It contains the word "significant", which is both subjective and unnecessary (per comments above)
5. "artifacts significant to the Bible" could also conjure up thoughts of "those buried in texts rather than in dirt" as well
6. It does not satisfy WP:COMMONNAME

As to the quotes you picked out above - if I was to guess i'd say you found them on the first page of googlebooks. If you look at the other hits on the first page, they all refer to our kind of biblical artifacts. As do all the google news hits.

Are you wedded to the current name or do you agree with my concerns?

Oncenawhile (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at about 3 pages. I agree that there are a lot of hits, probably more, to physical artifacts. The reference to the Lost Treasures of the Bible actually sets off alarm bells for me. It talks about "illuminating the history, culture and practices of the biblical world as a whole" and I definitely think that is too wide. Dougweller (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the actual table of contents (you can see it if you hit preview and scroll down)? The list of items is almost exactly the same as ours - there's just some extra ones. Not a big change, just making ours more complete, and based on an actual source. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two additional lists of artifacts which might help fill in the blanks - what do you think?

• Readings from the Ancient Near East: Primary Sources for Old Testament Study
• Documents from the Ancient Near East, in "The Old Testament Between Theology and History: A Critical Survey"

Oncenawhile (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that those lists go much further than this article should go. Quite a few number of documents are included that are questionable. Prophecies that predate the Bible? A lot of the material there does not comply with the scope of this article, which is "objects created or modified by human culture, that are significant to the historicity of the Bible." Dougweller (talk) 12:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - sorry if not clear, I am not suggesting that all (or even most) of these should go in. Just that these lists from WP:RS are good sources for us to review to see what else this list might be missing. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, on the title, do you still feel strongly against the proposed rename? If so, do you agree with any of my critique of the existing name? I am not keen to begin an RM process without you "on-side" so to speak. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not wedded to anything - I just thought it should be discussed. I still need to go over the list itself to make sure I haven't missed anything, I'll do that tomorrow. Below you've said you agree with all 3 suggestions, I'm not sure what you think should be done about the structures/artifacts issue. Two lists? Dougweller (talk) 21:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the lead says, this is a list of "objects created or modified by human culture, that are significant to the historicity of the Bible." Sites are not artifacts. Sites may contain artifacts and the list should mention those and can have a link to the site, but this is a list of artifacts. Dougweller (talk) 12:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with your interpretation, but there are existing items that have been on the list for a long time that contravene this definition. For example, Herodium, the stone structures and the various tombs. So with those items on there i'm not sure how to judge existing consensus. What do you think? Oncenawhile (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can say "The site at Herodium includes x, y, z with wikilinks to any appropriate sections in the article. But you do raise an interesting question that was my next issue. Archaeologists differentiate between artifacts and structures. A wall or a tomb or a building is a structure and will normally have associated artifacts. Another issue I'll mention is texts - an artifact may be a tablet or scroll with a text on it. Historians and archaeologists are likely to take a different approach in analysing such an artifact (but not necessarily). Anyway, either we start a separate list for structures (which might be a good idea) or change the title. Dougweller (talk) 16:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we need a different heading for this, but I've just wikilinked a red link and added 'dubious' as per the linked article. Somehow we need to be clear about what is more or less unanimously accepted and what is disputed. We should probably have cites for everything here as well. Dougweller (talk) 16:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree with all three of your suggestions. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per above, you rightly pointed out that I wasn't clear on your second point re structures. I think we should start a second list.

I also think we should exclude:

• Tombs, but should point people to List of burial places of biblical figures in our intro, assuming we can add tombs of New Testament figures to that article.
• Manuscripts of the bible, but should point people to List of Hebrew Bible manuscripts, List of New Testament papyri and List of New Testament uncials

That would leave us with "artifacts, inscriptions and other writings".

As an aside, much of the remainder would overlap with the first section of List of biblical figures identified in extra-biblical sources.

Oncenawhile (talk) 07:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks ok, but 'other texts' rather than 'other writings' and do we need to somehow define that so it excludes anything post a certain date? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 15:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User:Oncenawhile/List of Biblical Artifacts - propose to introduce this to this article for the most significant artefacts. Please comment or edit directly in the userfied-page. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've gone as far as I can with this. The section is called "Selected artifacts significant to Biblical Chronology" for a reason - in order to highlight those artifacts that are the focus of the greatest study by biblical scholars - i.e. those that are thought to provide additional information for events referred to in the Bible. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should include these. This is a list, and some of these will certainly be controversial and a list is not the place to give details about a controversy. Of course we mention if something is controversial or disputed, but the main article is the place for that. I've come here after discovering an entry to something that is also fairly vague, "6 chamber gates". If something is notable enough for this list it should have an article first. Note that the red linked entry I removed did have an article but that showed no relevance to the Bible. Dougweller (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Is there a "to-do" list anywhere where these can be added? There doesn't seem to be a wikiproject for biblical archeology. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, they didn't refer to "Palestina", a word invented by the much-later Romans in order to stop Jewish nationalism after the Bar Kokhba revolt.

It refers to Peleset, the Philistines, a pre-hellenic greek nation that settled in modern Gaza strip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by אשכנזישעיידן (talk • contribs) 16:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but that is both WP:OR and incorrect. We follow the sources (see the article itself, quoting Luckenbill)

See also Timeline of the name Palestine, as your idea of "invention" by Roman is wrong. Even the rationale you quote re "stop Jewish nationalism" is nonsense which no scholar has been able to support with primary sources.

Oncenawhile (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article that you link to Oncenawhile clearly says that the name "Palestine" was first used in the 5th century BC which is well after the dates of the objects used in this article(1860 BC, 925 BC, 800 BC, 800 BC, 733 BC, 710 BC, and 675 BC). Again this is like writing an article about the Incan Empire and calling it Argentina or Colombia. Palestine is just a popular european name for the region, calling it that is wrong and misleading. Call it what it was called at the time. So can I change it back now or will you undo it again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.75.175 (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks for your message. The other article says that the Greek usage was the first "clear use" for a reason - the truth is that none of the Egyptian and Assyrian references are clear enough on their own to know whether they were referring to just the coast or not. Many people choose to extrapolate the descriptions of the Philistine region given during a relatively short period in the Books of Judges and Samuel to assume that the name was also applied to that region during the rest of the biblical period. But the truth is that noone really knows what region the Egyptians and Assyrians were referring to. The use of Palestine to describe those regions is based on secular scholarly usage, as you say this is because it is popular Western name for the region in a generic sense. The issue we face now is that there really aren't any names that are "more" correct - certainly the ones suggested in your edit are even more problematic. I have an idea to try to remove this issue altogether - i'll edit it simply to follow the sources themselves. See what you think. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ya that's actually a lot better and more accurate, thanks Oncenawhile! The problem I had was just that when people call the region Palestine before the mandate period, it seems to imply that the modern Palestine is much older it also unintendedly implies to some people that the Palestinian cause is more correct then the Israeli. Wikipedia should stay impartial; it should only have verified facts not opinions(sorry I'm just ranting; it's just the Jerusalem page bugs me it's loaded with opinions and not facts on the ground and whenever someone tries to edit it it's automatically undone because of some random arbitration). The region has had way to many names. Anyway thanks for the edit, it's a lot more researched and better then mine was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.75.175 (talk) 18:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In his book, The Truth Behind the Bible Code (Sidgwick & Jackson, 1997), Dr. Jeffrey Satinover has written: "Oddly, a set of sixty-four marble and granite tablets with the entire book of Ezekiel carved in raised letters, laid out in a square grid, and also written in scripta continua, was discovered in Iraq during Israel’s War for Independence." (p54). Satinover claims these presumably ancient tablets are now held in a private collection somewhere in Israel. If true, their existence would be important to this article. Can anyone cast more light on this matter? --DStanB (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some detail - apparently known as the "Ezekiel Plates".

Key quotes from the article:

• "The tiles’ authenticity is also open to question because the time and location of the find, as well as its chain of custody, are not as well documented as scholars now demand for wider acceptance."
• "According to the British Museum, the plates could be anywhere between 300 to 2000 years old."

So they are not from biblical times, and they might even be fake.

Oncenawhile (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source ^ The Philistines in Transition: A History from Ca. 1000-730 B.C.E. By Carl S. Ehrlich P:171 specifically names Israel/Samaria and Philistine. Palshtu and Bet Hurmria were foreign names for Philistine and the Kingdom of Israel/Samaria, so there is no need to create confusion, where the source specifically names this places with understandable English meaning. Tyre, the land of Sidon have also different names in Akkadian, but the correct English translation is given. --Tritomex (talk) 11:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is per WP:PLACE "When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This often will be a local name, or one of them; but not always. If the place does not exist anymore, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used." Tritomex (talk) 12:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PLACE is not applicable here - we are simply stating what the artifact says. The connection between Humri and Israel is not direct - i.e. is via a "dynasty.

Most sources clarify both the original name and the understood translation:

• [6]
• [7]
• [8]

I suggest we follow their lead.

Oncenawhile (talk) 16:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both sources you stated are telling this: "Omriland (Israel)". This means that it does not refer to the dynasty but to the country or land ruled by Omrides. Also, The source ^ The Philistines in Transition: A History from Ca. 1000-730 B.C.E. By Carl S. Ehrlich P:171 directly translate this to English as Israel. WP:PLACE is therefore applicable here. The Assyrian texts refer to Israel on Akkadian as the land of "Beit humria" which means "The land of the house of Omri" or the "Land of Omri". This are the standard Assyrian names for the Northern kingdom of Israel; Israel By Professor Adolphe Lods P 314 [9] In this case we have the "land of Omri" pattern which in English sources is used to be immediately translated to Israel. So there is no need to specify that this term is understood as a such, as we have a case of standard and undisputed Assyrian term for the Northern Kingdom of Israel.Personally I would prefer the "Omriland (Israel)" pattern however due to WP:PLACE we have to use the widely accepted English historic name. ---Tritomex (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All three sources in my post above say "Humri" first, then put translations in brackets afterwards.

Do you have access to the full book of Erlich? I expect he discusses this point on pages 169-170.

The real point here is that there is one artifact (Kurkh Monolith) which is thought to include the actual word "Israel". It is the only assyrian artifact which does so. So in order to avoid confusing readers we must be clear which artifacts use a term which can be transliterated as Israel, from one which is understood to refer to the Omrides and hence their kingom (Israel).

Anyway, surely what we now have shows the best of all. We have a reference to Humri, a link to Omrides, and a clarification re Israel / Samaria. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oncenawhile (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, however as you have correctly edited [10] the Nimrud Slab refer to " the land of Humri" which is standard Assyrian term for Israel/Samaria. Regarding the Kurkh Monolith inscription of "Israel" Shigeo Yamada in his work The Construction of the Assyrian Empire P:193 explains the question you have raised:

"The indication of a single state by two alternative names is not unusual in the inscription of Shalmaneser, as witnessed also in alterations between Patin and Ulqi, between Samaal and Bit Gabbar and between Yahan and Bit Agusi...N.Nadav suggest that Yehu designation as Mar Humri was deliberately made by Shalmaneser in order to legitimize the new Israeli king, who adopted pro-Assyrian policy"

Its very important that we have to use the widely accepted English historic names in cases where standard terms are used ("The land of Humri"=Israel/Samaria) However, we can also add the original Assyrian terms, beside English terms, as you did.--Tritomex (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Medias are full of this nowadays, although this looks pretty unconvincing? [11] [12]--Tritomex (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The artifact itself is definitely credible, but the talk about "Noah's ark" is primarily meant to create a hype. Of course the tablet doesn't mention the name Noah. It is just another version of a Mesopotamian Flood myth. It's been known for a very long time that many cultures have their own stories about a great flood, some show similarities to the biblical story, but there are many differences as well. There is already a mention of these Babylonian flood myths in the article, but as long as there's no clear and direct connection to the biblical story, I don't think it adds much to this article to list every similar artifact. In any case we should wait until a full translation of it has been published. - Lindert (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good list, but I don't really see the significance of the top 3 list items to the Bible. Egyptian campaigns in the Sinai don't really have any relevance to the Bible per se, nor does a cuneiform reference to Canaan. If the goal is just proving Shechem and Canaan exist as mentioned in the Bible, the Ebla Tablets, Amarna Letters, and Execration Texts are more relevant to the Bible specifically. I'm also pretty sure that the Nabonidus and Nebuchadnezzar Chronicles listed last are dated incorrectly and should be 6th century B.C. Either way, I'm working on an alternative list at BibleStrength that puts different ones at the top. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 10:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Jzyehoshua. Thanks. No offence meant but the descriptions on your list are incredibly biased, such as "disproving an early criticism of the Bible", "refuted the claim", "another powerful evidence against the criticism of Biblical minimalists" - it's like propaganda. As the sources at the articles listed here show, there are often multiple interpretations of these artefacts. You are obviously a committed editor based on the work I can see, but you broke the rules here four years ago, and from your work at BibleStrength it seems you don't appear to believe in the concept of WP:NPOV. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

|}

I just rewrote this - it was written solely from a Creationist interpretation (mainly Bryant Wood's) and I've removed a lot of alleged findings and used The Oxford History of the Biblical World as my source. Doug Weller talk 10:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And other well sourced material from Nuzi plus the Cambridge Companion to the Hebrew Bible. The view that these texts prove the authenticity of some of Genesis is now widely doubted. Doug Weller talk 13:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of artifacts in biblical archaeology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070908205713/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/medieval/hammint.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/medieval/hammint.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120729200638/http://beitlehifoundation.org/history/ to http://beitlehifoundation.org/history/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120421105029/http://cojs.org/cojswiki/The_First_Extra-Biblical_Reference_to_the_Sabbath%2C_c._630_BCE to http://cojs.org/cojswiki/The_First_Extra-Biblical_Reference_to_the_Sabbath%2C_c._630_BCE

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of artifacts in biblical archaeology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725185830/http://cojs.org/cojswiki/Mezad_Hashavyahu_Ostracon%2C_c._630_BCE to http://cojs.org/cojswiki/Mezad_Hashavyahu_Ostracon%2C_c._630_BCE

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I came across the article and was wondering why it's split into "selected artifacts" in a table with pictures/museum data, and "other artifacts" with text description and chronology? It seems like an odd split to me (and may or may not be NPOV). - - mathmitch7 ^{(talk/contribs)} 12:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm attempting to write an article on Nebuchadnezzar II’s Prism at User:Daask/sandbox/Nebuchadnezzar II’s Prism. This document is significant for mentioning a number of figures described in the Hebrew Bible, including imperial chancellor Nebuzaradan [Wikidata] who is also known from 2 Kings 25:8-11 and Jeremiah 39:13. It also mentions Neriglissar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. However, I think I'm mixing up multiple documents and archaelogical finds. I don't think all of my sources are discussing the same document. Can anyone help me clear up this issue? Someone who can read German would be especially helpful. Daask (talk) 13:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can we toss that one in there as well? Cornelius (talk) 06:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]