Talk:Jeroboam's Revolt

Historicity

I suggest that this should all be removed. It relates to the possibilty of a United Kingdom which is not proof of this war taking place. It is OR to link the existence of a United Kingdom to the historicty of the revolt. 'The existence of the revolt is not without its support. Amélie Kuhrt, while acknowledging a general lack of material evidence explicitly indicating a United Monarchy, concludes "[a]gainst this must be set the evidence for substantial development and growth at several sites, which is plausibly related to the tenth century." Kenneth Kitchen reaches a similar conclusion, arguing that "the physical archaeology of tenth-century Canaan is consistent with the former existence of a unified state on its terrain." Furthermore, levels IX and X of Tell Balata, a.k.a. Shechem, Jeroboam's first capital, show that the city was suddenly refurbished during the time period Jeroboam is believed to have reigned, circumstances which Edward F. Campbell Jr. called "tangible evidence of Jeroboam I's rebuilding (1 Kg 12:25) and a return to city status".

The pharaoh Sishak has been historically identified with Shoshenq I. Many inscriptions have been discovered which omit the n glyph from the pharaoh's name, however miscopyings and misspellings of pharaonic names are not at all uncommon in hieroglyphic sources. The Bubastite Portal, a relief discovered at Karnak, in Upper Egypt, and similar reliefs on the walls of a small temple of Amun at el-Hibeh, show Shoshenq I holding in his hand a bound group of prisoners. The names of captured towns are located primarily in the territory of the Kingdom of Israel (including Megiddo), with a few listed in the Negeb, and perhaps Philistia. Some of these include a few of the towns that Rehoboam had fortified according to Chronicles. The portal is generally believed to record a historical campaign of Sheshonq I in Judah, but it makes no mention of Jerusalem being sacked, nor of Rehoboam or Jeroboam. Various explanations of this omission of Jerusalem have been proposed: its name may have been erased, the list may have been copied from an older pharaoh's list of conquests, or Rehoboam's ransoming the city (as described in the Book of Chronicles) would have saved it from being listed.'Pngeditor (talk) 16:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

The addition has sources, you received no reply whatsoever and yet still removed everything, and you have provided no rationale as to why any of this should be removed. Zhomron (talk) 01:05, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Your statement is not correct. The rationale for the removal is clearly stated above. The reomoved material is not relevant to the possibilty of a revolt. It relates to the possibilty of a United Kingdom. It is therefore not relevant to this article. Possibily WPSYNTH to try to link it. Therefore it is irrelevant as to whether it has a source.Pngeditor (talk) 06:08, 22 October 2022 (UTC)