Talk:Generations of Noah/Tubal

Proposed bullet point reading for 'Tubal' (with citation support)
First of all, an authoritative-looking chart or table approach for something this controversial should be out of the question, especially if the chart is going to be filled with uncited, unsupported information and original research. If there is to be a table or chart, it should supplement a thorough discussion of all views, not be used to squelch it off.

Current reading of bullet point version:

 * Tubal, son of Japheth. He is connected with the Tabali, an Anatolian tribe, and both the Iberians of the Caucasus and those of the Iberian peninsula (modern Spain and Portugal), as well as Illyrians and Italics. In the book of Jubilees he was bequeathed the three 'tongues' of Europe.

Tubal in Flavius Josephus (93 AD)
"Thobel founded the Thobelites, who are now called Iberes..." - Antiquities of the Jews", Book I, Chapter 6.

This version is said to have been followed by St. Eustathius of Antioch (c. 325 AD); and later, the Bishop Theodoret of Cyrrus (Commentary on Isaiah 66:19, c. 448 AD) also identified Tubal with Georgia.

Tubal in Nennius (c. 800 AD)
"(And) the fifth was Tubal, from whom (came) the Iberians, the Spanish and the Italians."

("quintus Tubal, a quo Hiberei et Hispani et Ital")

--'Historia Brittonum'', Chap. 18'''

Tubal in John Gill (1763)
"The next son of Japheth is Tubal or Thobel, as Josephus calls him, who says the Thobelians in his time were called Iberians, a people in Asia, that dwelt near the Euxine sea; and in Albania was a place called Thabilaca, as may be seen in Ptolemy, and another called Thilbis, from whom might spring the Iberians in Europe, now called Spaniards; but Bochart thinks that the Tibarenes are the descendants of Tubal, a people that dwelt between the Trapezuntii and Armenia the less; and he wonders that this never was thought of by any; but in that he is mistaken, for our countryman Mr. Broughton makes the Tibarenes to spring from Tubal; and Epiphanius many hundreds of years before him."

Tabal / Tubal and Jabal / Jubal
Wow, you have overturned so much that needs to be challenged here on the talk page, as is normally customary, that I'll have to go issue by issue, section by section, however long this takes. So for now let's start with the first issue. You wish to include the names 'Jabal' and 'Jubal' as descriptors of Tubal. I am not aware of any good reason for doing this; all you did was cite another wikipedia article, Tabal and unfortunately, because wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, it's not always a 100% fool proof source. So I'll tell you what: If you can find any evidence of a real attestation of 'Jubal' and 'Jabal' as applied to Tabal in the records of a contemporary neighboring people, I'll agree to it appearing on the table. The article on Tabal credits a Georgian historian, Javakhishvili for tis connection, but it sounds to me like a confusion with names of people said in Genesis to have lived before the Flood. So I challenge you to prove support that their neighbours at the time actually knew them as 'Jabal' or 'Jubal'. ፈቃደ 02:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

"it sounds to me" is original research. A "georgian historian" is a cited source. Cited sources are more trustworthy than original research. Javakhishvili is not the guy responsible for the connection, Javakhishvili merely suggested that they were originally Georgian (Kartvelian). As the Tabal article says, Kurt Bittel, in Hattusha, the Kingdom of the Hittites 1970: pp. 133f, an archaeologist, identifies the tribes as (a) existing (b) appearing after the Hittites. There are several pieces of hard evidence written, literally, in stone, in the villages of Calapverdi and Alişar, in Turkey, dating from the 9th - 8th centuries BC, in Luwian-hieroglyphs, and referring to these tribes. The Tabal article says that as well. While "anyone" can edit wikipedia, it was Llywrch that wrote the article, including the relevant passages. Llywrch is a well respected editor, and ex-mediator. Indeed, you mention him above as an example of a good editor. --User talk:FDuffy 08:30, 25 November 2005 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FDuffy (talk • contribs)


 * LOL You're accusing me of "Original research" because I used the phrase "it sounds to me" above?? Goodness, you are too much!!  What I am flatly stating is that the names JABAL and JUBAL are NOT ATTESTED as names for the TABALI in ANY LANGUAGE, all you have is a quote from a wikipedia article that a "Georgian Historian", Javakhishvili, mentions "Jubal" and "Jabal" as "Georgian tribal designations".  I have read everything there is on the Tabali in more than one University library, which evidently you have not, and I have never come across any mention of these names for Tabal ever anywhere before, but perhaps I am missing some research you can point me to.  You on the other hand are spreading shoddy research and non-facts that are helpful to noone from one wikipedia article to another.  I have some factual issues with the Tabal and Tubal articles, and would have done a major expansion of them already, but sadly so much of wikipedia is in such a second-rate state now, my hands have been full elsewhere.  I happen to know who added the Javakhishvili info, and it wasn't Llywrch, who shares many interests with me, but whom I would trust as a competent mediator any day.  It was User:Levzur who added that stuff, in whom I have far less confidence.  Llywrch merely copied Levzur's info from Tubal to Tabal way back when.  Now if you actually know how to do some real research outside of wikipedia, I'm challenging you to find ONE reason to think Tabal was ever called JUBAL by anyone, otherwise I am going to challenge this indefinitely as second rate, half-baked scholarship.  ፈቃደ 14:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

(response in bullet points)
 * Javakhishvili held a DSc in history, that's a degree 1 level higher than a PhD. Accusing him of being half-baked is like calling Stephen Hawking an amateur physicist.
 * Javakhishvili co-founded Tbilisi State University, and authored over 170 papers on the subject of history; hardly a minor academic
 * While you have read everythiung there is on the Tabali in more than one University Library, Javakhishvili is the one with the highest degree in history possible (the only higher degree is a DD, which traditionally can only be given to ordained theologians). If it comes to a question of who is more reliable - you and your (original) research in university libraries, or Javakhishvili, who has a DSc in the subject - you are very unlikely to win.
 * Even despite his great credentials, he is still not the main source, as I stated above. The main source is the fact that this association is written in hard cold stone, in ancient Luwian, in multiple inscriptions dating from the early first millenium BC. I.e. The Luwians themselves in the early first millenium BC made the connection themselves, and we have FIRST HAND EVIDENCE of it.
 * "You on the other hand are spreading shoddy research and non-facts that are helpful to noone from one wikipedia article to another" is a personal attack, completely ignores the barnstar I have been given, and the fact that much of my writing is simply copying over articles from the Jewish Encyclopedia, a work which is definitely NOT regarded as shoddy. They say that people who resort to personal attacks have already lost the argument.
 * While you claim that there are no references to Jubal, or to Jabal, as being, together with Tubal, Luwian tribes, these names are written in stone, specifically pointing out their tribal nature, and connection to a tribe of Tubal, in the Luwian language, in two west anatolian villages. It doesn't matter how many library books you quote, giving nth hand evidence and arguments, the stone inscriptions dating from the era will still quote the evidence first hand.
 * --User talk:FDuffy 19:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FDuffy (talk • contribs)


 * Fine. Then you should be able to give some idea where this stone referring to TABAL as "Jubal" in Luwian is referred to. Javakhishvili is apparently a respected historian in the field of Georgian history and i wasn't referring to him as shoddy (I haven't read his work) but all we have so far is a wikipedia attribution to him, added by Levzur, as saying that "Jubal" and "Jabal" are Georgian tribal designations . I'm going to have to insist on something a little stronger than that before I will consent to "Jubal, Jabal" appearing on your table under "Name in other records" for Tabal or Tubal. And it seems you have't got the faintest notion of what "Original Research" consists of. ፈቃደ 19:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are multiple inscriptions. For example, there is one in the village of Calapverdi and another in Alişar (I think I mentioned that before). I'm going to have to insist that you review Wikipedia's policies. Nowhere does it state that I require your consent, or that you have any kind of ownership here. --User talk:FDuffy 21:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FDuffy (talk • contribs)


 * It really doesn't matter much to me what you insist. But, if you are truly incapable of coming up with any documentation whatsoever that the Luwian inscriptions in Calapverdi and Alisar reference either "Jubal" or "Jabal", then policy states it's original research.  If you can find such a source, then I'll cheerfully admit I was wrong and you were right, and we can move on to the next topic.  It's as simple as that.  ፈቃደ 21:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It cannot be original research because it is already present in for example Javakhishvili, and Kurt Bittel. The Luwian inscriptions in Calapverdi and Alisar ARE documentation. They are still there, and you can go and see them with your own eyes to verify at any point you wish (according to a turkish friend of mine the area isn't that safe, though as long as you don't stray too far to the north east, it should be alright). The geographic co-ordinates of Calapverdi are 39° 13' 60N Longditude and 35° 22' 60E Latitude - north of the Eastern corner of Cyprus and in the centre of a north south axis across Turkey. --User talk:FDuffy 12:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FDuffy (talk • contribs)


 * Okay. You are claiming Javakhishvili and Bittel as your "sources" for your contention that Luwian inscriptions in Turkey refer to "Jabal" and / or "Jubal".  (BTW, since the Javakhishvili book is in Georgian, I assume you read that language, since you are so confident of what it says).  I don't have to go to Turkey, I can easily check your supposed sources myself, because I would really like to know exactly what they do say, and since you haven't yet provided any actual quotes from either of these authors, I can only wonder if you haven't the foggiest idea what they say yourself, and maybe even bluffing.  So I intend to find out exactly what Java. and Bittel really do say that is relevant to these inscriptions, and add it to this discussion page myself.  I should be able to make it to a large library next week; in the meantime, I'll see if FeanorStar7 can't give us some idea.  Unless, of course, you do have the source quotes, and are willing to share them here. ፈቃደ 14:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time figuring out just what the dispute is here -- except that two knowledgable contributors who ought to be working with each other are at each other's throats. What I can disentangle are the following:


 * The two versions Codex Sinaiticus & FDuffy are fighting over appear to be identicial in most respects except that Codex Sinaiticus is putting the information into bullet points & FDuffy is putting it into tabular format.
 * The two of you passionately disagree over the relationship of Jubal & Tabal/Tubal in the Table of Nations.

To these points, let me add my own, dispassionate opinions:
 * Although it's a good idea, I find the non-table version a little easier to read. Just my taste on the matter, but I could live with the tabular format.
 * The subject of Jubal & Tabal/Tubal is one that appears to be very controversial, & has been left untouched due to that controversy: unless one is prepared to do extensive research, & supply it to Wikipedia with useable references, then it's better just to leave the matter alone. My contributions were made due to Levzur's own nationalistic bias & sloppy style of citations. The first is demonstrated by his bias in claiming that his native Georgian people are related to every autochthonic inhabitants in Anatolia & nearby Europe, while ignoring facts that might invalidate the connections or the antiquity of those people mentioned. And the second is shown by his frequent habit of listing several ancient authors as proof of his assertions, yet omitting a detailed citation where that author wrote the statement, so that they could be verified.

Have either of you tried to show your points by providing the necessary citations from the literature you are quoting? There is an awful lot of it about this section of the Bible, which is one of the reasons why I stopped working on it. Any material added to this section needs to be carefully cited (e.g., for the statement "A writer in New Mexico claimed that the Seba mentioned in this section of the Bible were actually the uncle & aunt of his odd neighbors" -- & the footnote will read "Joe Smith, My Unbelievable Claims about Genesis [Albuquerque: Two-bit Press, 1995], p. 207"). Careful documentation is important here for two reasons:


 * 1) Even the best of experts make odd identifications. One example of this (IIRC) was that Donald Redford claimed that the "Put" of this section were the ancient Lybians -- without any explanation that I could find. Without a proper citation, this identification sounds like the random thoughts of a kook, but if an acknowledged expert makes it, one has to at least presume he had a reason. Also, if he was entirely wrong about this identification, at least then we can isolate the fact & keep it from affecting the value of the rest of the article.
 * 2) Much that has been written about this passage seeps into the underground culture of Bible study, where it is accepted & repeated as proven fact. A perfect article (which I believe all of us want here) would explain the history of all of these identifications, the old & the new, the correct & incorrect.

Stating that one school of thought or another is not enough: please cite author, publication & page. Individuals in various schools have, well, individual interpretations, & even experts who are now out of favor usually have one or two arguments worth agreeing with.

From Discussion after Llywrch (moved from main talk page)
So just for now, because as I said, there's really a lot of dispute here - just for now, I'm starting with Tubal. Here, again, is the Duffy, tabular version of Tubal:

Father: Japheth Name: Tubal Name in other records: Tabal/Tubal/Jabal/Jubal [sic] Usual Identification: Luwian tribes [sic] Associated modern area: South central Anatolia Earliest known records: 9th Century BC (Assyrian & Luwian texts)

And here is the multi-editor, bullet-point version of Tubal:


 * Tubal, son of Japheth. He is connected with the Tabali, an Anatolian tribe, and both the Iberians of the Caucasus and those of the Iberian peninsula (modern Spain and Portugal), as well as Illyrians and Italics. In the book of Jubilees he was bequeathed the three 'tounges' of Europe.

Unlike Duffy's version of Tubal, every single statement in the multi-editor version can be backed up with sources and references. This has been the usual identification of Tubal for centuries, if not millennia. Flavius Josephus calles Tubal ancestor of the "Thobelites who are Iberes". Nennius has him as fathering the "Iberians, Spanish and Italians". And indeed, Jubilees does mention him as receiving two or three of the 'tongues' of Europe for his inheritance. Further, not only Georgian, but also Basque traditions credit Tubal with being an ancestor, as validly referenced (over Levzur's dead body) on the page Tubal. This is all highly relevant information for anyone researching the Sons of Noah -- but it won't fit on a table. But FDuffy doesn't want anyone to be able to read or access this information on wikipedia. Instead, he wants them to read that Tubal corresponds with Luwian tribes who were also called "Jubal" and "Jabal" (sic) - something that even he ought to know better than.

This great researcher no doubt got the "Luwian" bit from something that I myself added to the article Hittites, ironically enough, after having just read a book that mentions that the Tabals were speaking Luwian in the 9th Century BC. But the same book I took that from also takes great pains to stress the point that although the Tabals were speaking Luwian in the 9th C. BC, historians are not at all certain that the Tabals themselves were Luwian or Phrygian, since everybody of any ethnic affiliation in the South half of Anatolia was speaking Luwian at that time, from the Aegean to Syria. It clearly said there is debate on the issue of whether or not the Tabals themselves were Luwians, or just spoke Luwian in the 9th C. Notice that FDuffy wants to put "Luwian" as "Usual identification" for Tubal, which is disputed, whereas I would rather put "Tabal" as "usual identification" for Tubal, which is a) the correct name of the tribe as attested in records, and b) disputed by noone. ፈቃደ 14:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Where 'Jubal' and 'Jabal' REALLY came from

 * If you really want to know where all the "Jabal" and "Jubal" stuff comes from, check out the very earliest incarnation of the article Tubal from 6 Jan 2004. It is a rambling, incoherent rant added by an anonymous user (possibly Levzur himself) that goes on mostly about Jabal, Jubal, and Tubal-Cain - three characters who were, according to Genesis, offspring of Cain who lived well BEFORE Noah, but who have absolutely NOTHING to do with the Tabali of 900 BC.  Soon after that Levzur added a lot more barely coherent stuff in the same vein, including the reference to Javakhishvili.  (The reference to Bittel wasn't even added until much later.)  In the months of 2004 and 2005 the article was slowly but surely brought to a much higher standard by several users, and almost all of the incoherent and off-topic stuff was gradually cut out.  The only remaining reference to "Jabal" and "Jubal", that shouldn't even be in there at all, is the only surviving relic of the original incarnation from January 2004.  It has NOTHING to do with any inscriptions in Çalapverdi, Turkey, the only possible reference given for them is a book written in GEORGIAN that I sincerely doubt Mr. Duffy has read; and at any rate allegedly mentions them as "Georgian tribal designations" - NOT Luwian inscriptions.  In order for "Jabal" and "Jubal" to appear as names for "Tabal", a VALID citation that we can look up must be given, not concocted, fabricated, or pulled out of out hats.  ፈቃደ 23:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)