Talk:Jeroboam

Zeruah
Zeruah, mother or grandmother?

Both here, in Background and in her own very brief entry, Zeruah, is listed as grandmother of Jeroboam. But she should be listed as his mother. This, according to the traditional understanding of the relevant Biblical verse: 1 Kings 11:26 - "And Jeroboam the son of Nebat, an Ephrathite of Zereda, Solomon's servant, whose mother's name was Zeruah, a widow woman, even he lifted up his hand against the king." (KJV). Also compare to other translation: 1 Kings 11:26, KJV, NASB and Young's Literal Translation. The verse mentions her being a widow, which would be utterly irrelevant if she was the grandmother.

So if no-one objects, I'll be making the needed changes to both entries. Shmuel A. Kam (talk) 14:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Shmuel,I think it would be better to note that the texts allow both views ("Jeroboam was the son of Nebat / נבט, a member of the Tribe of Ephraim of Zereda, whose mother's name was Zeruah, a widow (1 Kings 11:26)") and perhaps note the difficulty. I haven't got my references in front of me now (I'm up in the mountains riding my bike), but I believe that both The Interpreter's Bible and Adam Clarke note the issue.  A Georgian (talk) 15:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Changed both pages. Is the way I did it as a note "acceptable"?. Shmuel A. Kam (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Well this is awkward. Your note suggested that English translations differing from the Hebrew enabled the idea that Zeruah is Jeroboam's grandmother.  I thought that odd, since I use only the Hebrew Bible for text.  Anyway, surrounded with my resources, I cannot find any mention of Zeruah as Jeroboam's grandmother.  I am, therefore, withdrawing my request to "note the difficulty" and am happy to have Zeruah mentioned only as his mother.  How I came to that conclusion in the first place is beyond me.  Neither Clarke or The Interpreter's Bible "note the difficulty".  Nor does The New Jerome Biblical Commentary.  My so-called exhaustive concordance does not have a listing for Zeruah.  So there you are.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by A Georgian (talk • contribs) 20:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jeroboam. 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/20070315043440/http://net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=JEROBOAM to http://net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=JEROBOAM

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Simeon?
Without getting too technical, where is the tribe of Simeon in all this? The maps show it virtually landlocked by Judah. (Not to mention the Levites, many of whom I would expect to be working at or near the temple in Jerusalem.) That would make it something less than ten full tribes seceding. Could someone please clarify? Mannanan51 (talk) 18:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The tribe of Simeon is not mentioned at all in Samuel or Kings. As to what constitutes ten full tribes, I couldn't say. Levi is excluded from military service, and scattered throughout Israel, so I don't think it counts in this. Perhaps Simeon is regarded as having moved north (?), or perhaps Manasseh in Canaan and Manasseh in Gilead are counted as two separate tribes, as they are on several tribal lists. Another option would be that the writer simply took the traditional total of twelve tribes, subtracted the two southern tribes, and came up with ten. One could, after all, count up to fourteen tribes (twelve sons of Israel, but Joseph produces three tribes, two of Manasseh, one of Ephraim).


 * Is there a specific part of this article that is giving you trouble, that you suggest we might revise? Alephb (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Moved from article
Caution: This article assumes a united monarchy of Israel and Judah ruled by Saul, David, Solomon and Rehoboam, and that this united monarchy preceded the Nation of Israel ruled by ruled by Jeroboam. Archaeology of this assumption is in question. See Wikipedia bible minimalism The possibility exists that a united Israel preceded a united land of Judah to the south.

Note that by Israel I mean the lands to the north of Judah...and am not using that term to refer to a supposed earlier united Israel and Judah.

As proof of the descent of Israelite Kings from the line of David the Tel Dan Stele is often referenced. See Tel Dan Stele in Wikipedia for a discussion of this. Note that the bible proposes that Jeroboam and later rulers of Israel were NOT of an unbroken line of David as that Stele would imply IF the reading "house of David" was accepted. Wikipedia Jeroboam indicates that Jeroboam was from the tribe of Ephraim and NOT from the tribe of Judah. Jeroboam would have been from the tribe of Judah if of the line of David. The line of rule of King David, if it existed....would have at minimum been broken at this point. This is assuming Jeroboam existed.

Read the Tel Dan Stele article in Wikipedia again. It would be odd to accept a forced interpretation of the Tel Dan Stele to prove the bible account when this in fact does not agree with the bible account. Per the bible...the linage from David broke with Jeroboam. Kings of Israel were not from an unbroken Dynasty / House of ....David (of the tribe of Judah) See again this Wikipedia article on Jeroboam Jeroboam was allegedly from the tribe of Ephraim

Note that any outside references that mention Israel do not prove a concurrent or preceding Nation ruling from Jerusalem ie Judah. Per Bible Minimalism...Israel refers to the people North of Judah.

By no means am I implying that it is certain that Jeroboam existed as a literal person. See Wikipedia Omri See Wikipedia Bible Minimalism

The history and archealogy of the middle east needs ongoing research. Simply using the bible as a historical source as opposed to a religious one is problematic. See Wikipedia James Usher and the discussion of the beginnings of humanity in 4004 BC with Adam. See Wikipedia Noah These are two examples re the age of humanity and the global flood where taking the bible as a historical document leads to erroneous conclusions.

The proof of Jeroboam and confirmation of his history needs to take place using sources outside the bible. Otherwise an article on Jeroboam needs to indicate that Jeroboam is....until proven otherwise, a mythical bible character.

Bibliography from these wikipedia articles could be listed here but that would be redundant, as would listing further reading lists written in each of the works mentioned under Wikipedia Bible minimalism
 * All added by User:KatherineDRogers. Moved to talk by Johnbod (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Agree, see:

"There are a number of cases where we do have external, ancient Near Eastern written evidence that deals with events depicted in these Historical Books. For example, the events surrounding the siege of Jerusalem by the Assyrian King Sennacherib in 701 BCE are narrated in several Assyrian sources, and are also depicted in the palace reliefs of that king. These sources suggest that part of the terse account in 2 Kings 18.13-16 is quite accurate, while the highly developed continuation of the story in chs 19 and 20, especially the note in 19.35, that the angel of the LoRD killed 185,ooo Assyrian soldiers in a single night, is most likely imaginative. Similarly, from various Mesopotamian sources, we know of a "house of Omri"; Omri's name is also mentioned on the Moabite Mesha Stele. This confirms the existence of the Northern (Israelite) king mentioned in 1 Kings 16.23-28. However, Kings tells little of his achievements during his twelve years as monarch, other than his building of Samaria and the notice that: "Omri did what was displeasing to the LORD; he was worse than all who preceded him. He followed all the ways of Jeroboam son of Nebat and the sins which he committed and caused Israel to commit, vexing the LoRD, the God of Israel, with their futilities" (vv. 25-26). The external sources, however, suggest that Omri was a powerful king who established a significant name for himself through his military activities. This highlights the extreme selectivity of the biblical sources. Archeological evidence confirms the picture suggested above: There may be some truth (or kernel of truth) to some of the biblical stories, but in their current form, they lack historical veracity, because that is not their prime concern."

- Jewish Study Bible, 1st ed., pp. 454-455


 * Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Please read the above. To cut the craps: the giving of the Law by Moses on the biblical Mount Sinai is myth, it isn't history. I mean from the Ivy League to US state universities it is not taught that it really happened. Do you know what it takes to show that all swans are white is false? FYI: you have a problem with mainstream Bible full professors, not with me. Your POV got nigh-unanimously rejected by the mainstream academia. We don't render WP:FRINGE views like pseudohistory. In mainstream history your POV is dead in the water. The hypothesis that Moses had anything to do with founding Judaism is myth, not history. It is no longer a serious hypothesis in the academic field of history. We simply do not write for people who think that remaining dumb and ignorant is a virtue. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)