Talk:Jewish revolt against Heraclius

Comments

Euphemism?

I am not a native English speaker. Do the phrase "to run the city" mean in the context that the Jews governed the city peacefully or that they slaughtered 60000 Christians at the beginning? (e.g. http://www.jewishgates.com/file.asp?File_ID=81).

According to Armenian historian Sebeos writing in the 690s, the Persians originally negotiated a peaceful takeover of the city of Jerusalem and appointed a Persian governor. It has been suggested that this governor was the son of a Jewish Exilarch, called Nehemiah ben Hushiel. Sebeos relates that after only 3 months, the Persian governor was lynched by a Christian mob and all the foreigners were expelled from the city. Persian troops who were in the middle of the conquest of Palestine, turned their attention to the city and laid siege for 19 days. After tunneling under the walls of the city, Persian troops broke into the city: "ten days after Easter, the Iranian forces took Jerusalem and putting their swords to work for three days they destroyed [almost] all the people in the city. Stationing themselves inside the city, they burned the place down. The troops were then ordered to count the corpses. The figure reached 57,000." http://rbedrosian.com/seb7.htm

It is not clear how inflated this number is (as with many other numbers in his history) or how many fell on either side. But what is noticeably absent from this description is the claim that the Jews purchased slaves from the Persians for the purpose of slaughtering them in cold blood. A claim that was often repeated in Byzantine circles. A claim that has been used repeatedly as justification for many retaliations agains the Jews. Historian2 18:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Now I think it may be good if somebody with good knowledge about the events expand the first paragraph. It is clear that Jerusalem was handed to the Jews twice, not once, and the sequence of the battle in Jerusalem and the siege should be made more clear. And probably there was some massacre of the population during the first months. If it was used repeatedly by Byzantine propaganda against Jews, it should be explained with details, not omitted. Reading only this Wikipedia article I had an impression the rebellion was quite peaceful (I came here to verify some informations about history of Jerusalem), but after reading the references cited it is clear it was not without blood. After all, it is Sesebos who write about 57000 killed http://rbedrosian.com/seb8.htm. This number may be inflated, of course, but "tens of thousands" that escaped from Palestine to Egypt, may be inflated, too (what is the source?) and the only massacre mentioned is the massacre of Jews in 629. The other thing: I think the sentence "Reports indicate that at the time 150,000 Jews were living in 43 settlements throughout Palestine." should be either cancelled or expanded. The reason of the information is not clear, and it makes the article like written from the point of view of Jews living in the Palestine. What was the number of Christians in Palestine? How big was Jerusalem (is the 57000 figure possible at all)? Were there any non-Jewish settlements? Who were the foreigners mentioned by Sebeos: Persians, Jews, Bizantynians? Wider context would be better and more neutral. It is also not clearly explained, why at all did the Jews made an agreement with Persians, who mercilessly persecuted them in the near past. Was the rebel risky initiative of Jews or a proposal of Persians? 84.10.114.122 10:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC), a casual visitor, Poland.

It was anything but peaceful. The final wars between Byzantium and Persia were some of the most brutal in history until that time. Soldiers were chained in columns to prevent their desertion, whole towns were raised and their populations slaughtered. The conquest of Jerusalem and the revolt against Heraculius, were small parts within the context of a very bloody war. There are many sources here, although I think the article is biased. too.http://www.iupress.indiana.edu/journals/jss/jss4-2.html If I get some time I will write more. You are welcome to add information to wikipedia.

This would be a difficult history to write, as there is little objective information and many conflicting version of events. --Historian2 12:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The definitive scholar on the Crusades and the circumstances that initiated them comes from Historian Steven Runciman. He states that, "With their churches and houses in flames around them, the Christians were indiscriminately massacred, some by the Persian soldiery and many more by the Jews." - A History of the Crusades, Volume 1. I need to add that to the article but I'm too lazy to do it today. Jtpaladin 21:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Jewish rule in Jerusalem from 610 to 620

According to most Jewish sources, the Jews controlled Jerusalem during this period and animal sacrifice was resumed on the Temple mount, which is why it was turned into a garbage dump after the Byzantine reconquest. For religious, as well as modern political reasons, aknowledging the existance of a Jewish state after 70 CE is an anathma.Ericl (talk) 21:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

This whole article is bogus

Also, I forgot to add...Heraclaius didn't become emperor until his predecessor Phocas lost the entire Middle East to the Sassanid Persians in 610. there was no revolt against Heraclius.Ericl (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

BOGUS source

The main source is "David Consultants - Jewish History" - obvious Zionist sock-puppet, but now a dead link. The usual Wikipedia standard of excellence. Fourtildas (talk) 04:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Dates?

Dates are inconsistent throughout the article: did the revolt end with the execution of the leaders in 625, 628 or 629? Did Heraclius enter Jerusalem in 628, 629 or 630? These dates need to corrected or the discrepancies explained. DavisGL (talk) 08:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This article

This article, to put it rudely, is a complete pile of crap. Initially it was written by the now-thankfully-permablocked liar Amoruso on the basis of a propaganda text of Shmuel Katz. Then someone copied in a large amount of material from this source, which is not a reliable source until proven otherwise. (Abrahamson is a rabbi who works for a rabbinical court in Jerusalem, and Katz is some sort of independent consultant. Reliability needs to be proved.) It is not allowed to copy-paste citations and footnotes from an intermediate source, as well as it being a copyright violation. Beyond all that, the idea of the article is broken. It is known that some Jews supported the Persians in their invasion, but it is very hard to find any source that calls this a "Jewish revolt against Heraclius". Actually the only serious incident that could be described in this way (though, if it happened at all, it would be against local Christians rather than the Byzantines in general) is suppressed here: "According to Antiochus Strategos, tens of thousands of Christians were massacred during the conquest of the city." (Strategos claimed that it was the Jews who massacred the Christians.) Zero^talk 09:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph "‎Massacres of the Jews (629)" is a paraphrase of "A History of the Jewish people" by Abraham Malamat; Haim Hillel Ben-Sasson; et al Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard University Press, 1976. The citations are apparently from there.

What does "apparently from there" mean? You can't put in citations that you didn't check yourself. See WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. You also can't copy text verbatim from [another source] unless you can produce proof of copyright permission. Also books need page number references. Zero^talk 11:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I said apparently because I don't know anything the history of this wiki page. I did check them myself. I'll post the page number. --Historian2 (talk) 10:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

This section was poorly written to begin with, but adding WP:POV doesn't help. I have marked it WP:POV until a more mainstream and balanced section is written without recourse to revisionist history like "Reckless rites". --Historian2 (talk) 13:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Reckless Rites

Reckless Rites does not reflect mainstream historical opinion. It is not cited as a source in historical literature for this time period. It's own review says "Reckless Rites reassesses the historical interpretation of Jewish violence... A book that calls for major changes in the way that Jewish history is written and conceptualized." --Historian2 (talk) 12:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

If we eliminated sources on the basis of one weak review, there would be little left. But you didn't even do that much. The first words you quote come from the review by Edward Kessler, Centre for the Study of Jewish-Christian Relations, Cambridge, who wrote (Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations, Vol 2, Iss 2, 2007, R23-4) "Reckless Rites courageously reassesses the historical interpretation of Jewish violence...It is essential reading for scholars and students of Jewish-Christian relations." (and lots of other positive things). Also, a measure of the poor state of this article is that what Nishidani wrote, and cited to Reckless Rites, is just what Strategos reported in his chronicle. It is at least honest, compared to the misleading whitewash you reverted to. Nevertheless, an honest report of what Strategos claimed should be accompanied by a few sentences noting the continuing controversy about his account. Horowitz kindly summarised it for us in his 21-page extensively documented paper on this subject in Jewish Social Studies. 1998. Vol. 4, Iss. 2, pp. 1–21. Zero^talk 12:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I reverted to your version not "the previous crap". Why are you so aggressive? Why the language? I will check the sources before I add. Should we request discussion if Reckless Rites is neutral? --Historian2 (talk) 12:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I've done a further edit, and had a EC with historian2 who posted a POV tag. I don't think it's necessary now. Though personal beliefs don't count, I don't trust medieval or ancient sources when they talk of numbers killed, carried away etc. They should be registered but with the due cautions from the scholarly literature. Uncannily, the figures are always "round". So you get the massively inflated figures from Josephus frequently repeated on wikipedia (Siege of Jerusalem, First Jewish–Roman War etc. without noting that modern scholarship regards the figure of 1,100,000 (and 97,000 captives) as a gross exaggeration, almost doubling the figure given by Tacitus, which itself is probably way too high. Nishidani (talk) 13:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I claim that Reckless Rites is revisionist, as the book introduction itself claims, and as such should either be identified as such or removed --Historian2 (talk) 14:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The book "Blood Libel" p 114. by Hannah R. Johnson lists "Reckless Rites" as a historical revisionism.

Nonsense. 'Revisionist' either means a negationist world view, challenging an accepted mainstream truth,' or a cliché misused to describe an absolutely normal process in any field of research, i.e. the revision or interpretation of evidence whose results challenge or supercede an established paradigm. ThThis is exactly what is required of any Phd work in the humanities. In the latter sense, like 90% of good scholarship, what we read there is an example of Historical revisionism, which means it a fresh look at any old argument, and that is a different kettle of fish from negationism. Nishidani (talk) 15:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for challenges to mainstream view to be presented as mainstream views. --Historian2 (talk) 15:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

If it is mainstream you should not have trouble replacing it with another source. --Historian2 (talk) 15:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)