Talk:Matzevah

Problems with this article

1. Citation style - see WP:CITE.

2. Unclear references. Isn't there a better way of expressing "Yalkut Shimoni Mikha 552"?

3. "The specific location[2] at which the biblical narrative of Jacob is said to have converged, is the site of the sacrifice of Isaac, which is ancient Jerusalem[3][4] that Jacob named Bethel or Beit El." What does that mean? Converged? In any case it states it as fact in Wikipedia's own voice. It needs to be attributed.

4. Source not backing statement. "'. Comments attributed to Eli Shukron indicate the soft land fill[1] may have been purposely placed to bury and preserve the upper ridge, protecting it and the relatively delicate matzevah from the multiple marauding attacks on the ancient city of Jerusalem over thousands of years." That's attributed to this article. Where is it in the article? Dougweller (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

_

1. Reading up requirements... 2. Yalkut Shimoni Mikha 552 can be Yalkut 552 and link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yalkut_Shimoni 3. "converged" could be changed to "occurred" and attributed to "Rashi" - Genesis 28–32 ISBN 0-89906-026-9. 4. "the rooms appear to have been filled with rubble to support the construction of a defensive wall." Statements by Shukron have further indicated part of the rubble as "soft land fill"

Copytopic1 (talk) 22:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Copytopic1, thanks. I don't know where Shukron mentioned soft land fill, but I'm sure he doesn't say "may have been purposely placed to bury and preserve the upper ridge, protecting it and the relatively delicate matzevah from the multiple marauding attacks on the ancient city of Jerusalem over thousands of years." - Where does that come from? You are also using a blog as a source, please red WP:RS about blogs. I don't think Kevin Bermeister is considered an expert on archaeology. Also, what sources meeting our criteria discuss this matzevah in conjunction with Isaac? Without such sources this is original research. Dougweller (talk) 12:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

-

Dougweller, I'll try locate the soft fill reference. The article at ref<1> states "Ceramic shards found in the rooms indicate they were last used around 800 B.C., with Jerusalem under the rule of Judean kings, the dig's archaeologists say. At around that time, the rooms appear to have been filled with rubble to support the construction of a defensive wall." The statement implies Judean Kings covered the room for a defensive purpose; a wall built to withstand attack. The fill from the excavated rooms protected the matzevah (referred as " a stone like a modern grave marker") found in that space. The matzevah survived intact unlike any other fixed artifact at any dig at the City of David. The article attributes Isaac at Mount Moriah not to this matzevah, but is supported by Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer (chapter 35), Rashi Gen 22:3,4,9,14/28:11 and other sources conveniently http://www.torah-study-for-women.org/articles19.htm

Copytopic1 (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Shibolet Nehrd, 9/16/2020: The page seems to be talking about 2 distinct (albeit related) subjects. We should split it into two separate pages.

More than 7 years after Dougweller's and Copytopic1's remarks. This article should never have made it out of its sandbox: it's fixated on one example and ignores everything else, is undersourced, divagates into niche topics, some sentences make no sense (poor English or poor logic?), etc., etc., etc.... A prime example of how NOT to write an encyclopedia article – and nobody picked up the challenge to try and rescue the topic. What has happened here? Arminden (talk) 01:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Weird & apparently wrong citation

What I found in the article:

The matzevah is located on the bedrock of a high ridge in which various [http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=5445&mag_id=120 archaeological] features in adjacent rooms are carved out of the natural bedrock.

• The word "archaeological" by itself was referenced to a Hadashot Arkheologiyot (HA-ESI) article, which makes absolutely no sense.
• The HA-ESI article seems to be unrelated to the topic, as it deals with a later dig of an area on the slope, not on the ridge, and it mentions neither the matzevah, nor any "features in adjacent rooms carved out of the bedrock", just some "steep bedrock steps".

Here are the details of the HA-ESI article, in case anyone figures out a reason to somehow use it:

<ref name=HAESI>{{cite journal |last= Shukron |first= Eli |last2= Uziel |first2= Joe |last3= Szanton |first3= Nahshon |title= Jerusalem, City of David: Preliminary Report |journal=[[Hadashot Arkheologiyot]] |publisher=[[Israel Antiquities Authority]] |date= 31/12/2013 |volume= 125 |url= http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=5445&mag_id=120 |access-date=17 January 2022}}</ref> Arminden (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wacko theory, or just poorly written with something worth salvaging?

I have removed the following, which is obvious OR, fringe at best, incongruously written - and unsourced (marked as such since 2018). If anyone knows if there's any bit of sound science behind this, maybe you want to salvage what's worth salvaging. Maybe Ronny Reich or Eli Shukron has smth on it? Is it even a standing stone? 3 cm thick...?!
- * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - *

Archaeological prototype in Jerusalem

Matzevah on the high ridge above and west of the Gihon Spring. Approximately (W)70cm (H)30cm (D)2cm

The oldest remaining example of a standing matzevah exists in Jerusalem. The Middle Bronze Age excavation was led by archaeologists Ronny Reich and Eli Shukron at the time of its discovery in 2009. The matzevah is located on the bedrock of a high ridge in which various archaeological features in adjacent rooms are carved out of the natural bedrock.

The construction is a single erect slab (approximately 2–3 cm thick), erected between rocks that are tightly held together by some as yet unknown construction. This matzevah does not mark a grave site, instead site indications suggest the area was used for sacrificial purposes. Features include an olive and grain press as well as platforms for animal sacrifice and supported by the discovery of large quantities of animal bones in the deep cisterns and pools immediately below the upper ridge.

Location

The eastern slopes of the City of David have been associated with the work of archaeologists Kathleen Kenyon and Eilat Mazar referred to as the Millo, roughly translated as a 'land fill'. Comments attributed to Eli Shukron indicate the soft land fill may have been purposely placed to bury and preserve the upper ridge, protecting it and the relatively delicate matzevah from the multiple marauding attacks on the ancient city of Jerusalem over thousands of years. The area was mapped during the 1909 expedition of Montagu Brownlow Parker, 5th Earl of Morley.

The matzevah is located on the high ridge on neck of the mountain thought to be Mount Moriah on which the biblical accounts of the grandfather, father and son trilogy Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are often said to have taken place. The specific location at which the biblical narrative of Jacob is said to have converged is the site of the sacrifice of Isaac (the biblical "land of Moriah"), which is traditionally identified with Mount Moriah is ancient Jerusalem.

References

- * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - *
Arminden (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Biblical vs. later Hebrew?

@Nishidani and Davidbena: specialists to the rescue! Hi to you both, and sorry to bother, but I'm stuck.

Oxford reference books clearly favour masseba, while authors more oriented toward rabbinical literature prefer matzevah. I have seen it time and again, both the couples s – tz and b – v (Abib - Aviv etc.). I see that the latter is explained under Betacism#Hebrew, although as a non-linguist I don't understand much of the special signs and terminology, which leaves me perplexed when dealing with any concrete case (when is which the appropriate option?). I understand even less of the ss-tz relationship, possibly explained at Hebrew language#Phonology, an even more impenetrable article to me w/o a very long & sustained effort (when did the tz come in? When was it used, and in which contexts is it to be preferred?). That's a bad mark not just for me, but also for Wikipedia. Forces me try to figure it out by myself, and to think that it might have something to do with the Christian transmission of the Bible through Greek, going through two sets of changes – once by adaptation to that language, and again through Greek's own sound shifts (Betacism#Greek etc.). But guessing is not knowing, and we have here an article where the Chabad source only uses "matze[i]vah", while almost all the Oxford sources are using "masseba". What to do? Any guidelines? Thank you! Cheers, Arminden (talk) 00:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Your question involves two Hebrew consonants, the first being צ‎ = ṣadi or tzadi, which has a sibilant phonetic sound unlike anything equivalent in the English language, almost between an "sh"-sound and a regular "s"-sound, and which in old forms of transliteration have often taken on the English "z", or "tz", or even sometimes "ts." Among European Jews, this sound was rather difficult to make, and, therefore, it is traditionally substituted with "tz". Among Oriental Jews, the sound was a hard "s"-sound, similar to the way in which the Arabs will pronounce their ṣād (ﺹ). In standard works of academia, they now write "ṣ" for the sound of צ‎. As for the second consonant, it is the sound of ב‎ = bet, but without the dot, meaning, the non-accentuated bet, and which has the equivalent English sound of "v". In older Hebrew to English transliterations, they made no distinction between the bet with a dot, and the bet without the dot, in all cases writing simply "b". However, this is not true to the original source.Davidbena (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

​David, grazie mille, todah rabah! I came across a similar sound re. Indian/Ceylonese sri, so I think I know what you mean. I guess z and tz are rooted in German influence, as Wellhausen & Co. were pioneers in picking the Bible apart scientifically. Tz is also great for Yiddish-speaking traditionalists like the very active Chabad people, who are such a convenient, but far less than reliable, online source. What I'm not yet sure: are you describing the Masoretic point of view, or that of the academia? I'd be surprised if they coincided. It must be very hard to reconstruct phonology 2, 3 millennia old or older better than the Masoretes did, who were closer in time by a good 1000 years, but I did come across a case where the linguists did improve on ben Asher, so the question is valid.

As to the name of the article: you seem to suggest that masseba would come closest? Chabad have their own websites, Wiki doesn't need to appease them. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 01:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

When it comes down to spelling, we should assay to represent traditional spellings as they are found in reliable sources, even if they are not always phonetically correct. I see no problem with having both transliterations, since both are used to describe the Hebrew word מצבה‎. As for the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible, the Masoretes simply added the vowels to the texts, which are basically the same used in our standard Hebrew vocabulary and in Modern Hebrew. The only difference being in how scholars throughout the ages have transliterated the Hebrew characters צ‎, ח‎, and the six double-sounding consonants (e.g. בג"ד כפ"ת‎). Acadamia follows a device invented in Germany, which gives distinct symbols for each of these sounds, including such symbols as [š] for the "sh"-sound, as in shalom; and [Ḥ] for the guttural "h"-sound in Hanukkah/Chanukah, etc. :Davidbena (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank the tetragrammaton we have our erudite David on line for such intricacies. I’m the last mailman to call on such a thing, to make a bad pun (davar), what the Japanese call an old man’s gag. (親父ギャグおやじギャグ-oyajigyagu). All I can say as a general consideration is if one holds the premise transcription of the Tanakh must represent the original authors’ pronunciation, that would open up a can of worms. As you both know, the Masoretic pointing arose at least a millenium after the unpointed text was written: its great virtue is regularity, and its defect is that the phonology reflects the way the Masoretic masters pronounced it much later, ignoring also that a sacred text recited and written down over an equally long timespan in antiquity, while in transcription employing the same orthographic symbols, would have necessarily represented as identical words that, over that period, had among their speakers in standard or dialect forms of ancient Hebrew, different phonological properties. But that is simple compared to the different community traditions of pronunciation handed down the same text due to geolocal variations. It’s one more example of one of the great things of Jewish culture, the dazzling indeterminacy that hangs over crucial aspects of a tradition that is so exuberantly varied. I always find that, in a world that drifts into orthodoxy out of either complacency or the comforts of simplicity, germinal for an instinct for broad creative margins, tolerance of diversity, without which democracies die on their feet. Cheers. Anyone got a gag? I should shut up, else people will gag on my goy garrulousness.Nishidani (talk) 12:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

​David, that nails it, thanks. I guess the Google Books balance or a similar criterion can be used here too for choosing the better recognisable title for the article, while offering the alternate spelling both in the lead and as a redirect. In the case of masseba/matzevah, the former is clearly in the lead. I also take it from your great, concise presentation that the German tz is quite remote from the half-sh, half-s of Biblical ṣadi, definitely further off than a plain s. I guess that's why most scholars have went for the ṣ, or in a more pragmatic way, for the ss, and so shall we: so masseba. This being only applicable here, where the topic is a term from the Hebrew Bible also adopted by archaeologists, rather than an often used word from Modern Hebrew, where the Ashkenazi pronunciation would probably take precedence. Do you agree? Thank you!

Nishidani, goy garrulousness?! The stereotypes spread by you-know-who were "jüdische Geschwätzigkeit" and "jüdische Hast", and not their opposite. I've pinged you for a reason, and that's you being a linguist with a wider view of language variation and academic conventions in general, but well-informed regarding Jewish culture(s). Even when writing a biography, it's wise to collect many people's view of the man described, rather than only ask him about his own self-image. He'd still be the best specialist on the topic, but might miss some essential contextual points. So thanks for your input! Arminden (talk) 13:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Nishidani: is correct. The manuscripts discovered among the Dead Sea scrolls (written 1,000 years before the earliest Masoretic texts) prove that there were variant texts being used by the people (variæ lectiones), some words written in plene or defective scriptum, while other words of a text omitted altogether. Based on the Greek translation (Septuagint) alone, it can be ascertained without a doubt that, with some some Hebrew words found in the vorlage, they were being read with a different vowel arrangement or sequence, ultimately producing a different meaning for that word altogether than what has been transmitted to us in the Masoretic texts (MT) and their sequence of vowels. Still, the Sages of Israel seem to have authorised the MT as being the most accurate.Davidbena (talk) 15:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

... and there's the crux of the matter: I'm not the only one who prefers, say, the Hebrew U over the Sages of Israel. Or am I? Arminden (talk) 11:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Zhomron, Doug Weller, Nishidani, Davidbena, and Sm8900: We're back at the starting point.

Name

I have put quite some work into this article, and have done the due research. The result, as I have written above, is that:

Oxford reference books clearly favour masseba, while authors more oriented toward rabbinical literature prefer matzevah.

The tendency (and maybe the rule) on Wiki is to name articles after the most recognisable form of the term at hand. In English, this is clearly masseba.

Sacred pillar

As one can clearly see when going through academic articles and related material, masseba means sacred pillar/stone, not just pillar, as in a building or other use of vertical architectural support elements. At the latest, if one goes through the huge range of English Bible translations of the Hebrew Bible on BibleHub, where the Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB) version preserves the Hebrew term matzebot while all others translate it, it become overly clear that a large number of those very considerate translations, especially the more descriptive, analytical ones, have qualified matzevah as meaning sacred stone or pillar, not just pillar.

Considering all this, I don't see why these two obvious points need to be reverted over and over again. Once it's been discussed here, again, let's please do the obvious and name the article "Masseba", and add "sacred" to 'pillar'. Thanks.

Sources

Here a couple of sources and notes which can be added, with many more out there (anyone can expand the list, I've done my share by now).

Note: compare the Orthodox Jewish Bible translation of the Hebrew Bible, where the original Hebrew term matzebot is preserved, with the other English translations listed by Bible Hub, where following equivalent English terms are used:

See here on Exodus 34:13 (NKJV has "But you shall destroy their altars, break their sacred pillars, and cut down their wooden images."): "pillars", "sacred pillars", "standing pillars", "[sacred] pillars (obelisks, images) ", "sacred stone pillars", "phallic pillars", "standing-stones", "sacred memorial stones", "sacred stones", "stones they worship", "memorial stones", "images", etc.

See here on 2 Kings 18:4 (NKJV has "He (Hezekiah) removed the high places and broke the sacred pillars..."): "pillars", "sacred pillars", "holy pillars", "stone pillars", "standing-pillars", "stone pillars they worshiped", "standing-stones", "sacred stones", "sacred memorial stones", "phallic stone monuments", "memorial stones", "statues", "obelisks", "images", "images (memorial stones)".

Sources

<ref name=Parker>{{cite book |last= Parker |first= Samuel |author-link= Samuel Parker (writer) |last2= Haywood |first2= Thomas |title= Occasional Annotation XXX: The Pillar of Jacob. Upon Ch. 27. V. 18. |year= 1720 |page= 606 |work= Bibliotheca Biblica: Being a Commentary Upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament |publisher= Theater, for William and John Innys, at the Prince's Arms, London |location= Oxford |volume= I. On the Book of Genesis. Part II. |chapter-url= https://books.google.com/books?id=GuJDAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA606 |access-date= 26 May 2022}}</ref>

<ref name=Millgram>{{cite book |last= Millgram |first= Hillel I. |title= Judges and Saviors, Deborah and Samson: Reflections of a World in Chaos |year= 2018 |page= 213, n. 41 |editor-last= |editor-first= |work= |publisher=[[Rowman & Littlefield[[ |isbn= 0761869905 |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=xUdODwAAQBAJ&pg=PA213 |access-date= 26 May 2022}}</ref>

Arminden (talk) 07:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Page title

I tried to move to common name Massebah, but there was some kind of conflict. If you agree the move should be made, please do it for us. Temerarius (talk) 03:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

The obstacle is called a redirect. Whoever types in masseba or massebah, lands here. So no need for move, which might be controversial anyway. Arminden (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)