Talk:Timeline of Jerusalem

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Overview of Jerusalem's historical periods[edit]

Hi, Can any one change the color for Israel - Jordan period from blue to bleue and green or a neutral color. From here and every where the overview exists? --Helmoony (talk) 22:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That looks fine. However, I'm wondering whether there is some significance intended by the color scheme. The colors seem random, with some adjoining periods being the same color, which I find a bit irritating. • Astynax talk 17:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yellow - pagan, blue - jewish, green - muslim, red - christian. Poliocretes (talk) 20:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to insert bleue and green at the same place. But it seems complicated. Can you change the way template is configured to allow adding 2 colors at the same time. That would probably be more comprehensive for readers. --Helmoony (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's another solution, you know. You can change the "Israel and Jordan" label to "Jordan" alone, paint it green, while extending the Israel bar back to 1948 so that the two overlap until 1967. Poliocretes (talk) 20:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation. Actually, there is quite a bit of overlap which should probably be shown, especially when the city was under some degree of outside overlordship. During at least some of those periods, the outside power did little or nothing to change the character of the city and left it to operate with minimal oversight—e.g., under the Egyptians, Assyrians, Persians, Romans (until 70CE). I've inserted a few of those instances, but I also wish there were a simple way to insert multiple colors and/or breaks on a bar so we don't need things like 2 "Roman Empire" bars. • Astynax talk 23:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Astynax, please could you let us know the evidence for (1) your statement "During at least some of those periods, the outside power did little or nothing to change the character of the city and left it to operate with minimal oversight—e.g., under the Egyptians, Assyrians, Persians, Romans (until 70CE)"; and (2) your implicit assumption to justify your changes to the chart that the majority of the city's population were adherants to the Jewish religion during these overlap periods? I believe you are assuming that this is that case on the basis that there is no information to the contrary, but without a meaningful and clear source proving these points your changes do not reflect encyclopedic accuracy.Oncenawhile (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jerusalem remained under native leaders during the periods indicated with only loose and/or periodic vassalage to the hegemonic powers. That is by far the majority consensus of historians, ancient sources and archaeology. During the periods of overlap, there was no influx of a new population or culture, and little (if any) change to local control, e.g., to indicate that Jerusalem was in any sense "Assyrian" during the period of neo-Assyrian hegemony is misleading and completely inaccurate. Regardless, the response from other editors and/or myself to what I assume is a challenge for sources—and there is much which needs improved on that score—should be directed to the body of the timeline article, not the bar graph. • Astynax talk 16:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Astynax, that doesn't answer my question. This is a timeline of the periods of the city as defined by its controlling powers. Anything more will surely become too complex and open to interpretation, but happy to try to make it work. To the end, can you please provide some evidence to verify your strongly held beliefs regarding the ancient population of the city? This evidence should be independent. For example, can you provide ONE non-biblical original source suggesting that the majority of the population of Jerusalem were adherents to the Jewish faith during either the neo-Assyrian and/or post-Exilic periods? Oncenawhile (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, you mentioned the term "native leaders" above - I presume you were not referring to the Jebusites?! Oncenawhile (talk) 20:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"This is a timeline of the periods of the city as defined by its controlling powers." I see nothing to indicate that in the article, nor would the timeline chart be accurate were that the case. As far as ancient sources, see Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, X, 1 (based upon an earlier account by the Babylonian Berosus). Also note that the corresponding incident from this period describing an independent Judahite kingdom based at Jerusalem is found on the Taylor prism (where Sennacharib boasts of overcoming independent Judahite forces and isolating Hezekiah in Jerusalem, but only manages to exact tribute), and the Hebrew Siloam inscription attests to a Hebrew-speaking population. In the same vein of archaeological evidence, there have been many Hebrew ostraca and bullae published (many of the latter of which bear Judahite royal seals) which date to the neo-Assyrian period (for which see Robert Deutsch. 1997. Messages from the Past: Hebrew Bullae from the Time of Isaiah Through the Destruction of the First Temple. Tel Aviv, Israel: Archaeological Center Publications. ISBN 9659024037; Shoham, Y. "Hebrew Bullae from the City of David" in Eretz Israel, vol. 26, 1999. ISSN 0071-108X; Robert Deutsch. "Lasting Impressions" in Biblical Archaeology Review, vol. 28, no. 4, July/August 2002, pp. 42–51, 60. ISSN 0098-9444; among many others.). For something giving the consensus view, see Steiner, M. L. 2001. Excavations by Kathleen M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961-1967: The Settlement in the Bronze and Iron Ages, vol. 3. London: Sheffield Academic Press, Ltd. ISBN 1841272140 or most other works which deal with Jerusalem during the period.
During the period of Egyptian hegemony, native Canaanite kings ruled Jerusalem during at least parts of this period. At other times, Egypt seems to have maintained more direct control. I've seen several conjectures as to when a people called "Jebusites" took control, if they were distinct from the larger Canaanite culture at all. • Astynax talk 02:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Astynax, apologies but that does not answer the core question. I'll try to answer each point in turn: (1) Assyrian Siege of Jerusalem - the secular view of this incident suggests that the Assyrians attacked and exacted tribute from the city. This behaviour was of course the standard neo-Assyrian behaviour - although they destroyed or deported rebellious cities, exacting tribute and controlling tax-paying cities was the goal of ancient empire-building. What is certain is that Jerusalem became a formal vassal of the neo-Assyrians - this is even confirmed in biblical sources such as "2 Chronicles 33", in which the subsequent Jewish leader in Jerusalem was taken in chains by the Assyrian army to Babylon. (2) Hebrew writings during 722-586BC: The sources you refer to attest to the fact that Hebrew was written in Jerusalem at the time - this is an undisputed fact, but is not relevant. It is clear that Jerusalem was under the suzerainty of the neo-Assyrians but with some domestic autonomy as per every other city in the Neo-Assyrian Empire - the real question we are trying to answer re your edits to this part of the timeline is whether the House of David was equally as relevant during this period. To my mind that depends on whether the population of the city was majority Jewish - you have not provided any sources for this either way. However, the bible suggests that there was a sizeable non-Jewish population in the city during this period, particularly during the times of Manasseh and Amon who ruled in total for around half the period in question, since Chronicles, Kings and Zephaniah all record that they installed statues of Ba'al and other non-Jewish gods in the temple during this period. (3) Consensus view - please could you confirm exactly what relevant information is contained within these sources with respect to this discussion?; (4) Post-exilic period - please could you provide information to substantiate your position regarding this period as well? Oncenawhile (talk) 15:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a legend to the graphic which provides an explanation of what the colors signify, as best I can determine the intent of the original creator of the timeline. The graphic's properties can be edited here, but be careful as you must carefully following editing syntax described here. Depaderico (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oncenawhile, payment of tribute did not make Judah a part of the Assyrian Empire. Sennacherib failed in his attempt to conquer Jerusalem and abandoned his mission. The kings of Judah DID at times have to pay tribute to Assyria (and Egypt) in order to maintain its independence unmolested, but that does not mean that it was governed or occupied by the Assyrians, who pursued very comprehensive and extreme policies in the territories that they DID rule. Jacob D (talk) 11:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)Jacob D[reply]

WikiProject Military History[edit]

I re-assessed WikiProject Military History because it did not recognise the class as being "List". So I changed it being a "Start" class. No bad intentions was made to cause conflict with the "Class" section, it simply did not appear as being assessed. Adamdaley (talk) 01:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:OttomanEmpireIn1683.png Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:OttomanEmpireIn1683.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On Bassus occupying Jerusalem[edit]

User:Oncenawhile insists "Jerusalem and Judea is recaptured by the Roman general Publius Ventidius Bassus after Pacorus I of Parthia is killed at the Battle of Mount Gindarus.". This:Herod: king of the Jews and friend of the Romans By Peter Richardson is his reference. I have removed this, as it obfuscates actual events and replaces them with generalities. At no point does the reference say that Bassus occupied Jerusalem, or had in fact gone anywhere near it. The Parthians had installed Antigonus and then retreated from Judea (ref here, p. 5. Bassus had indeed beat the Parthians and killed their king, rolling back their conquests, but he had campaigned in Syria, not Judea. That was left to Herod and his Roman reinforcements. This is actually made abundantly clear in Oncenawhile's reference itself when it says of Brassus' that his story "runs slightly ahead of the story of Herod" (p. 121), and actually spelled outright in pages 156-160. Poliocretes (talk) 10:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi P, understood - you have a better knowledge of this that me (i was impressed by your new article on the 37bce siege by the way). What I am keen to get in there is exactly when the Parthians lost power (after Pacorus was killed), when the Romans retook power (?) and whether there was any period in between. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
pacorus Jerusalem&f=false This source seems to explain it. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I took your advice and read my references. Having now educated myself more thoroughly on the details I have tried be helpful with a few clarifications on your new article re 37 BCE. I'll also make this one clearer too. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just realised I can't amend it just yet under 1RR. I would propose we amend as follows:
OLD
NEW
Oncenawhile (talk) 13:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is the Jerusalem timeline. It's not about Hasmoneans/Herod/Romans/Parthians, and it isn't even a detailed history of Jerusalem. All these details do not belong here. Antipater and Phasael are not very important, nor are the details of the Roman campaign against the Parthians. These belong in dedicated articles. This should suffice (I've bolded my additions):
Poliocretes (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline key[edit]

What do all these colors mean? Can we get a key? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.13.35.53 (talk) 07:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a key is necessary. --Philpill691 (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dates[edit]

Is it intentional that the dates up to 350 BCE are marked "BCE" and then change to "BC" afterward? It's also strange that some dates after 0 (apparently randomly) are marked "CE" and some are not. -LesPaul75talk 16:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a matter of different editors having used their own styles without regard to consistency. After the turn of the era, it is usual to only use CE (or AD for those following the Dionysian abbreviations) only for the first 100 years, or consistently when a chapter or section covers a period that spans both BCE and CE. The Manual of Style governing usage is intentionally a bit flexible, though it does want consistent use within an article. I've made some adjustments. • Astynax talk 17:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem lead RfC[edit]

There is currently a request for comments open about the lead section of the Jerusalem article, and all editors are welcome to give their opinions. The dispute over the lead section is one of the oldest on Wikipedia, dating back to 2003, and focuses on whether or not it is neutral to say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. The discussion was mandated by the Arbitration Committee, and its result will be binding for three years. The discussion is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem, and will be open until 22 June 2013 (UTC). — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Timeline of Jerusalem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference needed on statement "1054: Great Schism – the Patriarch of Jerusalem joined the Eastern Orthodox Church, ... Jerusalem, setting in place a key cause of the Crusades[edit]

Regarding the 1054 time statement below 

   "1054: Great Schism – the Patriarch of Jerusalem joined the Eastern Orthodox Church, under the jurisdiction of Constantinople. All Christians in the Holy Land came under the jurisdiction of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem, setting in place a key cause of the Crusades"

  It seems confusing as stated in this brief statement and could be worded better to not give the illusion that the split set up 'a key' cause of the Crusades. The area was under attack and jurisdiction of Muslim invaders so the key cause was to 'take back and help the Byzantine's in their effort. I suggest leaving off the setting in place part or improve the wording.

With a little research one can make the statement clearer to understand cause and effect. 

The Byzantine emperor asked the Christians in Europe to help protect his empire from the Turks. In 1095, Pope Urban II called for a crusade against the Muslims to regain control of Jerusalem.
mrkash.com/activities/crusades.html

AND 

  Turks had been making constant advances in the East, and were now threatening Constantinople itself. The Greek emperor (Alexius Comnenus) sent urgent letters to the Pope, asking for aid against the infidels, representing that, unless assistance was extended immediately, the capital with all its holy relics must soon fall into the hands of the barbarians.

Cause of the Crusades - Pope Urban II & the Council of Clermont Pope Urban II called a great council of the Church at Placentia, in Italy, to consider the appeal (1095), but nothing was effected. Later in the same year a new council was convened at Clermont, in France, Pope Urban purposely fixing the place of meeting among the warm tempered and martial Franks. Pope Urban II himself was one of the chief speakers. He was naturally eloquent, so that the man, the cause, and the occasion all conspired to achieve one of the greatest triumphs of human oratory. Pope Urban II pictured the humiliation and misery of the provinces of Asia; the profanation of the places made sacred by the presence and footsteps of the Son of God. Pope Urban II then detailed the conquests of the Turks, until now, with all Asia Minor in their possession, they were threatening Europe from the shores of the Hellespont. Cause of the Crusades The reason and cause of the crusades was a war between Christians and Moslems which centered around the city of Jerusalem and the Holy places of Palestine. The City of Jerusalem held a Holy significance to the Christian religion. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem commemorated the hill of crucifixion and the tomb of Christ's burial. Pilgrims throughout the Middle Ages made sacred pilgrimages to the Holy city of Jerusalem and the church. Although the city of Jerusalem was held by the Saracens the Christian pilgrims had been granted safe passage to visit the Holy city. In 1065 Jerusalem was taken by the Turks, who came from the kingdom of ancient Persia. 3000 Christians were massacred and the remaining Christians were treated so badly that throughout Christendom people were stirred to fight in crusades. These actions aroused a storm of indignation throughout Europe and awakened the desire to rescue the Holy Land from the grasp of the "infidel."


http://www.lordsandladies.org/cause-of-crusades.htm 

   Therefore I do not see the split as a 'reason' or key cause for the crusades but a factor in facilitating the fight against the regaining of the disputed territory to the Christian (all) people ( and Jews ) where they we banned from Holy places. Again,  I suggest leaving off the setting in place part or improve the wording.

204.14.99.46 (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Date formats[edit]

Before I start 3RRing, I thought I'd step in here for a moment. This article is (was) formatted with CE/BCE style dates. Per MOS:ERA, this is fine and should be left alone unless there's some compelling reason to change it. User:Alex.boyd40 has already changed this to AD/BC a couple of times without explanation, though I suspect there's some POV issue there, so I'm looking to see whether there's any consensus on this issue. My personal feeling is that CE/BCE is just fine. PepperBeast (talk) 02:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Timeline of Jerusalem. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Believe is not a valid reference[edit]

The subject page contains following entries:

  • 28–30 CE: Three-year Ministry of Jesus, during which according to the bible a number of key events took place in Jerusalem, including:
  • 30 CE: Key events in the martyrdom of Jesus which according to the bible took place in Jerusalem.

This needs rework: For example the ascension is no valid entry here. The cruxification certainly is an important event, and a fact, but what's with the date? In any case, references are needed. Tomdo08 (talk) 03:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Some of the lines above could simply be deleted, but what's with "Meeting with Nicodemus"? Is this confirmed by an independent source? Is it important? Tomdo08 (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

This section is not about the references section in the subject page: There are references in this talk page; without putting the reflist into a separate chapter, it looks like they belong to the random chapter which happens to be the last.

  1. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference armstrong was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference sicker was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Herod: king of the Jews and friend of the Romans By Peter Richardson
  4. ^ a b Mark Antony, a biography By Eleanor Goltz Huzar

Jerusalem was not part of the neo-Assyrian Empire. Timeline should be corrected.[edit]

The timeline of Jerusalem's history on the Jerusalem article implies that Jerusalem was part of the neo-Assyrian Empire. The Neo Assyrian Empire did not rule in Jerusalem. In fact, it failed to conquer or occupy Jerusalem at all.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Assyrian_Empire
Jerusalem remained under the control of the Kingdom of Judah until its destruction at the hands of neo-Babylonian Empire in 586 CE. The fact that Judean kings at times were required to paid tribute to Assyria and Egypt does not entail that Judah was part of their Empire. When Assyria conquered the northern Kingdom of Israel, it not only incorporated and governed the territory as "provinces" of the Assyrian Empire, it put in place its policies of population deportation and exchange. No such policies were pursued in the southern Kingdom of Judah because the territory was not under Assyrian rule or at Assyria's disposal to do as it pleased. The implication that Jerusalem was somehow on par with the conquered territories of the north as part and parcel of the Assyrian Empire is misleading and false.
Also the timeline fails to account for the Jerusalem's rule under the Herodian kingdom of Judaea (63 BCE - 4 BCE) and tetrarchy of Judaea (4 BCE - 6 CE).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herodian_kingdom
Though technically a client kingdom of Rome, the Herodian kingdom did nevertheless retain a degree of political independence and was not formally incorporated into the Roman Empire at this time. The timeline should indicate the Herodian kingdom's rule in Jerusalem, either as a period in its own right, or concurrently with Roman rule.
Jacob D (talk) 11:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)Jacob D[reply]
See below exerpts from a secondary source explaining this in detail. The bolding is mine:
  • Crouch, C. L. (1 October 2014). Israel and the Assyrians: Deuteronomy, the Succession Treaty of Esarhaddon, and the Nature of Subversion. SBL Press. pp. 17–22. ISBN 978-1-62837-026-3. Judah's reason(s) for submitting to Assyrian hegemony, at least superficially, require explanation, while at the same time indications of its read-but-disguised resistance to Assyria must be uncovered... The political and military sprawl of the Assyrian empire during the late Iron Age in the southern Levant, especially toward its outer borders, is not quite akin to the single dominating hegemony envisioned by most discussions of hegemony and subversion. In the case of Judah it should be reiterated that Judah was always a vassal state, semi-autonomous and on the periphery of the imperial system, it was never a fully-integrated provincial territory. The implications of this distinction for Judah's relationship with and experience of the Assyrian empire should not be underestimated; studies of the expression of Assyria's cultural and political powers in its provincial territories and vassal states have revealed notable differences in the degree of active involvement in different types of territories. Indeed, the mechanics of the Assyrian empire were hardly designed for direct control over all its vassals' internal activities, provided that a vassal produced the requisite tribute and did not provoke trouble among its neighbors, the level of direct involvement from Assyria remained relatively low. For the entirety of its experience of the Assyrian empire, Judah functioned as a vassal state, rather than a province under direct Assyrian rule, thereby preserving at least a certain degree of autonomy, especially in its internal affairs. Meanwhile, the general atmosphere of Pax Assyriaca in the southern Levant minimized the necessity of (and opportunities for) external conflict. That Assyrians, at least in small numbers, were present in Judah is likely - probably a qipu and his entourage who, if the recent excavators of Ramat Rahel are correct, perhaps resided just outside the capital - but there is far less evidence than is commonly assumed to suggest that these left a direct impression of Assyria on this small vassal state... The point here is that, despite the wider context of Assyria's political and economic power in the ancient Near East in general and the southern Levant in particular, Judah remained a distinguishable and semi-independent southern Levantine state, part of but not subsumed by the Assyrian empire and, indeed, benefitting from it in significant ways.
Onceinawhile (talk) 12:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notwithstanding the rather broad definition defined here by the author of what constitutes the Assyrian Empire, and the low bar of what it meant to be part of that empire, a few salient remarks in the source you provided stand out.
"...but there is far less evidence than is commonly assumed to suggest that these left a direct impression of Assyria on this small vassal state"
"The point here is that, despite the wider context of Assyria's political and economic power in the ancient Near East in general and the southern Levant in particular, Judah remained a distinguishable and semi-independent southern Levantine state"
"it was never a fully-integrated provincial territory"
One can debate all day what were the limits of the autonomy or independence of the Judean state, but the fact of the matter is that the timeline of Jerusalem's history on the Jerusalem article (and on this one) is clearly misleading, showing the period of "Judah" ending around 700 BCE, and the "Neo-Assyrian" period beginning from there and continuing until the beginning of the "neo-Babylonian" period, as though the Kingdom of Judah no longer existed, as though Jerusalem were not a part of it, and as though Jerusalem was conquered from the Assyrian Empire by the Neo-Babylonian Empire and then by the Egyptian late dynasty and then again by the Neo-Babylonian Empire despite the fact that the final conquest of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 586 BCE was very obviously as a result of a prolonged war with Judah.
If, as you admit, Judah was "not subsumed by the Assyrian empire", then the timeline of Jerusalem's history article cannot present the Judah period as ending with the beginning of the neo-Assyrian period. It must be shown to continue up until the Nebuchadnezzar's conquest of Jerusalem in 586 BCE, either on its own, or concurrently with the neo-Assyrian, 1st neo-Babylonian, and Egyptian late dynasty periods.
Jacob D (talk) 13:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)Jacob D[reply]
The source is very clear that Judah was “part of” the Assyrian empire. That is because much of that empire was based on vassalage. The chart is simply showing which Empire Jerusalem was part of throughout its history. It is supposed to be clear and simple. The nuances you are talking about can be brought out in this article. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Oncenawhile:, that's not a "nuance"; the source you provided and other sources make a glaringly clear distinction between the Kingdom of Judah and those areas under direct control of the Assyrian Empire, which Judah wasn't. Once again..."The point here is that, despite the wider context of Assyria's political and economic power in the ancient Near East in general and the southern Levant in particular, Judah remained a distinguishable and semi-independent southern Levantine state."
https://books.google.co.il/books?id=n61YBQAAQBAJ&lpg=PA38&dq=assyrian%20empire%20judah%20vassal%20independent&pg=PA38#v=onepage&q=assyrian%20empire%20judah%20vassal%20independent&f=false
"By 722 B.C.E northern Israel had been overrun by Assyria and incorporated fully into its expanding empire. Judah remained nominally independent but in vassalage to Assyria, responsible for annual payment of tribute and support of military expeditions into the region."
Clearly the Assyrian Empire was not as a rule "based on vassalage", as clearly exhibited by the experience of neighboring areas under direct Assyrian rule, such as the former Kingdom of Israel, where not a shred of independence or autonomy was preserved,and the Assyrians deported existing populations and brought in new ones at will. That's not "vassalage", any more than the other large swathes of conquered territory under Assyrian control where Assyrians were free to execute their policies at will.
It appears you are attempting to justify what is for you a foregone conclusion by cherry-picking phrases that suit your thesis at the expense of others, while ignoring evidence that severely qualifies your conclusion, and then ensuring that it stands by the fact that the relevant timeline on the Jerusalem article is locked for editing.
The chart on the Jerusalem article does not purport to show only "which Empire Jerusalem was part of throughout its history" and nothing else. It just so happens that for most of its history Jerusalem was controlled by empires. However, the timeline also shows periods in which Jerusalem was controlled by an entity other than an empire. The Canaanite city states, the Jebusite city-states, and the Kingdom of Judah cannot exactly be called "empires". Moreoever, the "Hebrew or Jewish" period color-coded blue is shown to abruptly end with the rise of the Assyrian Empire's domination of the region in the late 8th century BCE, in spite of the fact that Jerusalem maintained a Judahite/Israelite king and court, military, Temple, and population until the destruction of the city by the Babylonians in 586 BCE....at which point the city entered an obviously new period in its history, and its character changed markedly and not in a "nuanced" way.
I see no reason why the chart cannot be presented in a kind of Gannt chart format, whereby two different entities are shown to exist in parallel during a certain time period during which both are directly relevant to the control and administration of Jerusalem.
Jacob D (talk) 12:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC)Jacob D[reply]
That would be an entirely different chart, and the extra complexity would need to be considered for all other time periods to ensure a consistent approach. You are very welcome to create a new chart along those lines in a new template. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Basilica of St Mary of Justinian[edit]

This is a reference to the Nea Church. It used to be thought that it was built on the Temple Mount but that theory has long been discarded by archaeologists. As with all sexy theories, it keeps coming back in poor sources, though. See that article. Zerotalk 02:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, it is simply false that Procopius wrote about Justinian building a basilica on the Temple Mount. What he wrote was that Justinian built a magnificent church in Jerusalem dedicated to Mary on a prominent hill and that locals called it the "New Church". Procopius did not identify the prominent hill but the accounts of pilgrims and the Madaba Map place it to the south of the Old City. Since 1970, archaeologists have identified with the remains of a large church excavated in the Jewish Quarter. It even has a dedication to Justinian. There are tons of strong references. Zerotalk 04:56, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

historical dating using the Bible as a source 38.79.172.128 (talk) 03:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Timeline_of_Jerusalem&oldid=1216452539"