This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article concludes that nothing serious happened to the christian population, only the jews were decimated and scattered as a result. I do not believe this. It is yet another example of how official modern historiography dominated by freemasonry and jews tries to vilify christianity and show jews as innocent victims. The article mentions historical sources that clearly say about decimation of the christian population but later it is said that they are 'exaggerated' and verified by later archeological discoveries. I believe this later 'verification' has been done by either freemasons or jews (or both). Thus I would like to report the abovementioned sections of the article as biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.0.125.171 ( talk) 21:15, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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 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, 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)
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)
Strategos is the main primary source for the events of 614, more contemporary and more detailed than any others. Most historians over the years have accepted the essentials of the story he told (not necessarily the numbers or other details). In recent decades, basically since historians started writing from a Zionist view of history, it became commonplace to deny any validity to Strategos' account or (even more commonly) to simply ignore it. Horowitz's approach consists of declining to ignore it and declining to dismiss it out of hand. It isn't revisionism but well within the normal bounds of scholarly debate. There is in fact no excuse whatever, not in Wikipedia policy or even in common sense, for us to suppress from our article an account of what the main primary source wrote. However, like I said, we should also summarize modern scholarly treatment of it. One good example from each "side" might well be sufficient. Find someone eminent to counterbalance Horowitz. Zero talk 23:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
The Sefer Zerubbabel says that Nehemiah ben Hushiel was killed in the fifth year which would be 619 during the month of Av (July - August). The Sefer Zerubbabel says that Nehemiah ben Hushiel thoroughly crushed corpse will be thrown down before the gates of Jerusalem. And 16 of the sixteen righteous shall be killed with him. Šērōy the king of Persia will attack and stab Nehemiah ben Hushiel and Israel. Problem is Kavadh II was king only during 628. He did make peace with Heraclius. Armilus then attacks. Armilus is thought to be a cryptogram for Heraclius.
http://books.google.com/books?id=5eB8rzNfcRwC&pg=PA108&lpg=PA108&dq=Armilus+Heraclius&source=bl&ots=_eQaJpQ-9f&sig=yewH9pFsX_vyob-BCUbbSzNvw40&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6bDQUtf6G4TIkAeev4AY&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Armilus%20Heraclius&f=false%7C title = Jewish Martyrs in the Pagan and Christian Worlds| year = 2006| accessdate = 2014-01-10 | publisher = Cambridge university press. Cambridge , New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, Sao Paulo}}
_______________________________________________________________________
A History of the Jewish People which is currently not used says three years or 617. Also says that in the spring of 622 CE. Heraclius started a campaign against Persia
______________________________________________________________________________
The Persian conquest of Jerusalem in 614 compared with Islamic conquest of 638 says several months. It cites Sebeos' History chapter 24
This is what Sebeos' History chapter 24 say that the Iranian kings Governor was killed and the Jews had to flee and jump from the walls after a Christian’s rebellion and that it took 19 day to retake the city. The battle date is given as 27th day of the month of Marg the 11th month of the Armenian calandar, corresponding to June in the 25th year of the reign of Xosrov Apruez 615.
After which Jerusalem was put to the sword 57,000 killed 35,000 taking into captivity. The Jews where then driven from the city and an archpriest named Modestos was put in charge.
http://rbedrosian.com/seb8.htm
Here is what I can online about Modestos. http://full-of-grace-and-truth.blogspot.com/2012/05/st-modestos-patriarch-of-jerusalem.htmlfind
So
1: When was Nehemiah ben Hushiel killed 615, 617 or 619
2: When was Jerusalem given back to the Christians 615, 617 or 619. All seem to coincide with Nehemiah ben Hushiel's death.
Jonney2000 ( talk) 09:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I have been searching through the literature and there exist significant amount of secondary sources with analysis. I see four problems currently.
1: There is too much overlap currently between the following articles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_revolt_against_Heraclius http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(614) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasanian-Jewish_commonwealth
2: Ben Abrahamson relies too directly on primary sources. He also adds his own interpretation and is not a historian.
3: The primary sources disagree sometimes even with themselves. The articles rely on a single primary source Antiochus' account while ignoring other primary sources like Sebeos. I plan to add a brief summary of each missing primary source to Siege of Jerusalem 614. Sebeos, Dionysius and the Sefer Zerubbabel including references to secondary sources.
4: The actual analysis I plan to rewrite using secondary sources. I have found several good ones.
This may take a while. The basic chronology and outline are currently correct. Jonney2000 ( talk) 22:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
per http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/content/XXV/XCIX.toc, the title of the article by Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare is "Antiochus Strategos' Account of the Sack of Jerusalem in A.D. 614" Frietjes ( talk) 17:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
This article is full of grammatical errors. Grammar matters; you can't just throw words together in any old order, and then claim they have a meaning. And people who can't or won't deal with grammar should refrain from editing encyclopaedia articles. Pretty please? Really - the standard of english on english WP is definitely getting worse.
SO I deleted this:
"Likewise Michael Avi-Yonah used the figure of Jewish combatants to arrive at an estimate of the total Jewish population. He gives a figure of 200,000 to 150,000 living in 43 Jewish settlements."
On a first glance, it looks as if it means something. But when you try to unpack it it falls apart, as if you were trying to grab handfuls of air.
1. He used the figure of Jewish combatants? What does that mean?
2. He gives a figure of 200,000 to 150,000? Is that a typo, or a mistake, or is the range 150,000 to 200,000? It's eccentric to give a range backwards. Is the combatants figure the same as the figure of 200,000 to 150,000, or are the figures referred to different figures? Are these figures supposed to be numbers? Numbers are not ranges - but nor are figures. If Michael gives a number, which number is it that he gives? We don't know, because there is no citation.
3. How is the "figure of Jewish combatants" used by Michael to arrive at his estimate? Is there someone other than combatants living in these 43 settlements? You would expect so, but it's such a bad sentence that it's not possible to even guess what the person that typed it might have had in their mind.
If it's not possible to work out what is meant by a sentence, then an article is going to be better without that sentence. Of course, if the statement is cited, then (in theory) I can follow the cited link, and work out what the words were originally supposed to mean. But if it's both uingrammatical AND not cited at all, then it's effectively gibberish - it is not susceptible to interpretation, even if effort is applied. In fact the presence of such sentences renders the entire article harder to read - they detract from other sentences, even if those other sentences are well-written, grammatical, meaningful and properly sourced. You have to put in effort to work out what is meant - and then you fail anyway => time and effort were wasted.
I am strongly in favour of deleting nonsense. Like dead code, marketing-speak and ground-elder, ungrammatical sentences make everything around them worse, and they need to be removed.
Long time since I had a good wiki-rant! Do let me know if you share my view that deleting stuff is often a good idea.
MrDemeanour ( talk) 13:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Very strange article, containing a lot of unreliable information. One can not rank Sefer Zerubabel, an apocalyptic fantasy, together with the historical accounts of Sebeos and Strategius, who didn't say a word about Jewish autonomy in Jerusalem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.143.213.225 ( talk) 13:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article concludes that nothing serious happened to the christian population, only the jews were decimated and scattered as a result. I do not believe this. It is yet another example of how official modern historiography dominated by freemasonry and jews tries to vilify christianity and show jews as innocent victims. The article mentions historical sources that clearly say about decimation of the christian population but later it is said that they are 'exaggerated' and verified by later archeological discoveries. I believe this later 'verification' has been done by either freemasons or jews (or both). Thus I would like to report the abovementioned sections of the article as biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.0.125.171 ( talk) 21:15, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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 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, 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)
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)
Strategos is the main primary source for the events of 614, more contemporary and more detailed than any others. Most historians over the years have accepted the essentials of the story he told (not necessarily the numbers or other details). In recent decades, basically since historians started writing from a Zionist view of history, it became commonplace to deny any validity to Strategos' account or (even more commonly) to simply ignore it. Horowitz's approach consists of declining to ignore it and declining to dismiss it out of hand. It isn't revisionism but well within the normal bounds of scholarly debate. There is in fact no excuse whatever, not in Wikipedia policy or even in common sense, for us to suppress from our article an account of what the main primary source wrote. However, like I said, we should also summarize modern scholarly treatment of it. One good example from each "side" might well be sufficient. Find someone eminent to counterbalance Horowitz. Zero talk 23:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
The Sefer Zerubbabel says that Nehemiah ben Hushiel was killed in the fifth year which would be 619 during the month of Av (July - August). The Sefer Zerubbabel says that Nehemiah ben Hushiel thoroughly crushed corpse will be thrown down before the gates of Jerusalem. And 16 of the sixteen righteous shall be killed with him. Šērōy the king of Persia will attack and stab Nehemiah ben Hushiel and Israel. Problem is Kavadh II was king only during 628. He did make peace with Heraclius. Armilus then attacks. Armilus is thought to be a cryptogram for Heraclius.
http://books.google.com/books?id=5eB8rzNfcRwC&pg=PA108&lpg=PA108&dq=Armilus+Heraclius&source=bl&ots=_eQaJpQ-9f&sig=yewH9pFsX_vyob-BCUbbSzNvw40&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6bDQUtf6G4TIkAeev4AY&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Armilus%20Heraclius&f=false%7C title = Jewish Martyrs in the Pagan and Christian Worlds| year = 2006| accessdate = 2014-01-10 | publisher = Cambridge university press. Cambridge , New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, Sao Paulo}}
_______________________________________________________________________
A History of the Jewish People which is currently not used says three years or 617. Also says that in the spring of 622 CE. Heraclius started a campaign against Persia
______________________________________________________________________________
The Persian conquest of Jerusalem in 614 compared with Islamic conquest of 638 says several months. It cites Sebeos' History chapter 24
This is what Sebeos' History chapter 24 say that the Iranian kings Governor was killed and the Jews had to flee and jump from the walls after a Christian’s rebellion and that it took 19 day to retake the city. The battle date is given as 27th day of the month of Marg the 11th month of the Armenian calandar, corresponding to June in the 25th year of the reign of Xosrov Apruez 615.
After which Jerusalem was put to the sword 57,000 killed 35,000 taking into captivity. The Jews where then driven from the city and an archpriest named Modestos was put in charge.
http://rbedrosian.com/seb8.htm
Here is what I can online about Modestos. http://full-of-grace-and-truth.blogspot.com/2012/05/st-modestos-patriarch-of-jerusalem.htmlfind
So
1: When was Nehemiah ben Hushiel killed 615, 617 or 619
2: When was Jerusalem given back to the Christians 615, 617 or 619. All seem to coincide with Nehemiah ben Hushiel's death.
Jonney2000 ( talk) 09:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I have been searching through the literature and there exist significant amount of secondary sources with analysis. I see four problems currently.
1: There is too much overlap currently between the following articles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_revolt_against_Heraclius http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(614) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasanian-Jewish_commonwealth
2: Ben Abrahamson relies too directly on primary sources. He also adds his own interpretation and is not a historian.
3: The primary sources disagree sometimes even with themselves. The articles rely on a single primary source Antiochus' account while ignoring other primary sources like Sebeos. I plan to add a brief summary of each missing primary source to Siege of Jerusalem 614. Sebeos, Dionysius and the Sefer Zerubbabel including references to secondary sources.
4: The actual analysis I plan to rewrite using secondary sources. I have found several good ones.
This may take a while. The basic chronology and outline are currently correct. Jonney2000 ( talk) 22:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
per http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/content/XXV/XCIX.toc, the title of the article by Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare is "Antiochus Strategos' Account of the Sack of Jerusalem in A.D. 614" Frietjes ( talk) 17:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
This article is full of grammatical errors. Grammar matters; you can't just throw words together in any old order, and then claim they have a meaning. And people who can't or won't deal with grammar should refrain from editing encyclopaedia articles. Pretty please? Really - the standard of english on english WP is definitely getting worse.
SO I deleted this:
"Likewise Michael Avi-Yonah used the figure of Jewish combatants to arrive at an estimate of the total Jewish population. He gives a figure of 200,000 to 150,000 living in 43 Jewish settlements."
On a first glance, it looks as if it means something. But when you try to unpack it it falls apart, as if you were trying to grab handfuls of air.
1. He used the figure of Jewish combatants? What does that mean?
2. He gives a figure of 200,000 to 150,000? Is that a typo, or a mistake, or is the range 150,000 to 200,000? It's eccentric to give a range backwards. Is the combatants figure the same as the figure of 200,000 to 150,000, or are the figures referred to different figures? Are these figures supposed to be numbers? Numbers are not ranges - but nor are figures. If Michael gives a number, which number is it that he gives? We don't know, because there is no citation.
3. How is the "figure of Jewish combatants" used by Michael to arrive at his estimate? Is there someone other than combatants living in these 43 settlements? You would expect so, but it's such a bad sentence that it's not possible to even guess what the person that typed it might have had in their mind.
If it's not possible to work out what is meant by a sentence, then an article is going to be better without that sentence. Of course, if the statement is cited, then (in theory) I can follow the cited link, and work out what the words were originally supposed to mean. But if it's both uingrammatical AND not cited at all, then it's effectively gibberish - it is not susceptible to interpretation, even if effort is applied. In fact the presence of such sentences renders the entire article harder to read - they detract from other sentences, even if those other sentences are well-written, grammatical, meaningful and properly sourced. You have to put in effort to work out what is meant - and then you fail anyway => time and effort were wasted.
I am strongly in favour of deleting nonsense. Like dead code, marketing-speak and ground-elder, ungrammatical sentences make everything around them worse, and they need to be removed.
Long time since I had a good wiki-rant! Do let me know if you share my view that deleting stuff is often a good idea.
MrDemeanour ( talk) 13:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Very strange article, containing a lot of unreliable information. One can not rank Sefer Zerubabel, an apocalyptic fantasy, together with the historical accounts of Sebeos and Strategius, who didn't say a word about Jewish autonomy in Jerusalem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.143.213.225 ( talk) 13:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)