Talk:Siege of Jerusalem (70 CE)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Christian Church of Jerusalem

Surely some mention is warranted especially given rising discussion of the impact on the rise of Pauline Christianity over the Jerusalem form. Wblakesx (talk) 00:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Destruction of Jerusalem

I'm not sure if this counts as a duplicate or if the articles can exist separately, but I notice we have also had Destruction of Jerusalem for quite some time. Adam Bishop 05:53, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Re: Destruction of Jerusalem

Thanks for pointing that out. I'd gone to the disambiguation page for Siege of Jerusalem and found that this article didn't yet exist, so I just assumed it needed doing and wasn't under another name. Still, since this one is more about the events of the siege, rather than the destruction afterwards, and follows a more standard format for a battle/siege article, I think it's cool to keep it. I'll have it and Destruction of Jerusalem link to one another though. Thanks again.

LordAmeth 11:43, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In the destruction section, this page refers to the Solomonic temple and Jospehus' contention that the temple had stood for 1,000 years. While the article mentions the Herodian construction, it misses the fact that A) this is the post-golah temple, the Second Temple, not the Solomonic temple which was destroyed in the exile, and B) while the Herodian addition/rebuilding project did demolish and reconstruct the temple, as well as enhancing the structure of the mount, it still is considered the Second Temple because the worship continued.

Kirkengaard (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Casualties?

The strength of the Jewish army: 13,000 men... Jewish Casualties: 60,000 - 1.1M?.. .. Is this possible? Am I missing something? Are you including the civilians? Unissakävelijä 05:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

The casualties included civilians as it was customary at the time (unfortunately). ←Humus sapiens←Talk 06:48, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

The 1.1 million casualty doesn't seem realistic IMHO, despite the influx for religious observance. I would add some accounts have Titus ordering the Romans not to kill anyone who did not resist during the operations in the southern districts of the city. --Kenneth Kloby (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The 1.1 million casualty figure is indeed hardly creditable, and unreferenced; I've removed it. Figures for casualties and strength of forces need citation to reliable sources.MayerG (talk) 05:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I see the 1.1 million figure is attributed to Josephus. This still seems improbable, but I've put the figure back with its attribution.MayerG (talk) 06:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Josephus's figures are no longer believed. I've cited a modern source that explicitly disputes them. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

It also says some - what was it - 97,000 were captured? This matter seems like it needs additional research. It might be counting those who died or were captured in the final part of the war. Or perhaps the area surrounding Jerusalem had a large increase in population due to the first Roman campaing against Judea. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Where do the strength and casulty figures come from? Josephus' 1.1M sounds implausible (and ancient writers seem to have a habit of exagerating numbers in battles), but the 60k given in the info box is completely unsourced. Furthermore, "60k strength in three factions" and "60k casulties" implies either civilians are being counted as combatants, or ignored as casulties. 11:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wardog (talk • contribs)

While we're at it, how many men per legion was Titus sporting in his 4 legions that he had 75,000 men? 98.225.182.131 (talk) 22:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

7th of September?

The city was completely under Roman control by the 7th of September.

Is it possible to know this date for certain? Bear in mind that the jewish calendar is different from our current Gregorian calendar. And before the Gregorian calendar, we had also the Julian calendar. --Pinnecco 16:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Since it is possible to calculate all the transitions (including those you've mentioned above), and since there is no serious dispute about it, the historians may say that they know the date, so we should be fine. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The date of the final destruction of the Temple has been established with a reasonable degree of accuracy. It is definitely not September 7th. Josephus was writing for a Roman audience and used a calendar that had wide usage at the time. He habitually used the Syro-Macedonian lunisolar calendar that he treated as the equivalent of the Hebrew calendar. In AD 70, the date he gives for the destruction, 10 Loos (381 AS), fell on Sunday August 5. This tallies with the description that it was the day following the Sabbath. It is interesting to note that this is the same date given by Jules Oppert in the 19th century after a meticulous reconstruction of the Hebrew calendar of the period. -- Unsigned

This needs to be explored further. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Biblical source for prophecy, moved from article space.

Jesus made the prophecy himself to his disciples. The prophecy was fulfilled not "alleged"

Matthew 24:2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

Luke 21:6 As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

Luke 19:44 And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation. User:64.193.70.148

Sorry, is it just me, or is there something EXTREMELY WRONG about having a section on Christian prophecies of the destruction, and nothing on JEWISH prophecies of the destruction? Prophecies that, if one reads the Jewish scriptures, make the above references look like a discussion on the hydrodynamics of sugar-coated biscuits? There should of course be included reference to the plethora of Talmudic passages indicating the uselessness of the Temple and the necessity of its destruction.

Thank you for removing this from the article. It looks like the user doen't conform to Wikipedia standards and has caused borderline vandelism. ForestJay 01:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, I was not aware that there were Talmudic "prophecies" on the matter of the destruction of Jerusalem. If someone could site those, that would be great. Anyway, Jesus being himself a Jew, and connecting Daniel's abomination of desolation (part of the Torah), would make these prophecies essentially Jewish. Really early Christians only had the Torah as their Bible, since nothing of what we know of as the "New Testament" existed yet. So, outside of the Talmud commentary, I'm not sure what's the difference between a Christian and a Jewish prophecy as concerns the destruction of Jerusalem. Most of the first "Christians" were Jews in fact.

(^^^ Nobody signed this stuff -- whose comment? Kirkengaard (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC))

Kirkengaard, I don't see any obvious pointing to the scripture you mentioned having any symbolic signifigance. I would have gone with Matthew 24:15-22 which says "Therefore, when YOU catch sight of the disgusting thing that causes desolation, as spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in a holy place, (let the reader use discernment,) then let those in Judea begin fleeing to the mountains. Let the man on the housetop not come down to take the goods out of his house; and let the man in the field not return to the house to pick up his outer garment. Woe to the pregnant women and those suckling a baby in those days! Keep praying that YOUR flight may not occur in wintertime, nor on the sabbath day; for then there will be great tribulation such as has not occurred since the world’s beginning until now, no, nor will occur again. In fact, unless those days were cut short, no flesh would be saved; but on account of the chosen ones those days will be cut short." Which seems like a direct referrence.

I'd be very interested in seeing some of those Telmudic prophecies on the issue. I've never heard of that before myself. --67.172.13.176 (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Dispersal of Jews

This article doesn't discuss the aftermath of the siege, and the resulting dispersal of the Jewish people to other countries. A section about this should be added. Badagnani 07:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I was looking for that very topic when I came to this article. --67.172.13.176 (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Because if discussed we will find out that the dispersed are so called negros in the Atlantic Slave Trade. David Libbett (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Christians believe??

The article says "Christians believe" and even "most Christians believe" several things. I'm a Christian, and the details of the destruction of the Temple are rarely if ever discussed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.36.100 (talk) 04:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Yes, we do believe that, because in the Gospels He DOES Prophesy the Temple's Destruction.--Splashen (talk) 05:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• • Yes Christians do believe**

I am a Christian and it is among many discussions, even look at the book of revelation. So many people try to interpret everything John wrote to be after 70AD, the fall of Jerusalem. So if I may beg a differ.

-Cappy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.174.0.60 (talk) 14:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Eliminate the terms "Preterism" and "Premillenialism" from discussion?

The above discussion is very problematic, because, particularly on the Preterism side, not all Preterists would reject the role of ethnic Jews in future Christian theology. Jay Adams and RC Sproul, two relatively big hitters in Reformed Christian circles have both expressed preterist views of some sort, yet have also expressed views that there will be a large salvation in the future of ethnic Jews, based on Romans 11. So there is not unity among Preterists on this issue by any means. Even if there was, that's not necessarily the main point of Preterism; Preterism is not exclusively concerned with talking about ethnic Israel. Replacement theology is a better term, but it is not synonymous with Preterism. And Premillenialism, though overall tending to favor a future place for ethnic Israel, is not synonymous with that either. So called "Dispensational Premillenialism" may be more concerned with that, but there are other "non-dispensational" or sometimes called "historical" Premillenialists who reject many of the "Dispensational" assumptions. Then again, any discussion of Dispensationalism is an involved one. I propose eliminating the terms "Premillenialism" and "Preterism" from the discussion. Rather, there are several positions evangelical Christians (who actually study and discuss the issue; certainly there are plenty for whom it isn't even on their radar) take on the issue.

1. What happened in A.D. 70 essentially eliminates any special concern by God for ethnic Israel today or in the future whatsoever. Though ethnic Jews may become Christians, there is no special significance to that. 2. What happened in A.D. 70 eliminates a special concern for Israel as "God's Chosen People" collectively, but their historical place has not been forgotten by God, and there is still special significance to the salvation of ethnic Jews, albeit along more individualistic lines. 3. What happened in A.D. 70 for a time eliminates Israel's place as God's chosen people, but in the future they will mount a massive comeback, albeit through salvation through the Church (Romans 11:26). 4. What happened in A.D. 70 reflects the institution of the "Church Age", where for a time, though not exclusively, a non-Jewish led church serves the purpose of being the people of God, but that time will come to an end (Romans 11:25), and the Jewish people will reestablish themselves as "God's people" in line with (Romans 11:26). John ISEM (talk) 11:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC) I would also agree that a uniquely religious Jewish perspective (non-Christian) would be welcome in the article.John ISEM (talk) 11:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree the terms preterism and premillennialism should be removed. Not only is the argument for/against the terms not NPOV, its too reductionistic (as you have already observed). Your 4 categories concerning the implications of the event are good. It shows all Christians perceive the event eschatologically, even in different ways. I would also add comments concerning the Olivet discourse, since (from the Christian perspective) that is the starting point for the prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Lamorak (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Antonia Fortress

Can't claim to be an eyewitness, but...

It seems the battle for Antonia Fortress (AF) was the key to the siege.

(AF was previously the fortress for the Roman garrison of Jerusalem. Prior to the siege the Judeans captured the fortress and were able to make good use of the weapons captured, especially the artillery.)

The first phase of the assault on AF went badly for the Romans. In preparation for the assault the Romans constructed a number of armored towers. Fully appreciating what these towers could accomplish, the towers had inherent rams, the Judeans conducted a ground attack against the newly constructed towers and destroyed them. While the loss of the towers was a terrible blow for the Roman assault, it seems Roman morale was affected even more. This morale setback was on top of the difficulties endured in breaching the Second Wall, which surrounded the Tyropean City.

The Roman response was to begin construction of new towers and begin undermining the walls of AF. The Judeans attempted to destroy these towers too but were unsuccessful. In an attempt to foil the Roman mining operations the Judeans began to undermine the Roman mining operation. The Judean commander in the vicinity, John I believe, also began construction on a makeshift wall should the Roman mining operations succeed.

In what could be considered a stroke of luck for the Romans the Judean undermining operation was so successful the north wall of AF collapsed, exposing the makeshift wall.

Despite this turn in events Roman morale was at its breaking point, so much it seems Titus had to make dramatic appeals to his legionnaires to continue the assault. Subsequent events would prove these appeals to have been somewhat effective, although not universally.

One account has a group of ambitious cavalrymen (dismounted, of course) accompanied by a cornicen secretively scaling the makeshift wall at night, Titus was unaware of this operation. This raid caught much of the garrison sleeping, a panic ensued. The cornicen blew an alert to the Romans, who realized the defense had been compromised and they advanced to support the cavalrymen. With the Romans inside AF and the Judeans panicking, the assault on AF was at that point more of mopping up operation; however, during this fighting a fire broke out. It's not clear if this fire spread to Temple Quarter and was the fire which ultimately consumed the Temple.

The Roman assault on the Temple Quarter was robustly opposed by the Judeans, as expected, but with the fire and waning morale to contend with the Judeans were eventually driven out of the Temple Quarter. At this point the Romans had essentially won the battle, although the assault on Herod's Palace and the mopping up of the city's southern districts remained.

--Kenneth Kloby (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Background

This article includes next to nothing on the background event and wider context of Roman imperial control which led up to the Siege, the circumstances in Roman Palestine, or the events immediately leading up to the revolt and suppression. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.68.183 (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Curious second sentence

I find it pretty strange that the second sentence of the article (per April 7th 2014 CE) in the end states that the Jerusalem has been "occupied by Jewish forces since 66 AD". Ok, the idea of the word 'occupy' has altered somehow, but isn't it a bit misleading in this context, or is it a serious attempt at stating that the defenders of Jerusalem where occupyers of their own holy city, addressing the Roman authority in much the same way as the occupyers of Wall Street, for instant? --Xact (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Title of this article

I thought it was common practise to use CE (common era) on Wikipedia, and not AD? Should not this article be moved to Siege of Jerusalem (CE 70) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Huldra: I perfectly agree with you, though we don't even need CE here Siege of Jerusalem (70) is enough.GreyShark (dibra) 13:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

 DoneGreyShark (dibra) 20:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Nyttend: you moved the article back to AD and remarked that GreyShark did not give a rationale, but it was discussed here on the talk page. The reason seems fine to me. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 09:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, the move by Nyttend was in violation of this consensus, achieved on 2014 and having no objection.GreyShark (dibra) 11:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

See WP:ERA. Policy does not prefer one over the other, and you need an actual consensus one way or the other before switching an article from one to the other; if you go against that, you get reverted. Project-wide, votes at variance with policy and similar community standards get rejected, and because the discussion goes against WP:ERA's standards for moving and because the votes presume that policy favors CE over AD, there's not a single vote here that can be accepted. Nyttend (talk) 12:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:ERA, there are reasons specific to its content. It is a Second Temple era topic, and per WP:WikiProject Judaism/Manual of Style, are generally, whether by secular or religious academic authors, made following the Society of Biblical Literature Handbook of Style, which is BCE/CE. The article has been using BCE/CE era style for close to a year until today. I'm reverting to that style, and will move the article shortly if there is no discussion citing a policy based reason not to. Mojoworker (talk) 19:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Sigh, and we are back to the title Siege of Jerusalem (AD 70)...how come? Do we need a RfC for this? Can we please move this article to a neutral title? Huldra (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

We don't necessarily need an RfC if we have consensus through discussion and based in policy. As I mentioned above, there has been an WP:EDITCONSENSUS of era style since the beginning of the year. And since this article's topic is Second Temple era Judaic history, the choice of era style is not arbitrary, but rather the appropriate era style (BCE/CE) is specific to its content, as required by WP:ERA. Mojoworker (talk) 06:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok, now all AD has been changed to CE in the article text....but the article itself is named Siege of Jerusalem (AD 70)! Should it not be named Siege of Jerusalem (70 CE), or Siege of Jerusalem (CE 70)? Huldra (talk) 20:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I would think so, but it's probably best to wait a bit for further comment. Mojoworker (talk) 00:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Wikipedia has been using BCE/CE for many years; at least 10/15 years I would guess! Academic arguments favor Wikipedia's adoption of the BCE/CE policy. However, the general public has an entrenched predilection for the customary BC/AD style, at least in Subject Titles. With this in mind, I suggest that the use of AD be retained in the title, because this would be the most recognisable label for the general enquirer/researcher. But in the article, the (expert?) editorial content can then use the more appropriate and universal BCE/CE style throughout. --Observer6 (talk) 17:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Reading through the above comments, I read a series of biased opinions by users who are opposed to one system and who are providing oft-repeated red herrings to support their POV favouring the other. Personal preferences are not satisfactory reasons for changing era settings. Wikipedia does not exist to reflect personal POV, especially people who wrongly believe that their own preference is the neutral one. I would suggest that editors reflect more carefully over whether they are really partaking of this project for sharing knowledge and verifiable content.--135.196.181.173 (talk) 12:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Siege of Jerusalem (AD 70). 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/20050601073725/http://askelm.com:80/temple/t980504.htm to http://askelm.com/temple/t980504.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 08:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Destruction date

Why the final date is indicated as 3rd of August in the infobox rather than September 25th ? Pinea (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, the introduction says the city was destroyed on August 30. —howcheng {chat} 03:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

It appears the Temple fell and Lower City was sacked on August 30, while the upper city fell on September 8. I've added some date references and clarified somewhat. Mojoworker (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Era in article name

Per MOS:ERA, "Use either the BC–AD or the BCE–CE notation consistently within the same article". Within the article CE is used everywhere except in link to Siege of Jerusalem (587 BC), so it seems to me the article name should also use CE. Does anyone have a reason to object ? “WarKosign” 12:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The relevant discussion is in the archive at Talk:Siege of Jerusalem (70 CE)/Archive 1#Title of this article. As a result of that discussion, I moved the article to the CE title on 6 February 2018‎, several months after the discussion petered out. Yesterday, 117 days after the last comment in the discussion, User:Runwayrollr tried to revert the move (but botched it by not actually doing a move), and pulled the old discussion out of the archive, and restarted the debate. I reverted, and invited them to start a new discussion on the talk page, pointing to WP:ARCHIVE: "When reopening a discussion is desired, links to archived discussions can be provided in the new discussion thread". Then CouncilConnect botched things up further (without, apparently, bothering to read the discussion in the archive). And I can't blame you User:WarKosign, nor User:Nyttend, for being confused, since, as a result of the botching, the archive is now orphaned, so the previous discussion is no longer obvious (hopefully this was not intentional) misnamed and doesn't match the talk page. The article has been stable using using BCE/CE for more than a year (with even User:Drmies reverting era changes), and it's incongruous to have the title mismatching. I'll reiterate, from the discussion in the archive, it is not an arbitrary change, per MOS:ERA "there are reasons specific to its content", as a Second Temple era Judaic history topic, like Siege of Masada, or Dead Sea Scrolls, BCE/CE is the norm and is also proscribed by the Society of Biblical Literature Handbook of Style (which is certainly not binding upon Wikipedia, however, neither is it irrelevant to the "reasons specific to its content" tenet of MOS:ERA, and certainly not a "personal or categorical preference for one era style over the other". Both Runwayrollr and CouncilConnect are neophytes with only 38, and 191 edits respectively, so I'm willing to cut them some slack, but neither of these users has made any contributions to this article, other than their drive-by era change. If consensus can be overturned months later and archived debate reopened, what good is a consensus (or discussion at all)? Mojoworker (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

In this case I suppose the correct move is to restore the standing consensus, that is the CE name. If someone wants to rename it they should achieve a new consensus, and once it has been achieved - move it again. “WarKosign” 18:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

User:WarKosign, huh?? Why did you just move this from CE to AD then? Huldra (talk) 20:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I had difficulty searching for the discussion as it was in the archive but I have read it and I wouldn't have said that there was a consensus from that for the move last month - rather the opposite and there was some strong opposition too. That was why I made my edits.--CouncilConnect (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC) Reverting blocked sock. So much for my AGF of them as a neophyte. Mojoworker (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Funny, I found the opposite consensus. Also, I have absolutely no idea as to what User:WarKosign is up to: he argues for the CE title...and moves it to the AD title?! Huldra (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

It is just that the last two posts in the old discussion were not favouring the move and no one answered the final objection that moving the article was serving one POV over another. I see that there is a disconnection between the title and the text's era style but that was caused by past editors changing the era style in the text to suit their preferences (as is shown by some of the comments on this talk page and other articles about Jerusalem) which is a use of POV that causes the present confusing situation.--CouncilConnect (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC) Reverting blocked sock. Mojoworker (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Anno Domini is obviously favouring one view...namely the Christian view. While Common Era is used trying to get a more, well, neutral name. What is so difficult to understand about that? Huldra (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Obvious to you perhaps, but that is just your one-sided opinion. Just facts please, otherwise we might have a slanging match of different personal preferences, which I think is how some editors have been treating this article in the past.--82.27.217.102 (talk) 10:05, 17 March 2018 (UTC) Reverting blocked sock. Mojoworker (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I read the discussion in the archive, I also do not see a consensus to change to CE. There was reasoned opposition. That is not consensus. IOW "no consensus" results in status quo which is AD. The body of the article should be changed to AD to conform with the title.– Lionel^(talk) 02:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I moved it from AD to CE, then noticed that I'm reverting an admin so I self-reverted. My impression is that the long-standing version is CE, so as long there is no consensus to move to AD, it should be CE. Content of the article matches this theory. “WarKosign” 06:50, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, but how does the content match the theory? --82.27.217.102 (talk) 10:05, 17 March 2018 (UTC) Reverting blocked sock. Mojoworker (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Inside the article CE is used almost everywhere, which makes sense if the article title also has CE. If long-standing title used AD, the use of CE inside the article doesn't make sense. “WarKosign” 11:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Dates were changed to CE a few months ago. Because there was "no consensus" at the time, the dates in the article need to be changed back to AD.– Lionel^(talk) 22:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Nope, it's been that way since the beginning of last year (and has been actively maintained that way despite many sockpuppets and drive-by edits trying to change the style). Mojoworker (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

AFAIK, there has never been a proper WP:RfC on this, but such a RfC seems overdue. Does anyone disagree? Huldra (talk) 23:54, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@Huldra: I think WP:RM is probably the next step and may take less time. All the sockpuppets could be back before an RfC closes. Mojoworker (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

AD 70 is Super because it refers to after the advent of the Christ in the flesh on planet earth. Ironically, the AD 70 destruction of the Temple and of Jerusalem happened because Judaism Jews rejected their Messiah Christ Jesus (Lk 21:20-24). People want to erase anything and everything that reminds them of their Savior. AD 70 reminds us of the Savior and so must be retained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2C0F:F8F0:BA48:0:21B5:3788:F12C:96EB (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Very good point. Another good reason to go with CE - this is an encyclopedia, not a religious text. “WarKosign” 21:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 23 March 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per the lengthy discussion below. (closed by page mover) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

---

Siege_of_Jerusalem_(70 AD) → Siege of Jerusalem (70 CE) – for all the reasons given on the talk page, and in the archive. Multiple socks seem to be the only ones against it Huldra (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• Speedy oppose - this is directly counter to policy if I recall correctly. Red Slash 23:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment, I requested a WP:RM, as I was asked to do that (see above.) I readily admit I have little experience with WP:RM, my first thought was to start a WP:RfC. However, I frankly see no argument for keeping the AD title on a mainly Jewish subject. Huldra (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@Huldra: Don't worry, you did it mostly correctly – except for the 'technical move" part, which was contested. Now we have 7+ days to present policy based rationale for and against the move. I'll try to formulate my thoughts on the matter here soon. Mojoworker (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

• Commentthis remark "Multiple socks seem to be the only ones against it" in the official proposal statement is grossly biased and not neutral. This RM is definitely not done "mostly correctly." Furthermore, it is false. I am opposed to the move and I am not a sock. It is quite outrageous. This RM needs to be closed and re-posted in a neutral manner.– Lionel^(talk) 02:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

• Suggest : Voluntary close, pause, rethink, relist properly in a week's time personally I'd probably expect to see CE related to a Jewish history subject, despite AD being the WP:COMMONNAME. However doing this as a technical request, unless it is restoring an earlier longstanding consensus was a problem. Establish page history, clearly mark out which socks are banned, and then do a RM properly and without a red flag "socks are the only ones against it" in the nom. That immediately primes any regular of WP:RM to oppose what may well be a valid move. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:16, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: was unaware of this debate until it showed up on CGR alerts. I'm aware of the trend to use "CE" and "BCE" on Jewish topics, but I'm Jewish (although rather secular) and prefer the old-fashioned "BC" and "AD" (although I note that AD normally precedes the year; it should be AD 70, not 70 AD). From my point of view they mean the same thing and are equally based on religious mythology, but one is honest about it and the other pretends to be something it's not. I may be in the minority on this, and as editors more invested in the topic may have strong feelings, I'm withholding my vote for now. But this topic doesn't just belong to one project or one perspective, so I don't think it's at all cut and dried. P Aculeius (talk) 11:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support - the article content already uses CE everywhere, so for consistency the title should match that. “WarKosign” 12:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the article used "AD" until an anonymous IP editor changed the infobox to read CE in 2017, in apparent violation of WP:ERA. It looks like nobody caught it at the time, as multiple attempts to return it to "AD" were reverted under the same policy after that. The only era references other than the title were in the infobox until February 6, 2018, when Mojoworker inserted "CE" four times in the lead paragraph. So it looks as if this is POV pushing, and I hereby change my vote to oppose. P Aculeius (talk) 13:49, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@P Aculeius: And I cited the MOS:ERA guideline "two-digit years may look more natural with an era marker", for the changes to the lede at that time. My edits were in response to the "destruction date" conversation (currently at the top of this talk page) and I was making a number of other edits to improve the article on that and the preceding day. And yet you are characterizing my edits as nothing more than drive-by POV pushing? I don't think that's fair nor is it accurate, and I would request that you strike it. I would hope that with the socks at bay, we can have an honest discussion, without casting aspersions at other editors. Getting back to the current discussion (I'll formulate my opinion more fully later), this is about the title of the article. That there are drive-by MOS:ERA warriors is, unfortunately, the current state of things at enwiki. Yes, an IP from Yale University changed the ERA style more than 14 months ago without discussion, and the sock that was active here on this page made this drive-by era change almost 10 months ago to another article. When is WP:EDITCONSENSUS established? Should they both be undone? I don't know the answer, but that's not the topic of this discussion. However, it is incongruous to have the title and content mismatch. Perhaps there would be less drama with a change to Siege of Jerusalem (70), to be consistent with Jerusalem riots of 66 or Alexandria riot (66), the name styles used on some other articles of the Jewish–Roman War. User:Huldra, if you agree, you may want to take In ictu oculi's advice to do a "Voluntary close, pause, rethink, relist properly in a week's time." Mojoworker (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

January 2017. Nobody reverted it for over 14 months, so per WP:SILENT CE has the consensus. “WarKosign” 19:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Lot of irrelevant arguments here. WP:SILENT would apply to talk page comments, if you ignore all of the caveats on that page, but not to edits that people weren't aware of. Silence doesn't imply consensus for things you don't know about. But WP:SILENT isn't about policy violations in article text, and it's not a policy itself. It doesn't matter how long something was overlooked if it's a problem. Whether it's a week, fourteen months, or four years, it's still an issue. And it's utterly irrelevant whether the IP of the anonymous editor who violated policy was from Yale, Harvard, or Joe's Coffee Shop. Edits made from a Yale computer are entitled to no more deference than any others. I also see no point in all the weight that's being put on whether some editor or other is a sockpuppet of a banned user. Sockpuppets are capable of good edits as well as bad ones. If the argument is that some participants in this debate are really one person masquerading as different editors, then that would be an issue. But that still doesn't make any and all of the opinions expressed wrong.

It's correct to say that WP:ERA says that two-digit years may look odd. But it doesn't follow from that, A) that choosing an era that's inconsistent with the article title is an improvement, or B) that you need to repeat the era with each occurrence of a year in a single section. In fact it looks quite odd to keep giving the era repeatedly when there's absolutely no chance of confusion during a short span of years referred to in that section, and when the rest of the article doesn't need to have the era given even once. This article got along quite well without any era specified in the text until last month, and for nearly all of its existence the only era was "AD". The fact that someone got away with slipping "CE" into the infobox last year doesn't suddenly make the era necessary in the body, nor does it make the title wrong. What looks suspicious here is hammering away at something that wasn't even at issue until last month, by repeating it over and over again, then insisting that the article title be changed in conformity with that opinion. This discussion isn't about whether you prefer BC/AD or BCE/CE. It's about a Wikipedia policy that's been disregarded in this article.

The proper thing to do, IMO, is to return the article to BC/AD, remove eras from instances where there's no risk of confusion, let it sit for a while, and then if there's an argument to be made for why BCE/CE would be better for this article, then make it on the talk page without relying on the page history to justify the move. It's fine to change the era by consensus, but that's not the process that's been followed here. What's happened here is that the consensus process has been bypassed, and then a change is demanded on the basis of consistency, which is the opposite of how it's supposed to work. P Aculeius (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'll again assert that MOS:ERA's "two-digit years may look more natural with an era marker" applies to both August 30, 70, and September 8, 70, and it is common for the first use of such a year in the lede to have an era marker, as in Flavian Palace. I debated removing the 66 CE instance, but decided the inclusion of the era in "…since 66 CE, following the Jerusalem riots of 66…", makes it clear that "Jerusalem riots of 66" is nothing like the Chicago 7. Are there any other edits you'd like me to defend? I think those are improvements to the article. You can disagree, maintain your suspicions of my motives and cast aspersions toward me, and I can lament your failure to abide by the fundamental principle of WP:AGF. Mojoworker (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per the findings of P Aculeius, which make the move directly contrary to WP:ERA. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@Iazyges: Do you think Siege of Jerusalem (70), to be consistent with Jerusalem riots of 66 or Alexandria riot (66), the name styles used on some other articles of the Jewish–Roman War, would be better. Mojoworker (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I Support a move to Siege of Jerusalem (70). -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support - per WP:ERA.--יניב הורון (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support Huldra's proposal, as in line with practice on articles related to Jewish history. I think that WP:ERA had precisely this kind of case in mind when it said: Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content. Seek consensus on the talk page before making the change. On a sidenote, P Aculeius is wrong about AD preceding the year, as per that same WP:ERA which says specifically: AD may appear before or after a year. Debresser (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

May, but generally doesn't in better English. The older tradition places "BC" before the year as well, but between 1880 and 1920 this seems to have shifted to almost exclusively after. The Latin version, "AC", still goes before, but is hardly used in English nowadays. P Aculeius (talk) 00:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support For a subject matter that is historically religiously divisive, if you're not supposed to use CE here then I'm not sure where you're "supposed" to use it. Change title to CE for WP:NPOV purposes. DA1 (talk) 10:26, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Historically, it seems far more accurate to record dates by using CE = "according to our Common Era," than by writing AD = Anno Domini, since the later implies that Jesus was the undisputed lord (domini) of all, which, historically speaking, is untrue.Davidbena (talk) 10:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Per ERA and consistency with the article, Jewish subjects in general, and date format conventions in sources relating to Jewish history.Icewhiz (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. "AD" is not selectively problematic. (Nor does it necessarily imply that Jesus is in fact lord any more than the name "Wednesday" implies that the middle of the week belongs to Woden. What, for that matter, makes the common ear so common?) The alternative suggested—Siege of Jerusalem (70)—while a bit awkward is an acceptable compromise. Srnec (talk) 04:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support although the RM got of to a good faith shaky start, this is clearly a legitimate proposal from the standpoint of an encyclopaedia. Serious historical and also even Christian sources such as SBL level papers and commentaries would not be using BC/AD for Jewish history subjects. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:11, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Per WarKosign, David Bena, Debresser, and In ictu oculi. One should asvoid Christocentric bias in dealing with Jewish topics esp.Nishidani (talk) 10:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment won't appropriate policy on the article name be covered by Naming Conventions and Disambiguation and not MOS:Era which refers to writing style within the article? GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I believe that would only point us to the most common name, which probably isn't something we can ascertain in an instance where it's a matter of personal preference. I understand the perspective of not wanting to seemingly acknowledge a god you don't believe in, but I also agree with Srnec's point; using "AD" doesn't actually imply belief, merely use of a dating convention. Even though I'm Jewish myself, I prefer BC/AD to BCE/CE, which seem like pointless euphemisms at best, since they're still based on the birth of Christ. BC/AD just don't bother me, and they're universally understood. Besides which, this isn't a "Jewish" topic any more than it's a "Roman" topic. I suppose if I had my druthers, as a claccisist, we'd all use AUC, but that's never gonna happen, so BC/AD are my preference. P Aculeius (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support. The euphemism CE was created exactly for cases like this. —  AjaxSmack  02:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support - per appropriate policy and the above comments. RedUser (talk) 03:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support – as proposed, or alternatively, Siege of Jerusalem (70), per my rationale earlier in this discussion, and elsewhere on this talk page. Mojoworker (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support - as proposed, or alternatively Siege of Jerusalem (70) per User:Mojoworker.GreyShark (dibra) 14:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

End of siege

See there--yoisef yitzchok-talk, 27 Iyar 5779. 11:04, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

@Seyegd: That's just a discussion, not a source. See WP:RS. We go by what the sources say. Doug Weller talk 11:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Siege of Jerusalem

The article says that some believe that Jesus was anti-temple. The gospels do not say that, and I have never heard that said. I have been a believer for 40 years, and I have been to many different churches and read many books on the gospels and Christianity in general. Jesus came to fulfill the law, not destroy it. Ms.kimrose56 (talk) 00:25, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM, but in one gospel he says that they should destroy and he will rebuild it in three days, in another gospel that is an accusation from a false witness, and Jesus reportedly predicted that no stone of the Temple will remain upon another of its stones. Oh, yes, he disturbed the sellers from the Temple. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

"I have been a believer for 40 years" In what specifically? And I am not certain whether Jesus' relationship to the Law of Moses is specified, outside from his supposed conversations with the Pharisees. Dimadick (talk) 19:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

3RR exemption

Some of the reverted edits were truly vandalism, i.e. they broke off templates and/or images. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

The Sack of the Temple in Josephus and Tacitus

Looking for sources I found this which raises other issues perhaps not addressed in the article. The subject line above is the title of a chapter in an OUP book.[1] Doug Weller talk 12:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Date of the Burning of the Temple

The Date for the burning of the Temple given here does seem well supported. The citation is by a book by Matthew Bunson entitled Dictionary of the Roman Empire. When I looked up Bunson, I found that he doesn't have a Ph.D and is employed as a Catholic apologist. Here is the beginning of his Amazon author page: "For the last twenty years, Dr. Matthew E. Bunson has been active in the area of Catholic Social Communications, including writing, editing and lecturing on a variety of topics related to Church history, the papacy and Catholic culture." It then goes on to note he doesn't have a Ph.D. even though it calls him Dr. I really think we need an academic reference by an acknowledged scholar here.Toroid (talk) 04:43, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia article on Matthew Bunson he has a Ph.D. in Church History - Epinoia (talk) 05:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. However, it says he got his degree from The Graduate Theological Foundation "a nonprofit interreligious institution of higher learning, originally founded in Indiana but now centered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Unlike traditional residential theological schools, the foundation focuses on continuing educational opportunities..." I think my point remains. With all the experts on Jewish history why would you rely on this guy for an encyclopedia article. Another problem with dating in this article is a previous footnote citing William Whiston for the beginning of the siege. Whiston is a figure from the early 18th century. The date given 14 April is probably based on the fact that Passover falls on the evening of 14 Nisan. He would also know that Passover falls in our calendar most often in April. This date is thus a reasonable approximation for the 18th century but hardly up-to-date information for an encyclopedia article.Toroid (talk) 20:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

- I agree, we could do with better sourcing - Epinoia (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The next step would be finding recognized experts on this topic. Can you or anyone suggest possible sources. I will scout around on the internet and see if anyone pops up.Toroid (talk) 23:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

There's also a footnote in the source below which says (about the capture of the city) "17 BJ 6. 435 gives the exact date as 8 Gorpiaeus: the Julian equivalent has not been established with certainty (HJP i. 587—601). Hence the discrepancy in CAH2 11, where the date of the capture of Jerusalem is inconsistently stated as Aug. 70 (664) and 8 Sept. (4, 1009)." I'm not sure I understand it, but it appears that the date is uncertain, which is not really a surprisel Doug Weller talk 12:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Yea, it is a mess. Looks like nobody has critically examined this recently. Books that bear on this are often religiously oriented or pot-boilers by journalists. The issue as I understand it is that relevant dates in Josephus are in a Macedonian calendar. On what basis I don't know, people treat this as the same as the Hebrew calendar. They then try translating these Hebrew dates into the contemporary Roman (Julian) calendar. The major uncertainty here is when the Hebrew year began in 69 AD, September or October. This gives us a terminal uncertainty about what was the month the siege ended and the Temple as burnt, August or September. Can anybody get closer to which is correct?Toroid (talk) 21:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

More confusion. The Wikipedia article on the <<Second Temple>> under the paragraph "Destruction" gives two possible dates for the destruction. One is August 4th and the second is August 30th. The first date is based on a retrocalulation of the Jewish calendar based on rules documented centuries later. The second date comes from our learned friend Dr. Bunson. I am inclined to edit the article noting a dating uncertainty and stating it is probable that the final destruction of the Temple occurred in August 70 CE.Toroid (talk) 01:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

The Talmud (Tractate Taanit 29a) says that the temple was burned on Sunday. Other Talmud (Tractate Sanhedrin 12a) says that in those years the year after Shmita was always 12 months. So Tisha B'Av was on July 8 on the Julian calendar, which corresponds to the 10th of Λώιος. yoisef yitzchok-talk, 19 Sivan 5780. 17:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Maimonides writes that the Second Temple's destruction was the year AM 3829 (69 CE). In his introduction to the Mishneh Torah, Maimonides writes that the present time (the year he authored said introduction) is the year anno mundi 4937, and 1108 years after the destruction of the Temple. 4937 minus 1108 gives 3829 (69 CE) as the date of the second Temple's destruction. Contributor613 (talk) 05:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Contributor613, This is because the last two months of 3830 are considered the first year of destruction. yoisef yitzchok-talk, 5 Av 5780. 06:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course, that's obvious. Contributor613 (talk) 06:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC) * The last months of 3829. Contributor613 (talk) 06:46, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Contributor613, The year 3830 is the first from the destruction, not 3829. The destruction was in 3830 and is the first year in the count because they started counting on Elul immediately after the destruction. yoisef yitzchok-talk, 5 Av 5780. 07:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Contributor613, Maimonides says that the counting of the years of destruction began two months after the destruction and the destruction was in the year of Shemita but all the Rishonim disagree with him and say that the destruction was in the year after Shemita as it is written in the Gemara (Tractate Taanit 29a). yoisef yitzchok-talk, 5 Av 5780. 09:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Appreciate the quick response. I regret that I don't have the opportunity now to spend more time on the topic as appropriate. In the meanwhile I'll note a source for future consideration: https://www.jdn.co.il/beit_hamidrash/725825/ (Hebrew, Rabbi Mazuz). Contributor613 (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Contributor613, He says what you say so the allegations I make against you are also true against him. yoisef yitzchok-talk, 10 Av 5780. 15:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Flavius Joseph

Josephus, while a historian, was a first-century historian, and a primary source to the events he observed. For both of these reasons, we have to be very careful in using him as a source. This requirement is reinforced because the referenced translation appears to be based on the 1732 translation by William Whiston, which supposedly was based on a copy of Josephus' work that contained many errors.

Due to this, I have altered the text, attributing statements to Josephus rather than presenting them in wikivoice, and removing entirely extraordinary claims that we need would need a very strong evidence to include. BilledMammal (talk) 02:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2022

There is a duplicate the in the opening, specifically in the phrase 'The the loss of mother-city and temple necessitated a reshaping of Judaean culture to ensure its survival, which resulted in the emergence of Rabbinic Judaism.' If this could be corrected to 'The loss of mother-city and temple necessitated a reshaping of Judaean culture to ensure its survival, which resulted in the emergence of Rabbinic Judaism.' that would be greatly appreciated. ShyAndroid (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Done! Tombah (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Which Roman Tenth Legion?

At presently, we have red-linked Roman Tenth Legion; the question is: Which Roman Tenth Legion?

We have Legio X Equestris, Legio X Fretensis and Legio X Gemina. Could it be Legio X Fretensis? We have this after them in Abu Ghosh. Or Legio VI Ferrata (of Solomon's Pools fame?) Comments, please, Huldra (talk) 23:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Should be Legio X Fretensis (see this inscription, discovered in the Christian Quarter, Jerusalem, and this paper), fixed. Thanks Tombah (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, Huldra (talk) 22:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Scope creep in the lead

@Tombah: I think there is some confusion about the nature of scope here. Articles should contain on the information directly pertinent to the topic and not stray needlessly off topic. While details about events in 130 AD may merit mention in passing towards the end of the article, they are are 100% off-topic in the lead here, and by expanding the lead to cover such details, you are duplicating the scope of Jewish–Roman wars, even when there is specifically an entire separate article for this purpose. The dates you are covering do not even fall within the context of the First Jewish–Roman War. So, this is a granular article about a single siege within the first war, and you are giving prominence in the lead to details not only not from the relevant war, but which are only relevant to an article two branches higher in the content tree. Wikipedia entries are not supposed to include every scrap of information that is even tangentially relevant to a subject. They are supposed to be concise and informative about discretely scoped topics. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Removed original research

Editors, I have removed the following original research:

• On Tisha B'Av, 4 August 70 CE or 30 August 70 CE

Lightest (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

References