Jump to content

Talk:First Jewish–Roman War

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KaiArwas.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Name of this article.

[edit]

Simple question: is this the best name for this article? I've always referred to it as 'The Jewish war' (maybe the 'first Jewish war' or perhaps 'The (first) Jewish revolt'. I'm coming from a scholarly Christian environment, so I'm particularly interested in how Jewish works refer to it. Hyam Maccoby refers to it as 'The Jewish war against Rome' - but I don't know how typical he is --Doc (?) 21:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember where exactly I got the title from (Josephus?) but I thought it is common enough. I am not a scholar, though. Does First Jewish-Roman War sound better?
Unrelated to this, I think the article titled Great Uprising should be renamed into something more sensible. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 23:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've always known/referred to it as either the Jewish War or periphrastically as something like the Fall of Jerusalem or the Destruction of the Temple. Jewish War is also the standard English title of Josephus' work (I think we all have at least seen the Pelican translation, and most reading this probably own a copy). To be frank, I've never heard of "Great Jewish Revolt" in any context. I don't think Josephus ever referred to it this way. And speaking of Josephus's Jewish War, a major rehab is in order. This is an extraordinarily important work of history. --FourthAve 23:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy with per Humus sapiens. Either that or 'Jewish War (66-73)' (but that may be too akward}. I'd prefer simply 'Jewish-War' (but would be confused with Josephus' work) or simply 'The Jewish-Roman War' but that might be confused with Bar Kokhba. Any takers or objections to 'First Jewish-Roman War' then? --Doc (?) 22:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've tabbed and marked this as a proposed move to First Jewish-Roman War - I'll do it in a few days, unless someone objects, or beats me to it. --Doc (?) 11:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been renamed after the result of a move request. Dragons flight 18:27, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

I know I shouldn't but part of me wants to disagree just because it is taken from that prick Josephus- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 04:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish-Roman War is misleading. In a vast majority of Jewish studies, it is most commonly known simply as "The Great Revolt" (e.g. Jewish Virtual Library). Given that this was by far the largest revolt, and the biggest catastrophe for the Jewish people, it can easily be distinguished versus the remaining and much smaller revolts. Britannica labels it as the "First Jewish Revolt". Therefore I propose that we combine the two for context purposes to: The Great Jewish Revolt. I am open for discussion, but according to my research, the term "War" to me signifies a group consensus and complete adoption, which it most certainly was not. It was more of an uprising by the people, which more closely identifies with resistance as opposed to a more formally recognized declaration.

Supposed challenge to Josephus about Masada

[edit]

Ben-Yehuda does not challenge Josephus' account of a mass suicide by the besieged on Masada. Rather, he refutes, by reference to Josephus, the modern mythologising that casts those besieged, and their group suicide, as heroic. Josephus, the "Masada myth" that Ben-Yehuda criticises, and Ben-Yehuda himself fully agree that the suicides took place.

So I have taken out the "this view has been challenged". I left the reference in, though, because it applies even so.

Lonewolf BC 20:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Yehuda notes that the archaeological findings do not support the idea of mass suicide exactly since only a few remains were found. The view has also been challenged by others. Shaye Cohen noted that the story that the Romans breached the walls but waited until the next day to enter Masada is a bit fishy. [[Mewnews (talk) 00:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)]][reply]

Jewish success, the Fall

[edit]

If I was a Roman I would consider "Jewish success" to be biased, non-neutral, racist, bigoted. Just like 99% of WP. Happy holiday, MF's. Fourtildas (talk) 06:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Roman losses" any better, colleague? ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is poorly written and full of inaccuracies. Pretty poor show.

[edit]

This is becoming a perpetual habit of Wikipedia. J.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it is written mainly from primary sources (Josephus). It is not much help for inclusion in the relevant sections of Antisemitism and History of antisemitism. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So correct it. Take, for instance, the X Fretensis: that legion was left in Syria by Julius Caesar (it was his favourite unit, take for example the famous signifer leap leading his troops ashore in Britain) during the Civil War well over a hundred years before, and although recruiting from the Minervois north of Narbonne in France (the area's modern name still recalling the Legion's tutellary goddess), it never moved, despite at least one major reorganisation. So the suggestion that it landed with Vespasian from Rome is just plain wrong, the legion's LXF stamp on all the Sephoris and Caesarea Maritime roof tiles dating from c30BCE show it was well implanted in Judea and all Vespasian did was call on the garrison force. Some reference works here: Caesar's Legion, Stephen Dando-Collins, ISBN 0-471-09570-2. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series #60, Excavations on the Site of the Jerusalem International Comference Centre (Binyanei Ha'uma) ISBN 1-877829-60-1 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum.
A further point. Josephus is NOT a primary source. His entire commission from Vespasian was to take the primary sources, consolidate them, and write a warts-and-all history of the Jewish War with insider knowledge, and that makes him a very authoritative secondary source, not least because his study was vetted from a very modern viewpoint by Vespasian himself, who wanted to learn lessons from an external observer's criticism of his own failings. Some critics suggest Josephus spun his own role, but then what author does not put something of himself into his work? Indeed, almost all history is written from the victor's viewpoint. The warning suffices to allow us to take appropriate pinches of salt.

Tens of thousands on crosses around Jerusalem cannot possibly be accurate. That number needs to be checked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.237.189.192 (talk) 20:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your source, please? This kind of subjective thinking is what's wrong here in the first place. The reason I'm not tackling it is that WP refuses to value primary sources, reducing itself to third-hand commentary by rejecting OR, which is too often used to mean "working from primary sources", and thereby falling victim to exactly this kind of subjectivity. A balance is needed, representing secondary sources where authoritative, placing them in the context of the primary references. And where authoritative secondary sources do not exist, then the primary sources should most certainly be used alone, but appropriately annotated and cross-referenced.

yes i do agree what you say because it would be fair to other people so ya i do agree with you Why is Phaissees in the list of opponents when the word pharisees is listed only once this page?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.130.249.198 (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Sources

[edit]

In addition to Antiquities, which is not very relevant, and Jewish War, Josephus wrote his "Autobiography" which is directly relevant and details fighting in the Galilee. This can be found also in the article on Josephus - at least that should be consulted! [[[User:Mewnews|Mewnews]] (talk) 00:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)][reply]

Blaming the Revolt on Caligula?!?!

[edit]

Seriously? First off, there were pleanty of Jewish-Greek tenions prior to Caligula. Second, Caligula reigned from 38-42 and the revolt wasn't until 66. Third, Caligula's statue never went up in Jerusalem (Caligula period riots were over a Greek clay alter). Fourth, Caligula's religous policy only varied in Rome (making Senators honor him as a God). Augustus and Tiberius commonly referred to as a living god in the east already.

[edit]

The image Image:Second Temple Destroyed.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


How are we able to call it the second temple, if there is no evidence for a first? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidlwinkler (talk • contribs) 21:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AD vs CE edits.

[edit]

Per WP:ERA, the use of CE vs AD as abbreviations after dates should not be changed without consensus. Both are equally valid, and the version already in use on an article takes precedence unless there is broad consensus to change. Recent edits that changed the abbreviations in this article from CE to AD were therefore reverted. IF there is a wish to change, then it must be discussed and an agreement reached between interested editors before this can proceed. Triona (talk) 10:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should remain CE/BCE.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Should revert to and standardize on BC/AD in English language versions. 173.71.10.232 (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BC/AD is valid only for Christian related articles, the rest is made per editor agreement, which in this case is CE/BCE.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bar Giora faction

[edit]

It is true that Bar Giora is often considered a Zealot. However in fact, he was leading a faction of his own, completely unrelated to the Zealot factions of northern revolt. Bar Giora's faction is often named "peasantry faction", and its role during the revolt was complicated. Initially Bar-Giora fought together with the main Judean government (Matityahu and Ben-Gurion), but upon defeat of Syrian army, he was not given an official position. He then turned a renegade bandit, leading his comrades to pillage the country-side in Hebron area. In the year 68, however, with the civil war in Jerusalem turning in favor of the Zealots, Bar-Giora was called by surviving elements of the Judean government, and succeeded to take much of the city from the Zealots. From then on, he functioned as one of the leaders of the Judean government and presented a strong counter-force to John's and Eleazar's factions. Further, upon the fall of Jerusalem, unlike John, who was sold into slavery, Bar-Giora was executed as "Jewish leader", recognizing his official role in Judean rebel government.GreyShark (dibra) 17:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Undid two acts of vandilism

[edit]

205.126.85.0 (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)unsigned[reply]

Change in Outbreak of Rebellion

[edit]

Hello editors of this wiki article, I will be making changes to the "outbreak of the rebellion," adding more descriptions of the events that took place and people named such as Eliezar ben Hanania. I will also be adding events and views that motivated the Jews to revolt against the Romans. I will be using the Article, "Roman Domination," by Shaye J.D. Cohen as a secondary source. Please feel free to comment on my changes on this talk page or on my talk page. KaiArwas (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the article is problematic

[edit]

The article is problematic because it is laden with grammar mistakes, missing citations, incorrect and missing information. The secondary source from our course that I plan to use to solve some of the problems is Lawrence Schiffman’s From Text to Tradition, Ch 9: “Revolt and Restoration.” I plan on using the secondary source as a point of comparison to find inconsistencies, fallacies, and mistakes and correct the Wikipedia article to be more truthful, well-rounded, and detailed in its portrayal of the event. I will first correct the mechanical issues within the Wikipedia article. For example, the sentence: “Josephus claims that 1,100,000 people were killed during the siege, a sizeable portion of these were at Jewish hands and due to illnesses brought about by hunger” is a run-on sentence and should have a period between “siege” and “a sizeable portion” or a conjunction to connect those phrases. This wikipedia article also fails to discuss the specs of how Jews adapted to Roman influence, so I plan to add more background on Jewish life under Roman rule. Jimmy19951 (talk) 04:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)Jimmy19951[reply]

Jimmy19951 - what do you mean "from our course"? Wiki users don't know that. Why is this comment under the title "AD vs CE edits"? Why not add a new section to Talk Page? "fallacies, mistakes" - vague. What background do you have in mind? More concrete plans would be helpful. Chapmansh (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Menorah and the Table of the Bread

[edit]

"the Menorah and the Table of the Bread of God's Presence, which had previously only ever been seen by the High Priest of the Temple"

This is an error. The Menorah and the Table of the Bread of God's Presence were also seen by the other priests, not only the High Priest.

--ThePro (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IV/ IIII

[edit]

The Legio IIII Scythica is a common way of Writing the number of this legion in academic sources, and in the epigraphic records we have seems to be how the legion numbered itself. IV maybe the more common version of the number in general use, but in this context it is not necessary to change.Pipsally (talk) 08:12, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

wrong date?

[edit]

The Roman campaign ended with their success at the siege of Masada in 736–776.

[edit]

Is 736 - 776 a different calendar or just the wrong date for the siege?

131.152.225.37 (talk) 07:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

broken footnote

[edit]

Hello Mariamnei!

In edit , you added a footnote that depends on a citation for "Horbury 2016". However, there's no such citation in this article and now the article has a referencing error. Are you able to provide the missing citation and clean up the error? -- mikeblas (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Mikeblas! Looks like I got the year wrong. Just fixed it to 2014. Thanks for catching that! 😊 Mariamnei (talk) 11:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks for the fix! -- mikeblas (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:First Jewish–Roman War/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Mariamnei (talk · contribs) 11:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 02:03, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

General remarks

  • The prose size (15,666 words) exceeds the limit. I think the topic should be summarised with less than 9,000 words.
  • I have not read section "Background" but my impression is that it does not present the Roman Empire, so it should be expanded in this respect.

Please, ping me if you addressed the above issues Borsoka (talk) 02:09, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Borsoka, First of all, thank you for the feedback and for taking this on! I wondered if people were hesitant because of the article's length, so I really appreciate you being ready to tackle the challenge!
I managed to trim the article down from 15,666 words to about 10.8k. At this point, though, I am struggling to see how I can reduce it further without making the content overly dry, choppy, or hard to read. Further cuts would also mean losing significant material, which is problematic given that this is really one of the most well-documented and researched events in ancient history (also considering that the featured article on Cleopatra has 13,000 words.)
As for the representation of the Roman Empire, I made some changes to the background section to clarify that Rome was a republic when they conquered Judaea (previously, I had only mentioned Pompey). I don't think there's a need to go too deep into Roman history before the revolt, since this was an uprising in a province (and especially as we're trying to shorten the prose). That's why, in my opinion, the focus should primarily be on Roman rule in the region and its relationship with the local population leading up to the revolt. The broader impact on Rome itself is thoroughly covered in the consequences part, where I detail how Vespasian and the Flavian dynasty leveraged the victory as a foundational moment that legitimized their rule and became central to their propaganda (appearing in coins, monuments, and so on...). I dedicated an entire section to analyzing these consequences in depth. Mariamnei (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I highly appreciate your hard work, and fully understand that shortening the article is an especially difficult task. Borsoka (talk) 01:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Source review

  • Academic sources of high quality, including several monographs, are cited.
  • Either delete or add the place of publication at each titles listed in sections "Modern sources" and "Further reading".
  • Are all sources listed in section "Ancient sources" cited in the article?
    • Yes, all the ancient sources listed are cited within the article, except for Philostratus. The article originally included content from him, but I cut it during the trimming process, so I have now removed him from the ancient sources list as well.
  • The publication details of primary sources cited in the article are missing. Borsoka (talk) 01:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you clarify what you mean? Are you referring to specific editions, translators, or something else? I didn't quote from all of them directly, so providing full publication details for each one would be tricky.
      Yes, I miss the details of the specific editions/translations cited. Borsoka (talk) 13:04, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Got it, I'll make those changes. One more thing, how should I handle works that are mentioned but not directly quoted? Is there a preferred way to choose which translation or edition to cite in those cases? Mariamnei (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Could you quote an example from the article here? Borsoka (talk) 15:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Of course! For example, at one point, the article says: Suetonius claimed the Romans lost their legionary eagle., with a reference to Suetonius, Vespasian, 4.5. Since I'm not using a direct quote, how do I decide which translation to go with? Mariamnei (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • After the siege. Changed the text to After capturing Jerusalem, Pompey entered the Temple's Holy of Holies—an act of desecration, as only the High Priest was permitted to enter to make it clear.
  • Make sure that each linked terms are only linked once.
  • Done!
  • Link Hellenistic.
  • A Jewish delegation from Alexandria attempted to persuade the emperor to abandon his plan. Delete.
  • Introduce the Sicarii as Jewish radicals.
  • During Passover, likely the year after Florus' appointment, Cestius Gallus, governor of Syria, visited Jerusalem, possibly to address complaints against Florus, but took no action. Delete. Alternatively, attribute the PoV ("...possibly to address...") to a scholar.
  • ..."freedom"... Why the quotation marks are needed?
  • David Goodblatt notes that efforts such as the attempt to liberate Judaea, minting coins inscribed with "Israel", and using an era of the "freedom of Israel" reflect characteristics comparable to modern national liberation movements. I do not understand. Introduce Goodblatt with one or two words.
  • Would you find this phrasing clearer? Historian David Goodblatt points to similarities between the actions and ideology of the rebels and those of modern national liberation movements, using the attempt to free Judaea, the minting of coins inscribed with 'Israel,' and the use of an era called the 'freedom of Israel' as examples. also, would mentioning the field of study be sufficient when introducing a scholar? (for example, historian, political scientist, archaeologist) Mariamnei (talk) 10:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...and the use of an era called the "freedom of Israel"... I still do not understand this part. Did they frequently refer to an idealistic era called the "freedom of Israel"? Yes, you can introduce any scholar with one word.
  • Yep! this is reflected on coins minted by the rebels, using a new calendar that counted the years of the 'freedom of Israel.' This is explained later in the article in the section on the coins: They were dated using a new calendar based on the years of the revolt (years one to five), marking the dawn of a new era with the state's establishment.. Does this phrasing make it clearer? (And bonus—it's even a bit shorter!) Historian David Goodblatt points to similarities between the rebels' actions and ideology and those of modern national liberation movements, citing their struggle to free Judaea, the minting of coins inscribed with "Israel," and the adoption of the "freedom of Israel" era as examples. Mariamnei (talk) 16:29, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does the concept "zeal" include?
  • Zeal, in this context, is a deep dedication to God's will, law, and the sanctuary, and the belief of a sacred duty to defend Israel's faith and purity. I'm changing the text to say The concept of "zeal"—a total commitment to God's will, law, and the sanctuary, rooted in figures like Phinehas, Elijah, and Mattathias, and driven by a belief in Israel's divine election and the sacred duty to uphold its faith and purity—is often seen as a key driver of the revolt. Mariamnei (talk) 13:08, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...a total commitment to God's will, law, and the sanctuary,[55] rooted in figures like Phinehas, Elijah, and Mattathias, and driven by a belief in Israel's divine election and the sacred duty to uphold its faith and purity... Shorten by at least 50%. :)
  • Introduce Hege with one or two words.
  • ...this term could be applied similar factions shared its ideology... Rephrase.
  • How about this: While Eleazar ben Simon's faction was the only one to explicitly call itself "Zealots," historian Martin Hengel maintained that all factions rejecting foreign rule in the name of God's sole sovereignty could rightfully be included under this designation. Mariamnei (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Introduce Philip Alexander with one or two words.
  • Some scholars... Name one or two.
  • According to Jonathan Price, these ideas motivated Jews across the country to join the uprising. Delete.
  • Introduce Rajak with one or two words.
  • ...critics argue... Name one or two.
  • Introduce Rogers with one or two words.
  • ...are also considered a factor... By whom?
  • Most notably by Rapaport, rephrasing to present this as a debate rather than general statement: Historian Uriel Rappaport wrote that hostility between Jews and surrounding Greek cities was the decisive factor that made the revolt inevitable, as Rome failed to address the tensions. ... Historian Martin Goodman, however, argued that since Jews had chosen to live in Greek cities, deep hostility was not a long-standing issue, and the violence of 66 CE was a consequence of rising tensions rather than the root cause of the revolt. Mariamnei (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Introduce Goodman with one or two words.
  • ...both of whom were often despised by the populace.... That the Herodians were despised is not previously mentioned? Why?
  • Good point! I'm adding a sentence in the background section to clarify the resentment toward Herod: Herod ruled Judaea as a client kingdom of Rome, imposing heavy taxation, engaging in court intrigues and murders, controlling Jewish institutions, and promoting Hellenization, fueling Jewish resentment. Mariamnei (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shorten by 50% the new text. :)
  • Introduce Caesarea as a town.
  • ...that blocked access... To where?
  • ..., but he took the money and left for Sebaste, allowing work to continue. I would rephrase and avoid mentioning his leave for Sebaste.
  • I changed the text to Prominent Jews paid Florus eight talents to stop the construction, but he took the money and left without intervening, allowing the work to continue. Hope that's better now! Mariamnei (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...mocking him by collecting alms... I do not understand.
    I changed the text to Protests followed, with crowds mocking him by passing around a basket to collect alms, as if he were a beggar. Does this make it clearer? Mariamnei (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Introduce the Sanhedrin with two or three words.
  • ..., blocked by the crowd that severed the fortress-Temple link by destroying the porticoes,... Delete.
  • ..., the Jewish vassal king of Chalcis,... Delete.
  • Addressing the people alongside his sister Berenice,... I assume this is a reference to Agrippa's public speech.
  • ...paid the talents owed... I assume this is a reference to tax.
  • Subsequently, the leaders of Jerusalem, along with the high priests and Pharisee leaders, failed to dissuade the populace from revolting and sought help from Florus and Agrippa. Rephrase.
  • ...from Auranitis, Batanaea, and Trachonitis... I would say "from Syria".
  • The issue is that there was a Roman province called Syria at the time, but these districts weren't actually part of it: they were under Agrippa's rule. Some cities there belonged to the Decapolis, so calling them 'Syria' might be confusing. Mariamnei (talk) 11:32, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...along with the moderates... Who?
  • Those who urged compromise with Rome (as opposed to the Zealots). For clarity, I changed the text to say: Subsequently, the moderate leaders of Jerusalem, including the high priests and Pharisee leaders, failed to dissuade the populace from revolting and sought help from Florus and Agrippa. Agrippa dispatched 2,000 cavalrymen from Auranitis, Batanaea, and Trachonitis, These forces joined the moderates, who controlled the Upper City, while Eleazar ben Hanania's followers controlled the Lower City and Temple Mount. Mariamnei (talk) 11:32, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is Ananias?
  • After appearing in royal attire... Why?
  • Possibly a messianic claim, trying to present himself as the prophesied anointed king. But that's a speculation. He may have aimed for kingship, but as one scholar put it, "With his own murder the question became academic and remains unanswerable." (Smith, M., 2006, p. 508). Think it's worth adding? Mariamnei (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...the Sicarii were expelled from Jerusalem By whom and why?
  • When Eleazar ben Hanania' faction killed their leader Menahem ben Judah. Rogers describes this as more of a violent scattering than an organized expulsion, so fixing the text to say After appearing in royal attire in public, Menahem was captured, tortured, and executed by Eleazar ben Ananias' faction, while many of his Sicarii followers were killed or scattered. Others, including Menahem's relative Eleazar ben Yair, withdrew to Masada. Mariamnei (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...they were betrayed and murdered By whom?
  • Changed the text to say The Jews of Scythopolis initially assisted their fellow townspeople in defending the city from Jewish attackers. However, they were later relocated with their families to a grove outside the town, where they were massacred by those who had fought alongside them. Mariamnei (talk) 11:32, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...a large number of Jews... A scholarly estimation?
  • Let's remove this part since it's the same event mentioned below, the massacre of Damascus' Jewry in the city's gymnasium. I'm adding another event from the same time: how some communities in other cities were spared. Mariamnei (talk) 13:08, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link and explain toparchy.
  • Introduce Stern with one or two words.
  • Introduce Smallwood with one or two words.
  • ...where the Maccabees had once defeated the Seleucids,... Delete.
  • ... Battle of the Teutoburg Forest... I would say "the Romans defeat by Germans in the Teutoborg Forest", or something similar.
  • ...and undecideds... Delete.
  • Some elite moderates fled to the Romans, while others stayed and joined the rebels. Could you name some of them?
  • Around the same time, a pogrom in Damascus saw the city's men, fearing betrayal by their Judaized wives, lock the Jews in a gymnasium and, according to Josephus, kill thousands within hours. Rephrase.
  • Changed to Around the same time, a pogrom broke out in Damascus. The city's men, fearing betrayal by their wives who had converted to Judaism, locked the Jewish population in a gymnasium and, according to Josephus, killed thousands within hours. Mariamnei (talk) 11:32, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Borsoka (talk) 07:16, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey @Borsoka:, I've gone over all the inputs and addressed them (posting a few questions along the way!). Please let me know what your thoughts are, and looking forward to the next set of comments whenever you're ready. 😊Mariamnei (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...appears to have taken on the role of second-in-command... Why does it appear? If this is a scholarly PoV, attribute it to the scholar.
  • Do we know why those people were chosen to govern the provinces?
  • It's not very clear, at least based on the sources I've seen. It doesn't seem like appointments were always based on knowledge of each area, for instance, Josephus was from Jerusalem but was still sent to command Galilee. Mariamnei (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eleazar ben Simon, the Zealot leader, was denied any formal position. He was not previously mentioned. What was his role in the revolt? Why was he ignored?
  • That's important background since Eleazar would later become one of the main faction leaders during the civil war in Jerusalem. He was sidelined because of his Zealot ties (according to Josephus, it was because "they saw he was of a tyrannical temper, and that his followers were, in their behavior, like guards about him"). That didn't sit well with the more moderate provisional government. Some scholars, notably Richard A. Horsley, see this as evidence for the leadership hoping to make a deal with Rome and keep the Zealot movement in check. Anyway, since this Eleazar's first appearance, I'm changing the line to: Eleazar ben Simon, a prominent Zealot leader who played a role in Gallus' defeat and seized large amounts of money, spoils, and public treasuries, was denied any formal position., let me know if there are any further thoughts? Mariamnei (talk) 12:13, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...the rejection of foreign authority and currency while... Delete "and currency".
  • ...due to its forbidden images... Rephrase to make it clear that it was decorated with images in contradiction to Jewish religious practices.
  • According to Tacitus, "arms were available for all who could bear them". Delete or cite also a secondary source to verify the statement.
  • However, the government may have merely pretended to support the revolt, instead aiming to restore control and negotiate with Rome. I do not understand. Furthermore, this is a PoV, so attribute it to a scholar.
  • Moving this to appear right after the exclusion of Simon the Zealot, and attributing to Horsely: Citing the exclusion of the Zealots, scholars such as Richard Horsley argue that the government may have only feigned support for the revolt, instead seeking a compromise with Rome. Mariamnei (talk) 12:13, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Introduce Ashkelon as a town still under Roman rule.
  • ...aiming to destroy a Roman stronghold and settle deep-seated tensions. I would delete, especially because I do not understand the reference to deep-seated tensions.
  • ...and obscure background Delete.
  • I think that's actually an important part of why he was chosen. Vespasian's obscure background probably made him seem like a safer option at the time. He wouldn't have looked like an immediate political threat to the emperor. Mariamnei (talk) 11:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link to cohortes and alae?
  • ...reportedly killed... Could you name the source?
  • ...(Yodefat/Iotapata)...(Panias)... Are these necessary?
  • All the forms show up in different sources, so I think it helps, some people might have trouble finding them otherwise. Not essential, but it can make things easier if someone's trying to Ctrl+F one of those names. Mariamnei (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The city's population, divided into pro-revolt and pro-Roman factions, saw the pro-Roman faction prevail as the Romans approached. Delete.
  • The city was loyal to Rome, but soon switched allegiance and minted its own coins. Delete.
  • ,...a priestly faction devoted to strict religious observance Delete.
  • The two factions... More than two factions are mentioned in the previous sentences.
  • ...the rebel factions... Name them to avoid misunderstanding.
  • ..., realizing the extent of their wrongs,... I do not understand.
  • The Idumeans regretted joining forces with the Zealots and felt complicit in their actions. Changing the text to say ..., regretting their involvement in the atrocities,... Mariamnei (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...by paying for safe passage To whom?
  • ...God was letting the Jews destroy themselves... Was Vespasianus monotheist?
  • Not really. He did decide to wait and let the civil war weaken Jerusalem, but the idea that "God was letting the Jews destroy themselves" is most likely Josephus adding his own theological spin. That fits with his attempt to explain the disaster as divine punishment (like other Jews did too). It's also possible this statement was meant ironically, or even reflected the ancient (polytheistic) idea that each nation had its own gods, and in this case, the god of the Jews (whom the Romans have seomtimes equated with other deities) had turned against them. But I guess that might be a bit too deep, probably best to leave it out of the article? Mariamnei (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...descended from Masada and raided the wealthy village of Ein Gedi... Why?
  • ...they blamed for it... Delete.
  • Around this time... I assume this is based on archaeological evidence.
  • ...the sectarian Qumran community... Delete "sectarian".
  • ...with some members possibly joining the rebels at Masada. Why do scholars think this?
  • Jodi Magness writes this idea originated with Yigael Yadin, who had based it on the presence of cylindrical and ovoid jars at Masada. These are strongly associated with the Qumran community and their distinctive material culture rooted in purity practices. Do you think it's worth including in the article? It might be a bit too detailed, but maybe we could just mention that the link has been suggested based on shared material culture, (or even say "Qumran-style vessels" if we want to keep it tight..) Mariamnei (talk) 14:27, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Introduce Lucius Annius with one or two words.

Borsoka (talk) 07:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:First_Jewish–Roman_War&oldid=1277852040"