Talk:Bar Kokhba revolt/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Numbers

(580,000 Jews were killed, 50 fortified towns and 985 villages were razed)

Where did these numbers come from... trying to estimate WW2 numbers is often controversial, let alone numbers about stuff that happened 2000 years ago. User:GeneralPatton

I returned them back, with attribution. Got to admit, I haven't read C.Dio myself, but at least 2 reputable sources that I've got right here & now refer to him. --Humus sapiens|Talk 05:19, 11 May 2004 (UTC) Both include these same numbers. --Humus sapiens|Talk 05:40, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

About all we can do is attribute - sometimes people do research papers working up a more plausible guess, based on population, grain shipments, or whatever, but then you'd still want Dio's number alongside. Stan 05:30, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

The research papers are based on facts and reasoning (such as comparison with more recent pre-industrial settlements with censused population). AFAIK, we don't know what the ancients' (C.Dio) numbers are based on - they seem to be guesstimates. If they were based on any methodology it should be cited. Fourtildas 06:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ancient sources are generally unreliable when it comes to numbers; they tend to inflate Roman military exploits with exaggerated numbers. --GeneralPatton 02:10, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

New source

The below is from a discussion with another editor. It would be very nice if this was incorporated into the background section. I won't have time to do this myself for a while. nadav 00:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I am looking now at an article by Lee Levine, "Jerusalem from the Destruction of Jerusalem to the End of the Second Jewish Revolt" (appears in the book Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism ed. by Hershel Shanks, isbn 1-880317-08-7). He writes

Perhaps the most frequent subject of discussion concerning the Bar-Kochba revolt related to its causes. One was a decree of the Roman emperor Hadrian prohibiting the practice of circumcision; according to a fourth century biography of Hadrian this was the immediate cause of the outbreak of hostilities. However the Roman historian Dio Cassius, in his early third century History of Rome, tells us that it was the anouncement of Hadrian's intention to build a new city to be called Aelia Capotilina on the site of Jerusalem that triggered the rebellion...Opinion has been divided over which was the real cause,or, alternatively, which was the primary cause of the revolt. Both may well have constituted indispensible ingredients leading to the outbreak of hostilities. As we shall see, however, other basic conditions were also important in accounting for teh revolt.

He then discusses the context for each of these decisions, and how the Romans had done similar things elsewhere. He then continues:

While these decrees probably explain the the specific timing of the outbreak of hostilities, Eusebius, the fourth century bishop of Caesarea, in a passage often ignored, suggests that the revolt was not simply a sudden eruption of Jewish nationalist and religious fervor but was rather the culmination of a decades-long period of discontent and unrest following the destruction of the Second Temple.

Eusebius also notes that because the Romans were apprehensive of any type of messianic or royal claims, they sought to track down those Jews of Davidic descent.

In the next section, he describes revolts that had occured a few years earlier among Diaspora Jews, and the possiblity that there was some revolt in Judea at the same time. Archaeologists also have unearthed extensive road building in those years in Judea, which often had military uses. The most interesting part is picture depicting an Aelia Capitolina coin. The caption reads:

Minted in 131 C.E., this coin depicts the temple to Jupiter, flanked by statues of Juno and Minerva, which the Roman emperor Hadrian planned to build on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Hadrian's plan to transform Jewish Jerusalem to a Roman city named Aelia Capitolina sparked the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome in 132 C.E. The new Roman name for the city is inscribed on the coin COL(onia) AEL(ia) KAP(itolina), a name combining one of Hadrian's names, Aelius, with a reference to the three deities of the Roman Capitolina, Jupiter, Juno and Minerva.

Checking April 2007 edits

Should this be fixed? "the first crusade in 1096, where Cristian rule began in 1099 until the fall of the Byzantine Empire in 1516"

I believe the Byzantine empire empire fell in 1453..

Yes, by no definition did the Empire last until 1516. User:Itzse introduced a number of factual, spelling, sourcing, and POV problems into the article, not to mention at least one wrong link. (The temple was not built to the planet Jupiter.) However, he (I assume "Itzse" is for "Yitzchak" and thus male?) also added a number of important historical considerations. So I think it might be best to revert and discuss aspects of his version of the article (located here) prior its gradual incorporation into the article. Or Itzse can point us to a sandbox version of the edits. Calbaer 19:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

In the spirit of improving the article, I created a to do list of the things I thougt are priorities. Fell free to add stuff. nadav 20:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC) I do think that since the article is now B-Class, additional edits should be based on sources and cited. That's the only way it will be promoted to anything higher. nadav 23:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. Just so you know, I've mainly worked on getting rid of things that are obviously wrong (false, POV, etc.) rather than adding material that is right, since most of what I know about the revolt I learned from the Wikipedia page (and from this site). Sorry if I sounded like I claimed to be an expert. Calbaer 23:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Bar Kokhba's revolt vs. Bar Kokhba revolt

Should we change the title? Bar Kokhba revolt seems to be more prevalent. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Finally sombody did it. The way it was, didn't make sense. It wasn't Bar Kochba's revolt; it was a revolt by the Jews against Rome with Bar Kochba as its military leader. I wasn't aware that you had brought it up, otherwise I would have added my support for such a move; thanks. Itzse 15:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Correction on numbers regarding people murdered by revolting Jews

According to DIO CASSIUS, Second century Roman historian, in Cyprus and Cyrene, Jews massacred gentiles in great numbers. "The Jews were destroying both Greeks and Romans. They ate the flesh of their victims, made belts for themselves out of their entrails, and daubed themselves with their blood... In all, 220,000 men perished in Cyrene and 240,000 in Cyprus, and for this reason no Jew may set foot in Cyprus today."

I have not seen anything by this same historian to include the number of dead Jews. I would like to see a link to a non-Jewish source for any such claim.

The fact is that this was Roman territory and the Jews living in that land were given a huge amount of freedom to practice their religion. That's why the Romans were taken aback when the rebellion came. Jews slaughtered thousands of Gentiles, mostly innocent women and children who's only crime was not being Jewish. --Jtpaladin 02:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, those bloodthirsty Jews. Where's the info coming from? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

You need to check yourself because as a pro-Israeli, pro-Jewish supporter you make it hard for me to deal with anti-Semites when you exclude historical information related to the subject at hand. When people twist history to meet their political agenda, then your opponents can make up lies and then you have to deal with those lies as well as history. Naturally, "revisionists" use history and lies together to make converts. I have never lost an argument to an anti-Semite because I use history to confirm what happened and argue that history is not an indication of present life or the future. For the most part, I use any historical source that can be confirmed. In this case, because you and I will go back-and-forth with this page, I will use Jewish sources (although I retain the right to use any verfiable historical source). That's why my sources in this article are strictly from the Jewish Encyclopedia. If you had been fair, as I have been, you would have added this information without me having to visit this page. Sadly, in this case, you only told half the story. I ask you to tell me why you left out the information from the Jewish Encyclopedia that rightfully should have been included.

Please check out my comments on your talk page. Thank you. --Jtpaladin 17:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Jtpaladin, I left a note on your talk page regarding personal attacks. There is no need to crosspost the same message. On the subject: The numbers you insisted on adding belong to Kitos War (115-117). Different time, different place, different rulers - no relation to the Bar Kokhba's revolt (132-135). The numbers you insisted on removing: another reputable source is Paul Johnson, A History of the Jews (1987) p.141. By now, this is confirmed by 4 scholarly sources and more can be provided. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

If you put it that way, I don't understand why people who are pro-Jew etc can edit articles like this. Same for holocaust. Same for any article regarding anything! I don't like anti-Semites, pro-Semites etc. Ethnicity is something you can't fix yourself, so why the big deal about it. Mallerd (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Philistines long extinct???

What is the basis for this assertion? According to the Philistines article the place seems to have been continuously inhabited up to Roman times. "Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon eventually conquered all of Syria and the land of Canaan, and the Philistine cities became part of the Neo-Babylonian empire. Subsequently the cities were under the control of Persians, Greeks, and Romans, and 'Philistia' was governed as a territory."24.64.166.191 04:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

They vanished as a people. Their neigbors stopped identifying them (and they stopped identifying themselves) as such. A typical story for an ancient people. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 06:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Most people identify themselves as members of some people/tribe/nation and only stop identifying themselves if they assimilate into some other people/tribe/nation(s). Were the Philistines assimilated into some other people/tribe/nation(s)?

I remember being taught that the Mayans were extinct (in your sense) but on a trip to Yucatan I found that the native Mayans didn't think so.24.64.166.191 04:33, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your teacher was obviously wrong, the Mayans are not extinct as you have observed. This is not the case with the Philistines.--Doron 07:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So what is the case with the Philistines? The Mayans retained their marriage customs, dress, cuisine etc. and did not adopt the customs of the Spanish colonialists. The Philistines either retained their customs or became Jewish or something else - what?24.64.166.191 05:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Opinions Aside I can cite scientific and incontrivertible proof that the Palestinians are at least in part decended from Philtines and furthermore are related to jews. The Origin of Palestinians and Their Genetic Relatedness With other Mediteranian populations.

What te heck ever. if you dont mind having an inacurate article then so be it .--66.92.130.180 20:00, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

A DNA study performed by a Japanese university. Surely you do not think that they have any reason to lie about this. This study used a comparison of the differences between populations now existing to determine how various groups are related. It found the palestinians have more haplotypes in common with jews than with most other "Arab" people. It found that jews have more DNA in common with Palestinians than with most other groups studied.

Sure on both sides there has been some intermariage with people who are not jewish or Palestinian which is to be expexted after 2000 years of Diasopra and conquest of the levant. --Hfarmer 16:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

It is a known study. It's conclusions may be true or not, but how is this relevant? 16 million people alive today are the descendents of Genghis Khan, so what? Does it suddenly make all of us/them the Mongols? The Philistines disappeared as a distinct people around 6-5 century BCE and today's Arabs have nothing to do with them. Curiously, many of those who insist on indentifying the modern Palestinians with the ancient Philistines, tend to insist that the Jews do not belong to the Land of Israel. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 04:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Please do not assume that I am some how anti one side and Pro the other. Yours is a conflict between brothers in which I have no stake.

This is relivant because it establishes that the Phillistines are in fact not extinct they just converted to a differnt religion than the worship of pagan idols that they had been doing. This fact alone does not mean that they as a people do not exist. ie. my self and my Native Relatives are still Native Americans although none of us practice the old traditions as they existed pre coloumbus. This does not make us white or black, just Natives who practice a different religion. I can also understand the politics of ancestry determineing who gets to live "on the 'reservation' " and who does not. I have firsthand knowledge of those type of matters.

"the Phillistines are in fact not extinct they just converted to a differnt religion than the worship of pagan idols that they had been doing."

Are you saying they converted to Judaism? Or were they a non-Jewish peasent underclass ruled by hereditary Jewish overlords? In those days 90-95% of the population in agrarian societies were serfs. Who were the "people" of Israel? The Jewish ruling classes or the conquered subject peoples? Who were the "people" of the Roman Empire - not Romans for sure.24.64.166.191 05:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

All of this is relevant to this discussion because it falseifies the statement that "the Phillistines were long extinct". It just is not a true statement.

Where do I personally stand on the matter? If anything the current Palestinians being mostly the same people puts the current conflict in perspective. You all have been fighiting back and forth for thousands of years. Why would a little talk with George Bush (either or them) or anyone else make you stop? Those are the personal feelings I have on that matter. --Hfarmer 06:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I try not to assume anything. That was a general observation not directed at you. BTW, I think I understand your perspective: I have several Native American friends. Sorry, some of your assumptions are simply wrong. Arabs and Jews did not fight each other for thousands of years. As a matter of fact, they got along better than Christians and Jews. By 1940s, about a million of Jews lived in Arab/Muslim lands, see [1].

Back to our subject: "The Phillistines are in fact not extinct they just converted to a differnt religion" -- the point is, they stopped identifying themselves or being identified by their neighbors as a distinct people. Unlike you and your relatives. That makes all the difference. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 07:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying they converted to Judaism? Fourtildas 05:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Phillistines are extinct. From evidence of their pottery and other works, they were likely Greek people. Maybe even survivors of the destruction of Atlantis Santorini. If you look at Palestinians and check their DNA, they match closer to Jewish people than any other group. The Palestinians are merely Arabs who have lived in the region over the centuries. I assume this the popular conception. Forgive me if I just angered anyone. Jtpaladin 21:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

By Greek you mean Dorian I presume? Mallerd (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

For the culture and religion of Gaza during the period in question, see 'the colossal seated Marnas from Gaza' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeus. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagon#Marnas. Marnas is a Hellenized Aramaic word. So, up to the early 5th century CE, there were Aramaic speakers in Gaza who worshiped a pagan grain god (theorized in the referenced article to be Dagon). It is clear from this that the inhabitants of Gaza were neither Jews nor Greeks. It is also clear that like many of the peoples who had been subject to the Persian Empire, they had exchanged their ancestral language for Aramaic.--BobGriffin-Nukraya (talk) 06:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI: The Philistines were Aegeans, not Arabs. The Roman Empire simply changed the name Judea to Palestine on their maps following the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135AD. Up until 1964 it was the Jews who were the 'Palestinians', Arabs despised the name. But Arafat created the PLO in 1964 and bestowed the name Palestinian onto 'his' Arabs. The fraud was never questioned as it was obvious! But if you tell a big enough lie often enough.....

Wrong Empress Eudocia?

The section headed "Further Revolts Against the Roman Empire" lists what appears to be the wrong "Empress Eudocia" as the one giving permission for Jewish people to worship at the wall of the fallen temple. In 438, Licinia_Eudoxia, the "Eudocia" linked by the article, was only 16. On the other hand, her mother, Aelia Eudocia, also known as Augusta, who was the wife of Eastern Emperor Theodosius II, was well known for her pilgrimages to the Holy Land and her sympathy with the plight of the Jews. It is more likely that the elder Aelia Eudocia (Augusta), not her daughter Eudoxia, gave this permission. Does anyone know of any sources on this?Aramink (talk) 03:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in Rabbi Akiva's role in the revolt

This item and the item on Rabi Akiva provide different descriptions of Akiva's role.

The only established fact concerning his connection with Bar Kokba is that the venerable teacher regarded the patriot as the promised Jewish Messiah (Yer. Ta'anit, iv. 68d)... Akiva expounded the following verse homiletically: "A star has shot off Jacob" (Numbers 24:17) and so nicknamed the rebel as Kochva, "the star", rather than Kozieva. When Akiva would see bar Kochba, he would say: "Dein hu Malka Meshiecha!" (This is the King Messiah) (Jerusalem Talmud, Ta'anit 4:8). Nitpyck (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Wrong category and overlinks

Debresser, regarding your revert - the insertion of "Wars of ancient Israel" category was done by AndresHerutJaim, who made wrong categorization of several other Levantine classic period conflicts. Note that ancient Israel relates to the entities of Unified Kingdom of Israel (10-9 centuries BCE) and the Kingdom of Israel (9-8th centuries BCE), thus it is irrelevant. The Bar Kokhba revolt is part of the Jewish-Roman wars, while for example the Battle of Qarqar is an event defined as part of Wars of ancient Israel.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I noticed this argument in the editsummary of your second edit, and agree with it. Which is why editsummaries are important. But I still don't understand why you remove those 3 see also's. Would you care to explain that, please? Debresser (talk) 16:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much simple - we use see also's, if the wikilinks are relevant/similar, but not mentioned in the article text. Here, however, we have a profound wikilinking in the text about Jewish-Roman wars in general and the Great Revolt and Kitos War in perticular, within the background section (i added it there myself). However, for example, the Jewish revolt against Babylon of 6th century BCE is not mentioned, so we can add it in the see also's.Greyshark09 (talk) 13:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

"Messianic Jews"

With respect to the statement:

"At the time, Jewish Christians were still a minor sect of Judaism, and most[who?] historians believe that it was this messianic claim in favor of Bar Kokhba alienated many of them, who believed that the true Messiah was Jesus, and sharply deepened the schism between Jews and Messianic Jews.[citation needed]"

I propose deleting it in its entirety. There is no cited support for it, and the term "Messianic Jews" is anachronistic in this context. The correct designation, assuming the claim about the "schism" is correct, would be "Jewish Christians".Roberterubin (talk) 03:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

"Jewish early Christians" then. Although "messianic Jews" without the capital (to distinguish the adjective from the proper name of the modern group) would be just as correct. Debresser (talk) 07:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this fine edit. Worthy of a cookie, at the very least. Debresser (talk) 02:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Section Outcome of the war

Somehow the section Outcome of the war contradicts itself a little. Hadrian "tried to root out Judaism", and so "Jews were forbidden from entering it [Jerusalem], except on the day of Tisha B'Av." If that is "rooting out" it is a very mild kind. I suspect the paragraph have multiple contradicting sources, it would be nice to have a less chaotic discourse. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 20:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Myth of "expulsion of jews in 132AD"

"Modern historians have come to view the Bar-Kokhba Revolt as being of decisive historic importance. The massive destruction and loss of life occasioned by the revolt has led some scholars to date the beginning of the Jewish diaspora from this date. They note that, unlike the aftermath of the First Jewish-Roman War chronicled by Josephus, the majority of the Jewish population of Judea was either killed, exiled, or sold into slavery after the Bar-Kokhba Revolt,"

Which "Modern historians" still cling to this "expulsion" myth? (OK, I can probably guess which ones). There is an extensive literature on Jewish life in Palestine (they were the majority of the population) for hundreds of years after 132. I will delete the part quoted above unless a source is supplied, representing the consensus of recognized modern academic historians (not some advocacy site claiming to be an encyclopedia, please). Fourtildas 05:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It should also be noted that there is a popular but utterly incorrect idea that the supposed expulsion of Jews from Palestine is what started the Jewish diaspora, as implied in by the article as quoted above. The diaspora happened a long time before that, and it didn't result from "expulsion" at all. There were huge Jewish communities in Alexandria and Babylon, for example, and lotsa Jewish communities all over the Roman Empire. In fact, if you read Philo and Josephus carefully, you get the impression that there were already more Jews living outside Palestine than in it, well before the Judaean War of 70-74.

There's really no reason to doubt that the modern Palestinian Arabs are descended from the people who lived there anciently, many of whom were Jewish. Any more than there's any reason to doubt that most modern Levantine Muslims are descended from Christians who lived there in Byzantine times, and who are in turn descended from pagans who lived there before that. And when I say modern Palestinian Arabs, I include the Jewish Palestinian Arabs along with the Christians and Muslims and Druzes.

It's certainly true that the "Roman expulsion of Jews" is a myth. Rome didn't persecute Jews qua Jews until it became Christian, whereupon it acquired a theological reason for hating Jews. Tom129.93.17.174 04:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, where to begin when confronted with such historical theories. Palestinian Arabs are in all likelihood descended from all those people you mention, as well as many others. Being Arab is, after all, not a genetic definition but a linguistic or ethnic one. And the area we know variously as the Levant, etc., has always been an area with lots of migrations of people. It's a bit tedious to quibble about genetic descent in this context, as it's always going to be a contest of assertions. In the meantime, genetic tests, for what they're worth, show that Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews are related to each other, and also to Arabs and Assyrians. Which shouldn't surprise anyone and makes the divisiveness so much more tragic.

As for the expulsion, the Romans did indeed persecute Jews long before Christianity set in among them. It wasn't that they were particularly harsh toward Jews - they were harsh toward anyone who was insubordinate to Roman ways, and Jews could not tolerate idolatry in general and desecration of the temple in particular. Yes, there has been uninterrupted Jewish habitation of the area throughout all historical time, but the Romans implemented and enforced severe difficulties for Jews, to force them to either assimilate to Roman ways or leave. --Leifern 05:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Up until the expulsion of the ten tribes almost all if not actually all Jews lived in the Holy land and Transjordan. The destruction of the First Temple saw most Jews expelled outside Israel. At the beginning of the Second Temple there were more Jews outside Israel then in Israel (even without the lost ten tribes). At the time of the destruction of the second temple, there probably were more Jews in Israel as a result of assimilation by the Diaspora Jews and population growth in Israel. At the time of the Bar Kochba revolt there might have been an equal number of Jews in Israel as outside Israel. But as a result of the Bar Kochba war there were probably more Jews outside Israel then in Israel. Those that survived in Israel concentrated mostly in the Northern part of the country where for the next hundred years the Tannaim produced the Mishnah in Tiberias.The next fifty years the Amoraim in Israel produced the Jerusalem Talmud, then for the next two hundred years the Amoroim of Israel together with the Amoroim of Babylon (on the banks of the Euphrates) produced the Babylonian Talmud. So I think that it is true that as a result of the Bar Kochba war, the Jewish Diaspora became a cold reality even though there was still a strong presence of Jews left in the Holy land. So just like there is a political need of some to downplay the Jewish presence in Israel for the last five hundred years, it's not surprising that these same people would like everyone to believe that in 132 CE, Judaea became Judenrein and they’ll grab on to Half-truths or to just about anything to bolster their claim. Itzse 16:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

On Romans persecuting the Jews, check out Flavius Josephus, Antiquities 14.214-215 and his Against Apion where it is said that Roman authorities gave to the Jews certain rights that they did not award to other conquered people. This does not invalidate the fact that Jews in the Mediterranean were also persecuted (this is in fact implied by the special protection they were given in the passage of Josephus' Antiquities). As for the Diaspora becoming a "cold reality", it clearly was a cold reality way before Bar Kochba and I would like to know which "scholars" decided to "to date the beginning of the Jewish diaspora from this date." --69.196.147.155 (talk) 05:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Immediately after the Bar Kochba revolt there remained a large Jewish presence in Judea as is shown by the fact that there was a major rabbinical school in Lydda. The Romans tried to ban Jews from Jerusalem but that was not successful. Also, it is incorrect to refer to the descendants of the 10 northern tribes as Jews. Jews are those whose identity derives from the tribe of Judah or from the kingdom of Judah. Tom129.93.17.139 21:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You're correct with what you wrote, except that the identity "Jew" was given to all Jews, even those from the tribe of Benjamin, because probably half of the Jews who were expelled at the time of the destruction of the First Temple were from the tribe of Judah and also because the Jewish nobility (house of David) came from Judea, and Judea was named after the tribe of Judah who were the inhabitors of Judea, who were given that plot of land by G-d between the years 1271 and 1257 BCE, when Joshua conquered and divided the land.

The Jews actually considered themselves then and still consider themselves now bnei Yisroel (the children of Israel), and the lost ten tribes if they didn't give up their identity would still be considered bnei Yisroel. That's why the Falashas are considered "Jews" even though they're not from the tribe of Judah. Itzse 20:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been reading that Romans barred Jerusalem to the Jews in two recent textbook of the history of the Christian Church as well as in W. H. C. Frend's The Rise of Christianity (p.162). Nobody cites any ancient sources. Does somebody know where this notion comes from? --69.196.147.155 (talk) 05:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

From Eusebius of Caesarea's Church History, here Chapter 6 verse 2. He never wrote of an expulsion of Jews from Judaea, only from Jerusalem. And yes: he's biased. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 20:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

None of this discussion actually deals with the question, which is regarding that paragraph at the very beginning of this section, which is still, over six years later, in the article. In any event, there need to be references when we talk about what "modern historians" or "some scholars" believe. - 124.191.144.183 (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced POV edits

To User:TheUnforgiven, adding unnecessary and unsourced adjectives loaded with hyperbole like you keep attempting to add here is highly POV. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 8 July 2005 20:17 (UTC)

Sorry Jew-guy, I'm not buying your drivel at the behest of User:Jayjg, who is also Jewish and your best buddy.

I will not adhere to a troll ring of Zionazis any more than a troll ring of Germanazis.

I won't cower to your self-concieved superiority and heckling to get me to fold for you.

I've defeated far more bullies than the years you've been alive.

See here for my refutation: [2]

Articles laden with POV adjectives do no-one any favours, and please refrain from personal attacks. Jayjg ^(talk) 8 July 2005 20:37 (UTC)

Please refrain from ad hominem editing. You know, the kind that includes editing against a person's edits for the sake of an earlier and unrelated dispute(the only possible one could be, that it is on your watchlist of all things about Jews and Judaism, regardless of context). Hostile editing to control an article doesn't work in the sense of advancing an article to the peak of reading performance. You have failed so many decent topics by controlling the written matter to your POV subjectivity. No matter what you do to try and blaspheme or libel my actions, I will not give in to this coercion. Go ahead and ban me for your POV pushing tactics of thuggery. I described a fact about your trolling, which is evidenced by your edit history. All people can troll, even Jews and even administrators and by God, even Jewish administrators. You don't have a God given right to treat me like this, regardless of what you think you should do according to your religion. The Christian Zionist cowards who let you get away with this are no better in objectivity. Stop your bullying!

Again, please refrain from personal attacks, and please remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Jayjg ^(talk) 8 July 2005 20:48 (UTC)

Oh, and please note that I have edited this article before, months before you ever showed up on it, so of course it is on my watchlist. Jayjg ^(talk) 8 July 2005 20:51 (UTC)

What kind of world is it in Israel and the International Jewish Community? How can you seriously go before the world with your Ignoratio elenchi driving everything you support? Why can't you just be normal people and grow the fuck up? I will not do what you will not do. Everything you edit in your favour is POV. Everything you do against me is obviously by definition ad hominem...eg. No personal attacks. I will use appropriate language for the rightful circumstances. You will neither censor me, nor whitewash the truth from the public eye. I am wrong: You already are doing such things and getting away with it because of your "G-dly authority". Go away! TheUnforgiven 8 July 2005 21:06 (UTC)

There is an article called Lashon Hara, it is a good read, espescially when that information is combined with the "I am nothing" concept of humility.AurumSpiral1235813 (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I recommend a time-out. Tomer ^TALK July 8, 2005 21:24 (UTC)

You would not care to say so for Jayjg, who would never back down anyways after a "timeout". This is his repertoire on the Wikipedia, however sad it may be for you as a Jew to think your people could ever do wrong. Accept your flaws as much as Christians do. Perhaps you might gain some respect! For so long as I am treated like chattle by Jews, I will never accept them as friends. This is with anybody trying to blow smoke up my ass, as I had a recent run in with a Nazi here. Zionism is evil. Inasmuch as Christians are prohibited from doing their Godly duties on Wikipedia, so are Jews expected to refrain from doing their intolerance of anything outside their orthodoxy. You lot are prejudiced and blinded by your fundamentalism and I will not take this lip from you. Repackage your hatred for Gentiles all you want, but it means nothing at all to me. Don't bullshit me! TheUnforgiven 8 July 2005 21:37 (UTC)

Your statements demonstrate that you are at present, at least, incapable of working together with other editors to improve Wikipedia. Your blatant personal attacks, some of which sound like veiled threats, are clear evidence of that. If you weren't so inextricably POV, you'd be open to the possibility at least, that when I recommended a time-out, I was recommending that both of you take a time-out. Clearly, my recommendation went unheaded, as the hot-headed comments above demonstrate. Tomer ^TALK 03:37, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

As the author of the phrase in question, I insist that the original phrase expresses what it's supposed to and the change by TheUnforgiven is not an improvement but rather blatant POV. The previous paragraph is a clear evidence that this particular user does not understand or is unwilling to follow WP policies. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 04:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Removed poor source

Folks, there are so many good sources mentioned in the article and on this page that there is no excuse for using low-quality books like "Battleground" by Shmuel Katz. It is just a popular bit of propaganda from a life-long activist. Zero^talk 10:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The citation for the "genocide" claim looks like junk to me. Popular history written by a non-academic, non-historian, non-specialist, not published by an academic press. the claim should be properly attributed to the author. But as the auther doesn't reach the level of a "significant published viewpoint" on the topic the best thing would be to remove the claim unless it can be supported by better sourcing. Furthermore the claim that the revolt "resulted in an almost complete depopulation of Judea" seems to be entirely at odds with academic scholarship on the topic (see e.g. Davies, Finkelstein, Katz et al 2006 pp23). I am going to remove the claims on this basis. Dlv999 (talk) 03:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure it should be replaced with something like Oxford University Press publication The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea which also is much more clear on the topic - "Up until this date the Bar Kokhba documents indicate that towns, villages and ports where Jews lived were busy with industry and activity. Afterwards there is an eerie silence, and the archaeological record testifies to little Jewish presence until the Byzantine era, in En Gedi. This picture coheres with what we have already determined in Part I of this study, that the crucial date for what can only be described as genocide, and the devastation of Jews and Judaism within central Judea, was 135 CE and not, as usually assumed, 70 CE, despite the siege of Jerusalem and the Temple's destruction".GreyShark (dibra) 14:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your recent edit, I would suggest something more consistent with the basic policies and purposes of the encyclopaedia. For example:-

According to Joan E. Taylor the revolt resulted in genocide and almost complete depopulation of Judea and is considered to have a much more critical impact on Jews and Judaism than the Great Revolt of Judea of 70 CE. According to Seth Swartz two generations after the siege Judea retained a reasonably large Jewish population. He writes that while it is clear that many Jews were killed, enslaved or died of disease or starvation during the siege it is hard to make more specific judgements.

This is highly misleading - you misread Swartz, who is talking about demographics of Roman Judea two generations after the Siege of Jerusalem (70) (during the Great Revolt of Judea), claiming that while many Jews were killed in 70 CE, there remained a sufficient population to support the Bar Kokhba rebellion in 130s.GreyShark (dibra) 17:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Under the Byzantines

I wonder if the Under the Byzantines section isn't out of the scope of this article. Debresser (talk) 17:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it belongs, since it basically makes a follow-up of what happened during the Eastern Rome rule in Palaestina - the genocide of Samaritans in 6th century and the annihilation of Galilean Yishuv in 629, completing the Israelite depopulation of the region. One should take into account that the bitterness of the Jewish-Roman Wars (especially the Kitos War and the Bar-Kokhba revolt) created a strong anti-Jewish mood within the Roman domain, which has later transformed into anti-Jewish policies of Christian Byzantium.GreyShark (dibra) 17:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Broken Link

In the last section, External Links, the link: The Jewish History Resource Center Project of the Dinur Center for Research in Jewish History, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, does not work (404 Page not found). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.106.232.209 (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

According to what I can see, this page has been inactive since at least April 2012. In addition, the link was not specific enough, and should have been [3]. I can not find a new website with the same pages, so have removed the link from the External links section. Debresser (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Additional reading

This edit added two texts for additional reading, the second being part of the first. Should we list both separately here? Debresser (talk) 11:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion for edit

The current article reads: "A rabbinic version of this story claims that Hadrian planned on rebuilding the Temple, but that a malevolent Samaritan convinced him not to." Actually, that is incorrect. First, based on Genesis Rabba 64 (end), Hadrian was, indeed, dissuaded from rebuilding the Temple, the antagonist of the Jewish people telling him that it would be a cause for sedition and that they would cease thereby to pay taxes. When the Midrash mentions "Samaritans" or כותאי, it is merely a quote from the Book of Ezra (4:10-13) to show that, just as non-Jews interfered in the building of the First Temple, so, too, did non-Jews interfere in the rebuilding of the Third Temple. In Hebrew, as I have come to learn from my Talmudic studies in Jerusalem, the word כותאי (lit. Samaritan) was used as a generic term for anyone who is not Jewish.

Wherefore, my suggestion is that we re-word this one sentence. Perhaps: "A rabbinic version of this story claims that Hadrian planned on rebuilding the Temple, but was told that it would be the cause for sedition, and therefore changed his mind." Davidbena (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

That is a good idea. Kutim, which indeed often is used as a generic term for "non-Jews", might well mean "Samaritan" in this case, so the right thing would be to leave that unspecified, as you propose. Debresser (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

As far as i know "Kuti" was a nickname for Samaritans (a negative one, to emphasize their incomplete Israeliness), so i don't think this is correct to omit it, but also we should not interpret it here. Wikipedia should say "Kuthean" as well.GreyShark (dibra) 19:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The first obvious thing against that is that the word "Kuthean" was not used anywhere on Wikipedia till you wrote this post. :) Debresser (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem with using the word "Samaritan" is that its meaning may be misconstrued by readers who will think that an actual Samaritan had come before Hadrian, when the sense here is different.Davidbena (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Israel My Inheritance - Persecuted Messianic Jews Cry out for Justice and Reform

Introduced as a source here for verification of historical details of events in ancient Palestine. Probably one of the most ridiculous citations I have seen in my years editing in Wikipedia. I would rather not have to waste peoples time by bringing this to WP:RSN. Dlv999 (talk) 00:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Instead of using denigrating adjectives, get yourself an argument or get lost.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 00:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't meet any of the standards that are required of sources for historical material in Wikipedia articles. Dlv999 (talk) 06:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Be more specific. I don't think you are the most appropriate person to judge this, but I'll follow your lead for a moment.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 07:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it is a clear fail as far as reliability is concerned. The author is not a historian. The text is strictly polemic and directed towards promoting a cause (in this case, Jews who believe in Jesus). Finally, and this is enough all by itself, the book is self-published and so explicitly excluded by the rules. To see that it is self-published, visit the site of the publisher, Creation House: Christian Self-Publishing Company. You should give up on this source; it is a hopeless case. Zero^talk 09:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You are right. I'll replace the source in a moment.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 09:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Removing Schwartz

I removed the sentence sourced to Schwartz, because it is a mash of pathos and triviality, both in source and here. It cannot be used to indicate the size of population since it doesn't use any number (except for, anything less than a million). The pop. is described as "fairly large" simply as a conclusion from the fact it revolted in 131. By that point any reader can make that much without help.

Listing the ways people might have died in the Great Revolt, Schwartz frames neither the relevant numbers nor the time past the siege. Most importantly, his entire point is that he has to withhold judgement. I.E., nothing to see here. An encyclopedia article should use more decisive info than that, and not derail to appeal to emotion and tautology where unavailable.

I'll revert and try looking into his reference, Broshi, BASOR 236.

FYI User:AmirSurfLera, not every removal is agreed in advance on talk. No chance W would have survived that. trespassers william (talk) 21:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

"Genocide"

Editors should keep in mind that it's 2000 years old event while genocide is 20th century coined term for describing systematic destruction of groups driven by modern ideologies. There was no any Roman ideology for such systematic destruction, only an armed conflict in which Jews were shamefully defeated. No any difference between Roman campaigns in Gaul, Carthage and many other places, or hundreds of campaigns by other great powers. Such events may be described as massacres or ethnic cleansing, but surely not as "genocide". Describing Jewish ancient defeats as genocides is childish and unencyclopedic, and most important of all - not supported by reliable sources. Provided source is not strong enough, neither are tens in which you can find terms like "Palestinian genocide". Some sources desribe invasions by Gengis or Timur (millions killed just in Iran) also as "genocidal", but categorizing those articles under genocides still would be WP:FRINGE. --HistorNE (talk) 01:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the source, show it is not reliable. Until then, you can not remove sourced information. I'll take you to WP:ANI now for edit-warring and repeated removal of sourced information. What "Palestinian genocide" are you talking about? Debresser (talk) 08:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

:: Here's the soruce... Kiri Leigh Baker: The Effects of the Israeli Led Palestinian Genocide and Politicide on the Israeli Economy, Midwestern State University, 2008. So should we categorize Palestinian issue under genocide also? I think in both cases idea is laughable, so I guess it not makes me just Anti-Semite as Debresser stated, but also Anti-Palestinian, Anti-Arab and Anti-Muslim. No need to deny since you caught me with hand in the cookie jar. I'm also very anti-Hehe, I hate them the most. Laughable people. --HistorNE (talk) 14:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I think there are more victims of Arab terror than Palestinians killed by the Israeli army. So I agree with you that that is laughable. Debresser (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Not true, not even close. This is a myth. Zero^talk 22:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't really understand the relation of this section to the article. If someone tries to advocate conspiracy theories in modern politics relying on some essay (published by students' newspaper i guess) of an anonymous Master of Arts student in Midwestern University [4], this article is not the place. This article is about Bar Kokhba's rebellion.GreyShark (dibra) 17:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

This event is not a Genocide, please stop claiming it as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8:8600:935:BC0F:6D42:2530:6176 (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Striking out the thread of HistorNE, who was found to be a sock master/puppet.GreyShark (dibra) 19:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

How is "Aelius Spartianus" in the Historia Augusta one of the "best recognized sources"?

The Historia Augusta is a known fraud and the supposed third-century authors aren't it's actual fourth-century author. 71.191.133.207 (talk) 01:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

thanks for pointing that out! Jytdog (talk) 02:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Casualties of the revolt (from Cassius Dio)

The uncritical use in this article of the numbers killed in the various Jewish revolts (as quoted by Josephus, Cassius Dio, others) would not survive academic scrutiny. Dramatically exaggerated casualty/combatant numbers are a commonplace of ancient historians, many for numerological or ideological reasons. While they are occasionally cited in academic studies (especially by scholars less familiar with ancient historiographical practice) I am not aware of any historian of the period who believes they are directly credible. (The Taylor quotation that has been thrown around here a couple times is no exception; not only is this not really his area of study, he is clearly careful not to use Dio's numbers.

I've made a small edit to the section on Casualties to include a source (Schäfer 1981, what I had on hand while looking at this article) challenging Cassius Dio's figure of 580,000 casualties; the other citations in the article should be similarly qualified. In truth, this article could use a serious revision to reflect the current academic consensus, since only a small portion of the sources cited are modern and academically rigorous.

None of this is to say that vast numbers weren't killed (or that it was or was not a genocide, an anachronistic term for the period). But citing unreliable numbers doesn't do anyone any good. -Senori (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

There are maximalist and minimalist views on this revolt in the academic world. Lately, the maximalist approach has risen, due to newly discovered archaeological evidence (spread of revolt to Samaria's highlands and some Roman military artifacts). You are absulutely correct however, that we should indicate what are primary sources (Dio is a primary source) and what are the secondary sources (opinions modern historians).GreyShark (dibra) 12:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

That's certainly true. The general problem with this article is that it doesn't present the academic debate at all, which is still definitely unsettled. -Senori (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I think the Cassius Dio source can be mentioned, with attribution. If there are academic views that his figures are exaggerated, then simply bring those as well. Debresser (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The sources you deleted are academic sources. Do not delete them again. If you have contrary sources, please present them. -Senori (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Senori, please give out commands to somebody else. I explained in the edit summary why I undid your two additions. I admit that the second addition can be rephrased and kept, but after the tone you used, I wasn't in the mood. Debresser (talk) 00:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Alan Cameron was Anthon Professor of Classics at Columbia; saying that his (a immensely praised!) work is "nonacademic" is farcical. This is not the process by which you should be removing edits, and if you do it again I will involve an administrator. Again, if you have a problem with the source, or with the wording, please provide an alternative. -Senori (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

And while Cameron may have a rhetorical style, understanding the (almost total lack of) authenticity of the Historia Augusta is critical to any use of it. An academic paper which cited the HA but did not grapple with Cameron (or Symes, or any of the others who have repeatedly demonstrated its myriad falsehoods) would be laughed out of the room. Further, even if you feel that the Cameron source is "needless editorializing" (and I continue to strongly disagree; it is in fact a compact summary of the prevailing academic view), the second citation (which you have also repeatedly deleted) is a well-respected academic source which says exactly what I have included in the text. You absolutely cannot use the HA or Cassius Dio as straightforward historical sources without addressing their partiality. -Senori (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

You keep reverting. And you keep giving me commands. Your edit was therefore summarily reverted. You absolutely ignore the reasons for the revert, which are not the "academicity" of the sources. Debresser (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

So do you, without examining the merits. Senori is quite correct that all over these classical wiki articles primary sources are cited for figures whereas this is regarded by historians as extremely misleading. All ancient historians were prone to exaggeration. The casualties in Judea amount to the mean calculation of half the population of ancient Palestine at that time (half of which may not have been Jewish), implying extinction. The rule is, only cite the primary source figure through academic sources that discuss these figures in terms of the ranges given by modern experts. Senori. Introducing Cameron there was subject to challenge because, in any given article, the sources used must refer specifically to the article's topic. If Cameron mentions the notorious lack of reliability of the HA, in the context of the BK revolt, that would be fine. If he doesn't, then adding him violates WP:SYNTH. Benjamin H. Isaac in any case fits the requirement, since he mentions the unreliability of the HA in the context of the Revolt. The rule is a prophylactic against abuse by ignoramuses, but a pain in the arse for anyone who has knowledge of the topic or has formal training in these disciplines.Nishidani (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani Thank you for your edit to the Background section. I again reverted the change to the Casualties section, for the same reason as before. I explained myself (again) in the edit summary. Debresser (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Genocide

WP:LEAD states that the lede section is a summary of the article as a whole. There is no reference to or discussion of "genocide" in the lede. The book quoted is not a historical text on the revolt, it's an introductory textbook for teaching practice. Such a source should only be acceptable if it is a convenience source that simply repeats what scholars who are expert on the topic in question say. I know of no evidence that historians of the revolt consider the reprisals to be markedly different from those that were the commonplace in ancient warfare. Jews living elsewhere in the empire were not affected. If you want to have a discussion of the concept of genocide in reference to this war, you need to have a section on it with sources discussing different points of view. Then you can have the lede section summing up the range of views. Just trying to push into the lede a poorly sourced assertion of supposed undisputed fact is wholly inappropriate. Paul B (talk) 18:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason to suspect that an "introductory textbook" would be less reliable than an in-depth study of the revolt. Rather to the contrary, since I would expect an introduction to give a summary of the accepted academic point of view.

If consensus would be that I am wrong, or that the source is for whatever other reason not reliable, I'd have no problem with removal of the text (and related category).

I do think that in such a case it would be proper to first see if there are other reliable sources that also use the word "genocide" in connection with the revolt. Debresser (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

It is just an emotive statement with no support from the historical record. Both the tone and the ahistoricity of it bring down the quality of the article. Zero^talk 00:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

It does appear to be genocide. There's nothing false about the information, so I don't think that it has to be removed. The information is accurate enough, and the events described do match the definition of a genocide, so it should stay. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The bit about dispersal over the slave markets of the world is simply not true. It is discredited myth. Zero^talk 03:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

If you can prove that, that would discredit the source likely enough to remove it. Debresser (talk) 07:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The main reason for doubt is that the best demographic sources say that Jews remained a majority of the population of Palestine for at least several centuries until Christians became of majority. This is not compatible with a massacre and exile worthy of being called a genocide. The center of Jewish life moved from Judea to Galilee. The figures given by Josephus are usually dismissed as gross exaggerations. The demographic case is in many fine books, I can list some if you ask. An article on this very topic is Israel J. Yuval, "The Myth of the Jewish Exile from the Land of Israel", Common Knowledge 12:1, 2006 [5]. Yuval says that the story of a forced exile was initially a Christian idea, depicted as a punishment for killing Jesus. Interestingly, when Shlomo Sand wrote much the same thing, Israeli academics attacked him for claiming to have discovered something they knew all along, not for claiming something that wasn't true. Zero^talk 12:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Zero, Shlomo Sand's point was not simply that there was no Jewish exile, but that the the Jews of the Roman period in Palestine were en-masse Christanized and later Islamized and Arabized to become the Palestinian Arabs. There is no hard evidence to support large-scale Christianization and Islamization of the Jewish community in Palestine. In Galilee, Jews continued to form a majority for a few centuries during the Roman and Byzantine periods, but not in the region of Judea, and they were not Christianized in Galilee in any significant numbers. In the case of Jerusalem, the depopulation and replacement in 135 CE with a non-Jewish population was total. To quote Eusebius: "When in this way the city was closed to the Jewish race and suffered the total destruction of its former inhabitants, it was colonized by an alien race." Jacob D (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Jacob D

I'd just like to make the small point that if even 75% of all Jews in the Land of Israel were killed, they'd stay be a majority, even though that would by all means qualify as a genocide. Debresser (talk) 14:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe, but I don't think the 75% figure can be proved either. I don't like discussions over labels anyway, especially those like "genocide" that have been massively confused by the UN amongst others. What is clear is that the Romans had the means to kill or drive out almost all the Jews in Palestine but chose not to. Zero^talk 11:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Once again you err. Jews remained a majority IN GALILEE. Judea proper was, for all intents and purposes, depopulated. Jacob D (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Jacob D

Maybe it was discussed already and I have no knowledge (and no time) to analyse the reliability of this source but it is already used in the article : Taylor, J. E. The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea, Oxford University Press, "Up until this date the Bar Kokhba documents indicate that towns, villages and ports where Jews lived were busy with industry and activity. Afterwards there is an eerie silence, and the archaeological record testifies to little Jewish presence until the Byzantine era, in En Gedi. This picture coheres with what we have already determined in Part I of this study, that the crucial date for what can only be described as genocide, and the devastation of Jews and Judaism within central Judea, was 135 CE and not, as usually assumed, 70 CE, despite the siege of Jerusalem and the Temple's destruction".

Very simply : given the 2 primary sources even if it is stated by wp:rs they exagerated, talking about "genocide" is not irrelevant, even less that some sources, more or less reliable, seemingly so, do the comparison. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Gargilius Antiques

As now added, Gargilius Antiques also was an important figure of Rome during the rebellion, proven to be the procurator of Judaea with recent find of his statue and inscription. This does however make Rufus->Severus succession more complicated, with Antiques probably serving in between, thus replacing Rufus in the first year of the revolt, later to be replaced by Severus. We need to correct the article with this new info.GreyShark (dibra) 07:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Self-correct - he was a governor several years prior to the rebellion.GreyShark (dibra) 16:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Dubious source

The amount of victims given here is according to "rabbinical sources". How can such thing even be considered as objective, non-biased reference? 87.116.179.42 (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)CuriousOne

Cassius Dio seems to be the main source. He was a Roman historian. In any case, we have to deal with the sources we have, even if some of them were people you don't like. Unless someone uncovers new sources in an excavation or something, or I guess time travel. Doug Weller talk 14:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)