Talk:Judah's revolts against Babylon

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved to Jewish–Babylonian war. --BDD (talk) 18:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Jewish-Babylonian war (601 BC-581 BC) → Jewish-Babylonian War 601 BC-587 BC – The date is wrong, only noticed that after I finished writing the article and posting it. אשכנזישעיידן (talk) 08:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose The article should be at "Jewish-Babylonian War" (note capitalization) as there is no other war of this name on Wikipedia. However I am not sure if it is worth an article separate from Kingdom of Judah. PatGallacher (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose – the correct title would be "Jewish–Babylonian war" (note en dash and lowercase; and redirect from hyphen form). This is not a war with any proper name, as far as I can tell, so a properly punctuated descriptive title should do the job. Dicklyon (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose—per Dicklyon. Was there more than one war with this name? I presume not. And if the years were retained, an open en dash would be required. Tony (talk) 02:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment – Whatever's the outcome, make sure that and en-dash – and not a hyphen - is used. --Article editor (talk) 02:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Source

The source is the Tanakh (Old testament for Christians). 2 Kings 24,25.

And about the years, I saw them in other articles.

So why does it say there's no source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by אשכנזישעיידן (talk • contribs) 13:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, if that is the source it ought to say so more clearly. Secondly, if this is the only source, the article would be open to the objections expressed in this template: [1]. PatGallacher (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Neo-Babylonian Empire.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Wrong concept, wrong name

There was no "Jewish–Babylonian war". There were indeed TWO separate attempts, about one decade apart, by the KINGDOM OF JUDAH, which was far from being equivalent with "the Jews", of shaking off the suzerainty of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. Both culminated in sieges of Jerusalem and both went bad for Judah. The article was simply translated from Hebrew Wiki, and the misconception and misnomer is probably caused by early Zionist historiography, and by the similarity between the Hebrew words for Judahite/Judah and Jewish. It's very bad that this endured here for so long. Arminden (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Arminden is correct, this single war never took place. The article should be deleted. Achar Sva (talk) 22:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

To make it clear: I general, I'm not for deletions. In this case: there was an attempt of Judah shaking off Babylonian suzerainty, similar to the two wars/revolts against Rome in the 1st-2nd centuries CE, and they can be treated together, but the approach and title should correspond to modern standards. This now is on 1950s elementary school level. Arminden (talk) 08:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller, Tgeorgescu, BobKilcoyne, Dimadick, Y-barton, and Davidbena: hi. Sorry to bother, I just saw your name in the edit history (here or at related articles) and thought you might want to contribute. This page seems to have been quasi-abandoned, which I suppose is also the result of the way it's been named, framed, and put together. Maybe it's not interlinked enough either. If you can think of others who might be brought into the discussion, please give them a sign. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 10:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Arminden: how about Wars between Judah and Babylonia maybe including the time-span in the title? I'm stepping back a bit from Wikipedia, bowel cancer surgery next week, then liver surgery, maybe chemotherapy. So I can't help. Doug Weller talk 11:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Doug, please be well and forget about this for now. I'm holding all my fingers crossed. We'll be waiting for you here. Arminden (talk) 11:48, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Picking up on Doug's proposal: what about "Babylonian campaigns into Judah"? The problem would be that the focus would remain on the military aspect and make it all sound like a repeated invasion, while the actual topic is the attempt by Judah to shake off an existing Babylonian suzerainty, which goes beyond the actual wars. Arminden (talk) 11:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Arminden: I was reading Iranian Jews bought tomb of Queen Esther and Mordechai, Israel’s National Library reveals so looked at Tomb of Esther and Mordechai which more or less asserts in Wikivoice this is their tomb. Now Esther treats that book as fiction, but Mordecai does not. Doug Weller talk 12:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look, but RL work is calling. Mordecai doesn't seem to even deal with whether there is any extra-biblical source even remotely supporting the narrative, so it's a bit of a stretch to try and discuss the details, like the tomb. I'll read the material. Arminden (talk) 12:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Arminden: Perhaps people in general are not used to the concept of there ever being a "Jewish-Babylonian war," but if the story about Nebuchadnezzar is correct, then there was a time when the nation of Israel and the Babylonians were inveterate enemies, which led to Nebuchadnezzar laying siege to the city of Jerusalem and, eventually, transporting its people into Babylonia as captives.Davidbena (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Davidbena: David, if people are not used to that, then I'm one of those people. I take issue, to different degrees,

• 1- with the concept of one "nation" or "people" in the Kingdom of Judah. With this I have the least issues, but nevertheless.
• 2- with that people being "the nation of Israel" (I see this links to "Israelites"?!), or "the Jewish people" (which links to "Jews").
• 3- with the Neo-Babylonian Empire having them as "inveterate enemies". Maybe some large competing kingdoms, but Judah?!

1- I have opened a discussion at Talk:Nation_of_Israel#Hugely_questionable_redirect. An Iron Age nation? Very new to me. We can discuss "people", if absolutely necessary. The early tribal federation was one thing, the later relatively small Iron Age kingdoms another. The Hebrew Bible has been combined from sources from the northern Kingdom of Israel and the southern Kingdom of Judah, and if we cannot agree on that, I'm afraid there would be very little common ground left. The religion practiced in Israel was quite different from the one in Judah, the two kingdoms had anything but a friendly or balanced relationship to each other, and the demise of the northern kingdom did indeed for instance help increase Jerusalem's population on a massive scale, but I don't know if anyone can say with any degree of certainty if after c. 100 years, the Israel refugees had fully integrated into Judah. Possible, but I didn't come across any book or Zoom conference dealing with it. The king was the ruler, the religion centered on the Temple in Jerusalem was indeed used as a unifying glue, but I'm not sure how historians are describing the people of Judah. Think also of those related to them from Transjordan (one example: the Tobiads), and the by then mixed inhabitants of the former northern kingdom. I don't know, and shame on me for that. Judging by the internal conflicts after 586/7 (Gedalia etc.) and after the Return from Babylon, there were at least quite a few very distinct factions, to use the least radical term.

2- "Jewish" seems an anachronism. The term is first used for the returnees, so not before the Babylonian captivity. Judahites.

3- The Babylonians had dozens of subdued client kingdoms and provinces established on conquered land. Dying Assyria still put up a fight, Egypt certainly was worthy of being called an inveterate enemy, or archenemy, until the defeat at Charchemish. But Judah was small fish in comparison. Even Tyre was more of an obstacle for Nebuchadnezzar. The kings of Judah had tried to carve out a niche for themselves between the two large millstones, Egypt and Babylon, for decades, not unlikely the efforts of Israel under Assyrian suzerainty.There has never been a chance for much independence anywhere in the Southern Levant as long as whoever was ruling Mesopotamia & Syria, Egypt, or both, represented a powerful empire. So a client kingdom trying to break "free" from under the Babylonians, by "allying" itself with Egypt, i.e. submitting to Egyptian overlordship, yes. And as a result, Nebuchadnezzar led what historians often call "punitive campaigns" against the restive client king. But a war, like those between him and Necho II, it was not. I also don't think the kings of Judah saw the Babylonians as particularly bad ("inveterate enemies"), they just tried to get the best deal out of the existing geopolitical situation and not to get squashed between the big powers, like Israel a century earlier.

Just look at the similar situation with the "Great Jewish Revolt" aka "First Jewish War" and the "Bar Kochba Revolt", which was actually even more bloody and protracted than the first, but never got the honour of being called a war. The main difference is probably the fact that around 600 BCE Judah was a kingdom, while 1st- and 2nd-century Judaea was not.

That's my beef with this article, as it is now. It reads more like a Purim spiel than an article on Iron Age history. Arminden (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I understand your complaint, Arminden, but you'll need to present your case with facts, after researching this matter very carefully. Yes, Nebuchadnezzar had waged wars against many nations, including the king of Tyre (based on records seen by Josephus and mentioned in his work, "Against Apion"). If there is a consensus, I can agree to a name change, so long as it encapsulates in its wording the overall content of this article. I just don't have the desire to involve myself in this research, although I do think it is a worthy endeavor and one that can be very educational. Good luck!Davidbena (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

One observation. This is not a war. This is a revolt by a client ruler against his suzerain. Dimadick (talk) 10:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I never contributed to this article. Nevertheless, I like Doug's proposal: rename it as "Babylonian campaigns into Judah". These did take place, and need to be portrayed accurately within their proper historical context. "Jewish–Babylonian war" is clearly a misnomer. PS. And best wishes for Doug's recovery. Y-barton (talk) 14:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Dimadick, that is, in short, what I wrote in too may words :) Except for: rather two revolts, by Jehoiakim and then Zedekiah. There are several older examples of Israel or Judah actively going on campaign as part of larger alliances of small kingdoms, against either Egypt or the Mesopotamian empire of the day, but here it's not the case, they hunkered down waiting for the hammer to fall and praying for the walls to hold and for Egypt to come to the rescue. Y-barton, I've scrolled through edit histories of related articles and found you somewhere there; sorry, but I can't remember where exactly. Arminden (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I certainly contributed before in this general area. Glad to help, good luck. Y-barton (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

As in any conflict, you can see and name it from two angles. I guess these two angles would lead here to titles along the lines of these two:

1. Judah's revolts against Babylon
2. Babylonian campaigns into Judah.

Judah and the biblical angle being here of more interest (in the history of Babylon, this was little more than a blimp; for Judah it was a major crossroads), I would rather support the first. All the "losing" options, especially if they do appear in academic and encycopedic literature, should of course be used for redirects. The 2005 Infobase Publishing Encyclopedia of Judaism for instance, a popular "facts on file" book, goes with the 1st option (look up 601 and 589 BCE: "revolt" and "rebellion"). Google for "revolts against Babylon" (with quotation marks) and many more–and more reliable–books pop up. Arminden (talk) 15:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

If no one else has anything to comment, I'll soon go ahead and change the title. Arminden (talk) 07:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC)