Talk:Emmaus Nicopolis/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

The other part of the sentence

The lead has "..maintained by the Jewish National Fund of Canada." However that is not supported by the source given and I don't think it is true. What I think is the case is that JNF Canada provides funding for Canada Park while actual maintenance is done by JNF Israel. But I don't have a source handy. That problem also exists for Canada Park. I'm also not sure if the archaeological site is maintained only by the maintainers of Canada Park; does the Israeli Antiquities Authority have nothing to do with it? Zero^talk 09:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Once one gets into the (Frank) nitty-gritty it gets more complicated, as you observe, one reason why one shouldn't complicate texts by abstract reasoning that goes beyond sources. As written, Avi's suggestion suggests not simply that Canada Park is maintained by the Canada JNF, but that the ruins of Emmaus Nicopolis specifically are attended to. Well perhaps it is, but since it imbricates on razed Imwas, and its cemetery, which certainly is not 'maintained' by the JNF, it is not 'maintained' in the proper sense. To the contrary, the Palestinian part is attentively left disheveled and buried in scrub, and as recently as 2007, one Palestinian refugee visiting it noted that the area of Emmaus Nicopolis was still left in ruins redolent of its past, consequent upon a specific JNF decision to 'conceal' that part of the area's history:

One day in March, 2007, while waiting for a group whose members wanted to hear the story of Canada Park, I wandered through the ruins of ‘Imwas, near the cemetery of the village. Remnants of walls still stand there. I was surprised to find on the ground a round metal object, its edges painted blue. It looked like a plate. My friend, Umar Ighbarieh, confirmed my guess. “I myself ate from such plates,” he told me. And I even had thought to bring it to a lab for testing… This discovery, of a plate from which - apparently - the residents of ‘Imwas had eaten, made clear to me that even today, seven years after I first became acquainted with the area, and after hundreds of visits, its earth continues to reveal new secrets.

Reports on all this are notoriously vague. Zochrot has more information than anyone, and that extraordinary fellow, Eitan Bronstein, who lacks a wiki bio, testifies that the Canada JNF says it does not use its funds beyond the Green line, which may be pure obfuscation, but it is in the record ('Restless Park: On the Latrun villages and Zochrot,') . It is clear that in any decision, the Canada JNF and the Military administration of the West Bank coordinate: the latter body ruled on the issue of signage of Palestinian villages, for example. Nishidani (talk) 12:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

It would appear that as a Catholic site it's not quite within the remit of a Jewish National Fund programme interested only in the Jewish tradition within IP, and that at least one Catholic group in Israel claims it looks after Emmaus Nicopolis inside Avalon Park. If so, then the part of the sentence implying that EN is looked after by the JNF looks inappropriate. See for the moment Since 1993, the Catholic Community of the Beatitudes has been residing on the spot and taking care of the archeological site of Emmaus-Nicopolis. See also here. For some disturbing sidedetails see also Community of the Beatitudes. Nishidani (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

One more point. David's point has distracted editors from the major obligation here, i.e. to drop political wikilawyering on a word or two, and actually build the articles associated with this area. Canada Park for example ignores, so far, the squabble and name change history, after the facts of suppression of the site's Palestinian past emerged in Canada, and the issue of the tax exemption for funds collected in Canada to be used to build Jewish centres in the West Bank; Zochrot's work on the site, etc.etc.etc.Nishidani (talk) 12:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

With this in consideration, I think it should be best to drop that bit. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the JNF, I was reproducing what was there. If that is incorrect, it should be removed. -- Avi (talk) 00:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Query to Avi

'Then there should be four stated?' Just wondering if you could clarify why the question mark is there, if it isn't a bother. Thanks. Nishidani (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Nishidani. The mishna begins with the statement that when it comes to the time for Biur regarding fruit grown in a Shmita year (such as last year was), there are three distinct geographic locations in the land if Israel: Judah (tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Simon), Galil (all other lands allocated to the tribes of Israel west of the Jordan River), and Ever Hayarden (all lands allocated to the tribes of Israel east of the Jordan). Each of these lands has three subdivisions as well. There is a long discussion about these subdivisions, all of which are supposed to contain a mountain, a valley, and a lowland (the three subdivisions mentioned earlier). At one point, the question is posed that the area "Bet Horon to Emmaus it is Mountain, from Emmaus to Lydda Lowland, from Lydda to the Sea Valley" and perhaps this stretch of land should be a fourth independent location for setting the last calendaric dates regarding the storage of Shemita fruit, this the question that "there should be 4". -- Avi (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

We are on wikipedia.

Would you mind stop using fairy tales as sources ?

Pluto2012 (talk) 05:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Pluto. Really! I'm very disappointed. That is not only rude, it is unfair. I asked Avi a question which bore on this text, aside from my own curiosity, a question that required some effort and time, and he generously answered me. Could you kindly retract that? Thanks Nishidani (talk) 06:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I have to admit that I don't find that text describing the location at all. It describes it's surroundings, but not in such terms that it is locatable. I'd prefer to have it removed, I don't think it adds to the article. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Its use here is perfectly legitimate and indeed proper since it illustrates a Talmudic reference to the area of Emmaus. The Christian text of Luke doesn't describe Emmaus, but we use it. The same logic goes for the rabbinic TalmudNishidani (talk) 07:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

"Legitimate and proper"? It's under "Location", but doesn't tell us the location. I don't care where it's from. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

In old texts, one should not expect modern geographical concepts. That is clearly a traditional way of referring to a location in a landscape. Zionism used Ottoman catastal maps drawn to extract rent, rabbinic Judaism a religious topology elaborated to affirm a different concept, the theological hermeneutics of a promised land. Aboriginal tribal chants minutely describe their areas (see the somewhat romantic depiction of this in Bruce Chatwin's classic Songlines). The mythic narrative embedding was dismissed by white landgrabbers, who thought it a terra nullius. The Australian courts have consistently affirmed the legitimacy of the received traditions in establishing modern claims for a territorial redemption (by that I don't endorse what an atheistic Zionism does with Judaism in pursuing the conquest of Palestine: it's a different logic again) in favour of the indigenous and their descendants.Nishidani (talk) 07:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I know exactly what to expect from old texts, and repeat my assertion: That text does not tell us the location of Emmaus. It presumes the reader knows it, and then describes the surroundings as a part of an argument (which seems to me to be an geographical argumentation of the nature of lowlands vs mountains, but that's really not relevant). --OpenFuture (talk) 07:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

You proposed removal. The piece certainly should not be removed. The only issue here is whether it should remain in its present subsection, or be relocated to another.Nishidani (talk) 07:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

As it does not in any way tell us the location, it should not remain in that subsection. I don't know where (or why) that quote would be relevant at all. It can certainly be related that Emmaus is mentioned in this book in the history section. The quote itself is of no use.

It seems to me that you want the quote there because there is a New Testament quote as well, which seems a fairly petty reason. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Articles are written by the inclusion of material for a global world of readers with diversified interests. In this case, a Jewish person consulting Wikipedia might well be interested in that datum, just as a Christian would be interested in Luke or a Muslim in the details of the plague that decimated the army in 638 and took out the Companions of the Prophet (one thus wiped out there, indeed, was one of the six who had memorized the sayings of Mohammad that were to constitute the Qur'an, and with his death at Emmaus, who knows what variant traditions or lore were lost to history?) Each constituency, at the same time, learns something of the 'other' perceptions and thus is enriched by a broader, more comprehensive overview. Wikipedia is unique in this, in catering to all imaginable interests per WP:Due, and editors should learn, in working articles like these, to put themselves sympathetically in the minds of all potential constituencies, and not just assume that a 'modern' concept of relevance should sort out what goes in or out.Nishidani (talk) 09:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The only concepts of relevance that is relevant for Wikipedia is Wikipedia's concepts. Those are indeed modern. And those are we should not include everything, which in practice means that it actually has to improve the article to be included. And as previously noted, of course the article should make a reference to this mention in the Jerusalem Talmud. But what does the quote actually add? In fact, having it without a context like this only means people think this is a description of where Emmaus is located, which it clearly is not once you read the context. As such it can even be argued that the quote is detrimental. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Nope. Wikipedia doesn't have concepts, which would be a scandal to the Ayn Rand objectivist doctrines that lie behind its ideology: it has rules governing method. As someone trained in classical scholarship, if I had the leisure, I'd expand the article on Ogygia by adding far more detail on all of the ancient sources and modern works from Victor Bérard to Felice Vinci speculating on the location of that isle: I don't believe any of these theories but I have half a shelf of book alluding to this topic, very few of whose details have so far been registered on wikipedia. The Talmud uses its distinctive conceptual grid, well explained by Avi, to give a kind of location, and that is all that matters.Nishidani (talk) 12:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

More hairsplitting, and absolutely nothing that answers my question. Which of course answers it: The quote serves no encyclopedic purpose. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I am not going to get into the historicity arguments as to the Bible, the Gospels, or the Qu'ran, that is irrelevant to this discussion. Nor is the condescension and lack of cordiality (forget about respect for fellow editors, I've given up on receiving that years ago although I try to practice it myself). What is relevant is what I believe is the misconception of conflation of the historicity of a text and the belief system upon which it is based. The Talmud is a living legal document, the edited transcripts of the legal discussions of the academies (in the case of the Jerusalem Talmud) in Yavneh, Shefarim, Tiberias, etc. Saying it is a fairy tale is functionally equivalent to saying that the writings of Thomas Aquinas are fairy tales. You may not agree with law or his beliefs, but that doesn't mean that the laws as he explains them are "fairy tales" any more than not agreeing with the Han Feizi turns the laws of the Qin dynasty into "fairy tales". They existed, they were practiced by many (who you may believe were delusional, perhaps), and they were discussed by real people living in the real world and who lived in real towns and villages. So what we have is a 1600-1700 year old reference to Emmaus, probably the oldest extant written reference. This unquestionably belongs in the article. It also places the town as geographically close to Bet Horon and Lydda, both of which whose locations are known today as well. The reference is contemporaneous with the source of the Tabula Peutingeriana (although 900 prior to the extant copy). So it belongs in the location section as well, in my opinion. Even if you think Judaism, Islam, Christianity, or any religion is a fantasy and mass delusion, that does not make the texts incorrect as regards geographic locations. We aren't using the Talmud as a source for disproving atheism, we are using it as historical record for the location of towns that existed at that time. No rational person claims that the Talmud is the equivalent of Dickens or Grimms, and so when it reflects upon fact (such as geographic location) it is a reliable source for those facts. -- Avi (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

"It also places the town as geographically close to Bet Horon and Lydda" - No, that's your interpretation because you know where it is. It says that between Emmaus and Bet Horon there are mountains and between Emmaus to Lydda there's lowlands. All that actually tells us is that Emmaus is located somewhere close to the border between the mountains and the lowlands. It would even be natural to assume it's on the road between Bet Horon and Lydda, but that's incorrect.

But I do agree with you that the earliest extant mention of it is notable and deserves a place in the article. I'm skeptical to keeping the quote though, and it should be under "History", not "Location". --OpenFuture (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

It has to be geographically close, as the discussion related to the possibility of that area (Bet Horon to the Mediterranian) being a fourth zone, separate and distinct from the Judea zone. The hypothesis wouldn't make sense otherwise. Also, the discussion makes clear that such zones need to encompass a mountainous region, a lowland region, and a valley region; not that these must be contiguous. So the source tells us that Emmaus is near Bet Horon and Lod. It does not tell us how close though, that is true. -- Avi (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure, for some definition of "near". ;-) My point stands, it's not useful to locate it. The text assumes you know where it is, it doesn't try to tell you where it is. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Can Max Blumenthal be considered a reliable source for I/P topics

I'm not sure that Max Blumenthal should be considered a reliable source. He has clear biases, and has been accused numerous times of lying about Israel. -- Avi (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, that might be, but which part do you contest in this case? That the JNF planted pine trees in Canada Park or that Imwas is located in Canada Park? Both seem fairly uncontroversial, and that there is a forest were Imwas once was can be trivially verified with publicly available photographs. Perhaps another source can be found. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not contesting the statement per se (although one can make the case that "on the rubble of Imwas/Emmaus" is not the most NPOV of constructions perhaps "and included the plantation of a forest in the area of Emmaus" would be less of POV-based construction). I'd rather we find a source whose relationship to fact and honesty regarding I/P issues is not as strained as Blumenthal's is. We all would be better off that way. -- Avi (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Most of the sources, official or otherwise, in this area strike me as biased. One looks for the facts given while ignoring the bias. MB been tested several times at RSN. One may disapprove of his attitude, but as an investigative journalist there's no record I know of, other than assertions, that prove ungrounded, in reviews that he gets his facts wrong, and this statement is factual. As I've said elsewhere, if an acknowledged academic specialist of the stature of Ian Lustick commends his books, polemical as they may be, for showing things that should be known, but are generally ignored, I don't see why we should ostracize him.Nishidani (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The statement remains in the article; if we can find a less contentious source, we probably should. -- Avi (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

if the identification is correct,

not supported by source

The removal consisted of taking out the bolded words in

The importance of the city, if the identification is correct, was recognized by the Emperor Vespasian who established a fortified camp there in 68 CE to house the fifth ("Macedonian") legion.

• It is true those words were not in the source. The source is Moshe Sharon, who assumes that Vespasian’s colony of soldiers was established at Emmaus Nicopolis, which is not what much scholarship now maintains (this kind of rapid judgement (aside from his POV which is all over an otherwise excellent book) is somewhat typical of the author, and he's not alone. What he assumes is not assumed by a very large number of scholars who trust Josephus on this.
• Josephus places the Emmaus where Vespasian settled 800 soldiers as lying 30 stadia from Jerusalem. Jewish War 7:216-18, this site is often thought to overlie the Talmudic Motza ((Thiede p.41)

• Barbara Levick, Vespasian, Taylor & Francis, 2005 p.149
• Emil Schürer, History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, 175 B.C.-A.D. 135, rev.ed. edited Géza Vermès, Fergus Millar A&C Black, 1973 pp.512-513 n.142.

’Against the identity of Emmaus-Nicopolis with Vespasian’s military colony, however, the following facts seem decisive: (1) Josephus refers to the military colony as though it were a place other wise unknown (χορίον ὃ καλεῖται Ἀμμαοῦς.. . ),whereas the other Emmaus was very well known, and is often mentioned by Josephus at earlier points in B.J.; (2) Josephus does not say that Vespasian’s military colony was named Nicopolis; (3) for Emmaus-Nicopolis, every characteristic of a colony is absent. Thus, our Emmaus is probably identical with that mentioned in the NT (Lk.24:13), even though the distances in both cases -30 and 60 stadia – are only roughly correct. It is quite likely that the military colony is to be identified with Kulonieh (Colonia) near Jerusalem.’

This kind of problem is all over wiki articles on antiquity, where topological or descriptive confusions in primary sources are frequently ignored, and editors just clip in 'stuff' they read without testing it against the scholarly consensus or assessments of the distinct hermeneutic outcomes of interpreting them. So Sharon just assumes what a large part of the competent scholarly community challenges or considers hypothesis, and that is why the qualification is required. It's not WP:OR, it is a necessary alert to the reader, that what follows is sheer hypothesis, since others, as noted below, prefer the site of Qalunya, which is attested since medieval times, and which looks like a semitic transcription of the Latin colonia. Nishidani (talk) 17:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Then how about having the qualification itself be supported by secondary sources? Perhaps wording like "According to Sharon, the importance of the city was recognized by the Emperor Vespasian who established a fortified camp there in 68 CE to house the fifth ("Macedonian") legion, populating it with 800 veterans. However, other scholars dispute the identification of Emmaus-Nicoloplis with Vespasian's camp." This way we keep ourselves out of it as much as possible and givethe readers the data and alerts that this is a matter of scholarly dispute. Thoughts? -- Avi (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm generally wary of 'according to' in these cases because when you have several dozen top-ranking scholars familiar with, and commenting on a topic, to arbitrarily single out one is suspect. Probably, if you dislike the 'if the identification is correct', then 'one theory identifies Emmaus Nicopolis as the site where Vespasian established a colony for 800 veterans in 71 CE during the First Jewish–Roman War. Many scholars think Vespasian's colony lay elsewhere, at Qalunya'. With the sources above (I could add several others ) included in the refs.Nishidani (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. My concern is just we don't want it to sound like Wikipedia and its editors are doubting the source. If you can craft wording which demonstrates that there is scholarly debate on the issue, with the appropriate weight as to majority and minority opinions (unless it's relatively evenly weighted) that would be fantastic. -- Avi (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The recently published work by James R. Edwards, The Gospel According to Luke, Wm. B. Eerdmans 2015 pp.713-716 gives a good exposition of at least four options, one of which is this. Like Géza Vermès and Fergus Millar's annotation to Emil Schürer's old classic, the suggestion that Vesp's camp was at Qalunya is said to be 'favoured by many modern scholars' and adds that 'many modern scholars ..dismiss Emmaus Nicopolis out of hand', meaning that it is at the moment the minority view, though one can't explicitly say that. Note by the way in Edwards's work, Motza one of the possible colony sites (just above Qalunya) is linked etymologically to Emmaus via the Tanakh Mōṣāh (Joshua 18:25), a point I've seen made elsewhere.Nishidani (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I've adjusted the coordinates a tiny bit, to make it just off the west side of the former built-up area of Imwas, between the "Peace House" and the old road location. That is consistent with all the maps I can find, but I'm not really satisfied. To get the location more certain, one option is one of those detailed maps with map coordinates that usually appear in excavation reports. Another option is for someone to locate one of the archaeological features in a satellite photo, such as at Google or govmap. Zero^talk 00:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I hope to be in Israel for Pesach. If I rent a car and if I am in the area, I'll try and capture the co-ordinates on my phone. Unlikely that I'll have the opportunity, though. -- Avi (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Did not rent a car or have the chance to get there, sorry. -- Avi (talk) 22:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emmaus Nicopolis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140903094324/http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/wie/TCG/TC-Luke.pdf to http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/wie/TCG/TC-Luke.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

basilica in 222CE???

I know the source says 222CE for the basilica but that strikes me as an odd time for a Christian basilica given that Christians were proscribed; the amount of persecution varied but building a basilica seems foolhardy. I suspect either the date is wrong in the source (322 would make more sense) or that the basilica was not originally a Christian one. --Erp (talk) 04:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

It also says "during the third century", so it isn't a simple typo. An extra source would help. Zero^talk 08:48, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

To editor Erp: I found the history of this claim, and I also found that many scholars don't believe it. I'll fix it tomorrow. Zero^talk 13:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

To editor Zero0000: Thanks for hunting; looking forward to reading what you found. I had found a few other mentions for 3rd century but there is always the issue of sources copying an original wrong source. --Erp (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)