Talk:Masada myth

Did you know nomination

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

1969 Masada state funeral

• ... that although Israel honored 27 ancient Masada skeletons with a state funeral in 1969, the story of "freedom fighters' patriotic last stand" is now known to be a myth?

• Source: Ben-Yehuda, Nachman (1996). Masada Myth: Collective Memory and Mythmaking in Israel. University of Wisconsin Press. ISBN 978-0-299-14833-1, p. xxi: "The bones of twenty-seven humans found on Masada are brought to burial in an official state ceremony."; pages 241-243: "The affair began in October 1963… Immediately, there were newspaper reports to the effect that the remains were probably of the fighters of Masada, and a state burial ceremony was called for. This issue was raised in March 1967, once again, by the same Shlomo Lorentz of the ultra-Orthodox party Agudat Israel. In a blazing speech in the Knesset he demanded that the remains of the skeletons found on Masada should be given a Jewish burial. Mr. Aharon Yadlin, then the minister of culture and education, pointed out that the Jewish identity of the skeletons had not been established and suggested passing the whole issue on to one of the Knesset’s committees. His suggestion was accepted. In fact, the Knesset’s Committee on Culture and Education held a discussion with Yadin on this particular issue in February and March of 1968… On March 12, 1969, Yigael Yadin told Haaretz that he was opposed to a public burial ceremony. He stated that the evidence of the identity of the skeletons was not conclusive enough. He also stated that he believed that the bones were those of the people of Masada but that he lacked definitive proof. In response to this, the spokesman for the Ministry of Religious Affairs stated the next day, also in Haaretz, that “the heroes of Masada came there from Jerusalem and fought the war of the holy city; therefore, it is only natural that their bones would find their final resting place on the Mount of Olives, which was a Jewish cemetery during the days of the Second Temple…. on July 7, 1969, the skeletons that had been uncovered by Yadin’s excavations about five years earlier were brought to burial in a full and formal military ceremony near Masada, at a place called “the hill of the defenders… An impressive array of dignitaries (including Menachem Begin, Yigael Yadin, and Rabbi Shlomo Goren) were present at the burial ceremonies."

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/The Chinese in America

Created by Onceinawhile (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 77 past nominations.

Onceinawhile (talk) 05:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - Not sufficiently
• Neutral: - This hook states as fact that which the sources do not state as fact
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited: - the cite fails to support the hook
• Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: 2603:7000:2101:AA00:A91E:FA5D:EAB2:D6B0 (talk) 09:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this is that bad to deserve a cross, but you'll definitely want to add a cite to the first paragraph of Yadin's executions at minimum, and that's before interrogating any of the sources.--Launchballer 14:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Launchballer: I have added a cross-ref (it had been referenced at the end of the paragraph, but the paragraph was then split in to two). Re the IP's comments, the citation quote gives all the info about the funeral, and the rest of his book is about the myth. I guess the IP is referring to the latter question. I can bring some more quotes if helpful.

For context, all the sources in the article say essentially the same thing – there is only one known original source for this event, Josephus. The Israeli national myth version differs from that story in a number of significant ways. We can add some nuance to the words "is now known to be a myth" if that is helpful, but the underlying point is beyond doubt.

Onceinawhile (talk) 16:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not a question of "nuance." There is no consensus - as incorrectly and blatantly stated - in RS refs that it "is now known to be a myth." That's simply fake news. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:A91E:FA5D:EAB2:D6B0 (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

The wording that it "is now known to be a myth" is simply not supported by the source provided. Perhaps "believed by some to be a myth" or even better "described by one scholar as a myth" could be supported by the citation, but "is now known to be a myth" embellishes the source far beyond any justifiable limit. Alansohn (talk) 01:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

What is the “it” you are referring to? Onceinawhile (talk) 06:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Alansohn: regarding your comment from a few weeks ago, a new section (Masada_myth#Decline) has now been added to the article as suggested by User:Uppagus. It includes a list of the notable scholars which published on this topic between 1975 and Nachman Ben-Yehuda's book in 1996, as given by Ben-Yehuda.

I have read widely on this topic, including the most recent work by Jodi Magness, and can firmly confirm that there is no scholarly debate as to whether this specific narrative is a myth. Not a single dissenting voice. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Once -- the statement is simply not supported by any of the refs. It's really that simple. Actually, this brings the entire article into question now that I consider it. Plus, it doesn't seem to warrant a standalone article at all. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:6043:6D87:AEA7:B5C8 (talk) 06:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Belatedly noting that the article is at a (particularly bad-tempered) AfD, and this should go on hold until this is kept.--Launchballer 12:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Closed as no consensus. This does still sport a {{neutrality}} tag @Onceinawhile:, and I suggest this is actioned.--Launchballer 11:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Launchballer. The tag was added without explanation, and the editor who added it was asked to share their concerns on the talk page 10 days ago. I have pinged them again at Talk:Masada_myth#Ensuring_balance, so hopefully we should have clarity soon. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Launchballer: it looks like there was no objection to removing the tag, as the pinged editors declined to comment. My sense is that enough people have now read the article and sources, and have come to understand the topic and its context. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

There are POV issues with the article as it currently stands. I wrote a detailed, and yet partial explanation on the article's talk page.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Uppagus (talk • contribs) 07:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Uppagus. I have responded on the talk page with proposed solutions. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

What is the status of this nomination @Onceinawhile:?--Launchballer 07:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Launchballer: it would be great to have a new reviewer look at this now. There was an initial aversion to the article by some editors - hence the AfD and subsequent talk page discussions. But these challenges have petered out as concerned editors found the time to read the underlying sourcing in detail, and it seems now to be clear to all that this is a well-covered subject with many decades of academic work underpinning it. The article has benefited from the additional scrutiny, which has made it even stronger. There is more work to do to continue to improve the article, but nothing that should impede us proceeding with the DYK review. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

You have my sympathy, I had similar snorts when I brought Matty Healy here. (They even nixed my P05 article.) I'm looking at this now for the first time; it's certainly strongly worded but all its claims are backed up, so this should be fine. However, you do need an end-of-sentence citation for the hook.--Launchballer 10:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: Should probably ping.--Launchballer 12:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Launchballer: I enjoyed reading those articles you linked to. I am genuinely amazed that an article that has had almost 5 million views since you recreated it last year had all those delete votes.

I have done some more work to the article,[1] including adding a further source which works neatly as an end-of-sentence citation for the hook (Sheldon 1998, p. 448: "The belief system he refers to is a myth created around the story of Masada and the Jewish fighters who committed suicide there at the end of the Great Jewish War against Rome in A.D. 73. The story, as Josephus tells it, is not one of heroism. The sicarii on Masada were simply an extremist group of terrorists who had never participated in the Jewish Revolt to begin with and had spent more time killing other Jews than fighting the Romans. Modern twentieth-century Zionists, however, took the original story, eliminated the more embarrassing parts (like the massacre of Jews at Ein Gedi by the sicarii), then used the remaining core to construct a "mythical narrative" of heroism, sacrifice, and national pride for modern Israelis." Every one of the 38 citations in the article contains a version of this statement, but this is a particularly direct one. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

(It's because it used to look like this and the 1975 Reddit didn't like it very much.) Hook now checks out - let's roll.--Launchballer 07:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I see that my cutting of excessive quotations in the citations per WP:FOOTQUOTE was reverted by Nishidani who said "The main editor is high experienced in both content and wiki norms". I don't believe this is a very good argument so I won't promote this nomination Onceinawhile, but other promoters may disagree. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: to be fair to Nishidani, his comment – one week ago – politely invited you to explain your position at the talk page.

To try to explain Nishidani's comment: Our guideline has been consistent for many years: "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea... Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited." An ANI thread interpreting this for a WP:FA from a few years ago includes comments such as: "de minimis refers to each individual source; we never use more than a paragraph" and "We do not have extensive quotation from one source--the longest quote is 365 words long." That same ANI discussion identified why quotations in footnotes are beneficial in articles in controversial topic areas like Israeli history – it saves a lot of time because it allows both experienced and inexperienced editors to verify and contextualize our articles' key claims quickly. In this article, the longest footnote quote (citation #5) is 348 words long, shorter than that mentioned above. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I try to not get more into PIA than I have to, unless I notice something especially egregious. As that ANI thread reached no conclusion at all, I remain confident in my interpretation of WP:FOOTQUOTE. I noted above that other promoters may disagree, but I am unwilling to endorse what I regard as copyright violations on the Main Page. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Understood. For the record, a conclusion was reached – the article (Balfour Declaration) was promoted to WP:FA, and subsequently featured on the main page as WP:TFA. Having surveyed this in the past, I can confirm there are a number of featured articles which contain a significant amount of academic quotations in footnotes.

If consensus here requires them to be removed, I will accept that and remove them. But personally I believe that this is the exact situation that WP:FOOTQUOTE was written for, and our articles, readers and the academics who wrote the underlying sources all benefit from it. Onceinawhile (talk) 04:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

No, ANI does not adjudicate content and so no conclusion was reached—see the close. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I mean that a conclusion was reached in the parallel discussion at WP:FA and WP:TFA, as the article was subsequently promoted and then featured in the highest profile part of the main page. This is one of many such examples – in my experience consensus holds across our project more broadly, as 100% of my Good Articles and Featured Articles have detailed quotations in footnotes to aid verification on complex topics or offline sources. See for example: Mandate for Palestine, Palestinian enclaves, Sarcophagus of Eshmunazar II, Cartography of Jerusalem, McMahon–Hussein correspondence. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe ask at WT:DYK?--Launchballer 05:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Own article?

@Onceinawhile I'm not sure that this requires its own article. Maybe it can be part of the main page. Obviously there is conjecture given this happened a long time ago and the lack of sources.

Speaking of which, this page has a lack of sources. Where is your source that it's "an Israeli national myth"

Where is your source that "selectively constructed narrative based on Josephus' account, supplemented with fabrications and omissions. This narrative was socially constructed and promoted by Jews in Mandatory Palestine and later Israel."

Of course there are some scholars who say a siege took place and given the desire to be independent, neutral and balanced, these counter-claims should be added to the article.

For now, there is too much dogma in this article which needs to be toned down considerably if it going to be authoritative. MaskedSinger (talk) 18:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @MaskedSinger: thanks for the feedback. It is good to discuss these points. On the question of this topic as a separate article, the national myth topic is much more notable than the actual siege itself. This article is already longer (22kb) than the siege article (20kb), and it has only just been started. When this article is finished it might be 3 or 4 times the size.

On the sources, please could you confirm you have read the article in detail? The citations and bibliography are primarily scholars published by first class academic publishers, and the citation section includes detailed quotes. I can bring many more quotes if needed, but need to check you have read what is there already? Onceinawhile (talk) 06:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile thanks for getting back to me. I read the article in detail but it's hard to read the sources without having the books in front of me.

If the article is to have credibility and I hope it does, there are a number of things that have to be addressed

1) Some of the language needs to be toned down, especially that which is unsourced

2) Counter claims that the siege did in fact happen need to be brought to balance it. For when push comes to shove, trying to prove it didn't happen is as tricky as trying to prove that it did, especially when there are historians saying that it did happen. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi MaskedSinger, thank you. I believe you have misunderstood what the article and sources are saying. Neither claims the siege did not happen. That question has nothing to do with this topic. This topic is about the version of the siege story created by early Zionists for nationalism purposes which markedly differs from the only historical version of the story in existence, which is Jospehus’s version. The differences between the two versions is summarized at Masada_myth#Table_of_elements. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this article should be deleted, it presents an academic debate as if it is already 100% solved, and then goes on to describe one-sided theory as an attack page. I don't think this topic merits at all its own page - the topic at question can and should appear under the "siege of Masada" article. I'll open an AfD HaOfa (talk) 13:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

See above. What academic debate? Onceinawhile (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: this question was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masada myth. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Ensuring balance

@האופה, OdNahlawi, and PeleYoetz: in your comments at the AfD discussion each of you made suggestions of lack of balance / NPOV, but did not provide any specifics, nor any sources. Could you please provide this now so we can address your concerns? Onceinawhile (talk) 11:00, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

This statement for example "The early Zionist settlers often considered themselves direct descendants of the ancient Hebrews" is terribly biased, it implies that we Jews today have no connection to our ancient ancestors. Even if it appears in one source it is such an extraordinary and biased claim that it must be removed. PeleYoetz (talk) 05:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you share your concern directly with Yael Zerubavel, the Professor of Jewish Studies & History and the founding director of the Allen and Joan Bildner Center for the Study of Jewish Life at Rutgers University, as well as with the University of Chicago Press, highlighting the following paragraph from pages 68–69 of her 1995 work: In the period in which the Zionist settlers and the first generation of New Hebrews wished to define themselves as the direct descendants of the ancient Hebrews, they portrayed the Masada people as the authentic carriers of the spirit of active heroism, love of freedom, and national dignity, which, according to the Zionist collective memory, disappeared during centuries of Exile.

If you are worried that this might be the view of just one rogue decorated high-profile scholar, I suggest reading the 163 citations in the article Racial conceptions of Jewish identity in Zionism.

Onceinawhile (talk) 05:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

This article looks like it has bias issues as well. The sentence as it appears now in this article seems to deny the continuation of the Jewish people throughout the generations PeleYoetz (talk) 10:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

You appear to have ignored the sources above? Repeating statements doesn't verify them, sources do. And you haven't provided any.

Either way, this specific question is tangential to the topic of this article, so I don't object to the phrasing per your amendment.

Are there any other areas of concern that you have identified?

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@האופה, OdNahlawi, and PeleYoetz: any further comments on this? If you take the time to read the article and understand the context I think you will agree there is nothing POV in here. On the other hand, if you think there is a POV somewhere, please bring a source which states a conflicting position. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't respond, I didn't pay attention to the discussion here. I don't really like getting into discussions, maybe others will want to comment. I mainly want to write about things that interest me. OdNahlawi (talk) 08:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Dear @Onceinawhile, I have read the article and and there are definitely issues of POV. Here are some of them:

The article is heavily one-sided, it uses questionable phrasing and sources, and quotes selectively from the sources it cites. For example, the source quoted most in the article is Ben-Yehuda's book, which is criticized for being superficial, having a main theory which relies on a misunderstanding of historiographical issues, and being inconsistent in its application of the constructionist method which it officially adopts, but only uses when comfortable, among many other criticisms.(see https://www.jstor.org/stable/43044142) The book is also not self-aware, and is representative mainly of the subjective-constructionist approach, but does not represent the objective approach adequately, and therefore is given undue weight in the article, which relies on this approach exclusively. (ibid.)

As an example for selective quoting of the source, the article ignores the sections of the book which discuss the decline of the "Masada Myth" (Ben Yehuda P. 253 and onward, Magness P. 199).

The article relies heavily on the identification of the inhabitants of Masada as Sicarii, as mentioned by Josephus, and while the passage quoted from the book by Magness is rather blunt -"How did the site of a reported mass suicide of a band of Jewish rebels who terrorized other Jews become a symbol of the modern State of Israel? The creation of the Masada myth—in which these Jewish terrorists are transformed into freedom fighters and the mass suicide becomes a heroic last stand-has been explored by a number of scholars." (Magness P. 197) It is clear that her biting rhetoric is meant to magnify the question she presents. Her actual position, together with other opinions, is mentioned in a previous chapter: "The Jews at Masada likely included unaffiliated individuals and families as well as members of groups such as the Qumran Sect/Essenes",(Magness P. 164) and: "The nature and even the very existence of the Zealots and sicarii are also debated by scholars. Steve Mason proposes that instead of being a distinct faction, the term sicarii was used by Josephus as a “scare-word” to evoke a particular kind of violence and terrorism. Hanan Eshel speculated that because Josephus was a Zealot leader at the beginning of the revolt, when writing War years later he artificially distinguished between the “moderate” Zealots and the “extremist” sicarii, pinning on the latter the responsibility for the disastrous outcome of the revolt and thereby distancing himself. Here I use the terms rebels and refugees to encompass the variety of backgrounds and affiliations represented among the Jews at Masada."(Magness P.165) And so, this would be another example of selective quotation. But regarding the point of discussion, it is not clear whether the Sicarii inhabited Masada at all. The possibility that the inhabitants of Masada were in fact not Sicarii, together with the fact that both Ben-Yehuda and Magness state explicitly that although archaeology cannot confirm the narrative given by Josephus, it also cannot refute it (Ben-Yehuda P.57, Magness P. 195-196), make the idea of the Masada Myth "whitewashing" history or supplementing it "with fabrications and omissions" lose much of its weight, seeing as much is still left for interpretation. These are just few of the issues with the article.

Uppagus (talk) 07:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Uppagus: I see this is a copy of your comment at the AfD. Reading your comment alongside Green's article, it seems you have taken much of what you wrote in your comment from the criticism section of the Arnold H. Green review (your jstor link):

• Constructivism: You incorrectly wrote that Green states that Ben Yehuda has "a main theory which relies on a misunderstanding of historiographical issues"; in fact Green's misunderstanding statement (p.411) refers only to "Barry Schwartz's reconciliation of continuity and discontinuity in collective memory" which is totally irrelevant for the contents of this article. Equally irrelevant to the contents of this article is the reference to "application of the constructionist method". This article doesn't go near any of those areas of nuanced scholarly debate (see Constructivism (philosophy of science) and Subjectivity and objectivity (philosophy)) about the way history is written, so I am unsure why you are raising it here?
• Core points: Green confirms everything that this article uses Ben Yehuda for, which is only the core points, and underpins this by referencing the scholars before Ben Yehuda who published the same: (p.419) "In summary, Nachman Ben-Yehuda formulates a credible, detailed, concept-based explanation of why and how the Masada myth entered the memory of secular Zionists and modern Israelis"; (p.406-407) "Ben-Yehuda acknowledges that he is by no means the first to recognize mythical elements in the tourist-media-schoolbook version of Masada. He cites Bernard Lewis's History: Remembered, Recovered, Invented (1975) as identifying the popular narrative as an example of "invented history" then discusses (14-16) several other scholarly critics whose work preceded his." Would it address your concern if we were to amend the article to replace all 4 of the citations to Ben Yehuda with citations to Green? That would seem a shame given that Ben Yehuda's book has been cited almost 500 times by other scholars. Perhaps we add Green alongside?
• Decline: Re decline of the myth, I will add a section. That is a good addition, thank you. Green has some good commentary here that I will use (p.414): "A fuller understanding of his motives for doing so can be acquired by examining Ben-Yehuda's explanation of the Masada myth's decline, which is disappointingly superficial. He points out that Israel's devotion to Masada peaked in the 1960s; by the 1970s, "pilgrimages" to the site by Israeli youth and military groups were sharply down and critics were beginning to challenge the myth. Later, the IDF's armored units shifted their swearing-in ceremonies to Latrun, the site of a crucial battle in the 1948 war. By the late 1980s, Masada seemed to function less as a national shrine of heroism and more as just another tourist attraction."
• Josephus vs Modern myth vs Other possibilities: As Green writes: "The status of Josephus as the only surviving literary account does not render it an objective account. Ben-Yehuda acknowledges (27-31) the debate about problematic issues concerning Josephus. For example, The Jewish War constitutes a self-justification for Josephus's defection to the Roman side; he was unlikely an eyewitness of Masada's siege and fall, and — in the Greek tradition exemplified by Thucydides - he very probably fabricated the speeches that he put into the mouth of Eleazar ben Yair." I consciously chose not to go into this debate in this article, since this article is focused only the modern myth itself. That there are an infinite number of other possible truths is not the point of this article, as these speculations into ancient history do not make the modern myth any less of a myth with an interesting modern story. Consider the article on Santa Claus versus the article on Saint Nicholas; personally I don't consider debates on the historicity of Saint Nicholas to be particularly relevant to the story of the modern Christmas myth. If you think it is important I have no objection to adding a reference to this point, but my preference would be to keep it short.

Onceinawhile (talk) 08:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I have added a decline section, based on Uppagus's suggestion of Arnold H. Green. Per the quote in the "core points" bullet above, Green points to an excellent discussion in Ben Yehuda's book which lists all the main scholars who published on the myth before him. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Onceinawhile, yes you see correctly. I posted it on the AfD, but it was ignored, and considering the fact that the points made were still valid, it made sense to post it again. Another unconcealed fact is that much of my criticism is based on the Arthur H. Green article. I will first respond to the arguments and suggestions you propose, and then I will add a few more issues I see with the entry as it stands. For the sake of clarity I will use your categories, I hope that's alright with you.

• Constructivism: It is not incorrect to say that "Green states that Ben Yehuda has "a main theory which relies on a misunderstanding of historiographical issues"" – And I quote: "In the first place, as applied by Ben-Yehuda, this reconciliation theory rests on a misunderstanding of the historiographical issues." (p.411). Barry Schwartz suggested the reconciliation as a Hypothesis, but it is Ben-Yehuda who wrote his study to test it "directly, explicitly and meticulously" (p. 412), an endeavor which, at least according to Green, was not successful. Even though the article does not delve into these "areas of nuanced scholarly debates" (maybe it should? I suggest not to leave the article at its current superficiality), they are directly related to the composition of the theory under discussion. As the article stands, it bases itself on a book with problematic methodology, and therefore propagates the resulting problems further. I raise it here because the article is based on a theory which is further based on problematic application of a theoretical hypothesis. I would suggest changing the title to "Theory of Masada myth".
• Core points: Green does not confirm the core points, he presents Ben-Yehuda's theory as he critiques him, and as a historian he largely criticizes Ben-Yehuda's historiographical methodology, though he later critiques the sociological arguments for being inconsistent with their own logic. After the citation you brought from page 419, Green criticizes Ben-Yehuda for being "devious in overtly rejecting objectivism while employing it sub rosa, and superficial in accounting for the myth's decline. If all historical explanations are social constructions, then so is this one by Ben-Yehuda. His "objective" summary of Josephus includes subjective emphases. And his Masada Myth may be seen in part as springing from Israeli leftists' perception of a need to deconstruct Masada's "resoluteness" associations in the post-1967 circumstances of peacemaking." (again, p. 419) Green further points to Ben-Yehuda's ignoring the archaeological finds and implies that this is because they weaken the narrative he proposes and the rhetoric he uses. It does not seem like Green agrees with Ben-Yehuda, in fact it would seem that he is not entirely convinced of the existence of the modern myth at all. Therefore, citing Green as a source for the article, supplementing or replacing the Ben-Yehuda citations, would then lead to the wrong impression and should not be done. Given the issues above, and considering the fact that Ben-Yehuda was not the first to propose this theory, why not use one of his sources, such as Bernard Lewis?
• Josephus vs Modern myth vs Other possibilities: I am afraid it is entirely necessary to go into the debate, seeing as the very idea of the Masada myth is dependent on it. If the Sicarii did not exist, or if the inhabitants of Masada were in fact of varied communities, or if the early historians had reason to doubt the historicity of certain portions of Josephus' account, the idea of a myth narrative which "selectively emphasized Josephus's account" promoted by them loses much of its credibility. Ignoring it would be dishonest in my opinion. Even the Santa Claus article you suggested (thank you by the way, I enjoyed reading it and its companion Saint Nicholas), contains a historical description of Saint Nicholas. I think it crucial to provide adequate context to the article, including the finds and the debates, and I also believe that the honest dissemination of knowledge overshadows the preference of brevity.
• Further comments: Even if it exists, the Masada myth is not the invention of the early Zionists, as Green mentions (p.417-418):  "In 1841, about two years after the Mormons' forced eviction from Missouri, Times and Seasons (Nauvoo) reprinted an unnamed historian's account – containing some heroic overtones – of Masada's fall. The editors (Don Carlos Smith and R.B. Thompson) affixed a preface mixing admiration with censure: 'The following thrilling account of the self devotedness of the Jews, scarcely has its equal on the pages of history. – Although such a course must be condemned, it shows their attachment to their ancient religion, the God of their fathers, and also their abhorrence of the Romans.'" It is also not the sole possession of the State of Israel, see the references to Masada by the Latter-Day Saints in Green's article p. 418-419.

In conclusion, I suggest the title be changed to "Theory of Masada myth" in which case the lead should begin with "The theory of the Masada myth suggests that… it was first proposed by… It was then adopted and expanded by…" followed by its narrative and so on. Uppagus (talk) 14:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I think you are giving undue weight to a Mormon historian's angle on this. The title refers to article content specifically discussing the (mis)use of Josephus in Zionism, and 'myth'-making is what this was all about. It is not a 'theory' that in Zionism, a narrative wholly out of whack with our one historical source was patched up and proved functional, even influencing the interpretation of archaeological data. That said, this is not restricted only to Ben-Yehuda's work, as one will see presently as the storyline is thickened out to document deconstructions of that popular story before his own work. Myth in short is fine.Nishidani (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand how a scholar's religious affiliation is related to the discussion. Green's arguments are valid and they were published in an academic journal. The claim that Josephus was (mis)used in Zionism is in fact a theory, albeit a popular one, and not without issues, see above. As was stated, archaeological data was ignored by Ben-Yehuda. Ben-Yehuda is still the main source the article relies on, it is my suggestion that you rely on the original promoters of this theory.Uppagus (talk) 10:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

No need whatsoever to change the title here. Selfstudier (talk) 10:24, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Uppagus: thanks for your detailed comments. At the heart of what you wrote are two segments in Green's article. I believe there is a misunderstanding between us here. I will put the two most relevant excerpts below so we can work through them:

Green, page 411: In that regard, I acknowledge that there are risks in having a historian such as myself evaluate a book from a field which its author calls "historical sociology." Among them is that the reviewer may not resist the temptation to quibble about issues persisting between sociology and modern history, which are twentieth-century branches from the same eighteenth-century trunk — including an issue like appropriate kinds and amounts of theorizing. Many historians still view theory as Puritans viewed art — the simpler the better — whereas some sociologists indulge their tastes for conceptualization to a level of baroque splendor. Ben-Yehuda's third theoretical referent — Schwartz's reconciliation of continuity and discontinuity in collective memory — exceeds my puritanical tolerance for theorizing and triggers my quibble reflex.

• In your comments above you again substituted "main theory" (your words) for "reconciliation theory" (Green's words).
• As you can see from this quote, Green describes his point around this reconciliation theory as his "quibble". This means he is characterizing his point as "something trivial; a minor complaint", not some kind of foundational problem with Ben-Yehuda's work as was implied in your comments.
• Your comments have not connected this epistemological debate to the contents of this Wikipedia article. We do not go anywhere near this reconciliation theory topic. Unless you can demonstrate that this quibble affects a specific part of the article, I am not sure what we are discussing.

Green, page 419: In summary, Nachman Ben-Yehuda formulates a credible, detailed, concept-based explanation of why and how the Masada myth entered the memory of secular Zionists and modern Israelis. It is an explanation, however, which is "irritatingly repetitive" overloaded with theory, devious in overtly rejecting objectivism while employing it sub rosa, and superficial in accounting for the myth's decline. If all historical explanations are social constructions, then so is this one by Ben-Yehuda. His "objective" summary of Josephus includes subjective emphases. And his Masada Myth may be seen in part as springing from Israeli leftists' perception of a need to deconstruct Masada's "resoluteness" associations in the post-1967 circumstances of peacemaking.

• The misunderstanding here may lie in how Green uses the term "Masada myth" in the first sentence and "Masada Myth" in the final sentence. One is uncapitalized and unitalicized, referring to the encyclopedic subject of this article, and the other is capitalized and in italics, and refers to Ben-Yehuda's book.
• The paragraph is debating the theory of knowledge – it is saying in a long-winded way that everyone has biases. We don't make that point in the article, but I am happy to add it in if you think it will help. The challenge is that Green thinks these biases are only relevant to this theory-of-knowledge-debate, not to any of the simple facts stated in our article.
• Green's debate, again, is about the nuances of how to tell the story of the creation and propagation of the Masada myth. At no point does he question, implicitly or explicitly, the existence of the modern myth. That is not questioned by any scholar anywhere.

On your other points:

• I have no objection to adding in a short summary on the historicity of Josephus's account, so long as it is clear that this is not the point of this article. Would you like to draft something?
• Re Nishidani's comment, I worry that your reference to Green's Mormon publication example in "Further comments" may be too specific towards the Mormon community.

Onceinawhile (talk) 10:29, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Uppagus: are you still interested in discussing this? Onceinawhile (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Dear @Onceinawhile,

I apologize for being rather absent, things are very busy for me at the moment, and I thank you for your sensitive, thoughtful and thorough response. I thank you further for identifying the misunderstanding. If you would allow me, rather than addressing each point I will try to explain where I am coming from, and hopefully reply to your comments as I go, directly or indirectly. If you would prefer a point for point response, please let me know.

The general issues I see with the WP article are as follows. It is unclear to me what the article presumes to be. It does not present accurate historical data regarding Masada of the Second Temple period and the Jewish Revolt, because it ignores what we know today based on archaeological finds (Namely, that the residents of Masada were a diverse group consisting of sectarians, Samaritans and others, that it is unclear whether there were any Sicarii at Masada, that there are clear indications for a battle occurring there, that the so called "murderous campaign against innocent Jews" should be seen in the context of the battle over the Balsam shrubs between the Romans and the Jews, that Pliny the elder seems to refer to the mass suicide at the rebels' last stand - thus serving as a corroborative source for Josephus), please see the articles of Guy Stiebel who is one of the leading current archaeologists excavating at Masada (If you need a specific source for any of the details I mentioned, just let me know). Based on the current literature it appears that over time the narrative which grows out of the archaeological finds increasingly approaches the early interpretations of Josephus' description, despite and possibly because of its own issues. As such the mythological aspect of the early narrative is minimized. It is further minimized by the fact that the Mormons too interpreted the narrative in Josephus as heroic in the 19^th century. I did not mean to overemphasize the Mormon contribution to the narrative, rather to present it as a testimony to the fact that the narrative in itself has natural heroic pathos even to relatively unrelated groups, and its heroic status was not dependent on a manipulation of the data by early Zionists.

The main issue with this WP article is that it presents a theory, without stating that it is a theory and without providing context. On the one hand such practice presents a historical narrative which is skewed, based on what we know today (What really happened at Masada, and how incorrect was the early Zionist interpretation?). I am fully aware of the fact that the article does not presume to be a full historical survey of the site, such a survey exists (or should exist) in the main article on Masada. On the other hand it does not provide a full or objective representation of the Masada myth theory either. In truth the theory is presented as fact, and not as a theory at all. It is a theory though; it connects a variety of isolated sources and builds a narrative through interpretation. Furthermore, the theory itself, as mentioned above, is not without issue. The methodology and treatment of sources are dubious, the claims are not well founded and the theory's very basis of "a selectively constructed narrative based on Josephus' account, supplemented with fabrications and omissions" is contentious. To quote Stiebel: "Thus holding the story-tellers responsible, both the ancient and modern ones, is too easy a solution and not a very productive one. Claiming that Josephus and/or Yadin knowingly or unintentionally falsified or manipulated data is similar to claiming that Father Roland Guérin de Vaux identified Qumran with the communal residence of the Essenes because he was a Christian priest or that Israeli scholars interpreted it in the same way because they were influenced by socialist ideologies that flourished in Israel during the 50's and 60's of the past century." (Stiebel, "What Have the Romans Ever Done for Us?" p. 181) The one-sidedness of the theory is also demonstrated by the fact that its promoters have been called out as being politically biased, based on their statements in the very publications that promote the theory (See Green's article on Ben-David and Shtiebel's on Magness' book above). I would have no problem if the WP article presented it objectively as a theory, instead, it presents it subjectively as fact, without providing adequate context, i.e. background, origins, evolution, methodology, criticism, opposing opinions etc. I am fully aware of the fact that the article does not delve into the epistemological methodology, but that is to its detriment. Ignoring everything the theory is built upon and all criticism of it does not do it justice, as it is, the article just appears to be shallow demagogy, highly selective in its references and citations.

Lastly, I mean to be constructive and truly hope that it does not cause you any offence, as I am very appreciative of your comments. Uppagus (talk) 15:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Uppagus: thanks for your detailed and thoughtful comment. I have gathered some additional sources and further developed the article with the benefit of your various comments above. In particular I added sentences on the structural differences versus other national myths, and on the fact that scholars have analyzed both the differences between Josephus and the modern myth, as well as Josephus versus the archeological evidence.

I believe there are two main points left to address in your last comment: confirming the scope of the article, and discussing Stiebel’s commentary.

Regarding the scope of the article, this is an article on Israeli sociology and modern Israeli history. It is not an article on ancient history or archeology - that is the Siege of Masada article.

Stiebel is an archaeologist, so his discipline is not the core one for this article. Of course, despite that, he has a good knowledge of the modern incarnation, and accepts the existence of the modern myth version and its importance to modern Israeli history. But the modern sociological phenomenon is not his area of scholarship, so he minimizes comment on it directly. Just as scholars of Saint Nicholas rarely comment in detail on Santa Claus. You can see this from the article you referenced (Stiebel, What Have the Romans Ever Done for Us?), where he comments around Magness’s modern “Masada Myth” sociological / modern history theme, but doesn’t question it. The closest he gets is when he writes: ”I often tell my students that Masada forms an excellent test case, one that allows us to document the processes Jewish and Israeli society underwent in last century. You can see this a little more clearly in an earlier Guardian article from 2013 (Israel's Masada myth: doubts cast over ancient symbol of heroism and sacrifice: Story of Jewish rebels taking their own lives while under siege in desert fortress was either exaggerated or untrue, say experts): Guy Stiebel, professor of archaeology at Jerusalem's Hebrew University and Masada expert, said the evolution of myth is common in young nations or societies… "The myth evolved. All the ingredients were there.” So he directly describes the modern incarnation as a myth, when being interviewed by a journalist for an article about said myth.

Your comment contains a claim that the "theory's very basis of "a selectively constructed narrative based on Josephus' account, supplemented with fabrications and omissions" is contentious” and that the article should contain "criticism, opposing opinions". I feel very confident that you are wrong here. The 38 citations in this article all say the same thing. In all the reading I have done to prepare this article, I found precisely zero scholars bringing this decades-old concept into question. In the discussion we have had, you helpfully pressure tested this by choosing two new scholars who were not cited in the article, Arnold Green and Guy Stiebel, and we have since confirmed that both of those scholars you chose also accept the existence of a modern Masada myth. I am convinced that this pattern will continue with any other scholars around the subject that we have yet to assess. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Onceinawhile,

May I ask why the POV banner was removed?

Despite your efforts it seems like most of the issues still remain... In the meantime I'm restoring it. Uppagus (talk) 11:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

And I'm removing it. I went through this with a fine-toothed comb during its DYK nomination and I am satisfied that it represents the literature fairly.--Launchballer 11:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• Re your opening remarks on what the article lacks. This is a daughter article, and to vindicate its autonomy it must not repeat what the main Masada article documents. Many of the ostensible omissions you argue for relate to what that article covers or ought to cover.Nishidani (talk) 15:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Magnes book

princeton 2021. I think it originally came out in 2019 Nishidani (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, you are absolutely right. The google metadata says 2021, but the book itself clearly says 2019. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Lead’s ambiguity on narrative’s content

The lead refers to an academic consensus against which the mythic narrative stands, but does not summarize or explain it at all or its differences from the myth. It also says the myth relies solely on Josephus’ account but does not refer to additional sources. Is it possible for the lead to explain how the myth differs from the historical consensus? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Good idea. FYI we used to have a table (see below) which set out the key elements side by side, for total clarity. This was prosified in this edit. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

This is confusing, since the lead cites an over-reliance on Josephus by the Masada myth narrative. What am I missing about this myth’s sources and divergences from them and from the historical consensus? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:55, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Zanahary: thanks for raising this. I think you are referring to the sentence: …selectively constructed narrative based on Josephus' account, supplemented with fabrications and omissions.

What it is trying to say is that the myth is the combination of selectivity and supplementation, i.e. deletion and addition, or even more simply, the Josephus version was "changed". This is of course the standard construction for a national myth or historical myth, such as the Frontier myth. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Element	Josephus' Account	Mythical Narrative
Characters	Sicarii, a group of Jewish murderers and robbers ("terrorists", in some sources)	Zealots, freedom fighters
Behavior prior to siege	Raided and massacred nearby Jewish villages	Heroically defended against Romans
Reason for Suicide	Persuaded by Elazar Ben-Yair, most killed by 10 people	Chose death over slavery
Survivors	7 survived	None
Role in Jewish Revolt	Sicarii were living in Masada before Jerusalem's fall	The "last stand", having escaped to Masada after the fall of Jerusalem