The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus tending towards keep thanks to improvement. Spartaz Humbug! 12:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jews in Carthage

[edit]
Jews in Carthage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:Hoax: as far as I know there is no evidence of a Jewish presence in North Africa/Iberia before the CE/destruction of the Second Temple, i.e. centuries after the end of the Punic empire and civilisation.

As to this assertion: "Therefore Andrew Zelev believes that the Carthaginians and Phoenicians - are Jews", very weired, given that Carthaginians were Phoenicians in origin, therefore Canaanites, which according to the bible are sons of Ham and enemies of the Jews.

In all, this article seem to be based on little more than WP:OR. Tachfin (talk) 15:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody is debating the fact that there was a Jewish presence in Roman Africa (i.e. after the CE), it is in fact the premise of this nomination, nor is anyone denying the fat that Punics were Phoenicians in origin & therefore are related/connected to Jews/Israelites in some way. The problem with this article is that it alludes to a Jewish presence in the Punic empire and Punic Carthage, and even goes as far as claiming that Punics were Jewish/Israelites. (a claim which is reminiscent of hundreds of other WP:Fringe views about the ten lost tribes of Israel).
  • If there is enough material about "Jews in Roman Carthage" to justify a split from History of the Jews in Tunisia and History of the Jews in the Roman Empire then let's have an article about that (i.e. "Jews in the Roman province of Africa" or "Jews in Roman Carthage"). But to a have a misleading fork to nest dubious, OR, hoax/fringe views as it looks currently is not encyclopaedic at all.
--Tachfin (talk) 10:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I write above, there is enough literature on Jews in Roman Carthage to populate a small article, though Tachfin is correct in saying we should first consider why History of the Jews in Tunisia isn't enough. But that is not the point. This article as it stands tries to sell us useless OR about Jews in Punic Carthage, for which there is no evidence at all. To quote the Cambridge History of Judaism, Vol 4, p69, "The earliest evidence of Jews in Carthage and the surrounding area appears in inscriptions dated to the second century. Although some have suggested that Jews were there as early as the Punic period, there is no archaeological evidence or literary reference before the second century [CE] to support the idea." Incidentally Queen Dido is a legend not mentioned in any known source less than half a millennium after her supposed life. Zerotalk 02:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Zero0000: Thanks for the worthwhile comments. Just some points: 1 It is surely splitting hairs to put things about one famous subject into an entirely different framework unrelated to that subject. 2 Even your sources do say "Although some have suggested that Jews were there as early as the Punic period, there is no archaeological evidence or literary reference before the second century [CE] to support the idea" and as you know archeology alone is not the final arbiter of historical data although it helps, but if there are scholars who note something then it is just as valid to us writing an encyclopedia that reports this in a NPOV way. That is called reliable scholarship. 3 Your point about "Queen Dido" applies to many subjects relating to ancient history. (a) Take for example the histories about Alexander the Great much of what was written about him was put into writing hundreds of years after his death. (b)Same thing for what we know about Socrates and (c) same thing about much of Roman history, there is always historical revisionism taking place by later rulers and authorities who perhaps/often have an axe to grind and want to re-write or re-create or expunge what really happened. (d) It happens in our own day and age all the time! (e) No less a scholar than Josephus is famous/notorious from re-writing Jewish and Roman history from the point of view of his Flavian sponsors. 4 So there is nothing out of line when this hits us in regards to the history of Carthage and the connections it must have had and did as mentioned by reliable scholars with the Israelites and the Jews. Just dig deep enough for the scholarly information and you will unearth it, just as archaeologists do. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @IZAK: Sorry, but your analogies are not very good. Even though lots of sources about Alexander the Great and Socrates are dubious, scholars treat them as historical figures about whom one can seek the facts. Queen Dido, on the other hand, has a similar status to Romulus and Remus; few if any modern scholars take these creation stories as literal truth. But this is off-topic, since we are not arguing about the article on Queen Dido. The proof of the pudding, as they say, is in the eating. Show us that there is enough scholarly material about Jews in Punic Carthage and we can have an article on it. I'll even help. As it stands, I look more favorably on an article "Jews in Roman Carthage", which could include a few sentences listing claims and counterclaims about earlier history. Zerotalk 08:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Zero0000: As with most subjects that I do know a lot about, I still do not have all the knowledge and that is why I turn to Google to help me out. I don't have any help, I am a one-man-band! I have cited two sources that more than piqued my curiosity to verify my curiosity, see the words in bold, one from a. The Jewish Virtual Library [4]: "CARTHAGE, ancient city in North Africa near the modern Tunis; founded in the 9th century B.C.E. by Phoenicians. There is no evidence of Jews in Carthage during the Punic period (before 146 B.C.E.); on the other hand, a number of modern scholars maintain that the expansion of the Phoenicians from Tyre and Sidon owed something of its impetus to the collaboration of Hebrews from the Palestinian hinterland. Substantial Jewish settlement is known only from the time of the Roman Empire. Its existence is shown from inscriptions (mainly on tombstones) and from literary sources, especially those of the Church Fathers..." And b. From the Jewish Encyclopedia [5] --- note that the Jewish Encyclopedia name for their article is the same as the one we have here i.e. Jews in Carthage that proves that the creator of the article was not "hoaxing" around when he used that title! --- Thus: "Jews in Carthage. The fact that the Talmud mentions the Carthaginian teachers of the Law, R. Abba, R. Isaac, and R. Ḥana, proves that Jews were living in that city, although Frankel, without reason, takes it to mean an Armenian city ("Mebo," pp. 6b, 66a), and Kohut a Spanish city ("Aruch Completum," vii. 220). It is evident from the introduction to the work "Adversum Judæos," ascribed to Tertullian, that Jews were living in Carthage; and they are found still further west (Schürer, "Gesch." 3d ed., iii. 26, note 64). Münter ("Primordia Eccl. Afric." p. 165, Copenhagen, 1829) mentions a certain R. Jisschak (the one in the Talmud?)..." And then c. As one can see from searching Google Books for Israelites and Carthage and Kingdom of Israel and Carthage there are lots of books out there that deal with this topic, far too numerous and far-ranging for me to read up on them now. But the point is they are on the scene and cannot be waved away as mere "hoaxes" or "OR". The fact that both some reliable mainstream scholars do contemplate a fuller role of Israelites/Jews in the life and history of Carthage, and that it is also part of a broader less-proven but nevertheless "accepted" or "latched onto" set of ideas and discussions by many others who have spent a great amount of time explicating that both the original Carthaginians in North Africa (and the Etruscans in Italy) were of Israelite origins, since they were VERY advanced civilizations that basically sprung up overnight and asserted themselves as regional world powers and empires with very advanced cultures on all levels and they fully arose following the collapse of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, basically there is a good chance they were refugees from the collapsed kingdom/s of Israel that were over-run by the Assyrians and Babylonians, it's not that far-fetched. Bottom line, I think the nominator is rushing to conclusions and others are just perhaps quickly jumping on the bandwagon without presumably really knowing much about this subject. You know, trying to be "accurate" about ancient civilizations, especially by ones that were wiped off the face of the Earth by the Romans who then got to write the "official histories" of what happened makes it tough to understand and accept what really happened and who was really there. Thanks for your patience. IZAK (talk) 10:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you repeat sources about the Roman and Talmudic periods. Nobody is disputing them. The rest of what you write is speculation and not even good speculation. Your argument in places is bizarre, especially the part about very advanced civilisations. The Egyptian, Assyrian and Phoenician worlds were very advanced long before anyone heard of Israelites. There was nothing about the Kingdom of Israel more advanced than them. Zerotalk 13:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Zero0000: Of course the Israelites were not the first important civilization on the planet, I agree with you on that point, even the Bible says so, there were many others before them. And of course the Egyptian, Assyrian and Phoenician as well as the Chinese were well-advanced, I agree with you on that point too, and perhaps even greater than the early Judaic civilizations of the Children of Israel and the two kingdoms they eventually set up as the Northern Kingdom of Israel and the Southern Kingdom of Judah that then survived as Judea until it was put out of commission by the Romans who exiled the Jews from their land 2,000 years ago. However you are wrong when you claim that "There was nothing about the Kingdom of Israel more advanced than them" because while other civilizations were advanced in government and warfare they were also all pagan, or made human rulers into "deities" and were 100% idol worshiping societies, while the early Israelites and the kingdom set up under King David and his son King Solomon were based on the Torah and its 613 mitzvot with input from the Hebrew Prophets that was based on Monotheism something that the Israelites and the Jews gave the world, in that sense they were the most advanced. However, according to the Hebrew Bible because some of the ancient Israelites eventually also adopted the pagan ways of the surrounding cultures it led to their decline, fall and exile (much like assimilation today has the same effects on Jews). That is the point at which the Northern Kingdom of Israel was destroyed by the Assyrians and the Ten Tribes of the Northern Kingdom of Israel sent into exile and became the so-called Ten Lost Tribes. It is exactly preceding, during, and after the destruction of the Northern Kingdom of Israel that civilizations like those at ancient Carthage and Etruria come to prominence, and while they were very advanced they had continued with the problematic cultural traits that brought about the collapse of the Northern Kingdom of Israel such as pagan worship and even child and human sacrifices that was the plague of those times. By the way, the Romans took both the Etruscans and the Carthaginians VERY seriously and fought bitterly against them to destroy their power in order to set up their own rule. None of this is far-fetched and can be researched and read up on by those interested. IZAK (talk) 22:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I simply do not know what the situation was in Roman Carthage after its refounding rather soon afterwards. There were presumably Jews there, for they are documented throughout the Mediterranean in the first century BCE and subsequently. But I don't know the literature on this. Neither, as far as I can tell, do any of the people commenting above. I notice the Russian language online encyclopedia викисфера.рф/wiki and its article on the Jews in Carthage. [6] and its Google-Tranlation [7] This is not the Russian Wikipedia--I am unfamiliar with it, but it seems to have been primarily written by a banned ruWP editor [8] I have the distinct impression that the article here now under discussion may be based on the article there.\
see also the article in Encyclopedie Berbere, a standard printed work from L Peters, a European scholarly publisher of very high repute, of which a considerable amount is now online here {I see it's article on the topic, Judaïsme (dans l'Antiquité). This French article seems to be the most accessible source, and the WP article on the subject should be based on it. It has furthermore an excellent bibliography through 1991. I note it basically says there is essentially nothing known before the Roman period, except for two possible artifacts. DGG ( talk ) 11:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]
It's a terrible idea to start with a 103-year old source, and an even worse idea to copy-paste from it as you appear to suggest. An article should reflect modern knowledge, not older ideas that have largely been displaced. Zerotalk 13:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely that it would be wrong to use the old JE as the basic source. Our knowledge about most topics in the ancient world has had revolutionary developments in the last 100 years. Most of the present archeological sites were not known then; many of the key texts were not known then. Ugarit had not been excavated, the Dead Sea Scrolls were unknown, the major structures in the City of David had not been found; for a summary see our article on Biblical archaeology. Interpretations of even the then-known material have changed also: the field is no longer dominated by the question of trying to verify (or disprove) the material in the Bible. I would use the old JE only for a illustration of previous views--for the basic facts, modern books must be used. (And in fact we should replace or de-emphasise all current material derived from there-- and the old EB. (It's not just the ancient near east--key Roman and Greek sites were also unknown, and scholars no longer view medieval and later history in terms of national and racial pride.) DGG ( talk ) 16:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not read well at all. Maybe its useful content could be incorporated as a new section of Carthage. --Redaktor (talk) 13:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, it is still as misleading as before. It starts with this sentence "Jews in Carthage refers to the history and presence of people of Jewish ancestry in ancient Carthage.". I again reiterate, there is no evidence at all of a Jewish presence in ancient Carthatge (i.e. Punic Carthage). The content that was recently added is bulleted list of (rather off-topic) points that do not really address the subject. --Tachfin (talk) 11:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is really very little material for a separate article History of the Jews in Carthage. Looking at the 1906 JE [9] it is really only the section "Jews in Carthage" that is revelant; and even most of this is about the surrounding area, rather than strictly Cathage itself. The 2007 Encyclopedia Judaica has a little more [10], but even the facts in this material would fit comfortably at the top of the Tunisia article (which would benefit from an increased Roman-period section). So, sorry User:IZAK, but on this occasion I think merge and redirect would be the best way forward. Jheald (talk) 12:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Alansohn: Well not really. The current content of the article is equally misleading insofar as it ignores the core point of debate here which is: There is no evidence at all of a Jewish presence in ancient Carthage. The rest of the material is a bit beside the point as it is a collection of points that, are only passably connected to the subject matter. The Jewish presence in Roman Africa (i.e. chiefly Modern Tunisia) is of course attested but that should go in an article about the history of Jews in Roman Africa and there is no reason to focus on the rebuilt Roman Carthage (1st-century-CE onwards), since it was just one amongst many Roman settlement in Roman Africa and there was nothing of particular significance for the supposed Jewish community that lived there. Especially that we don't even have a "Jews in Roman Africa" article. --Tachfin (talk) 11:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(The above was placed here by User:Tachfin, who reverted my closure of the discussion.) NorthAmerica1000 11:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More