Talk:Acra (fortress)

Seam

Re the DYK hook. 'Seam' seems an odd choice of words. I work in British archaeology and have worked in the Levant (Jordan) and Middle East - in all these areas we would call this a joint. Butted joints are what are shown here, where two separate builds butt against each other; bonded joints are where one build is older than the other but the masonry has been partially dismantled to allow the masonry to be rebuilt and bonded together ie interlapping blocks of masonry, not the straight joints such as can be seen in the photograph, as these are structurally less strong. But maybe 'seam' is an American archaeological term? 86.147.163.51 (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I have seen this called both a "straight seam" and a "straight joint" by different authors, though I haven't checked as to their nationalities. Jerusalem is in a seismic zone, and the joints have withstood some major earthquakes, including 1546 which destroyed the Dome of the Rock and other structures on the Mount and most recently a 6.3 in 1927 which killed hundreds. So there may be more integration inside the wall than is apparent from the facing stones. There have been articles and papers written on the 2 such joints in the eastern wall, so perhaps a Wiki article focusing on these might be in the future. I've no objection to changing "seam" to "joint" in the article, though I think it is preferable to reflect the source. • Astynax ^talk 18:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

A quick look at several sources shows that Bar-Kochva uses 'joint', Eilat Mazar and Samuel Rocca use 'seam' and EM Laperrousaz, L. Dequeker and Leen Ritmeyer use both. 'Seam' does seem more prevalent, and I do like it better since it's colloquial and more easily understood, but there no reason why the article can't say "the seam, or straight joint, ..." Poliocretes (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

That works for me. • Astynax ^talk 21:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Current peer review

The article is currently undergoing a Peer Review to identify improvements before listing it as a WP:FAC. • Astynax ^talk 19:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

November 2015 update

We likely will need a new photo in the infobox, as the current photo of the remains at the south wall of the Temple Mount were based on a theorized location, rather than the latest information. New geo location coordinates would also be good. The references also need to be cleaned up to preserve the current structure of short footnotes with full citations following. Since this article was written, templates such as sfn do a better job of linking the footnote to the full citation and are cleaner to use. If there is no objection, I'm willing to do the footnote conversion. I cannot help with a public domain image, however. • Astynax ^talk 07:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I've replaced the photo in the infobox and fixed the coordinates. The rest of the text might also need some tweaking in light of the recent announcement, but I think we should wait for better references before overhauling it. Not everyone is in agreement. Poliocretes (talk) 05:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Today's featured article

The article is nominated at WP:TFAR. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Suburbs?

I checked all the sources about Akra I could find and none of them calls Akra a "suburb". It would be terribly anacronistic to even claim that Jerusalem had "suburbs" at the time given that the population didn't exceed 2,000 inhabitants or so. Since the ruins of the fortress probably has been found, the claim sourced to Josephus, that it was located on a hill, seem just incorrect. Neither can I find anything that connects Akra with the Pool of Siloam. So I rewrote the first two paragraphs. As always, revert if you disagree. ImTheIP (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Have you actually read the article? It has an entire section, well sourced, that speaks exactly to this point. The name Acra seems almost certainly to have referred to something beyond the mere citadel. If you have an issue with the word "suburb" feel free to suggest an alternative. It does not justify a wholesale, unexplained revert of sourced material. Regarding the reliability of Josephus: Erasing ancient historians out of our articles is unreasonable and unprofessional. You might as well delete huge sections of world history. What would the history of Rome be with Livy? The trick is to treat them critically, and this article has done that very well. It examines Josephus' account, and using the various excavations around Jerusalem and the works of various scholars, actually comes to the conclusion (not ours, but those of the experts) that Josephus was probably right. The recently discovery of the Acra (probable, not definite, there are those that disagree) places it very near where Josephus did. It doesn't fit his description word for word, but why would it? It precedes him by 200 years. Furthermore, Josephus is used in this article not for historical veracity but as a 1st century resident of Jerusalem whose eye-witness account testifies to the persistence of the name Acra to his age. This is not uncritical usage of an ancient historians. The bulk of the article the exact opposite - a critical examination of the their accounts.

In light of all of this, I am reverting your edits. If you disagree, please be so kind as to sort it out here in the talk page. Poliocretes (talk) 19:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I see that user:Davidbena has already interceded, so reverted only the very last edit to the body. Poliocretes (talk) 19:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Now I've found the Josephus quote which appears to be the source of the very dubious Akra = suburb claim:

Simon held the upper city, and the great wall as far as Cedron, and as much of the old wall as bent from Siloam to the east, and which went down to the palace of Monobazus, who was king of the Adiabeni, beyond Euphrates; he also held that fountain, and the Acra, which was no other than the lower city; he also held all that reached to the palace of queen Helena, the mother of Monobazus. (BJ 5.6.1)

Fyi, the "Lower City" is another than for the City of David. How can it be that Josephus calls Akra the "lower city" when it was a fortress? Could it perhaps be so that Jerusalem was different in 70 CE than 200 years prior when the Akra was built? Bar-Kochva (2002) p. 451:

In all these sources relating to the time of the Great Revolt, Josephus calls the entire Lower City 'akra', while for the period of the Hasmonaean Revolt he notes that the Akra was 'in the Lower City', that is, was part of it. The name of the Akra (which no longer existed) in the course of time became pars pro toto and was applied to the entire south-eastern hill. This type of development is well known from the toponymy of the Holy Land and not limited to antiquity.

You can google "pars pro toto". The whole idea that Akra was a "suburb" is based on a complete misunderstanding of what Josephus wrote. And there you have it: Why you should NEVER EVER cite Josephus! Btw, archaeologists are certain that they have found Akra's ruins so both the "suburb theory" and the "katoikia theroy" can be dismissed with prejudice. ImTheIP (talk) 21:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@ImTheIP:, Often, a scholar's misunderstanding of Josephus does not stem from any fault of Josephus, but rather from the so-called scholar's shortcomings. For me, as well as for others, Josephus' words are as clear as the morning sky. Take for example G.A. Williamson's remarks in a footnote (1980: 287) who thought that the "Citadel" or fortress (called in Hebrew מצודת ציון‎) spoken of by Josephus was to be identified as actually the "Lower City" (Acra)! instead of the Upper City. The confusion is because of its name "Acra" and which has the connotation of an "acropolis." But what he failed to realize was that Jonathan ben Uziel's Aramaic Targum on 2 Samuel 5:7 calls the "Citadel" or "stronghold" conquered by King David חקרא דציון‎ = Ḥacra de-Ṣiyyon ("the Citadel of Zion"), meaning, the name "Citadel" was used for both hills (both suburbs of the city). In David's day, it was used for the Upper City, as Josephus states, while during the Second Temple period, by Josephus' testimony, it was also used for the Lower City, where is now the Pool of Siloam. However, in truth, there was no need for Williamson's confusion. Today, nearly all scholars call Zion the place that is now located in Jerusalem's Old City, where is now the Jewish Quarter, that is, where is also now Mount Zion, and where is now located David's Citadel. This was the "Upper City", par excellence, by reason of its elevation in relation to the other parts of the city. You see, they reject G.A. Williamson's view. As for the "suburbs" of the city, you can see where Josephus, when speaking about areas of the city of Jerusalem, calls them "suburbs" here > Josephus, The Jewish War 2.19.4. (2.527. Josephus speaks about 1) Bezetha, 2) the Lower City (which he also calls "Acra"), and 3) the "Upper City" where was Herod's palace, and which place was also called the "Upper Market", just as it is referred to in the Mishnah (Shekalim 8:1) compiled in 189 of our Common Era. In layman's terms, these neighborhoods are called suburbs, a word also used by Josephus. The relevance and importance of using this term to describe these different areas falls, in my view, under the category of WP:BLUESKY and needs no further references. As for the so-called "theories" that you've mentioned, you can put them in a separate section under the title of "theories." We cannot present theories as facts.Davidbena (talk) 22:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, the exact quote is "but the seditious themselves were greatly affrighted at the good order of the Romans, and retired from the suburbs, and retreated into the inner part of the city, and into the temple." We don't know what he meant by "suburbs" and we shouldn't guess. Josephus manuscripts were written in classical Greek and the translation in your link is from 1895. Who knows what "suburbs" is supposed to mean? Maybe it is a mistranslation? Maybe "suburb" meant something completely different to this 19th century translator than what it means today? Whatever the case, it is absolutely wrong to use Josephus' manuscripts or any of the many translations as sources. At the very least, it is clear that Josephus did not claim that Akra-the-fortress was a suburb. ImTheIP (talk) 23:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

No, you're overlooking the bigger picture. The quote says: "And on the fourth day, which was the thirtieth of the month Hyperbereteus, (Tishri), when he had put his army in array, he brought it into the city. Now for the people, they were kept under by the seditious; but the seditious themselves were greatly affrighted at the good order of the Romans, and retired from the suburbs, and retreated into the inner part of the city, and into the temple." By this account, the Roman army was already in the city. This put pressure upon the insurgents, who went from one suburb of the city to another, namely, the "inner part of the city" and the "Temple Mount." As stated, Josephus names three different sections of the city which were, in our terms, called suburbs.Davidbena (talk) 23:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

To go the "extra mile," so-to-speak, I'll check-up the word used in Greek by Josephus (for suburb) and if there is an alternative way of explaining this word, we'll do so. Patience.Davidbena (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, what you are describing is your interpretation and it is kind of moot unless you have sources to back it up with. Josephus did not claim that Akra, the fortress, was a "suburb" or even a neighborhood of Jerusalem. Please reread the quote from Bar-Kochva (2002) above because you are confusing two very different things: 1. Akra, a fortress that existed in the City of David in the 2nd century BCE, and 2. Akra, a colloquial name used by Josephus in the first century CE for the neighborhood called City of David (aka. Lower City). ImTheIP (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The word "suburbs", as used by Josephus in The Jewish War 2.19.4. (2.529) is not a single word, as it is used in English, but rather a combination of words. There, Josephus wrote in Greek about the people retiring (Greek: τῶν μὲν ἔξω τῆς πόλεως), meaning, "from those [places in the] outer reaches of the city," or, in other words, "from the purlieu of the city," or "from the surroundings of the city." At any rate, from the position of the city (Greek: πόλεως) that they formerly held and occupied, Josephus goes on to write that they retreated to "the midst of it." William Whiston who translated our English text wrote for this combination of Greek words τῶν μὲν ἔξω τῆς πόλεως the English word "suburbs" (plural). By virtue of Josephus saying that the Romans had already entered the city, and upon seeing this, the insurgents began to take-up a different position that was more advantageous for them, it is clearly talking about different and recognizable areas or parts of the city. Since the "Lower City" is distinguished from "the Upper City," and both are distinguished from the "New City" (Bezetha), which latter place adjoined the Antonia fortress on its north-western side, what name would you give these parts of the city? If it will make things better, perhaps we can just say "neighborhoods of the city," or "three parts of the city." Bezetha was definitely a suburb, as it was joined to the older parts of the city. The other two parts of the city were actually the older and more bona fide parts of Jerusalem.Davidbena (talk) 00:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@ImTheIP:, following your directives and insights, as well as after looking at the Greek source, I have made the necessary changes to the article's lede. See the article. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 00:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

You seem to know a lot about the Greek language, Jewish history, and Jerusalem's history in particular. Do you think it is to much of me to ask you to kindly find modern scholarly sources to support your claims with? ImTheIP (talk) 01:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

What claims? That these three areas of Jerusalem were three different areas of the same city? Please explain.Davidbena (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

The claim that Akra was one of the "urbanized areas in Jerusalem" at the time of the Maccabeean revolt. ImTheIP (talk) 02:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

We here have been discussing the late Second Temple period, as described by Josephus, a man who was a contemporary of that time. As for the period of the Hasmoneans and where Jews or foreigners actually settled in and around Jerusalem is described, I would think, in the Book of Maccabees. Wikipedia permits us to use WP:Primary sources with discretion. Secondary sources, however, are preferable. Some of the people returning from the Babylonian captivity actually settled in Jerusalem and helped to construct its wall (archaeologists pointing to a place in the "Lower City"). This is described in the book of Ezra and Nehemiah. This puts its Jewish settlement before the Hasmoneans.Davidbena (talk) 04:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I should rephrase my question since you misunderstood it. Can you kindly please find me a modern scholarly source that supports the claim that Akra was the name of one of the "urbanized areas in Jerusalem" at the time of the Maccabeean revolt? ImTheIP (talk) 04:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

My friend, "urbanized" simply means a place of human settlement, especially in a town or city. Josephus, a primary source, states that Acra was a settled place and where Shimon bar Giora had resorted to during the First Roman Jewish war, and where Josephus, a primary source, notes how the houses in the entire Lower City (also called Acra) were burnt by the Romans when they finally crushed the uprising in Jerusalem. I'm sure that both of us can find other sources that repeat Josephus' claims. As for the Hasmonean period of Jewish settlement in the city, specific quarters may not have been mentioned in the historical books. However, the city in geneal is, indeed, mentioned. Josephus (late Second Temple period) mentions the place, and is, perhaps, the first historian to mention Acra (the Lower City), by name. Modern historical geographers, I'm sure, have also mentioned the city, but this will require more research to cite any "modern-day scholarly source." I can do this, but it will take me more time and effort, and which I am constrained to do right now. Davidbena (talk) 04:54, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

P.S. - You may wish to read an old Roman account of Jerusalem, written by Tacitus, here.Davidbena (talk) 05:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

For Your Information: Here are a few sources that mention Acra as a place of human settlement:

• L.-H. Vincent, "Acra," in: Revue Biblique, 43 (1934), 205–236;
• W.A. Shotwell, "The Problem of the Syrian Akra," in: Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research, 176 (1964), 10–19;
• Y. Tsafrir, "The Location of the Seleucid Akra," in: Revue Biblique, 82 (1975), 501–21;
• idem, in: Y. Yadin (ed.), Jerusalem Revealed (1975), Israel Exploration Society, 85–86;
• M.Ben-Dov, "The Selecuid Akra – South of the Temple," in: Cathedra, 18 (1981), 22–35 (Heb.);
• B. Mazar, "The Temple Mount, in: Biblical Archaeology Today (1985), 463–68;
• L. Dequeker, "The City of David and the Seleucid Acra in Jerusalem," in: E. Lipinski (ed.), The Land of Israel: Cross-Roads of Civilizations (1985), 193–210;
• G.J. Wightman, "Temple Fortresses in Jerusalem. Part i: The Ptolemaic and Seleucid Akras," in: Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Societies, 9 (1989–90), 29–40;
• G. Finkielsztejn, "Hellenistic Jerusalem: the Evidence of the Rhodian Stamped Handles," in: New Studies on Jerusalem, 5 (1999), 21–36.

Hope this was helpful.Davidbena (talk) 05:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it was, thank you Davidbena. Your listing implies that you think, say, Finkielsztejn's article "Hellenistic Jerusalem: the Evidence of the Rhodian Stamped Handles" supports the claim that Akra was the name of one of the "urbanized areas in Jerusalem" at the time of the Maccabeean revolt. Since I don't have access to this article, but you apparently has, can you be so kind as to provide a quotation from that article that demonstrates how it supports the claim? ImTheIP (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@Davidbena: Do you think you can provide me with the quotes? ImTheIP (talk) 20:38, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps, when I can find the free time. Each source mentions Acra (the Lower City), as found in historical records. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 22:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I find it odd that you can list these articles but not provide cites from them? Anyway, I have reverted the changes that can not, as it stands, be sourced. We can of course continue this conversation when you have more free time. Be well. ImTheIP (talk) 01:50, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@Davidbena: Dear Davidbena,

You call me your friend, but your behavior is very unfriendly. I couldn't help but notice that the list of "sources" you have provided me is identical to encyclopedia.com's bibliography section from their article about Acra. You say that you don't have time to quote these sources. Perhaps you don't actually have access to these sources and/or they don't corroborate your claims? If so, you are committing source forgery which I'm sure is prohibited on Wikipedia.

@ImTheIP:, You asked me for sources. Does it really matter to you where I find a source for you to look up? There are also other sources on the Hebrew Wikipedia page which you can see here. Again, you need patience.23:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

The new source you have added doesn't even mention the word Akra or Acra so it is not a source for anything. ImTheIP (talk) 22:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

My friend, I think it is wise if you were not so rash. The first source is placed after the words "Upper City," and which shows a reference to that residential area, in keeping with the view that we know of at least three residential areas in Jerusalem during the late Second Temple period. The second source does indeed mention Acra (alternate spelling Akra), and it comes as a reference to the Lower City. In fact, I provided an English translation of the Hebrew source, as is required whenever doubts arise in foreign languages. The source mentions Acra as being identical with the Lower City. The source also speaks about a fortress by the same name. As I said to you earlier, you need patience. There are, believe it or not, many many more sources which I can bring down for you to support every claim added by us here. Be well.23:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Again Davidbena, I find it very odd that you have time to revert changes to this article, to briefly discuss on this talk page, and to insert nonsense references that doesn't corroborate your claims, but you do not have time to provide quotes from books and articles you supposedly have read and have access to. I asked you for exactly one thing: Can you kindly please find me a modern scholarly source that supports the claim that Akra was the name of one of the "urbanized areas in Jerusalem" at the time of the Maccabeean revolt? Apparently you are unable to locate such a source. Hence the nonsense you added to the article should be removed. ImTheIP (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@ImTheIP:, I can provide you with twenty or more sources that I have seen. The article was lacking in its initial edits and overlooked a wellspring of academic material. You seem to find that hard. Well, please be apprised that articles here, on Wikipedia, are always being revised and updated to reflect current knowledge. Acra was, indeed, one of the residential areas of Jerusalem. Josephus literally says this when he 1) calls the Lower City by the name Acra (The Jewish War 5.4.1.), coupled with his description of the destruction of the Lower City (The Jewish War 6.6.3.). Here, we're talking about the late Second Temple period. To make it easier for you, I will quote Josephus in this last excerpt: "...So he (Titus) gave orders to the soldiers both to burn and plunder the city; who did nothing indeed that day; but on the next day they set fire to the repository of the archives, to Acra, to the council-house, and to the place called Ophlas; at which time the fire proceeded as far as the palace of queen Helena, which was in the middle of Acra: the lanes also were burnt down, as were also those houses that were full of the dead bodies of such as were destroyed by famine" (END QUOTE). Perhaps you wish to deny this primary source. The burden of proof to the contrary rests with you, which you will not be able to find. Moreover, if you're looking specifically for a modern source that uses the words "residential area" for the Lower City, this is unnecessary per WP:BLUE. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 00:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

P.S. - If you wish to find references speaking about the status of the city, specifically during the Maccabeean revolt, you will need to do research and add this information in a separate section which speaks about that particular era or time-frame. Here, we have only given a general description of the appellation "Acra" as it appears in historical books.Davidbena (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Did you read the green text in my comment? Can you kindly please find me a modern scholarly source that supports the claim that Akra was the name of one of the "urbanized areas in Jerusalem" at the time of the Maccabeean revolt? Apparently, you are unable to locate such a source. Therefore, the article should not claim or imply that Akra was the name of one of the "urbanized areas in Jerusalem" at the time of the Maccabeean revolt. ImTheIP (talk) 00:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Seeing that you have added a reference to Bar-Kochva, whose argument you must have misunderstood:

In all these sources relating to the time of the Great Revolt, Josephus calls the entire Lower City 'akra', while for the period of the Hasmonaean Revolt he notes that the Akra was in the Lower City, that is, was part of it. The name of the Akra (which no longer existed) in the course of time became pars pro toto and was applied to the entire south-eastern hill. This type of development is well known from the toponymy of the Holy Land and not limited to antiquity.

Read carefully. "the Akra was IN the Lower City" The Akra was NOT at the time of the Hasmonean revolt SYNONYMOUS with the Lower City. ImTheIP (talk) 00:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Again, it is not my duty to find a source about the city of Jerusalem during the Hasmonean revolt, but rather only to describe for our readers the term of Acra. If you wish to find additional information about Jerusalem during the Hasmoneans, you will have to dig-up the research material and add this, without diminishing from the current edit which gives a general overview of the subject. BTW: we did not write "urbanized area," but rather "residential area." As for anything that you might find on the subject of the city, specifically during the Hasmonean period, this information can be added in a section that treats on the Hasmonean era.Davidbena (talk) 01:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

P.S. - The sources clearly imply that Acra was, both, the name of a fortress (citadel), as well as the name applied to the entire Lower City. Our edit already makes this distinction.Davidbena (talk) 01:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@ImTheIP:, You may wish to check this out: Schürer, E. (1891). A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ. Vol. 2. Translated by John MacPherson (2 ed.). New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. OCLC 931243726., p. 238.Davidbena (talk) 01:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Not your duty?! That's a tacit admission that Akra was not the name of a suburb, neighborhood, or residential area of Jerusalem at the time of the Maccabeean revolt. Note the name of the article "Acra (fortress)" The article is about Acra, the fortress, not about whatever other contexts the word "Acra" has been used. Apparently, Acra is also a village in New York. Perhaps information about that village should also be added to this article? Start a new article called Acra (suburb) if you want, but don't add this completely irrelevant and misleading information to this article. ImTheIP (talk) 01:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

So, if I understand you correctly, your insistence to speak about the Lower City during the Hasmonean period was disingenuous. Hmm. The article does, indeed, speak about the Acra fortress, but the article is not limited to the fortress alone. You are free to add minute details about the Lower City during the Hasmonean period, if you should deem fit to do so, in a section that deals with the Hasmonean period.Davidbena (talk) 01:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, it would be better to change the title of this article to "Acra." Nothing else in parentheses. Perhaps we can get feedback from other editors on the suggested name change, or submit a WP:RFC. Davidbena (talk) 01:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Idk what you mean. The title of the article is "Acra (fortress)" meaning that it is about the fortress that existed in Jerusalem c. 167-130 BCE. There is no connection (sans pars pro toto) between whatever Josephus in 70 CE calls Akra and that fortress. So yes, the article is limited to that fortress. That is what the (fortress) part of the article's title signifies. ImTheIP (talk) 01:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Even if we should shorten the title, the title would still fit the description of Acra (the fortress), but also leave the title open to its other meaning, Acra (the residential area), as explained by Josephus when referring to the same place. The word has a double meaning, and this has been briefly clarified in the lede paragraph, without diminishing from the subject of the fortress itself. You say that there is no connection between whatever Josephus in 70 CE calls Akra and that fortress. Schürer disagrees with you, here > History of the Jewish People, p. 238! There is actually a BIG connection!Davidbena (talk) 01:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

BTW: The name Acra (חקרא‎) - whether we refer to the fortress par excellence, or to the residential area by the same name - both mean "fortress / citadel / stronghold / acropolis."Davidbena (talk) 01:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

No, we shoudn't "shorten" the title! The article is about a fort called Akra and nothing else. The authors who wrote this article and took it to FA status decided as much and it wasn't until you this September began adding text about how Acra was one of the three "suburbs" in Jerusalem. This is how Wikipedia works: one article per subject. Akra the fort that existed c. 167-130 BCE is one subject. The City of David/Lower City which Josephus maybe called Akra is something completely different subject. Furthermore, Emil Schürer's book from 1885 reads The latter was also called Acra, because there in former days down to the time of the Maccabees the citadel or castle of Jerusalem had been placed. Schürer just like every other author is distinguishing between Akra and the Lower City. ImTheIP (talk) 10:19, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay, we won't change the title. But the introduction, where we've described the two similar and related meanings of the word "Acra," is vital, which we have done. The explanation, of course, does not take away or subtract from the main subject of this article, namely, the Acra fortress. Besides Schürer, we have listed modern day scholars too. BTW: we, just like Schürer have distinguished between the fortress from the Lower City. This was done so that readers looking to understand this term can readily understand that the word has a double connotation. For your information: In matters relating to places in the Land of Israel (Palestine), we often cite on Wikipedia Conder and Kitchener, writers who wrote in the late 1880s. This does not subtract from the reliabily of their claims and assertions. Just check on Wikipedia how many thousands of times these authors are cited in Wikipedia articles. If you need help, I can direct you to these sources: Davidbena (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

It's good to hear you finally admit that the subject of the article is a fortress and not a suburb. It follows that whether Akra is or has been the name of a suburb, behaviour treatment program, misspelling of Accra, or a hamlet in New York is irrelevant and should not be detailed in this article. ImTheIP (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

No, the term, as used here in its proper context, is not irrelevant. The name "Acra" (meaning a "fortified place") referred to a castle/fortress/citadel by that name, and, later, evolved to mean the entire place (i.e. Lower City) where it was situated. It is not the same as talking about Bethlehem (Israel) in the article which speaks about Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.Davidbena (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

In a broader sense, the word "Acra" (חקרא‎) is unique to Jewish history, found only in the Aramaic language spoken by the Jews. In Jastrow, M., ed. (2006), Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, p. 497, OCLC 614562238, s.v. חקרא‎, we find the following description: "חקרא‎ m. ch. (preced. wds.) surrounded place, fortification. Targ. II Sam. V, 9 (h. text מצדה); a. fr. ––Targ. Y. Num. XXXII, 17 קרוי ח'‎ ed. Amst. (some ed. קרוין‎, incorr.) fortified cities. ––Pl. חקרין‎ Ib. XIII,20.––V. אקרא‎" (END QUOTE). In this article, we are discussing the fortress in Jerusalem, which happened to be in a place that was called by that very same name. Hence: the need to distinguish between these two names.Davidbena (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

This is getting incredibly silly and you are taking a passage from Josephus you misunderstood way too far. But, here is quote from one of the sources you added (Bar-Kochva): He [Josephus] states explicitly that the Lower City was on the Akra hill. So, according to your logic, Akra should now be described as either a fortress, a residential area, or a hill? ImTheIP (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

The entire residential area of Acra was built on a hill. It was the lower hill in relation to the hill of the Upper City, and there was a valley that divided these two areas known as the Tyropoeon valley, or Valley of the Cheesemakers.Davidbena (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@ImTheIP:, Just to prove my point that we are talking here about the same place, you may wish to read Smith, G.A. (1907). Jerusalem: The Topography, Economics and History from the Earliest Times to A.D. 70. Vol. 1. London. pp. 156–160.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link), where on page 157 the author, George Adam Smith, writes: "In 168 BC the forces of Antiochus Epiphanes, after sacking and burning Jerusalem, fortified the City of David with a great and strong wall, with strong towers, and it became unto them an Akra or citadel" (END QUOTE). Again, it is imperative that the introduction, or lede paragraph, makes the distinction between the "fortress," par excellence, and the residential area by the same name, and where the fortress actually stood. See also, in that same work, page 162.Davidbena (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

This insanely long discussion must be impossible for anyone to follow. Let's recap. I asked you Can you kindly please find me a modern scholarly source that supports the claim that Akra was the name of one of the "urbanized areas in Jerusalem" at the time of the Maccabeean revolt? Is your answer to this question that you can't? ImTheIP (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I have already answered your question. The aim is to clarify the meaning of the word "Acra," so as not to be confused by its usage. Secondly, we have long abandoned the word "urbanized" for "residential area," just as it is used in one of our sources.Davidbena (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

If you have patience, it pays off. Since you are insistent in knowing whether or not Acra (the Lower City) was settled at the time of the Maccabeean revolt, I call your attention to an article written by Yoram Tsafrir, more precisely, page 507 of Tsafrir, Y. (1975). "The Location of the Seleucid Akra in Jerusalem". Revue Biblique. 82 (4). Peeters Publishers: 501–521. JSTOR 44089765., where he writes: "The one clear conclusion arising from this brief survey is that there is no evidence of the existence of a city on the western hill of Jerusalem during the Seleucid period and the Hasmonean revolt. Undoubtedly, there were several buildings, farmers' houses, during that period, but the densely populated city itself expanded in the direction of the south-eastern hill and its slopes, and its northern extension on the Temple Mount" (END QUOTE). If you are interested in adding this detail to the article, it should be placed in a section that deals specifically with the Hasmonean era. Both, W.A. Shotwell ("The Problem of the Syrian Akra," in: Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 176, 1964, p. 19) and J. Simons (Jerusalem in the Old Testament, Leiden 1952, pp. 144–157), among a score of other scholars, agree in placing Acra (Akra) in the Lower City on the south-eastern hill.Davidbena (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

My friend, if you believe that you already have answered my question, can you please repeat your answer? ImTheIP (talk) 23:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

At this time, I think that we have come full circle. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Junk article

"Acra... is the area of the City of David... along with the Upper Market... and Bezetha." REALLY? What's left, just the Temple Mount? Why actually, that's undemocratic, let it belong as well!

The Western Hill is "what David called the Citadel"? Maybe under the influence (you choose the next word. Make it harsh.)

Is somebody trying to purposely make this article useless? Because they must be warmly congratulated. Arminden (talk) 08:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@Arminden: The article does not say that the "Upper Market" (a neighborhood of Jerusalem mentioned in the Mishnah and by Josephus in his Jewish War) is Acra itself, but rather that the "Upper Market" is one of the other neighborhoods of Jerusalem, just as Acra was a different neighborhood or section of Jerusalem. Perhaps the sentence can be reworded for greater clarity. Josephus mentions the "Upper Market" and "Bezetha" (two neighborhoods) as being areas of Jerusalem which were distinct from the "Lower City" (where was Acra). Perhaps there is no point in mentioning these other places at all. Normally, when one particular section of a city is mentioned by name (as Acra is mentioned), it automatically instills in the reader's mind the question: "What then are the names of the other quarters of the larger city?" Davidbena (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

​ Hi David.

"The Acra...is...the name of a fortified structure and also one of three residential areas...from which it takes its name. This area, also known as the "Lower City", corresponds today with Silwan and the City of David, along with its sister part of "The Upper Market"...and...Bezetha...."

Three times wrong.

1. Not the residential area takes its name from the fortified structure, but the other way round.
2. Acra ("This area") does not correspond to Silwan and the City of David, because A) much of Silwan is east of the Kidron Valley, B) the City of David is PART of western Silwan, so can't be "added" to it, and C) we don't know the location, let alone the exact extent of Acra, even if we adopt the City of David mainstream theory.
3. For me, "the Lower City, corresponds today with..., along with The Upper Market and Bezetha" means that they're all one ("A corresponds with X along with B and C" means A+B+C correspond with X). Which of course you & I know they're not, but the common user doesn't.

Overly convoluted sentences, pieced together from different mammoth edits, lead to poor results like this. The 2010 version might have needed a few pedantic amendments, but it was well written and it made sense, it was readable, unlike the one I stumbled on now. I've tried to restructure the material and declutter the lead, but it needs much more decluttering - especially the "Location" section, where I've dumped much of the superfluous stuff from the lead. Arminden (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Your point #1 may be true, but it requires further research. If you can cite a source for that, please do so and make the correction. Silwan, indeed, straddles part of the mountain east of the Kidron valley, but so does it straddle the area west of the Kidron valley. This is evident by the boundaries given for Silwan, as well as the early sources in Josephus and in other classical literature where we find that the fountain known as Shiloah was called Silwan. This, too, is west of the Kidron valley. For us, it is enough that Silwan was the place, roughly speaking, where Acra was originally located. As for point #2, you are correct in your assertion, as I noted earlier. The three old residential areas are in three different locations, so feel free to make the needed adjustment in in style (syntax) so that this will be clear to our readers. As for your point #3, the sources in Josephus clearly point to three distinct living quarters in 2nd-century Jerusalem, and they were never meant to be understood as incorporated all within the same "Lower City". The current wording is definitely wrong, as it misleads our readership. Feel free to make the necessary changes so that it will not be misunderstood.Davidbena (talk) 03:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Arminden: This is for your information: The earliest classical source to mention Acra is the First Book of Maccabees. Josephus used it as his primary source for events during that period. There, the Greek original writes "Acra", but which word is often translated into English as "citadel." The English word itself has been the cause for some confusion, as that entire section of Jerusalem was called "Acra," as well the fortress which was built therein called "Acra". See, for example, I Macc. 1:35, which reads: "And they built the city of David with a great and strong wall, and with strong towers, and made it a fortress (i.e. citadel; acropolis) for them." (End Quote). One more thing: The Greek word "Acra" is the same word that is used in Megillat Taanit (the "Scroll of Fasting") written by the early rabbinic sages in the 1st century CE, and where they used the Hebrew/Aramaic spelling חקרא‎ to signify this place. There, Megillat Taanit writes explicitly: "On the twenty-third day of the same (i.e. the lunar month of Iyar), the inhabitants of the Citadel (Acra) departed from Jerusalem" (End Quote). The appended date recollects an event that happened in the second year of the high priesthood of Simon Thassi, son of Mattathias, in the year 171 of the Seleucid era (141/140 BCE), in which the Jewish nation, by order of King Demetrius the son of Demetrius from Crete, evicted from the residential area of Jerusalem, known as the "Citadel" or Acra, those who had taken-up residence in that part of the city and who had been allied with the enemies of Israel, and who had long waged a cultural war with the Jewish nation, killing them, and rejecting Jewish mores and manners. After these had been evicted, among whom were Jewish apostates, the residential area known as the "Citadel" was resettled by Torah-abiding citizens. The event is mentioned in the First Book of Maccabees (13:49–52): "... And they entered into it on the three and twentieth day of the second month, in the year 171 [Seleucid era] with thanksgiving, and branches of palm trees, and harps, and cymbals, and psalteries, and hymns, and canticles, because the great enemy was destroyed out of Israel" (End Quote). Davidbena (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Davidbena: Thanks David. I didn't know it in such detail, but I think I did reflect the basic idea of it in what I wrote into the lead. I have no way to judge any of it, but going by note 3 from the art. on 2 Maccabees, it seems that there's almost a consensus that 2 Macc. or parts thereof might well be older than 1 Macc., although nobody can tell anything for sure (150 BCE - turn of the millennium, vs. 100 - 63 BCE for 1 Maccabees).

Josephus doesn't only write about Acra in the context of the Maccabees, but also when he describes the war against Rome. That is his original contribution, and it is logical that he would make extrapolations from his time to that of the Maccabees, which in itself can be interesting. It seems totally clear to me, after reading quite a few of the comments plus the quotations from the ancient sources, that there is no logical way of harmonising them, actually not even Josephus seems to be consistent within his own works, so there's no "knowing for sure" of anything. Those with the gift of faith can agree to believe certain sources, but otherwise we're down to interpretation, archaeology, patience, and the willingness to accept the limitations of historical knowledge. All my best wishes, Arminden (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)