# Talk:Birket Israel

On almost all maps, from the Crusader-times[1],[2] to 1883 [3] to modern[4], ...this pool has gone under the name of "Pool of Bethesda". Also, there are tons of old postcards of the pool, always calling it "Pool of Bethesda". So really, shouldn´t this article`s name be changed? Regards, Huldra (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The Crusader map you refer to was not published in the crusader period, but in 1911.  According to the article, the map contains the same error as a previous one of 1883. As subsequent excavations took place in the Old City, the location of the biblical Pool of Bethesda was altered to concur with the newly revealed site. This is attested to in the modern map which places the Pool of Bethesda a little further to the north. The area of the Birket Israil is marked out by the letter P, indicating a parking lot on the site. Though I am intrigued as to why it was known by the local Arabs by this name? Any suggestions? Chesdovi (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, there are really two questions here:
was this the Biblical Pool of Bethesda?
was it known as "Pool of Bethesda"?
I cannot answer question 1, I will just take your word for it that it wasn´t. My interest in  the issue is that I again and again read that people have visited the "pool of Bethesda" while in Jerusalem, ...and I wonder just what they saw/where they went? I.e. I´m just reading about  Felix Fabri 1483 visit to Jerusalem...and he saw/described the "Pool of Bethesda" (not on the web, unfortunately)...and Henry Maundrell visited Jerusalem in 1697, ...and he  "went to take a view of that which they call the pool of Betsheda" etc, etc.
And then there are all the pictures of the "pool of Betsheda" ...what are they pictures of, exactly? Birket Israel, ...or what is known today as the "pool of Betsheda"? If you go to http://lcweb2.loc.gov/pp/mdbquery.html and type in  Pool  Bethesda you will get a lot of interesting pictures (most of which are so old that copyrigh has expired, and we can use them on wikipedia). My favourite is this 1839 one from David Roberts. Now, is this pictures of what you call "Birket Israel"? Regards, Huldra (talk) 04:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Nobody will know which pool the bible refers to when it mentions the Pool of Bethesda. Unfortunately the bible didn't provide geotags as wikipedia does! As far as I can understand, until the excavations were carried out close to the church of St Anne, and uncovered what archeologists now identify as the Pool of Bethesda, Birket Israel was known as the Pool of Bethesda. That is why the map featured in this article notes Pool of Bethesda in brakets under the words Birket Israel. The Pilgrims that you mention, together with the etchings are most probably all of Birket Israel. Why and when it adopted this name I would very much like to know! Chesdovi (talk) 21:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, I then several issues with the article as it is now:
why don´t you upload some of the pictures (at http://lcweb2.loc.gov/pp/mdbquery.html) if they are indeed of this pool?? (I confess: I particularly love the David Roberts prints..) After all, they are freely available?
why on earth do you write that "The cistern was frequented by early Christian pilgrims during the 19th century," when it is clear (from my refs. above) that it was in fact  frequented by  Christian pilgrims for many centuries before? (I can find more examples, if you like)
why on earth do you write  that "Arab natives had known it by this name since at least 1857."....when the reference say that the "native inhabitants" knew the place as Birket Israil. That is *two* mistakes in one short sentence! If you try to make "Arab" synonymous with "native inhabitants of Jerusalem in the 19th century" over at the Jerusalem-article, I can assure you that you will be quickly lynched! ;-D
And anyway, Hackett is not the first to use this name...a quick search shows that Edward Robinson (who was, as I´m sure you know, the "father" of modern Biblical studies in Palestine) tells us in his 1841 book that "the natives" calls the place Birket Israil  ...Again; Robinson does not specify  what "type" of "native"....
Finally, why, why, why is this article named "Birket Israel"?? It seems that during most of it´s time it has been known as "Pool of Bethesda". Now, I´m all for dividing articles between the "Biblical place"...and whatever modern place which is associated with it.  See eg.: Bethany (Jerusalem) vs. al-Eizariya ...or Cana vs. Kafr Kanna. But by the "normal" naming conventions, this article should be known as "el-Ghazali Square". And the ref. you have found does not support the present title at all: it supports "Birket Israil"......)
Regards, Huldra (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
In response to the points you raise:
1: Although the Roberts’ paintings are artistically enchanting, I would much prefer a photo be uploaded. This would provide a more realistic and factual representation. The link you provided has one I am interested in.
2: The early 19th century was a time when pilgrimage activity was at its zenith, and this site was popular with them. Other records of visits to the site will enhance the article.
3 & 4: The reason why I used the word Arab is due to the source calling it Birket Isrâîl – written using the Arab dialect. And although the article is called Birket Israel, it is noted that it is aka Birket Israil.
5: It seems we differ on “naming conventions” I would support the merging of article which are about the same location. Not to do so is simply excessive. For instance Amqa and Amka should really be merged if they are located for certain at the same location. Where there is genuine uncertainty, as is common with biblical places, then separate pages are in order. Today, the Pool of Bethesda is another pool in a different location. It therefore deserves its own article. This article mentions that it was erroneously called Pool of Bethesda in the past. There does however seem to have been a confusion at that time as to what the pool was indeed know as:
“which I hear called Birket Israel, and see on the maps written Bethesda” (1870)
we turned into an alley and climbed a heap of rubbish to see a pool, which the guide insisted upon calling Bethesda, although it is Birket Israil. (1876)
The great reservoir, commonly called, though erroneously, the Pool of Besthesda, lies in this valley. The natives term it Birket Israel, or Pool of Israel” (1898)
As to whether the title should be changes to “el-Ghazali Square” as that is what the area is known as today is questionable. The square itself is not notable. The article discuses only the non-existent pool which a researcher of Palestinian archaeology would come across. It is the pool which was and is notable. The paved square above it is not. Chesdovi (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080907150618/http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ritmeyer/theories.html to http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ritmeyer/theories.html
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.blueletterbible.org/isbe/isbe.cfm?id=4990
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)