Talk:Sabbatai Zevi

message: This article seems to use various adjectives which allows no room for anything but an extremely negative point of view. Not that he deserves any respect, but it does seem that this article takes every chance it has to deride Zevi, which may decrease its scholarly value. Presenting the information in a less opinionated language would surely increase its efficacy.
The article appears biased: the implication throughout is that Zevi was a charlatan, with no discussion to what extent he may actually have believed his own claims.  Deipnosophista 21:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Adjectives

message: IZAK, your latest category change strikes me as wrong. Yes Zevi lived in the Ottoman Empire, but no not in Palestine or any part of the Empire that later became Palestine, as far as I can see from skimming his biography. I'm not removing this category change because I'm not %100 sure, but I will remove it after doing a thorough check - or maybe you should yourself. --Woggly 08:25, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Category

message: Sabbatai's father, who as the agent of an English house was in constant touch with English people, must have frequently heard of these expectations and, himself strongly inclined to believe them, must naturally have communicated them to his son, whom he almost deified because of his piety and cabalistic wisdom.
This comes across as conjecture compounded with speculation.  Is there any evidence that Sabbatai learned about Millenarianism from his father? Josh Cherry 17:29, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that it was speculative and deleted it - no source given.--Parkwells (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  English Millenarianism 

message: To Josh Cherry:
Your observation is a very good beginning, IMVHO.
I believe there is at this point no concrete or reliable historical evidence that Mordecai Zevi did ever teach his son anything about English Millenarianism.
As you point out, in the manner it is articulated, this sentence is currently no more than mere "conjecture compounded with speculation."
I also think it is impossible to ascertain from this historical distance if SZ as an individual did ever learn anything specific about English Millenarianism, and from whom. But, if the previous paragraph is correct in its assertions, then the conclusion is warranted, in my view, that there was some sort of direct influence from English Millenarianism on the phenomenon of Jewish Messianism in the 17th century, of which SZ is perhaps the major expression.
As far as I know, such mutual influences have not been sufficiently studied or written about to this date. SZ's case would be but one instance of these possible influences. A very important and telling instance, to be sure. However, the main historical work on SZ to this date, denies quite emphatically that such influences had any importance. I am referring primarily to Gershom Scholem's extensive, massive English tome on SZ. I believe, from my readings and research so far, that Scholem is mistaken on this crucial point, as well as on many others regarding the significance of the phenomenon of Jewish Messianism in the 17th century.
Is there any interest, on your part, or on any other person's part, in continuing this discussion here? --Warshy 15:20, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  English Millenarianism 

message: I uploaded another copy of the image used for Shabbatai Tzvi as a prisoner in Abydos.  The one that was there was a duplicate of Former followers of Shabbatai do penance for their support of him.--◀Pucktalk▶ 06:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrected an image 

message: How might one create a new re-direct?  I read an essay and found many references to "Sabbatai Sevi", but Wikipedia came up empty on this topic.  There is already a re-direct from "Sabbatai Sebi", so is it possible to add one more?
:Done. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All you have to do is start a new article with the name you want, then type "#REDIRECT name of article redirecting to" --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest another redirect 

message: Wasn't this great city, notwithstanding its being ruled by the Ottomans since 1453, known as Constantinople until 1930?
:This is the previous editing I had done on the main article page regarding this issue. This edit is on the section called "In Salonica", line 6:
::Istanbul (which was still known in the Christian West at that time as Constantinople), 
:I believe the note above is more precise historically, since for non-Christian residents of the Ottoman Empire at the time of Shabtai Tzvi (residents like himself, who spoke Arabic as their main language of communication), the capital city of the empire must certainly have been known as Istanbul, not Constantinople. In light of the above, I believe the previous title should stand, with the addition of the parenthesis note as written above. warshy 13:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As this is the English Wikipedia I have corrected to Constantinople, which was the term used in English at the time.  Deipnosophista 21:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Istanbul]]?

message: from God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Hitchens, Christopher:
:Summoned to the vizier's palace, and allowed to make his way from prison with a procession of hymn-singing supporters, the Messiah was very bluntly asked if he would agree to a trial by ordeal. The archers of the court would use him as a target, and if heaven deflected the arrows he would be adjudged genuine. Should he refuse, he would be impaled. If he wished to decline the choice all together, he could affirm himself to be a true muslim and be allowed to live.
is this really how it happened?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.86.74.137 (talk) 11:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: about his conversion to islam

message: I had written/recommended before "Scholem's own entry on SZ on the Encyclopaedia Judaica from Jerusalem, published in the '80s of the past century..." It was first published in 1972. But I have now published in the main article the correct bibliographic reference for this entry, which was republished as you can see, in 2007. I just went to the library yesterday and xeroxed the 20 pages again. I have also finished reading Freely's book above, and I am soon adding it to the references. I am also going to write here some observations about this book.
warshytalk 23:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Scholem's ''Encyclopaedia Judaica'' entry

message: As I said, I have finished reading/digesting Freely's book The Lost Messiah: In Search of the Mystical Rabbi Sabbatai Sevi (2001). I bought it first some half a year ago, follwoing AFriedman's published link to the book on Amazon.com above. I had not heard about the book before Friedman's note here.
Overall, I believe the book is usefull and it is a good contribution to the study of the field, if nothing else, as a consolidator of the current status of knowledge. Any serious student of the phenomenon will have to delve first into Scholem's major work on it, given in the main article references here. But Scholem's book was written in the 40's and 50's of last century in Hebrew first (first Hebrew edition published in 1957), and it's English translation, with Scholem's review/approval was first published in 1973. Scholem's summary of a lifetime of study of the subject was first published in the Encyclopaedia Judaica in 1972, also now updated in the references here according to the section above on this page.
So I think we can surmise that Scholem's last own word on the subject was written around 1970. He passed away in 1982. Freely's book is a summary of his own research on the subject for some 40 years, apparently, and it was finally published in 2001. So Freely's view comes some 30 years after Scholem's, and it is seemingly the last published view on the phenomenon that I know of.
It is a pity the book does not have any notes and does not point directly to any sources, except in the "Select Bibliography" and the Index at the end. For example, I cannot be sure if Freely saw himself this source given in his bibliography:
- Carpi, Solomon Joseph, The History of Sabbatai Sevi, ed. Nachum Brull (Vilna, 1879)
Or that he just quoting and summarizing what Scholem says about this source. That is because he does not say in what langauge the source/book is written at all. From scouring Scholem's book more than a dozen times to understand this source, it seems to me it must have been written/published in Hebrew. But Freely does not clarify the matter.
Or another "primary" source much quoted and referred to by both Scholem and Freely: Baruch of Arezzo's account of Shabbetai Zvi's story. Baruch of Arezzo's account is cited directly by Freely more than a dozen times, but as far as I can see it is not part of Freely's select bibliography at the end. What version of Arezzo's account did Freely see or study? Or are all these citations just unacknowledged quotes of Scholem's own quotes?
Until these basic questions about his sources can be elucidated a little better, the only thing I think can be said about Freely's book is that it is maybe a good consolidator of the current status of knwoledge on the subject, and of the important 17th century ["contemporary'] sources that have to be consulted by current students of the subject. How reliable is it as a serious source of analysis on the subject on its own is a question that is still open in my mind, until basic "primary sources" questions as the ones above can be answered.warshytalk 17:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the review.  I don't know about the uncited sources, but I think Freely's book was intended for a popular rather than scholarly audience.  This isn't his field of scholarship.  If you'd like, other people might find it helpful if you posted this review on some of the WikiProjects above and on articles about John Freely.  Also, the book itself is probably notable and may deserve an article in its own right, which I don't have time to make.  I do feel that our knowledge of this subject is still distorted by overreliance on a single source--Scholem.  Scholem's book was quite comprehensive and some of his findings were fascinating, but IMO there are many ways to retell this story.  Condensing Scholem's thousand-page tome into a 200-page travelogue accessible to both Jews and non-Jews, which Freely did, was certainly an accomplishment in my opinion.  --La comadreja formerly AFriedman RESEARCH (talk) 13:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome back La comadreja and I hope you're all wikirecovered and wikihealthy ;) Looks like you are. I agree with all your points above, and especially with the point about overreliance on a quite distorted single source for the history of the phenomenon. I am working on this primarily, but the "source" we are alluding to is quite an institution in itself in the world of Jewish schollarship and learning today and it is not easy to challenge. It can only be challenged, if at all, from a very sound and solidly constructed material base. Who knows how far one can get when this is not his or hers main occupation or livelihood? Thanks for being an otter here. Regards, warshytalk 14:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

text: I have an academic background in History but I don't work on the field. I work in IT support. I have been reading and researching Scholem for many years, and the glaring shortcomings of his narrow (kabbalistic, mystical) view on the phenomenon of 17h century messianism jumped to my eyes when I first looked at it. I believe the phenomenon is much wider and it has a very solid material historical basis, not only mystical or 'ethereal.' I promise I will look into the Wikiversity project you work on, with some more time. The problem is that in this changing world the variety of new mediums can be very distracting. You spend more time trying to understand and master the technological aspects of the medium than on straight historical research and writing. The technological medium in the end can easily eclipse the historical subjet... warshytalk 17:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

text: I have very easy phyisical access to the libraries of the University of Michigan, but not academic access to match yet. Working on this. I am also working on a basic research article to publish on the subject we are talking about here, and when time comes to do it, in 3 or 4 months, I will look at your online 'facility' as a possible venue for publishing it. warshytalk 18:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Review/comments on Freely's book

message: From the article, in the section about Nathan of Gaza: "At this point also his followers appeared to start using for him the title of AMIRAH, which is a Hebrew acronym for the phrase "Our Lord and King, his Majesty be exalted" (Adoneinu Malkeinu Yarum Hodo)." A reference is not cited. There's no sign of this detail in the original Jewish Encyclopedia article, but this detail seems to have been part of this article for several years now. Does anyone have any idea where this detail came from? --Brasswatchman (talk) 16:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this detail is described in detail in the Scholem book (look at the bibliography), and also in the Freely book discussed above, which hasn't even made it to the bibliography in the main page yet. I did not bother adding specific references since most of the details in the main article here don't have yet references. If you want I can check these two sources and add the references needed. Did not look to me there were that many people interested in the subject here... Regards, warshytalk 19:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll take your word for it. Like I said, I just get curious about random little facts sometimes. Thank you for your time. Appreciate it. --Brasswatchman (talk) 23:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  AMIRAH? 

message: The lead of the article says Zevi was forced to convert to Islam by the sovereign.  The detailed description given later in the article says his conversion was done as a ruse.  In any case he doesn't show the heroic defiance shown by a mother and her seven sons at the time of the Maccabees, all tortured to death because they would not submit to the king's command to take just one little bite of pork.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.200.100 (talk) 18:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: CONVERSION

message: I found the section of the article on Sabbatai's wife Sarah to be very similar to the story about Simon Magus and his wife Helen. I think that adding a sentence or two making the connection would improve the article. It doesn't have to imply that this proves him to be a false messiah.Pete Hardy (talk) 13:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sabbati and Sarah/Simon Magus and Helen 

message: The argument made based on the new source added must first be squared with the argument made based on all the sources already existent in the article.
Shabbetai was arrested in Constantinople on February 6, 1666, and after a long imprisonment in a special fortress in Galippoli, where he still received visits from the leaders of this followers, the conversion occurred only on September 16, 1666. And this is how Gershom Scholem had summarized the research on the matter of the conversion:Since the Turkish archives from this period were destroyed by fire, no official Turkish documents about the movement and the proceedings in this case have survived, and reports from Jewish and Christian sources in Constantinople are conflicting.
Scholem, Gershom. "Shabbetai Ẓevi." Encyclopaedia Judaica. Ed. Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik. 2nd ed. Vol. 18. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007. 340-359. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 23 Dec. 2014. (This is among the sources already in the article for the section on the conversion.) warshy (¥¥) 15:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The new source added to the lead 

message: Many sources such as the Jewish Encyclopedia and Britannica say his birth date was July 23, 1626. I assume this is on the Julian calendar. However, per Conversion between Julian and Gregorian calendars for that year we should be adding 10 days to get the Gregorian date, which would make that August 2, not August 1. Hebcal computes the 9th of Av, 5386 to be August 1 (with the caveat that it doesn't do a Julian conversion), so something is off here. —howcheng  {chat} 18:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: For a more updated discussion of his presumed birth date (since both the character and the precise dates in this tale are all enveloped in deep layers of pure legend), you should see the Encyclopedia Judaica article on him written by Gershom Scholem, or Scholem's magnum opus on the character. Both are referenced in detail in the main article's references and bibliography. warshy (¥¥) 19:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

text: Even John Freely's book on the character, also referenced in the bibliography, contains updated discussions both of his date of birth, and of the date and location of his presumed death. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 19:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sorry, but would you mind summarizing? I'm only asking because this article was included on WP:Selected anniversaries/August 1 as a birth listing, and I was simply verifying that it was supposed to be there. What I need to know is: is it accurate if we list him on that day? Thanks. —howcheng  {chat} 00:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

text: Works for me. Thanks! —howcheng  {chat} 01:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  birth date 

message: at least in the bibliography! 69.206.162.159 (talk) 07:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A word on Singer?