Talk:Khazar Correspondence

Wikisource discussion
Should the letters be moved to Wikisource? Whose translation it is? Is it copyright free? -- Ghirla -трёп-  17:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I support wikisourcing the full text of the letters if we can get a public domain translation. The current texts in the article are greatly abridged versions with some comments. Preferably, the article should discuss the letters rather than simply quote them. Beit Or 18:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, the last section may contain original research. I would be extra-cautious about anything said about Khazars full two centuries after their extermination. A writer of the late 12th century might have taken any foreigner for a "Khazar". -- Ghirla -трёп-  17:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No, Abraham ibn Daud was very specific that the rabbinical students he encountered were ethnic Khazars. The destruction by Sviatoslav was not an extermination and references to the Khazars continue for some time thereafter. ibn Daud was well acquainted with the Khazars, as were many other early medieval rabbis. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The translation is from Jacob Marcus, The Jew in the Medieval World: A Sourcebook, 315-1791, (New York: JPS, 1938), 227-232. Later printings of this text (e.g. by Atheneum, 1969, 1972, 1978) do not indicate that the copyright was renewed; the original edition's copyright lapsed. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Great. So we can put the whole text on Wikisource. Beit Or 06:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * OK with me. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Not sure how to do that and set up the link properly... Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

At least partially fake/flawed "translation" of Khazar Correspondence

 * This wiki article claims the Khazar Correspondence used the term "Byzantine" which is utter nonsense.


 * The state in its time declared itself Roman. There is some confusion over nomenclature starting 25 December 800CE when Pope Leo III claimed Irene the Athenian no longer had Roman imperial authority and crowned Frankish King Charlemagne Imperator Romanorum (Emperor of the Romans). After this period the mostly Germany speaking Holy Roman Empire usually referenced the mostly Greek speaking Roman empire as Imperium Graecorum (Latin for Empire of the Greeks) and its leader Imperator Graecorum (Emperor of the Greeks)

​
 * The term Byzantine to describe the Greek speaking Roman empire in the east was popularized in Holy Roman Empire in the modern era after the Greek Roman state had ended. In the 16th century Hieronymus Wolf who lived in the Electorate of Saxony which was then still a part of the self-identifying Holy Roman empire refused to use the term Roman to describe the Greek one so instead coined term "Byzantine"(the original Greek name of Constantinople) which was later widely adopted to describe it from the 16th century onwards. (which IMO is bizarre archaic political propaganda that unfortunately exists to this day. We can recognize the name of the Holy Roman empire but a thousand year Greek speaking Roman empire goes by the name "Byzantine".. a name they did not use)


 * In other words, given the era it was supposedly written the Khazar Correspondence would not have used the word "Byzantine". Can someone get an actual translation using primary sources of the exact word the Correspondence used then update this article to use it rather than current fake/flawed translation of "Byzantine" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.248.119 (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. And if you are correct, this would just be further proof that this alleged "Khazar Correspondence" is just a much later forgery, not a legitimate primary source for the Khazar issue overall, as has been claimed by more than one scholar. These "later forgery" claims, I believe, are appropriately explained in the current page. But maybe, they need to be reinforced? Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 21:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You make a good point. Given this seems to be a politicized flaw it makes you wonder how many other such flaws are to be found. Do you know of any other sources for the translation and/or images of original sources in original language? (e.g. to possibly forward to more competent linguists for translation rather than continuing to us the flawed one on Wikipedia) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.248.119 (talk) 17:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I know of at least one reliable historical analysis of the possibilities/probabilities of a later forgery, and it is extensively quoted in the article. Maybe this [JSTOR 10.2979/jewisocistud.19.3.1 link] will work here too? The first step for you [and me] would be to read this article very carefully. It should contain also some suggestions on how to proceed with research on this topic. I intend to read it sometime soon, as time allows. Maybe you can get to it faster than me? Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 21:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * My attempt at a short-cut for the link to the Shaul Stampfer article in JStore above, didn't work, but it works in the article. Good luck! warshy (¥¥) 21:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

source of the text?
I am surprised that the article doesn't state anywhere how historians came into possession of this letter. Was it discovered, passed down from prior generations, or something else? Shaked13 (talk) 05:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)