Talk:Syria Palaestina

The use of Pagan should be diminished if not eliminated

For example Jerusalem having been temporarily converted to the pagan Aelia Capitolina, but interest resumed again with the pilgrimage of Helena (the mother of Constantine the Great) to the Holy Land c. 326–28.

It was a Roman city. Using "pagan" is a religious distinction without a meaning other than non-Christian or non-Jewish. (temporarily is completely wrong) If this were a religious article then it might be appropriate but it makes no more sense than saying Rome founded the pagan city of Lundinium. It was a Roman city. The gods were just a small part that came with the territory.

Not wishing to screw with other people's beliefs but the worship practices of the Yahweh cult were essentially indistinguishable from any other god at the time in the matter of animal sacrifice. The other practices from the description in the Maccabe books appear quite similar to Dionysus. Thus there is no difference in the nature of the religion rather only only us v them. As such Roman is better and more general and more descriptive and neutral on the religion thing. TWIIWT (talk) 09:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Ismaelite Arabs?

You gotta be kidding me. This is not a bible lesson. The bible is not a historical reference. Ishmael and Abraham are mythical figures like Moses and Adam. It is no more credible to use the bible for historical reference about bibleland than it is to use the Book of Mormon as a historical reference about Mesoamerica. You can't really use one without admitting all the rest. You can't cite the Old without giving equal credibility to the New. "Generation of Vipers" anyone? (In this context, generation means "sons of" as in bitches.)

Even the word Arab is misused as it is used in the modern sense. Back then there were three Arabias, Felix, Petra and Deserta. There is no possible credible identification of Itureans as any kind of Arabs other than either Felix or Petra. BUT what is most reasonable is simply identify them as Itureans and leave it at that.

This entire article needs be revised to eliminate the quasi-religious and modern political expressions (the use of genocide for example) and use the terms in use at the time and reference them to other sections as necessary. It is particularly important in sections where it is irrelevant such as demographics.

So what is the method for cleaning up this entire article? TWIIWT (talk) 10:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Name

Per The history of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire here, the Laterculus Veronensis from around 310 CE calls this province simply "Palaestina", as does the later Notitia Dignitatum. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Era

The current usage is mixed, but seems to be mostly BC/AD. We need to change to one Era. Which should we use, BC/AD or BCE/CE? Editor2020, Talk 02:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Current scholarship is in favor of the secular BCE/CE, I believe.98.118.22.80 (talk) 15:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Palestinian flag

I have full-protected the article for three days due to the continued edit-warring over whether or not to include the Palestinian flag in the inbox. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

This article doesn't begin to be NPOV!

Is this being protected by some group from having the viewpoint cleaned up?

This, for example, is hardly NPOV: Ariel Lewin. The archaeology of Ancient Judea and Palestine. Getty Publications, 2005 p. 33. "It seems clear that by choosing a seemingly neutral name - one juxtaposing that of a neighboring province with the revived name of an ancient geographical entity (Palestine), already known from the writings of Herodotus - Hadrian was intending to suppress any connection between the Jewish people and that land."

In law, there's a concept called "statement against interest" that assigns more credibility to statements made against one's presumptive interests than those made in one's interests. A lawyer would be expected to state that his client is innocent, so such a statement can (and should!) be discounted until real evidence is supplied and evaluated. Similarly, an Ashkenazi author such as Ariel Lewin can be expected to interpret historical actions in ways beneficial to Zionist claims to Palestine, and thus should not be taken seriously without support from dispassionate sources.

98.118.22.80 (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The view in the article is not the invention of the author Ariel Lewin, but is rather a well-documented consensus among scholars of the Hadrianic period and the Bar-Kochba (Jewish) revolt. During this period Jerusalem and Judaea were renamed Aelia Capitolina and Syria-Palaestina, and the motives are generally believed to have been political, to supress Jewish nationalism that underlined the rebellion. You've revealed only your own bias here. Jacob D (talk) 11:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Jacob D

Merger of Syria and Judaea, or renaming of Judaea?

This article is contradictory. The first part of the article states (without references) that that Syria-Palaestina was formed by merging the Province of Syria with the Province of Judaea. Later in the article, it says that Syria-Palaestina was essentially a renaming of the Province of Judaea, rather than a merging of Judaea and Syria. Which is it? Can Wikipedia editors help resolve the contradiction? All the documented evidence I have seen supports the latter view. Jacob D (talk) 10:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Jacob D

I don't know where you see the second version in the article. I see the first version in two places, with three citations at the second place. Claims in the lead don't need citations if they are cited later. Zero^talk 11:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Read what it says in the three references cited (4,5, and 6). All three suggest a substitution of the name "Judaea" with "Syria-Palaestina", rather than a merger of Judaea with Syria to create a new province.

"A History of the Jewish People" (Ben-Sasson), pg. 334: "In an effort to wipe out all memory of the bond between the Jews and their land, Hadrian changed the name of the province from Iudaea to Syria-Palestina, a name that became common in non-Jewish literature."

"The Archeology of Ancient Judea and Palestine" (Lewin), pg. 33: "The Roman authorities issued a special order changing the name of the province, and so from the years immediately following the war onward it was no longer called Judea but Syria Palaestina."

"The Wrong Marcus Turbo (Syme), pg. 90: "Finally, the term 'Syria Palaestina' itself. When did that arise? The province is still designated 'Judaea' on the inscription of a man who was procurator c. 125. But a dedication in Dalmatia honouring Sex. Julius Severus has the new appellation...'Judaea', it is true, might subsist sporadically for a time — it occurs on another inscription of Julius Severus. But there could be no warrant for 'Syria Palaestina' before the new status of the province ordained in 129 or 130."

Where do you see a reference citing a merger of Syria and Judea to create Syria-Palaestina?

Jacob D (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Jacob D

Once again, I ask...what is being done to harmonize the content of the article's text, which claims that Judaea was merged with Syria to create a new province "Syria Palaestina", with the cited references, which state that Judaea was RENAMED Syria-Palaestina (NOT merged with Syria)? All other references that I have seen, including books and publications, concur with the latter view. Are you satisfied with leaving the article as is, containing information that is directly contradicted by the referenced material and not supported by well-documented facts? Thank you. Jacob D (talk) 09:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)Jacob D

You wrote "Later in the article, it says..." in your initial comment but now you are commenting about the sources. I looked at lots of sources and I agree with you that the most common version in strong sources is that Judaea was renamed Syria-Palaestina. The other version can be found, but generally in weaker sources in my opinion. So this should be changed. It needs care to say that it was the Roman province called Judaea that was renamed, not the smaller region known as Judea in Jewish history. Zero^talk 11:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I was originally referring to what it said in the "History" section in the article, namely that "After crushing the Bar Kokhba revolt, the Roman Emperor Hadrian applied the name Syria Palestina to the entire region, that had formerly included Judea province". My impression was that this was referring to the renaming of Judaea, rather than a merger with Syria, although I suppose it could also mean the latter. My main issue was with the historical inaccuracy of the merging statement; I should have made that more clear. I apologize.

Incidentally, as shown by E. Mary Smallwood in the "The Jews under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian" (pg.463) and "The Bar Kochba War Reconsidered" (Peter Schafer , p168) , inscriptions name Julius Severus as legate of Judaea, and legate of Syria-Palaestina, with the change in provincial name apparently coming as a result of the war.

Jacob D (talk) 13:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)Jacob D

Incomplete References

Looks like this article has had some severe editing. In any case, could someone familiar with the subject have a look at all the "sfn" templates and restore the references that are currently missing? The one I noticed that made me write this up was "Jacobsen". patsw (talk) 01:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Disputed

A lot of back and forth here over Palestinian and Israeli interpretations of the origins of the name of this province -- if it's getting to the point where someone on this page is saying the source had to be removed because the author has a Jewish last name and therefore must be Zionist, then we DEFINITELY need the disputed section box. Also, I tool out some of the more loaded language, such as the phrase "lacking evidence from primary and neutral sources" about Hadrian's connection to the name, since this is what many general reference sources say

I used the disputed section, since there seems more consensus on the rest of the information, but maybe it needs disputed page instead Indeedindeed (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Indeedindeed: It is amusing that the editor who added "lacking evidence from primary and neutral sources" thought that they were correcting bias in the same direction in which you think you are correcting it by removal. I can't see anything on this talk page or in the article edit summaries about Jewish last names. Maybe I missed it, but I must warn you that accusations of antisemitism, with the exception of reports on official noticeboards accompanied by solid evidence, are a blockable offence. Maybe you should strike out that sentence. Regarding sources, you can't override the publications of academic experts by quoting from tertiary encyclopedias. Sources often disagree but we have a definite preference for the peer-reviewed publications of specialists. Anyway, https://www.ancient.eu is a user-contributed site and thus unacceptable always. Zero^talk 04:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Zero0000: Fair point on the sources and I'll take a look into it later -- but yes, I would suggest it is antisemitic to say "Similarly, an Ashkenazi author such as Ariel Lewin can be expected to interpret historical actions in ways beneficial to Zionist claims to Palestine, and thus should not be taken seriously without support from dispassionate sources." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indeedindeed (talk • contribs)

@Indeedindeed: (Don't forget to sign.) I didn't notice that and I agree it's a bit off. The odd use of "Ashkenazi" rather than "Jewish" suggests alternative explanations, but guessing motivations is pretty useless. Zero^talk 13:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

References

What did Cassius Dio write exactly?

I can't easily get access to the version of Dio's "Roman History" vol 8 cited in the article. I can see this version (p447) which does not support the text cited to it. It records Hadrian building Aelia Capitolina on the ruins of Jerusalem but it doesn't ascribe a motive to him like we do. I didn't find anything at all about renaming Judaea — is it there? Zero^talk 05:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

False content

Feldman 1990, p. 19: "there is no evidence as to precisely who changed the name of Judaea to Palestine and precisely when this was done". So, unless someone has finally found out a long-sought-after source as for when the exactly the change was done and by whom, let us please stick to the facts and stop spreading misinformation? Dan Palraz (talk) 22:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Tombah: I have been looking at Judaea (Roman province) and it is not absolutely clear that the information in your revert can be given as undisputed fact. Please review. Selfstudier (talk) 10:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I've added another source about the timing of the naming, clarified other details around the topic from the existing sources and rejigged the lead a bit. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Capital of Syria Palaestina

The capital of Syria-Palaestina was also Cesaerea-Palaestina, an administrative and cultural hub, and the seat of the Roman Governor and the royal Court of the country. I think it would be appropriate to include it as another name for the capital. Not including it is an attempt to erase the Palestinian connection to the land. Nickal06 (talk) 20:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

"At the end of the Bar Kokhba revolt, Jewish settlement in Judea proper had nearly been eradicated."

The above sentence was added with a couple of following sentences – I don’t believe this is the scholarly consensus. Yes the population reduced (we have "significantly swindled" elsewhere in the article) but eradicated and replaced seems to be a minority view based on the sources I have read. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:57, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

So please introduce those sources you speak about. I'm sure you know that even if this was the minority view, one is not supposed to remove it, but add contradictory views. Anyway, the part you removed referred specifically to Judea proper, i.e. in the early Roman period, this was the region stretching from Wadi Qanah in the north to Idumaea in the south. Scholars generally agree that the Jewish population of this area was almost eradicated, except the fringe areas of Beit Guvrin, Ein Gedi, and the southern Hebron Hills, which retained a Jewish population probably up until late antiquity. Again, this whole demographic shift pertains only to Judea proper, as opposed to the (much larger) province of Judaea, now renamed Syria Palaestina, where a large Jewish population still inhabited Galilee , southern Golan and the coastal plain. To sum up, the view that Judea proper lost most of its Jewish population after the revolt is well accepted and based on both contemporary sources as well as archaeological evidence, as almost every village excavated there was destroyed during the revolt. So we know that other populations came to settle in the area, replacing the Jews; the question still open is regarding this population's origins and identity. Tombah (talk) 09:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

It appears that Jewish settlement in Judea had been almost completely eradicated by the end of the revolt is less definitive. On what do we rely for a definition of "Judea proper"? 11:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)