|
We have an article on the Timeline of the name Palestine. The name has been in use since the 5th century BC, used by writers such as Herodotus, Aristotle, and Josephus. The Romans did not coin the term, it was in use long before them. Meanwhile "Judea" is the name of a minor sub-region in Palestine. We should not be using anachronisms and invented names. Dimadick (talk) 05:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- This is both incorrect, and irrelevant. In the 1st century, the only Roman official name for this province was Judaea (Roman province), which included the subregions of Judea, Samaria and Idumea. There was no Roman province in the 1st century with the name "Palestina" in its title. This is indisputable (refer to the List of Roman provinces, where no Roman province is in existence called "Palestina" until 135 AD). Roman Judea was the name for a much larger portion of the area than Palestina was. The entire Roman province was called Judaea. As for the use of "Palestine" by those writers, it was unofficial (not then name for any Roman province) and often only in reference to a specific small subregion of the coast, associated with ancient Philistia. When referring to the name of the Roman province, especially in its entirety, Josephus for example only ever uses Judaea, or smaller subregions like Samaria, Idumea, Judea, and others later incorporated into Judaea, like Galilea, Perea, the Decapolis and Gaulanitis. He never refers to any official Roman jurisdiction called "Palestina". The areas covered in the Bible do not mention "Palestina" anywhere in the Gospels, or in Josephus. The areas mentioned are only Judea, Samaria, Galilea, the Decapolis, Gaulanitis and Perea. "Palestine" is not a name used for any of these areas, whether in the Gospels or in Josephus' works. These writers also clearly referred to the entire region by its only official 1st century Roman name of Judaea. Yehud Medinata, Yehud (Judea) in the Hasmonean Dynasty and Roman Judaea were not the name of a "minor sub-region in Palestine", but for most or all of the region. There was no official Roman use of the name of Palestina until the creation of Syria Palestina by Hadrian after the Bar Kokhba revolt in the 2nd century. Fides2022 (talk) 22:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- "Official" use is irrelevant in geography. Palestine (region) covers a much larger area than Judea, which translates to the southern areas of modern Israel and the West Bank. Dimadick (talk) 23:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Official Roman use is what matters in geography of antiquity, since the region in the 1st century was a Roman province and under direct Roman authority, and which was only referred to as Judaea. The entire province at this time was called Judaea (Roman province), with subregions of Judea (proper), Samaria and Idumea. This Roman political entity in the 1st century only goes by that name. There is no use of "Palestine" at this time (in the 1st century) in any of the period sources to refer to this entire Roman province. Also, in the centuries prior, most or all of the region was also called Judea or Yehud, as in the Yehud Medinata and during the Hasmonean dynasty and Herodian dynasty periods. Fides2022 (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It was not only referred to as Judea. The name Palestine appears in the writings of Ovid, Tibullus, Pomponius Mela, Pliny the Elder, Dio Chrysostom, Statius, Plutarch, and the Roman Judean writers Philo of Alexandria and Josephus. Palestine was used long before the province of Judea's brief existence. Dimadick (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- We even quote Josephus describing his "Antiquities" : "...these Antiquities contain what hath been delivered down to us from the original creation of man, until the twelfth year of the reign of Nero, as to what hath befallen us Jews, as well is Egypt as in Syria, and in Palestine." Because his audience already knew the name Palestine. Dimadick (talk) 23:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it was, in the 1st century. That name of "Palestine" was never used by the Romans for the name of this province, with its specific territory, in the 1st century. That is an indisputable fact. The evidence according to most scholars is that the name "Palestine" in the 1st century only referred to a specific coastal subregion, especially by the writers of that period like Josephus and Philo. There is no mention of any Roman province called "Palestina" in the 1st century. The province itself is only ever Judaea (Roman province), and the procurators and prefects of this province in the 1st century are all in use of Judaea in their titles, and never "Palestina". Furthermore, the areas in the Gospels like Galilea, the Decapolis, Samaria, Gaulanitis and Judea (proper) are never associated with the name "Palestina" in any of the sources. But, they are included as part of the larger Roman provinces of Judaea or Syria. You have no evidence of any Roman province or region called "Palestina" in the 1st century, in any of the sources, because there is none. It did not exist. Fides2022 (talk) 23:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The Roman province of Judaea did not have a "brief existence". It lasted for over 140 years. But prior to this, the land was long called Yehud, from which the Latin "Judaea" is derived from. It is another indisputable fact that when the Romans first conquered this region, they called it Judaea (Roman province), and only called their province that for over 140 years, not "Palestina". It had been Yehud in the preceding Herodian dynasty, Hasmonean dynasty and was called Yehud Medinata under Persian rule. There was no use of "Palestine" for this region by the Persians and Babylonians, but only Yehud. And prior to that there was the Kingdom of Judah and the Kingdom of Israel stretching back to the Bronze Age.
- In the time of Jesus and the events of the Gospels, the only Roman and Latin name for this Roman province and region in the 1st century is Judaea. That is unquestioned. Samaria and Judea were part of the larger Roman province of Judaea, as were Galilea, the Decapolis and parts of Perea in later times. There is no evidence at all that any of these subregions were part of any non-existent jurisdiction called "Palestina" int he 1st century. It was a Roman province, and so we use the Latin Roman name, which is only Judaea in the 1st century. Fides2022 (talk) 23:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Josephus, when referring to the Roman province as a whole, only ever uses "Judaea". He never uses "Palestina" for that purpose. He refers to Palestina in a specific, limited context for a subregion of Judaea. One mention of "Palestine", doesn't negate the hundreds of other references by Josephus and Philo for the region only as Judaea. Fides2022 (talk) 00:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Josephus in his "Antiquities" also clearly distinguishes "Palestine" as a specific coastal region as distinct from the wider area of Judaea as a whole, and associated with the ancient subregion of Philistia: "...the children of Mesraim, being eight in number, possessed the country from Gaza to Egypt, though it retained the name of one only, the Philistim; for the Greeks call part of that country Palestine."" Fides2022 (talk) 00:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Josephus clearly describes that Judaea incorporates this entire region, in "The Jewish War" 3.3.5:
- In the limits of Samaria and Judea lies the village Anuath, which is also named Borceos.[14] This is the northern boundary of Judea. The southern parts of Judea, if they be measured lengthways, are bounded by a village adjoining to the confines of Arabia; the Jews that dwell there call it Jordan. However, its breadth is extended from the river Jordan to Joppa. The city Jerusalem is situated in the very middle; on which account some have, with sagacity enough, called that city the Navel of the country. Nor indeed is Judea destitute of such delights as come from the sea, since its maritime places extend as far as Ptolemais: it was parted into eleven portions, of which the royal city Jerusalem was the supreme, and presided over all the neighboring country, as the head does over the body. As to the other cities that were inferior to it, they presided over their several toparchies; Gophna was the second of those cities, and next to that Acrabatta, after them Thamna, and Lydda, and Emmaus, and Pella, and Idumea, and Engaddi, and Herodium, and Jericho; and after them came Jamnia and Joppa, as presiding over the neighboring people; and besides these there was the region of Gamala, and Gaulonitis, and Batanea, and Trachonitis, which are also parts of the kingdom of Agrippa. This [last] country begins at Mount Libanus, and the fountains of Jordan, and reaches breadthways to Lake Tiberias; and in length is extended from a village called Arpha, as far as Julias. Its inhabitants are a mixture of Jews and Syrians. And thus have I, with all possible brevity, described the country of Judea, and those that lie round about it.[15] Fides2022 (talk) 00:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Finally, and maybe even most importantly, none of the pages in the citations entered in the discussed paragraph here of this article on the Virgin Birth use the word "Palestine" in discussing Jews in 1st century Judaea. Not a single one. In conclusion, Judaea (Roman province) is the only correct term to refer to this province in the 1st century, when many Jews still regularly used the Hebrew language natively (see Hebrew language#Displacement by Aramaic, especially in southern Judea and religious sects, despite Aramaic being predominant (and not Greek). Fides2022 (talk) 00:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that this account is evading an IP block. Doug Weller talk 06:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- And in any case, we go by what the sources say, we do not change their words because we think that they have named a geographical location incorrectly. Doug Weller talk 06:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The source (Baker, p.490) uses the work Palestine, and we should follow that. Achar Sva (talk) 06:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
|
