3 ms·

>Another theory is that Palestine came to be known as Palaistine after the Philistines via a process called "pars pro toto", which means that a part becomes the

by yyyk 5y ago

>Another theory is that Palestine came to be known as Palaistine after the Philistines via a process called "pars pro toto", which means that a part becomes the name of the whole. The history is well known, and there's no need for theorizing. You meant 'renamed by Emperor Hadrian to the names of nearby provinces, after crushing the local revolt as a method of erasing the province's residents'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria_Palaestina#cite_ref-9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria_Palaestina#cite_ref-9

Cederfjard 5y ago
In your link it says ”Hadrian's connection to the name change and the reason behind it is disputed”. So I’m sure some theorizing is still warranted.
- yyyk 5y ago
  Both cites following that sentence agree he's the likely suspect, and agree with the motivation. The difference is that the first is certain, while the second merely thinks the evidence points to Hadrian (though I wonder who else could have authority to change a province name quickly). Both agree with the motivation. It's a disagreement alright, but we should not overread it. 'Theorizing' that ignores well known data is suspect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria_Palaestina#cite_note-F90-13 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria_Palaestina#cite_note-F90... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria_Palaestina#cite_note-FOOTNOTEJacobson200144-45-14 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria_Palaestina#cite_note-FOO...
bjourne 5y ago
Well, if you look at the history of that page, you see that a helpful Wikipedian has deleted a pertinent paragraph that followed the text you cited: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syria_Palaestina&diff=1038637789&oldid=1037568091 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syria_Palaestina&... Herodotus in his travel diaries wrote about the region in the 5th century BC and he used the word Palaistine for the region and Palaistinian for the inhabitants. Aristotle in 340 BC wrote about the Dead Sea - "a fabled lake" - which he situated in Palaistine. This suggests that the Greeks thought Palaistine was a greater region than merely Philistia. Why Hadrian choose to rename and reorganize the provinces of the southern Levant right after the end of the Bar Kokba revolt in 135 is a mystery. The record is silent. Although absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, if the renaming was intended to punish the Jews, why weren't the Romans explicit about it? If the renaming was to serve as a deterrent for future rebels? Afaik, the claim that Adrian renamed Iudaea comes from the Christian 4th century scholar Eusebius and is not found in other sources (such as the Talmud). To Christians at the time, God punishing the Jews for crucifying Jesus by having the Romans destroying their temple and erasing their province would have made prefect sense. I.e. Eusebius may have been putting two and two together here. Another problem with the "renaming as a punishment" theory is that in 135 the Philistines hadn't existed for several centuries. So if punishment was Hadrian's impetus for the renaming, he must have been well-versed in Hebrew religion, otherwise how could he have known that the Philistines was one of their worst enemies? That seems unlikely.
- yyyk 5y ago
  It is undisputed the Philistines existed and were of Greek origin, that an area around today's Gaza was settled by them and later named after them, and that the name was known to Greeks - though even Gaza itself was assigned to the Judean province so it probably was much less used by Hadrian's time. Of course Greeks used the name given to them by fellow Greeks (when they existed at the province) and weren't clear on borders. However, every empire and kingdom which actually ruled there knew very well how the locales called it and that's why the province was named as it was. Now, Hadrian was acquainted enough with Judaism to specifically ban many of its practices like circumcision, reading the holy books, etc. Learning a tiny bit on a province after fighting a massive war there is rather expected. However, I believe it's much more likely that he chose the name from Greek language and history. This is a Roman Emperor we're talking about, Greek was a extremely popular language for the Roman elite, he must have been very familiar with Greek. Renaming the province is consistent with Hadrian's other moves which do have a well known rational of suppressing the Jews. There's no reason to think renaming the province just after the massive rebellion is somehow different, accidental or separate from all the other moves, like renaming Jerusalem itself or banning many of Judaism's practices. > the claim that Adrian renamed Iudaea comes from the Christian 4th century scholar Eusebius and is not found in other sources (such as the Talmud) The Talmud has no reason to care about how the Romans name things in their own language for their own empire. It's a religious text, not a history book. It's actually noteworthy that there is an ancient text mentioning this - most ancient historians cared little for such details. EDIT: I also note that Eusebius lived and wrote when the Roman Empire still existed, and probably did not have much need for guessing. A Roman historian living at that time could access Roman primary sources and common knowledge easily.
  - netcan 5y ago
    Undisputed is saying a lot. The Talmud, not by coincidence, light on a lot of political (and religious) detail from this period. The political turmoil leading (in Talmudic text) to the temple's destruction are somewhat taboo. Anyway... place names are resilient. The region is littered with Hebrew/Assyrian/etc place names that outsurvived the political/cultural entities for centuries. That Philistia survived as a regional name is not that big a stretch, especially as a greek-related culture during a greek-dominated era. We don't even know with certainty why our current politicians do what they do.

by yyyk 5y ago

Cederfjard 5y ago

In your link it says ”Hadrian's connection to the name change and the reason behind it is disputed”. So I’m sure some theorizing is still warranted.

yyyk 5y ago
Both cites following that sentence agree he's the likely suspect, and agree with the motivation. The difference is that the first is certain, while the second merely thinks the evidence points to Hadrian (though I wonder who else could have authority to change a province name quickly). Both agree with the motivation. It's a disagreement alright, but we should not overread it. 'Theorizing' that ignores well known data is suspect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria_Palaestina#cite_note-F90-13 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria_Palaestina#cite_note-F90... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria_Palaestina#cite_note-FOOTNOTEJacobson200144-45-14 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria_Palaestina#cite_note-FOO...

bjourne 5y ago

Well, if you look at the history of that page, you see that a helpful Wikipedian has deleted a pertinent paragraph that followed the text you cited: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syria_Palaestina&diff=1038637789&oldid=1037568091 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syria_Palaestina&... Herodotus in his travel diaries wrote about the region in the 5th century BC and he used the word Palaistine for the region and Palaistinian for the inhabitants. Aristotle in 340 BC wrote about the Dead Sea - "a fabled lake" - which he situated in Palaistine. This suggests that the Greeks thought Palaistine was a greater region than merely Philistia. Why Hadrian choose to rename and reorganize the provinces of the southern Levant right after the end of the Bar Kokba revolt in 135 is a mystery. The record is silent. Although absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, if the renaming was intended to punish the Jews, why weren't the Romans explicit about it? If the renaming was to serve as a deterrent for future rebels? Afaik, the claim that Adrian renamed Iudaea comes from the Christian 4th century scholar Eusebius and is not found in other sources (such as the Talmud). To Christians at the time, God punishing the Jews for crucifying Jesus by having the Romans destroying their temple and erasing their province would have made prefect sense. I.e. Eusebius may have been putting two and two together here. Another problem with the "renaming as a punishment" theory is that in 135 the Philistines hadn't existed for several centuries. So if punishment was Hadrian's impetus for the renaming, he must have been well-versed in Hebrew religion, otherwise how could he have known that the Philistines was one of their worst enemies? That seems unlikely.

yyyk 5y ago
It is undisputed the Philistines existed and were of Greek origin, that an area around today's Gaza was settled by them and later named after them, and that the name was known to Greeks - though even Gaza itself was assigned to the Judean province so it probably was much less used by Hadrian's time. Of course Greeks used the name given to them by fellow Greeks (when they existed at the province) and weren't clear on borders. However, every empire and kingdom which actually ruled there knew very well how the locales called it and that's why the province was named as it was. Now, Hadrian was acquainted enough with Judaism to specifically ban many of its practices like circumcision, reading the holy books, etc. Learning a tiny bit on a province after fighting a massive war there is rather expected. However, I believe it's much more likely that he chose the name from Greek language and history. This is a Roman Emperor we're talking about, Greek was a extremely popular language for the Roman elite, he must have been very familiar with Greek. Renaming the province is consistent with Hadrian's other moves which do have a well known rational of suppressing the Jews. There's no reason to think renaming the province just after the massive rebellion is somehow different, accidental or separate from all the other moves, like renaming Jerusalem itself or banning many of Judaism's practices. > the claim that Adrian renamed Iudaea comes from the Christian 4th century scholar Eusebius and is not found in other sources (such as the Talmud) The Talmud has no reason to care about how the Romans name things in their own language for their own empire. It's a religious text, not a history book. It's actually noteworthy that there is an ancient text mentioning this - most ancient historians cared little for such details. EDIT: I also note that Eusebius lived and wrote when the Roman Empire still existed, and probably did not have much need for guessing. A Roman historian living at that time could access Roman primary sources and common knowledge easily.
- netcan 5y ago
  Undisputed is saying a lot. The Talmud, not by coincidence, light on a lot of political (and religious) detail from this period. The political turmoil leading (in Talmudic text) to the temple's destruction are somewhat taboo. Anyway... place names are resilient. The region is littered with Hebrew/Assyrian/etc place names that outsurvived the political/cultural entities for centuries. That Philistia survived as a regional name is not that big a stretch, especially as a greek-related culture during a greek-dominated era. We don't even know with certainty why our current politicians do what they do.