4 ms·

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

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.
  - yyyk 5y ago
    Place names can be resilient. They can be also very political, e.g. the different spelling of places in Ukraine, which depends if one is looking at them from a Russian POV or not. Even Ukraine itself is spelt differently (Russia would rather people write "The Ukraine"). There was a rather documented political context back then, of erasing the local name to crush the local population. Wherever Hadrian took the name from a Greek regional slang or from a Greek history book, we need not to ignore that context for today's political reasons either - this doesn't really have any effect on anything. I do find it odd the Romans used two names when switching 'Judea' to 'Syria-Palestine'. There are many Greek references that the describe the entire Levant as 'Syria', more than 'Judea' or 'Palestine' ever being used. Perhaps the Roman needed two names because the second name had become unfamiliar? Come to think of it, there are many uses of 'Syria' for describing the entire Levant even up to the 20th century. The name derives from the Assyrians. We could take the same references and tell a story about how it's a local name etc., and have a better argument than the post starting the thread. However, just about everyone think the SSNP stink, so nobody does that anymore.
    - netcan 5y ago
      I don't see the contradiction. Yes, Romans referred to the region as Syria and that also reflected the cultural/political scape for much of the time. Assyria did span the entire region, and even during the Roman era their dialect was spoken by most people (including Judeans). Choice of names is political in the same region now too, and the games leverage the fact that there are many ancient place names making contradictory "claims."

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.
- yyyk 5y ago
  Place names can be resilient. They can be also very political, e.g. the different spelling of places in Ukraine, which depends if one is looking at them from a Russian POV or not. Even Ukraine itself is spelt differently (Russia would rather people write "The Ukraine"). There was a rather documented political context back then, of erasing the local name to crush the local population. Wherever Hadrian took the name from a Greek regional slang or from a Greek history book, we need not to ignore that context for today's political reasons either - this doesn't really have any effect on anything. I do find it odd the Romans used two names when switching 'Judea' to 'Syria-Palestine'. There are many Greek references that the describe the entire Levant as 'Syria', more than 'Judea' or 'Palestine' ever being used. Perhaps the Roman needed two names because the second name had become unfamiliar? Come to think of it, there are many uses of 'Syria' for describing the entire Levant even up to the 20th century. The name derives from the Assyrians. We could take the same references and tell a story about how it's a local name etc., and have a better argument than the post starting the thread. However, just about everyone think the SSNP stink, so nobody does that anymore.
  - netcan 5y ago
    I don't see the contradiction. Yes, Romans referred to the region as Syria and that also reflected the cultural/political scape for much of the time. Assyria did span the entire region, and even during the Roman era their dialect was spoken by most people (including Judeans). Choice of names is political in the same region now too, and the games leverage the fact that there are many ancient place names making contradictory "claims."