3 ms·

That the Philistines existed is undisputed, whether they were of Greek origin or not. However they disappeared from history around the time of the Babylonian ex

That the Philistines existed is undisputed, whether they were of Greek origin or not. However they disappeared from history around the time of the Babylonian expansion in 600 BC, so it seems far-fetched to believe that educated people in 135 AD would have intimate knowledge of the Jews' relationship to them. Hadrian was most likely not privy to details of Jewish culture. Both the Romans and the Greeks detested circumcision, but, for the most part, they tolerated it. At times, the Romans tried to outlaw the practice of castrating or circumcising slaves, but they never banned the practice altogether. However, in Palestine the governor may have implemented such decrees as retribution for uprisings. Note that Jews were far from the only people at the time who practiced circumcision. > 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. You are talking about Hadrian's decision to refound Jerusalem as the Roman colony Aelia Capitolina. This occurred at least a decade before the revolt and can hardly be thought of a move to suppress the Jews. A Roman city brought wealth and honor to the region and would have been cherished in other provinces. Hadrian perhaps wanted to mimic the great success of the Roman city Caesarea which had been built in Palestine 150 years earlier. View it with Roman eyes. There are hundreds of peoples and religions in the empire. Most of them worship the Emperor and loves having statues of him around. So why on earth would it anger a poor Levatine people enough to revolt? Furthermore, emperors are surrounded by yes-men; no one wants to tell him that the people hates his statues. > 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. The Talmud actually describes the Bar Kokba revolt in great detail. So it is odd that the renaming of the Roman provinces (Iudaea wasn't the only province that was restructured at the same time) isn't mentioned at all. > 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. Yes, he was active in Caesarea and is one of the first Christian Scholars. He and many other Christian scholars weren't very fond of the Jews and much of their writings had a distinct anti-Jewish bent. Eusebius had a habit of characterizing all misfortunes that befell on the Jewish people as divine punishment for first having crucified Jesus and then rejecting Christianity. He also claimed that Aelia Capitolina was founded to punish the Jews for revolting, which we know now is incorrect.

yyyk 5y ago
>so it seems far-fetched to believe that educated people in 135 AD would have intimate knowledge of the Jews' relationship to them. Hadrian did not have to know anything whatsoever about the Philistines to make the choices he did. A Greek speaking Emperor decided to rename a province using Greek names. He chose Greek names as close as he could get, which he could have gotten from multiple sources. Why didn't he name it the Latin equivalent of 'Hadrian-ville'? We'll never know. There may have been a message in the new names, but Hadrian would not have to know anything about Judaism to make it: perhaps the choice of Greek was motivated by being aware of the Maccabean fight against the Greek Seleucid Empire, a method of telling the world the Jews lost in the long run and that the 'superiour' culture won. But I'm just wildly guessing, we'll probably never know. >You are talking about Hadrian's decision to refound Jerusalem as the Roman colony Aelia Capitolina. This occurred at least a decade before the revolt... I note the chronology of this time is rather unclear. We aren't sure whether the Roman laws against Jewish practices started before the Bar Kochva revolt or after it. It has been argued that these laws preceded the Revolt and led to it, and were intensified after it. >View it with Roman eyes. There are hundreds of peoples and religions in the empire. Most of them worship the Emperor and loves having statues of him around. It's absurd to paint the Romans as ignorant. Rome conquered the entire Levant by 30BC. There was also the previous revolt, after which Josephus wrote to Roman elite. There were also Jewish communities outside the Levant, like the Iraqi one which dates to the end of the First Temple period. Rome had over a century of experience knowing exactly who they were dealing with. Classicists have an image of Rome as tolerant, which is sometimes true, and sometimes brushes over all the times Rome was not tolerant. Romans were perfectly capable of crushing people and the local religion when they wanted to - just ask the Druids. Oh, we can't do that, because the Romans decided they should not exist anymore. It should not be a surprise that the Romans decided to fix their Jewish 'problem' also with violence and suppression. >The Talmud actually describes the Bar Kokba revolt in great detail... Actually, quite a bit we'd like to know is missing, for perfectly understandable reasons. Their viewpoint is religious and local, and not very interested in non-Jews. It's like using the Bible alone as an historical source for the ancient East: leaving aside questions of reliability, it's very patchy regarding non-Jews. List of Egyptian kings? (Nope). What did the Egyptians really do with the pyramids? (Tombs not mentioned). How did the Egyptians called the land during all this period? (You won't find it there). All these sources have their focus and care little about other things. >Eusebius had a habit of characterizing all misfortunes that befell on the Jewish people as divine punishment... He also claimed that Aelia Capitolina was founded to punish the Jews for revolting.. So when Eusebius notes the renaming he sees it as a misfortune and punishment, but Hadrian doesn't see it as a punishment? Why should they assign a different meaning when they were members of the same culture? Eusebius could have easily spun it had the Roman Empire meant well ('The great Emperor gave the Jews a gift and the ungrateful wretches reacted violently!'), and he had access to sources we do not have. It's much more likely Hadrian saw it the same way Eusebius did.

yyyk 5y ago

>so it seems far-fetched to believe that educated people in 135 AD would have intimate knowledge of the Jews' relationship to them. Hadrian did not have to know anything whatsoever about the Philistines to make the choices he did. A Greek speaking Emperor decided to rename a province using Greek names. He chose Greek names as close as he could get, which he could have gotten from multiple sources. Why didn't he name it the Latin equivalent of 'Hadrian-ville'? We'll never know. There may have been a message in the new names, but Hadrian would not have to know anything about Judaism to make it: perhaps the choice of Greek was motivated by being aware of the Maccabean fight against the Greek Seleucid Empire, a method of telling the world the Jews lost in the long run and that the 'superiour' culture won. But I'm just wildly guessing, we'll probably never know. >You are talking about Hadrian's decision to refound Jerusalem as the Roman colony Aelia Capitolina. This occurred at least a decade before the revolt... I note the chronology of this time is rather unclear. We aren't sure whether the Roman laws against Jewish practices started before the Bar Kochva revolt or after it. It has been argued that these laws preceded the Revolt and led to it, and were intensified after it. >View it with Roman eyes. There are hundreds of peoples and religions in the empire. Most of them worship the Emperor and loves having statues of him around. It's absurd to paint the Romans as ignorant. Rome conquered the entire Levant by 30BC. There was also the previous revolt, after which Josephus wrote to Roman elite. There were also Jewish communities outside the Levant, like the Iraqi one which dates to the end of the First Temple period. Rome had over a century of experience knowing exactly who they were dealing with. Classicists have an image of Rome as tolerant, which is sometimes true, and sometimes brushes over all the times Rome was not tolerant. Romans were perfectly capable of crushing people and the local religion when they wanted to - just ask the Druids. Oh, we can't do that, because the Romans decided they should not exist anymore. It should not be a surprise that the Romans decided to fix their Jewish 'problem' also with violence and suppression. >The Talmud actually describes the Bar Kokba revolt in great detail... Actually, quite a bit we'd like to know is missing, for perfectly understandable reasons. Their viewpoint is religious and local, and not very interested in non-Jews. It's like using the Bible alone as an historical source for the ancient East: leaving aside questions of reliability, it's very patchy regarding non-Jews. List of Egyptian kings? (Nope). What did the Egyptians really do with the pyramids? (Tombs not mentioned). How did the Egyptians called the land during all this period? (You won't find it there). All these sources have their focus and care little about other things. >Eusebius had a habit of characterizing all misfortunes that befell on the Jewish people as divine punishment... He also claimed that Aelia Capitolina was founded to punish the Jews for revolting.. So when Eusebius notes the renaming he sees it as a misfortune and punishment, but Hadrian doesn't see it as a punishment? Why should they assign a different meaning when they were members of the same culture? Eusebius could have easily spun it had the Roman Empire meant well ('The great Emperor gave the Jews a gift and the ungrateful wretches reacted violently!'), and he had access to sources we do not have. It's much more likely Hadrian saw it the same way Eusebius did.