Talk:Judaea (Roman province)

message: This is not accurate as it ignores Herod's daughter, Salome, who received the cities of Azotis and Gaza.  So -- yes -- it was a tetrarchy, or "fourths": Archelaus, Antipas, Philip, and Salome.Mwidunn (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This entire article is suspect. There is no evidence whatsoever that "Jesus" even existed, yet he is mentioned as though he is clear and undisputed historical fact. 97.119.229.204 (talk) 10:10, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You do not write WP:RS, so you do not make the call. tgeorgescu (talk)  11:28, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: ( . . . or in this case rather of "thirds")

message: Could someone please wikify that name? Thanks. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 01:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queen Alexandra 

message: H.H. Ben-Sasson, A History of the Jewish People, Harvard University Press, 1976, , page 246: "When Archelaus was deposed from the ethnarchy in 6 CE, Judea proper, Samaria and Idumea were converted into a Roman province under the name Iudaea."
75.0.0.13 (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern historians use the term ''Iudaea'', not ''Judaea'', to distinguish between ''Roman Iudaea province'' and the territory of [[Judea]] proper 

message: Before the 17th-century, I J were were decorative variants of the same letter (the Roman alphabet ran ABCDEFGHIKLMNOPQRSTVXYZ), so Iudaea vs. Judaea is not too deeply meaningful (a mere matter of convention).  "Yehud" is different, because it's a transcription of the Persian Imperial Aramaic name יהד directly into English (not going through Latin as an intermediary). AnonMoos (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to be pedantic, but G was invented by Spurius Carvilius Ruga as a modification of C, and X, Y and Z were borrowed from the Greek alphabet to transliterate Greek words into Latin. 75.0.0.42 (talk) 07:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I was referring to the Roman alphabet during the period of the Roman province of Judaea (ca. 6 AD to 135 AD)... AnonMoos (talk) 09:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: An attempted voice of calmness

message: Seems that this is another article where the date format was changed from BC/AD to BCE/CE without any discussion or substantial reason being discussed on the talk page thus violating WP:ERA. Thus I propose the reversion of the date formats to the former if there are no objections.(unsigned)
:Check the history and you will see that this article was predominately BCE/CE from the start, and stable with BCE/CE for more than five years (except for brief lapses, soon reverted).  There is no justification for changing it. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Personally it is a silly convention, worse than what it replaced. Granted no one knows if he ever existed but if he did the error of birth year is no more than seven years by the Gospel references to historical events. If one assumes "Christian Era" coincides with birth then it is no better. However if going by the Gospels the CE could not have started before the Resurrection. Going by real history it is not reasonable to date it prior to Constantine declaring it the official religion of the empire. TWIIWT (talk) 09:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mythicist foolishness aside, please stop these foolish, intellectually dishonest "CE/BCE" euphemisms and return to AD/BC nomenclature: It's obvious that "CE/BCE" uses Dionysius's dating from the time of Christ. If you want to reject this dating system, then actually do so by picking a different dating point. To use CE/BCE, i.e. to date from the time of Christ yet refuse to mention Him, is dishonest, and dishonesty has no place in any serious encyclopedia. Not only is this "Common Era"/"Before Common Era" nomenclature dishonest, it is obviously false (at least without theological reference to the Incarnation): The world did not share a 'common era' until the advent of the world-wide web. Thus, the CE/BCE nomenclature degrades the quality of Wikipedia through its foolishness, dishonesty, falseness, and absurdity. Please stop using it. -- Newagelink (talk) 08:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

text: So we can say that this has been discussed, leave it BCE/CE, per Hertz1888 and because we're not some bastion of cultural preservation.  Also, TWIIWT, CE means "common era."  I don't know whether to point out that calling it the "Christian era" is ill-researched or dishonest, but your strawman argument is wrong from the start. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see my comment above. This use of BCE/CE is absurd in all cases and should be stopped immediately. It is not only a matter of cultural preservation, although truth is important and should be preserved. It is also a matter of honesty, integrity, and accuracy. -- Newagelink (talk) 09:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  This conversation was over years ago, and you've said nothing that addresses WP:ERA.  Religious bias does not override the Manual of Style.  If you want every article to change to BC/AD, then you need to seek consensus to change the Manual of Style instead of posting in conversations that finished years ago. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia pages are apparently open-ended, lacking the real-time limitations that you suggest. Your accusation of religious bias likewise ignores essentially everything I said, e.g. how declaring anything prior to the world wide web (or World War 1, if you like) to be part of a 'common era' is simply false. Declaring I've "said nothing that addresses" that section is incoherent, as I'm clearly participating in the discussion that section recommends. I'm not sure your advice regarding the Manual of Style is applicable, given your misrepresentation of my arguments. Finally, it appears the discussion to improve this page is ongoing, not 'finished' from your single statement four years ago. I again recommend that the foolish BCE/CE euphemism for Dionysius's dating be immediately disregarded for this webpage with BC/AD restored. Newagelink (talk) 04:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I think religious bias shows through in your earlier post above. The discussion ended in 2012, it hasn't been ongoing. WP:ERA applies here, not your personal analysis or your lack of good faith. You've given no guideline related argument as to why this particular article's era style should be changed, and I can't see a reason to change it. Doug Weller talk 11:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you're the one lacking good faith here by accusing me of it, actually -- but perhaps you are unaware that not everyone is as familiar with Wikipedia or its editorial custom as you are (regarding 'the discussion has ended', i.e. assuming a limited timeframe for an indefinitely-editable talk page). Regarding WP:ERA, I actually have been following it, i.e. "Seek consensus on the talk page before making the change. Open the discussion under a subhead that uses the word "era". Briefly state why the style is inappropriate for the article in question." That's what I've done. I've never suggested these guidelines didn't apply; to the contrary, they are the basis for my discussion. Newagelink (talk) 03:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Era: Revert date format to BC/AD 

message: This statement is absurd from every context and every ancient source. 
Following the suppression of Bar Kokhba's revolt, the emperor Hadrian changed the name of the province to Syria Palaestina and Jerusalem became Aelia Capitolina in order to humiliate the Jewish population by attempting to erase their historical ties to the region.[2]
He REVERTED the name to its original name as the wiki article on Syria-Palestine makes clear. The idea of humiliation is an invention without foundation. Historical ties to the region is modern Zionism. 
In that time from the term "Jewish" meant only people of Judea as the historian Josephus says. It did not mean a religion nor have any particular connection to the mythology of the Septuagint. Jerusalem was only the capitol of the city state of Judea at that time. In those days the only loyalties found in the historical record are to cities not to land. It is an anachronism to talk about people in the past as though they had modern loyalties. 
TWIIWT (talk) 10:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, that's nonsense -- before ca. 135 A.D., the word Palaestina (Latin) / Παλαιστινη (Greek) often tended to refer to the coastal plain (i.e. old "Philistia"), and it seems to have been those who were remote from the area, or knew little about it who most often extended the meaning of the term to cover inland hilly areas such as Judea and Galilee.  Pausanias refers to Judea as being "above" Palestine, not "in" it -- you can see the exact Greek words huper tês Palaistinês υπερ της Παλαιστινης "above Palaistine" for yourself at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0159%3Abook%3D10%3Achapter%3D12%3Asection%3D9  .  And you seem to be a little confused about the relationship between the Septuagint and the original Hebrew/Aramaic text... AnonMoos (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about finally getting rid of modern political dogma?  

message: not Jerusalem which had been the capital for King David, King Hezekiah, King Josiah,
These king legends are found only in the Septuagint and have no basis in either historical or archaeological evidence. Absent evidence or even footnote the mention is superfluous at best. Including them is only of modern religious and political interest. 
"If Solomon existed [and there is no evidence he did exist] he was no more than a hilltop warlord." -- Prof. Israel Finkelstein
He did not even say which hilltop.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TWIIWT (talk • contribs) 11:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever -- this article is not the place to debate issues of Biblical Minimalism or Temple denialism, or to discuss what may or may not have happened 800 years or more before the Roman province of Judaea came into existence, and your claims about the Septuagint are rather nonsensical.  Suffice it to say that religious Jews of Roman times (excluding Samaritans) unanimously believed that Jerusalem was the city of David... AnonMoos (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who ruled Jerusalem? 

message: This article should include demographic information for the area and period. Should also have archeological findings or links to them. Wcmead3 (talk) 22:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic information missing 

message: First, the spread between Start, B, & C is surprisingly wide. Should these ratings be reviewed?
Second, it's surprising that the importance of this article is rated "Mid" by WikiProjects Christianity, Judaism, and Jewish history. Perhaps there are overlapping articles of greater importance? (I think the hyperlink format of Wikipedia, plus the fragmentation into short articles makes it clumsy to answer a question like this.) If not, I don't see how a rating less than "High" could be justified, based on its ties to the modern world. Wcmead3 (talk) 23:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The province of Judaea is kind of a background administrative framework to events in the history of Christianity and Judaism, not really something religiously important in itself, so "Mid" makes more sense than "High". Maybe it should be "High" for the Jewish history project... AnonMoos (talk) 07:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

text: Second Temple period is one competitor. It might attract some attention from a Jewish standpoint because thw concept shows cultural continuity within a political fragmentary landscape. trespassers william (talk) 11:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ratings surprising 

message: Someone maintaining this page may find this source interesting. 
An underwater survey conducted by divers off Tel Dor, on the Mediterranean Sea, yielded an astonishing find: a rare Roman inscription mentioning the province of Judea – and the name of a previously unknown Roman governor, who ruled the province shortly before the Bar-Kochba Revolt.
The newly found inscription, carved on the stone in Greek, is missing a part, but is thought to have originally read: “The City of Dor honors Marcus Paccius, son of Publius, Silvanus Quintus Coredius Gallus Gargilius Antiquus, governor of the province of Judea, as well as […] of the province of Syria, and patron of the city of Dor.”
read more: http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/archaeology/1.756193
Geo8rge (talk) 14:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: See Quintus Coredius Gallus Gargilius Antiquus. -- llywrch (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previously unknown governor Gargilius Antiquus reported by Haaretz 

message: According to Edward Dabrowa, Legio X Fretensis: A Prosopographical Study of its Officers (I-III c. A.D.) (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1993), from the end of the Jewish War until the time a second legion was assigned to the province (making it a consular province), the legate of Legio X Fretensis was also governor of the province. This is not unique: the legate of Legio III Augusta was also simultaneously governor of Numidia at this time. These were quite important positions for their rank, & a man who held one was guaranteed to hold the fasces.Anyway, so the list of commanders for X Fretensis in Dabrowa's book from c. 70 to, say c. 110 should be identical with the list of legates in this article. However, there are some important differences:
Dabrowa                                            	Date          	Wikipedia article                	Date
Sex. Vettulenus Cerialis                           	70/71         	Sex. Vettulenus Cerialis         	70/71
Sex. Lucilius Bassus                               	71-73         	Sex. Lucilius Bassus             	71-72
L. Flavius Silva Nonnius Bassus                    	73-c. 78      	L. Flavius Silva                 	72-81
---                                                	              	M. Salvidenus                    	80-85
L. Antoninus Saturninus                            	78/79-80/81   	---                              	
Cn. Pinarius Aemilius Cicatricula Pompeius Longinus	c. 85/86-88/89	Cn. Pompeius Longinus            	c. 86
Sex. Hermetidius Campus                            	93-96         	Sex. Hermetidius Campus          	c. 93
(See below)                                        	              	Tiberius Claudius Atticus Herodes	99-102
C. Julius Quadratus Bassus                         	102-105       	C. Julius Quadratus Bassus       	102-104
Q. Pompeius Falco                                  	105/6-c. 107/8	Q. Pompeius Falco                	105-107
Anonymous                                          	c. 108        	---                              	
Atticus                                            	unknown       	(See above)                      	
The first thing is that it would be a lot easier to reconcile these two versions if there was a source for the existing list. That way one would know if the discrepancy was due to recent discoveries, better analysis, etc. As it stands, the existing list really has no authority.That said, most of the names do agree (one column is simply more complete at times than the other), & the dates for those are fairly close. The differences primarily lie in three entries: (1) "M. Salvidenus" seems to have come from a Jewish Encyclopedia article. Since the JE was published about 100-110 years ago, it seems reasonable to me to wonder if more recent research may have either changed the date or identification of this individual. And it keeps me from adding a note, based on Dabrowa, that the legates of Legio X Fretensis were also legates of Judea, so I'd like to remove him if possible. (Further, Dabrowa does not mention him, so I am doubtful he was governor of Judea.) (2) L. Antoninus Saturninus was identified as a legionary commander/governor by Syme back in 1978, so he should be added to this table, & dates to either side adjusted accordingly. Maybe have him succeed Nonnius Bassus, & have either M. Salvidenus (if he is verified) or Pomponius Longinus succeed him. (3) Atticus/Tiberius Claudius Atticus Herodes is a problem. On the one hand, it would appear this is an easy identification; however, more recent research has found evidence that blocks the identification: the date of his consulship has been shown to have been in 133, which means he could not have been either commander of a legion or a governor 99-102. "The Atticus mentioned by Hegesippus remain an unknown character as hitherto," Dabrowa concludes.So what to do? Revise a section of the table -- c. 70 thru c. 110, to be precise -- adding citations, the note that the governor was also commander of the resident legion, as well as omitting M. Salvidenus as well as the Anonymous? (I don't see the point of listing people who are known to have existed, yet no name can be attached to them.) Or try to fit this sourced information into the table while keeping the otherwise faceless M. Salvidenus, & leave off this bit of important information about the administration? -- llywrch (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. I almost forgot: to this list needs to be added Quintus Coredius Gallus Gargilius Antiquus, legate of Judea sometime between 120 & 130. -- llywrch (talk) 23:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  A problem with the list of administrators of Judea 

message: The reference for most of these may simply be the Antiquities of the Jews which by itself is a horrible source.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.57.144.205 (talk) 16:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  THe list of governers does not represent any concrete historical evidence nor reality 

message: Seems odd the infobox doesn't contain this informatoon as both events concerning Jesus are arguebally the most famous historical events to have happened in this province. But I guess they were probably discussed previously and removed/omitted from the list of events for good reason. Colliric (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I checked history of page and there seems no reason that such important event was ignored expect that it was never added. So adding the events detail. JayB91 (talk) 08:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Good thing at wikipedia we add all major events in infobox. The Jewish-Roman war is important but so is Crucification event. Both can exist in the mentioned timeline independently.JayB91 (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth and Crucifixion of Jesus 

message: Historical topic, years are SIGNIFICANT. But not wuith CE, rather AD. Kapeter77 (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Years 

message: Does anyone object to the use of shortened footnotes in this article? ImTheIP (talk) 02:43, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortened footnotes 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: moved per request.  Favonian (talk) 14:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Judea (Roman province) →  – Was moved from the proposed to the current title in March 2012 with the rationale, "These are the same word, and it is no more than an editorial gimmick to spell them differently; the disambiguating "Roman province" suffices to mark the distinction". But "Judaea" is the original spelling of the province's name (ignoring the difference between 'i' and 'j'), and there is a precedent for this with Sicilia (Roman province) (not Sicily Roman province). A google scholar search shows "Judea" referring to the region broadly (or even the Jewish nation itself), whereas the results for "Judaea" are overwhelmingly about the province or other Roman-related stuff. There's also this discussion above, before the page was moved, which showed a preference for Judaea/Iudaea in modern sources, with little or no awareness of "Judea" for the province specifically. Avilich (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 23 July 2021 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks (contribs) 00:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Judaea (Roman province) →  – Per WP:NCDAB, natural disambiguation is preferred over parentheses and a perfectly functional naturally disambiguated title exist for this page in "Roman Judaea" (already a redirect here), which is used frequently by historians in reference to the subject . Iskandar323 (talk) 10:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: And I neglected to mention a separate rationale for titles such as "Roman Syria", which is that in some cases the boundaries of a Roman province do not correspond with those of a modern place sharing the same name.  This has led to discussions distinguishing the topics of Roman provinces with a certain name, as opposed to the Roman history of place by its modern name, e.g. "Roman Syria" is not the same topic as "Syria in Roman times", although in some cases the topics may overlap sufficiently to be treated in a single article.  P Aculeius (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Jeez Louise. No, I didn't misread shit. I know you like the crappy brackets. But WP:NCDAB, a guideline, strongly discourages the use of crappy brackets where a natural disambiguation option exists. Necrothesp countered that crappy brackets have a consistency case in their favour in this instance. Fair enough. You then noted some of the circumstances in which crappy brackets are not used - to which I merely addended the point that, while your deductions may be broadly correct, another reason for provinces to have crappy brackets is that no natural disambiguation option exists at all, such as with Assyria, but not Judaea. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, it looks like you're getting confused between Assyria (Roman province) and Roman Syria - these are totally separate provinces, check their maps. I wasn't making a point about mixing up those two separate entities. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

text: I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel here or create a descriptive title that does not already exist; "Roman Judaea" is already in scholarly usage among the kind of reliable, secondary sources that are our touchstone, but I guess this is the idea that it is more confusing on some level right? Iskandar323 (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that might indeed be so, but - in my humble opinion - it is best to keep titles less likely to be misconstrued for what they are not. To say "Roman Judea" would imply that it belongs to the Roman empire, whereas the current title suggests that we're talking about Judea under Roman rule.21:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Being a Roman province under Roman rule is belonging to the Roman empire, no? Iskandar323 (talk) 06:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: But the title "Roman Judea" can lead to some confusion, as if to say that Judea was only a Roman province, when it was not. Simply put, we wish to avoid the confusion.Davidbena (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It does that no more than saying "blue cheese" implies cheese is only blue. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary. If you say, "Roman Judea" the emphasis is on Roman. If you say "Judea (Roman province)" the emphasis is on Judea. There's a BIG difference between the two!Davidbena (talk) 22:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 11 April 2023 

message: The problem with what Josephus claims was that high-ranking officials usually did not discuss the fate of low-life criminals like Jesus. So, probably Pilate was not even informed about getting Jesus executed. And most certainly he did not hold a trial about Jesus. E.g. John the Baptist was famous, but Jesus wasn't famous. Jesus was an ordinary miracle worker: there were thousands like him in the Empire.
And the "Jewish authorities" could not even prosecute Essenes from Jerusalem, who were mocking them openly. tgeorgescu (talk)  13:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The local "native" Jewish authorities were not allowed by the Romans to impose the death penalty, so if they wanted someone to be executed, then they had to request that the Roman authorities do so, at which time the Roman authorities would definitely be discussing the case.  As an accused rebel, Jesus was not particularly a "low-life criminal". AnonMoos (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Pontius Pilate]] 

message: The statement, "In 30–33 CE, Roman prefect Pontius Pilate, at the request of the Jewish authorities, had Jesus of Nazareth crucified on the charge of sedition, an act that led to the birth of Christianity" contains the antisemitic blood libel that the behest of "Jewish authorities" (Jews) had Jesus crucified.  There is absolutely no verifiable, reliable historic proof this happened - that Jews had Jesus killed.  The sited sources were not first-hand witness accounts, and they were sources just repeating the same contemporary libels of their time.  This is the very blood libel that has been used to justify Christian persecution and genocide of Jews for hundreds of years.
The vast majority of mainstream contemporary Christians (today) reject that "Jews" had Pilate crucify Jesus; which is a view mainly retained only by fringe Evangelicals.
Regardless of religious, racial, or political views - statements that are not independently verifiable by provable, reliable, contemporary (first-hand) historical sources are opinion or editorial, and are not factual; it is simply the continuation of hearsay.  Non-factual statements should be removed; and thusly I am removing the part of the statement that is in bold type. Bandlero (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: While the Gospels were responsible for spreading antisemitism through the centuries, the concept of the Jewish deicide should probably be covered here. Dimadick (talk) 01:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

text: The Gospels are the sole primary source that Pontius Pilate had Jesus crucified. If the alleged incident is to be mentioned at all, it should be attributed to the Gospels. Bandlero's comment is nonsense. It is simply false (and more or less impossible) that Christian groups have decided to not believe something written in the Gospels, which they believe to be the word of God. What has changed is that almost all Christian groups have rejected the idea that the actions of a few Jews thousands of years ago cast a permanent stain on the Jewish people as a whole. Zerotalk 02:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antisemitism, Blood Libels, Tropes 

message: I think this article fails to mention that the first provincial seat was Jerusalem and then (we don't know exactly when) it was moved to Caesarea. Barjimoa (talk) 06:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh nevermind, I just realized it does and I have seen the source.Barjimoa (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Capital