Talk:Judaea (Roman province)

( . . . or in this case rather of "thirds")
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)


 * 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)


 * You do not write WP:RS, so you do not make the call. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:28, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Untitled
Someone kindly asked why I moved "Iudaea (Roman province)" to "Iudaea Province".

I wanted to bring it inline with other provinces that use this scheme, namingly Aegyptus, Achaea, Africa, Asia where the last three use "X Province, Roman Empire" current use visible at: Category:Ancient Roman provinces.

Maybe I moved some of the others as well, but I think was not the only one using this format.

This format is also used for Category:Old provinces of Japan and Category:Provinces of the Ottoman Empire. Furthermore it is used for some of the other Category:Provinces. Nevertheless some people do not like this format, you might like to engage in discussion of Naming conventions (provinces). I will put Iudea on my watchlist so you also can reply here. best regards Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that writing Iudaea (Roman province) or Africa (Roman province) is more comfortable and carries the same information than writing Africa Province, Roman empire or similar. You refer to Naming conventions (provinces); I read something in that page, and I must note that there is a difference between Iudaea province and, for example, Province of Rome (the Italian one): the name of the province of Rome is "Provincia di Roma", while the name of the Judean province in the Roman Empire was "Iudaea". I propose to change the name of the Roman provinces, where it is ambiguous, with sometingh like "X (Roman province)"--Panairjdde 16:53, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The Naming convention page is just under developement. More important then looking at the italian provinces would be to regard naming scheme of other historical provinces. Another issue, should it be "Iudea (province of the Roman Empire)" or "Iudea (Roman province)". The latter obviously is much shorter. I think Africa (Roman province) does carry a little bit less information as Africa Province, Roman Empire as the latter directly mentions the encompassing entity. That's the logic of the scheme, if there are two things X add the entity type e.g. X District, X Province, X County. If there are two "X Province" add an encompassing entity. --- Ups, I found none of the province seem to need the encompassing entity. I will go move them all from "X Province, Roman Empire" to "X Province", because now it gives the impression there would be more "X Province". Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:32, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * done. can you live with this solution for a while? I still did not reply to your point that the name was "Iudea" and not "provincae di Iudea". Well, that's right. A lot of things are out there that are called "wilaya X" or "X oblast". These entities have the province term inside them. So use of "X Province" / "X province" is fine. In articles about the Roman Empire I saw several times usage of the wording "X province". If it is ok in text maybe it can be ok in title? I am not sure about this text->title logic. I will address this all in the naming convention. Hopefully we find a good solution for all the maybe 2000 provinces and the million of other subdivisions. If done I post a comment on Talk:Roman province. maybe you can wait with move for let's say 30 days? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:08, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * "Iudea Province" is not good English. It needs to be something different.
 * It's perfectly good English.
 * Also, why "Iudea"? The Romans themselves Latinised the Greek "Ioudaia" into "Judaea" (which would be fine) with an alternative spelling "Iudaea".  Classical historians tend to use "Judaea": why don't we here?
 * The J wasn't invented till the middle ages. It was used to distinquish consonantal i (y) from i the vowel. But it didn't exist prior to the middle ages. IUDAEA is the original spelling, Judaea and Judea are alternates. Also, Iudaea draws a distinction from earlier Judah and later Syria-Palestine.
 * And would it not make more sense to the reader to have a single article for the province from the Roman conquest to the Arab conquest, instead of dividing it into two, this one and Syria Palaestina?

Mark O'Sullivan 10:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No, due to the length limit, it's better to divide. There are significant differences between Iudea and Syria-Palestine.

Why did Hadrian call it Aelia Capitolina?
The book on my lap is Historians History of the World (1926) is not the most writes "The founding of the new colony of Aelia Capitolina on the ruins of Jerusalem ... brought about a terrible Jewish revolt..." If it was the cause of the revolt it can't have been done as a punishment - or am I missing something. (The banning of Jews from the new city would have been a response to the revolt.) I'll check tomorrow for something more up to date but please expand as to why you think the name was hit upon as a result of the revolt rather than how it was planned before hand.Dejvid 22:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It seems your question is closer related to Aelia Capitolina than this article. In short, in circa 130 CE Hadrian decided to establish a pagan temple on the ruins of the Jewish Temple, rebuild the holiest Jewish city as a pagan polis, then he ploughed up the Temple and prohibited brit milah. These religious offenses provoked Bar Kokhba's revolt. After quashing it, he followed up with his plans and much more.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;ну? 00:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

"This was one of the few governed by a knight of the equestrian order, not a former consul or praetor of senatorial rank, because its revenue was of little importance to the Roman treasury and the region was pacified."

This is incorrect, Iudaea was under direct rule by Rome because it was a critical connection to the bread basket of Egypt and against Parthia.

And obviously it wasn't pacified till later.


 * Hang on here. Until Hadrian's reorganization, Judaea was not a province in its own right, but a sub-province or prefecture of Syria.  Pilate etc. didn't report directly to Rome, but to Antioch. That's why Judaea's prefects (later procurators) were equestrians- they weren't gubernators at all, but 'district administrators.'


 * As for being pacified- well, up until the First Revolt there wasn't even a legion stationed in Judaea, just a vexillation (prob a reinforced cohort) at Caesarea, plus a small garrison at the Antonia and perhaps a few other large towns. Solicitr (talk) 04:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 23:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Iudaea Province → — Because "Iudaea Province" sounds utterly unnatural and because Iudaea currently redirects here anyway. Else, Iudaea (Roman province), as others in the same category. 189.136.163.28 (talk) 01:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If there's a Wikipedia convention that has developed for titles of articles on Roman provinces, it may streamline things to follow the flow.--Wetman (talk) 06:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But it will also streamline things to spell the provincial name as Latin is normailly spelt in English: Judaea (Roman province), like Julius Caesar. The Latin Wikipedia is two doors down on the right. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Pmanderson, I find the use of I instead of J to be idiosyncratic, normal people write "Julius Caesar", "Jupiter" etc not "Iulius Caesar", "Iupiter", similarly normal people spell it "Judaea" and not "Iudaea". Kuratowski&#39;s Ghost (talk) 22:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Pmanderson and Kuratowski. If we are going to use the most common English name we should use Judaea. Flamarande (talk) 09:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Support, it is a redirect to the same page. I see no fault here. Urgenine (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Modern historians use the term Iudaea, not Judaea, to distinguish between Roman Iudaea province and the territory of Judea proper
H.H. Ben-Sasson, A History of the Jewish People, Harvard University Press, 1976, ISBN 0674397312, 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)

Judaea?
Why does this article use the spelling Judaea for the Roman province? That's not the spelling used by most modern historians. Instead, Iudaea is used, as distinct from Judea proper. Iudaea was not Judea, instead it was an amalgamation of Judea, Samaria, and Idumea. Judaea is ambiguous, it could stand for Judea proper or the Roman Iudaea province.

H.H. Ben-Sasson, A History of the Jewish People, Harvard University Press, 1976, ISBN 0-674-39731-2, page 246: "When Archelaus was deposed from the ethnarchy in AD 6, Judea proper, Samaria and Idumea were converted into a Roman province under the name Iudaea."

75.15.193.145 (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You only mention a single book, written in 1976, to "prove" your point. That's poor evidence.


 * Adrian Goldsworthy, in his book 'the complete Roman Army', written in 2003, only uses 'Judaea'. He also uses 'Judaea' in 'In the name of Rome' written in 2003. 'The enemies of Rome' written in 2004 by Philip Matyszak uses 'Judaea'. 'The twelve Caesars', reprinted in 2000, uses 'Judaea'. Need I go on? Flamarande (talk) 10:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Judaea may be a common spelling, but modern historians use the spelling Iudaea to avoid confusion with Judea. 36,000 Google books results for "Iudaea". 75.14.217.143 (talk) 17:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL, your 36,000 (actualy 35,800) are a poor second to 453,000 results for Judaea (see here). Flamarande (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The most common name is what's important. The confusion is avoided by the disambiguator (Roman province). -- Ja Ga  talk 18:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Is Judaea the most common spelling for the Roman province? 75.14.217.143 (talk) 18:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Flamarande (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * For example, the Persian province is called Yehud Medinata, not Judaea (Persian province). The biblical kingdom is called Kingdom of Judah, not Judaea (Biblical kingdom). Hasmonean kingdom, not Judaea (Hasmonean). Syria Palaestina, not Judaea (Roman province after 135). 75.14.217.143 (talk) 18:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Even if wikipedia keeps the special wikipedia construction "Judaea (Roman province)", you still need to explain the use of "Iudaea" in technical references. Or do as User:JaGa suggests and censor those references from wikipedia. Hey, if it's not in wikipedia, it doesn't exist, right? 75.14.217.143 (talk) 21:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

An attempted voice of calmness
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Era: Revert date format to BC/AD
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

There has been another undiscussed date change, by Kakorot. I am reverting these edits, as per WP:ERA, until the matter can be put to discussion. Ibadibam (talk) 06:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * You said "This use of BCE/CE is absurd in all cases" -- that alone isn't religious bias, but in combination with "the truth is important and should be preserved," it is religious bias. The only truth contained in the use of BC/AD is that Jesus is Christ (Before Christ) and Lord (Anno Domini).  Even if I agree with that truth, that does not make it necessary to plaster it over dates that relate to matters besides Christianity. You have opened the discussion and it does not side with you.  Just opening the discussion is not a magic ritual that binds everyone else to agree with you and change all the dates to BC/AD.  You have made no further points beyond arguing for the preservation of some truth (by which you can only mean "Christ is Lord," unless you are just blathering uselessly and emptily about the word "truth" because you don't have a logical argument to support your desires).  Ian.thomson (talk) 04:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

How about finally getting rid of modern political dogma?
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)


 * 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)

Who ruled Jerusalem?
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)


 * 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)

This entire article is a fraudulent fabrication
This entire article is a fraudulent fabrication of Israeli nationalist propaganda. What the article is calling the Roman Province of Judaea was the Roman Province of Palestine. The Roman puppet state of the Kingdom of Judaea was a small and varying territory within Roman Palestine. The map "Judaea Province in the First Century" is part of the fabrication, with a large, borderless "Judaea" label floating in the middle of Roman Palestine. This is why we have the word "Palestine". This is why it was the British Mandate in Palestine. It is shocking that this is up on Wikipedia. Though we note the famous Palestinian Talmud has also been renamed the "Jerusalem Talmud" in Wikipedia (despite being written in the Galilee region of Roman Palestine and not in Jerusalem.) -- 08:57, 27 December 2012‎ 98.180.31.239


 * Whatever, dude -- it was known as Judaea until about 135 A.D., when Judaea was renamed Palaestina by the emperor Hadrian for the specific purpose of spiting the Jews in the aftermath of the Second Jewish revolt.  Before 135 A.D., the word Palaestina most often meant "Philistia" (i.e. the southern coastal plain or extended Gaza strip area).  You need to learn some real history... AnonMoos (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I mean, if you look at Timeline of the name Palestine you'll see that there's evidence of various forms of "Palestine" being used to refer to the entire Levantine coastal region as early as 450 BCE. So it's not that the above comment is entirely without factual merit. The question is whether the Roman province as a political entity was ever called "Palestina" before it was called "Iudaea". Considering that Hasmonean Judah was the predecessor state, it makes sense that the province would have been called "Iudaea" from the beginning. But that doesn't mean that "Palestina" was an invention of the Romans. Ibadibam (talk) 01:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * If you look at Talk:Timeline of the name Palestine, I've been raising issues with some of the timeline. Herodotus is almost useless, since he appears to have gotten his information from coastal traders, and knew almost nothing about inland areas in that part of the world (he was certainly dismally ignorant about Jews).  Before 135 A.D., those who knew most about the area tended to use Palaistinē mainly to refer to "Philistia" (i.e. the southern coastal plain).  Pausanias certainly uses the word that way.  In any case, the name of the early Roman province was Judaea (or IVDAEA in the spelling of the time)... AnonMoos (talk) 04:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * P.S. The Romans didn't "invent" the term Palestine as such, but there was a certain element of arbitrariness in the emperor Hadrian seizing upon what until then had been a somewhat secondary (arguably loose and sloppy) meaning of Palaistine/Palaestina, and elevating it by imperial decree to be official Roman government administrative terminology.  Hadrian could have just as easily renamed the province of Judaea after Antinous, in which case we would be speaking of "Antinoia" today... AnonMoos (talk) 09:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * That makes sense. Herodotus and other Greeks would have had contact with Sea Peoples prior to any contact with the Hebrews in the interior, so they would have used a name for the region taught them by that population. Because of that misconception, the Greeks and Romans probably used the name "Palestine" quite frequently to refer to that region, and from there it's probably reasonable to assume that many Romans would have considered Judea a province within a broader, unofficial region they called "Palestine". The significance to the Roman people of the renaming of the province from "Judea" to "Palestine" is lost to us today. Although there are a number of plausible theories that it was politically motivated, we can't put ourselves in a second-century perspective with full certainty.


 * This reminds me of a number of other similar situations. Siberia was originally a khanate north of present-day Kazakhstan, but the Russians used this name to apply to regions to the east as they conquered them. California was originally the point at the southern end of the Baja California peninsula, but eventually came to refer to a vast region of western North America, in the minds of the Spaniards. No place owns a name, nor does a name own a place. A placename signifies no earthly boundaries, but boundaries in the mind of the one who uses it. So Palestine surely meant different things to different people, even then. I'd say it's neither true that the existence of a Roman province named Judea was a "fraudulent fabrication", as per the anon poster above, nor that the renaming of it was, from the Roman point of view, entirely arbitrary, as you suggest. Ibadibam (talk) 03:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

There is lots of evidence, but the Pilate Stone may be the most significant: "[...PO]NTIUS PILATUS [...PRAEF]ECTUS IUDA[EA]E". 75.0.0.42 (talk) 07:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Basic information missing
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)

Ratings surprising
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Previously unknown governor Gargilius Antiquus reported by Haaretz
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)


 * See Quintus Coredius Gallus Gargilius Antiquus. -- llywrch (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

A problem with the list of administrators of Judea
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:

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)
 * 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)

THe list of governers does not represent any concrete historical evidence nor reality
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)

Birth and Crucifixion of Jesus
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) Colliric (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * 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)

"the most famous historical events to have happened in this province" That would be the First Jewish–Roman War (66-73), including the Siege of Jerusalem (70 CE). Jesus is not that important in comparison. Dimadick (talk) 11:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)

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

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

Requested move 23 July 2021

 * 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)

Judea (Roman province) → Judaea (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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support, although I do not think that the use of historical orthography/spelling is such an important issue in many cases, it seems like it would be helpful in this case to differentiate this specific use of the place name, as you describe above. Dan Carkner (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 11 April 2023

 * 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) – Material  Works   (contribs)  00:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Judaea (Roman province) → Roman Judaea – 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)
 * Comment. Note that usage is a little mixed, but the majority of Roman provinces are actually disambiguated by adding "Roman province". See Category:Ancient Roman provinces by region and its subcats. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's certainly mixed. There's Roman Syria as an example of what this would be consistent with, in addition to the likes of Arabia Petraea, Syria Palaestina (so Category:Roman provinces in the Levant is exactly 50:50 parentheses/no parentheses). Outside of the Levant, there's also Roman Egypt alongside a more general plethora of provinces with no parentheses, such as Bithynia and Pontus and Crete and Cyrenaica, alongside obvious Latin names that need little disambiguation, such as Mauretania Caesariensis, Byzacena, Thebaid, Arcadia Aegypti, Mauretania Tingitana and Hispania. Overall, doesn't look like a huge pattern to be followed. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It occurs to me that the Latin base name of "Judaea" could also simply be used alone, since this particular spelling, with the 'aea' at the end is a distinctly Latin and therefore pretty clearly Roman name, as with Arabia Petraea. This title is currently a redirect to Judea, but maybe the base name of this article shouldn't be allowed to be hogged by a redirect elsewhere. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sources using "Judaea" to refer to the Roman province are 'legion', tee hee hee. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The spelling "Judaea" is used for both (I certainly would), so there's no good disambiguation there. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, well on this note I would make a few points. So the problem starts with the page Judea actually being the page for the geographical region of "Judah" (Hebrew: Yehudaḥ), which is simply being hosted at "Judea" for the sake of disambiguation from the likes of Judah (son of Jacob). Judea is then the default natural disambiguation as the next most popular English language alt name based on the bastardized Greek and/or Latin for Judah, and in scholarly usage, a search for the term generally takes you to articles not about the Roman period - here we've got hits about Hellenization and the second temple period etc. Then we come onto "Judaea", which is much more strongly associated with the Roman period and often used more specifically the province (in English). A scholarly search for Judaea gives you Roman period papers, and if you, for the sake of argument, search for "Roman Judea" as a phrase, you get fairly fluffy stuff, whereas if you search for "Roman Judaea", you get highly specific stuff with "Roman Judaea" in the title, not just in the body. On our Wikipedia page for Judea, "Judaea" is mentioned as an alt name, but after that is only invoked when making specific reference to the Roman province. Likewise, on Judaea (Roman province), the term "Judea" is only invoked when referring to the specific area of Judea, a.k.a. the region of Judah, not the whole province. So these two terms are already being disambiguated on Wikipedia from a practical standpoint, and, as the sourcing shows, "Judaea" is very Roman leaning in its general usage. So, as it stands, "Judaea" is already disambiguated from "Judea" on a practical level on-wiki, while, from a page title perspective, the base name is being held hostage as a redirect to "Judea" despite only being the third most preferable name for the region in the sense used on Judea after "Judah" and "Judea". Iskandar323 (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We also have Africa (Roman province), Numidia (Roman province), Cilicia (Roman province), Asia (Roman province), Galatia (Roman province), Cappadocia (Roman province), Assyria (Roman province), Mesopotamia (Roman province), Epirus (Roman province), Dalmatia (Roman province), Illyricum (Roman province), Macedonia (Roman province), Germania (Roman province). I think this pattern has definitely been preferred. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Building on the above, all of the above (Roman province)-disambiguated page titles disambiguate from a name otherwise occupied by another term; none disambiguate from redirects, whereas in the case of "Judaea", we have a base name that is actually not being used directly, but only as a redirect for another page where it is a secondary alt name. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Another in a very recent series of largely pointless move requests supposedly justified on technical grounds.  Consistency with similar articles is not the primary determiner of a title's appropriateness; helping readers find a recognizable title is the first consideration.  As the history of this page above shows, "Judaea" alone was thought to be susceptible to confusion with "Judea" as a distinguishable topic.  Most of the articles about Roman provinces that don't use parenthetical disambiguation either have names that cannot be confused with modern geopolitical units (Noricum, Upper Moesia, Gallia Lugdunensis), or have the names they do because the name of the place today is the same used by Historians to discuss it in Roman times (Roman Britain, Roman Syria, Roman Egypt).  And most of these names were the product of substantial debate over the years.  The present title of this article has been relatively stable for several years, and does not need to be the subject of another weeks-long debate that will almost certainly not generate any consensus to move.  This is a solution in search of a problem.  P Aculeius (talk) 11:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate it if you could AGF. "Consistency with similar articles" was never the main point here, which is simply WP:NCDAB, given the completely viable, naturally disambiguated title option. It was Necrothesp that first brought up consistency with other titles. The discussion of "Judaea" alone was just an aside. But to your point about parenthetically disambiguated Roman provinces, for many that is the only option. "Roman Assyria", for instance, doesn't really work; it is all but dead in the water as a term in scholarship. The same is not true for "Roman Judaea/Judea", which has a prolific history of usage in scholarship. This is hardly left-field stuff. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You have misread my comments. I am not arguing against parenthetical disambiguation; I think the present title of this article is fine as it is, and do not see a compelling reason to change it.  I mentioned "Roman Syria", not "Roman Assyria", which may exist in the scholarly literature, but was not germane to my point (and I note that in the argument here about "Palestine", it looks as though nobody mentioned the fact that the post-revolt designation was "Syria Palaestina", Syria of the Philistines).  Either format may be appropriate for some articles, but the existence of article titles using different formats is not a strong argument for moving individual articles.  Extrapolating rules from subtleties of the current titles of many articles is simply not productive.
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Support - natural disambiguation is better, it's consistent, etc. Red   Slash  00:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It isn't consistent. That's the whole issue. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's consistent with some things, not with others. It sits naturally alongside Roman Syria. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That's my point. There is no consistency, so to say "rename for consistency" is inaccurate. If we're taking the majority view, then those named "Roman Foo" should actually be the ones that are renamed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What is lost in consistency is more than gained in naturalness and concision. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's about the Roman province called Judaea. It's not about Romans who were in a part of the world called Judea. There were lots of definitions of Judah/Jujea/Judaea/Iudimea over the ages. None of them coincided with the borders of the Roman province. Do not conflate a precise entity (in time and in geography) with a clutch of imprecise entities (in time and in geography). Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm lost here. The name doesn't change the topic and "Roman Judaea" would still be about the province ... ? And what are Jujea and Iudimea? Are they even names? The page is already Judaea; the Q here is just Rome before of after. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. My main reason for opposing the name change is because Judea is a word in antiquity used to describe the country so-called after the return of the Babylonian exiles, including, but not limited to the Persian period over Judea, frequently mentioned as such in Achaemenid documents from that period, as well as the name of the country so-called during the Macedonian rule over the country, besides the name used for the country during the Roman era. Since this article treats specifically on historical matters related to the Roman era, the name of the article should not be changed, since that would imply that the name "Judea" is only associated with Roman hegemony, and nothing more, which, obviously, is wrong. By the way, in the Aramaic Scroll of Antiochus, the country "Judea" is called "Yehud" .Davidbena (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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) Davidbena (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Being a Roman province under Roman rule is belonging to the Roman empire, no? Iskandar323 (talk) 06:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * It does that no more than saying "blue cheese" implies cheese is only blue. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose. "Roman Judaea" seems a bit too general, and would (in my expectation) include the period when Judaea was a Roman client state, rather than a province. Which is clearly not the case here.  A distinct article for the Roman province of Judaea is needed, and this is it. The proposal would make it more ambiguous. Walrasiad (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Pontius Pilate
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)


 * 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)

Antisemitism, Blood Libels, Tropes
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Capital
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)


 * Uh nevermind, I just realized it does and I have seen the source.Barjimoa (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Division into three Provinces
I do not have the expertise to correct the problems here, but they are multiple.

I am sure the division into provinces is broadly correct as is the date 135. But then this is contradicted by the claim that Diocletian did it 150 years later. Worse is to follow because clicking on the links takes us to a starting point "in the late 4th Century" well over 100 years later still.

This is a shambles and if the information to fill in these yawning gaps then at least the grammar should be altered to make the various pages cohere. Freuchie (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)