![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
Discussions:
|
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)
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 Wikipedia: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)
Mark O'Sullivan 10:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
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)
"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.
Could someone please wikify that name? Thanks. ← Humus sapiens ←ну? 01:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 23:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Iudaea Province → Iudaea — 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
*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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
Historical topic, years are SIGNIFICANT. But not wuith CE, rather AD. Kapeter77 ( talk) 16:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Does anyone object to the use of shortened footnotes in this article? ImTheIP ( talk) 02:43, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
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 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 [1]. Iskandar323 ( talk) 10:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
@ Favonian and Nihil.Verum.Es: 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 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)
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)
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)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
Discussions:
|
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)
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 Wikipedia: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)
Mark O'Sullivan 10:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
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)
"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.
Could someone please wikify that name? Thanks. ← Humus sapiens ←ну? 01:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 23:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Iudaea Province → Iudaea — 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
*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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
Historical topic, years are SIGNIFICANT. But not wuith CE, rather AD. Kapeter77 ( talk) 16:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Does anyone object to the use of shortened footnotes in this article? ImTheIP ( talk) 02:43, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
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 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 [1]. Iskandar323 ( talk) 10:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
@ Favonian and Nihil.Verum.Es: 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 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)
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)
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)