Talk:Timeline of the name Palestine

Typo needs fixing

Replace "Land of Phylistieim (Γη των Φυλιστιειμ)" with "Land of the Phylistieim (Γη των Φυλιστιειμ)". The text in question comes from a quoted reference, and in the text of the longer quote, the definite article "the" appears before "Phylistieim". Evidently a typo -- as will also be evident to those who know Greek.

Done. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Caption suggestion

Under Historical references > Classical antiquity, the Herodotus map caption reads:

Palestine c.450 BCE according to Herodotus (1897 reconstruction)

I recommend instead:

1897 map of the world as understood by Greek historian Herodotus ca. 450 BCE. “Palæstina” is shown.

— ℜob C. alias ALAROB 16:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Jacobson's portmanteau

Re edits: 1, 2, 3.

@Mistamystery, will you help me find that further audience of Jacobson (1999) commentary? In Rainey (2001) that is cited next to it, we read only: "It remains to note a recent suggestion (Jacobson 1999) that the Greeks associated Παλαιστίνη with παλαιστής "wrestler" in meaning as well as in spell- ing. The kind of spelling convention mentioned by Noth (1939: 133) is acceptable, but the idea (Jacob- son 1999: 68-69) that the association was made be- cause the Greeks knew that Jacob had wrestled with the Angel of the Lord (Gen 32:24-28) requires un- warranted credulity. And according to Josephus, Philistia is just where we know it from biblical and Assyrian texts of the Iron Age...." trespassers william (talk) 17:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Per google scholar, the Jacobson paper has been cited at least 30 times since 1999 by many well established voices across a number Middle Eastern studies disciplines, including Joan Taylor, Nur Masalha, Kevin Burrell, Avraham Faust, Hans Leander, Robyn LeBlanc, and others.

Reviewing the bunch, the paper has been relied upon heavily for its authoritative awareness of Herodotus and the history of the use of the term Palestine, and in almost 25 years, there has yet to be a single critique of Jacobson's work here (and this prominently includes Nur Masalha, who has cited it on more than one occasion).

Jacobson is a widely regarded scholar of classical archaeology and the work here (first by Noth and carried forth by Jacobson) is extensive and convincing imho. While obviously we don't have many receipts from the late Iron Age, the various assessments are thoroughly investigated and laid out, and it doesn't appear that the critical community (while well aware of the work) has sought to critique or debunk it at all.

Knowing the western academic obsession with Josephus for the past two millennia, it's powerful to learn that he essentially was responsible for the popular convergence of what were two etymologically distinct terms. Rich stuff. Mistamystery (talk) 03:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

And your recent edit adjustment is fine by me.

Also, let us forget the word "portmanteau" ever graced our shores. Mistamystery (talk) 03:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

On a second thought (and lookup), portmanteau does fit both theories, if we are clear that the idea is that the Greek inserted Palaistes intentionally. But the Jacobian theory still lacks a theophoric component to the name, which would make it much more convincing.

trespassers william (talk) 11:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I have nothing against the first part of the paper, it is quite useful. I am not sure what you mean by convergence. Noth's Aramaic ethnonym (*pelištāˊīn = "Philister") + the noun palaistês =Palaistī́nē ? Yes very convincing. And it's good to be able to cite Jacobson on the tendency for punning. The "Jacobian" theory, the *pelištāˊīn (presumably)+Yisrael > *pelištāˊīn + palaistês = Palaistī́nē ? Not at all convincing, or substantiated, or influential.

trespassers william (talk) 11:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

There is strong argumentum ex silentio here. The academic community would not be citing this paper uncritically with such consistency if anyone had any problems with the core thesis presented. I actually just think - given the preponderance of supporting details - short of its potential political considerations, academics just haven’t found this a revolutionary observation (especially given that its well established that the “Syrians of Palestine” that Greek writers were abundantly referring to were Israelites). At minimum, Masahla would have lit garbage cans on fire if he had a problem here. Instead, he’s just using Jacobson as a reliable citation.

The lack of presence of a theophoric element is addressed and makes sense given the time period and general Greek naming conventions.

Also, I think there’s a slight misunderstanding of this this “Noth-Jacobian” theory as it’s laid out here. It’s not simply that *pelištāˊīn = Palaistī́nē. It’s that the former was first encountered solely in reference to the southern coastal plain (Philistia) and then was used as a lexical anchor for the further naming of the general region as Greek writers became more familiar with the place and its people. What’s powerful in the argument is that in the hunt to convey the literal meaning of foreign place names (which apparently was a Greek thing), no etymological meaning for Philistia was found then, as is still the case today.

On those grounds - best I understand, there is no portmanteau present, which would be if the two terms were glossed into something like peliš-tī́nē. That’s what that term means - to bridge two halves, and that has not happened here.

I’m not king linguist so am using “convergence” (as in: two terms overlaying into one) for the time being to describe what is presumed to have happened here. I’m sure there’s a more proper, in-field technical term and I’ll hunt it down. Mistamystery (talk) 14:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

The sentiments of scholars are interesting but you can't cite silences as secondary sources... Such argument can work both ways - why haven't writers of the "other party" twisted that knife at any time to mess with modern national sympathies to the Philistines?

At first I heard this silence as an awkward one, that only Rainey bothered to b break. But then I checked through about 3 pages of citations in Google scholar, and the results are, that virtually no author discusses Jacobson per se. The great majority cite him briefly as to the geographical extension of "Palestine" or "Syria Palestine", either specifically in Herodotus or in the period generally. None mention etymological considerations. One or two cite him for context next to a different view. The only one who goes into any detail of Jacobson's arguments is Faust, and then only contra the conviction that Philistines were uncircumcised at all times.

But then, back to humbly assessing his theory, the silence goes deeper, to where you expect to find the evidence. If the association of the widely used, internationally flavoured, name with Jacob was anywhere within grasp of Josephus or Philo, they remain silent about it. The latter even wrote specificially on that biblical episode, in what sounds like a very relevant work, but Jacobson is only able to use it to this anaemic effect: "The central event of a wrestling contest by the progenitor of this Levantine people against a divine adversary is likely to have made a deep impression on them. For the hellenized Philo of Alexandria, the change of name from Jacob to Israel was the most significant incident in Jacob's career and it is associated with his wrestling victory (Philo, On the Migration of Abraham 200-201; On the Change of Names 81; see also Earp in Philo, Vol. 10 1962".

Jacobson is able to cite about two hellenizing parallel for (roughly) the biblical Jews, that is even shared with non Jewish authors btw, and then neither is based on the name Israel as a patriarch, but on "Solmytes". And yet this is not a story about wrestling... (Other than that, iirc, foreign writers would turn most often to Moses, the law giver, as father of the nation) The Septuagint, which scintillates between literal and loose translation apparently never pick up on the possibilities, although Israel is not an infrequent word in the bible. A look at Stern Greek & Roman Authors" shows no reference to genesis 32, even though his scope extends to authors that go details on some biblical stories.

Contra Jacobson, regarding the Greek audience at pelaides.org I found several other toponyms with initial "Theo". Personal names with this component are plentiful and well known, and why shouldn't they count? The Greeks did not shy away from interpreting El (deity), and he found various parallels when the Ugaritic mythology was transmitted to them, and preserved over many centuries. (As an aside, now it seems to me pretty clear tha the name came through contact with Phoenician informants rather than Jewish one: *pelištāˊīn being in the plural, in a semitic form, retention of an old name that doesn't correspond to realities of the time, using a large scale perspective that draws a rough line from a point on the coast, not using Iudeaios to delimit it, not having much detail on their own mythology and identity...) El of the bible, on the other hand, was at the time regarded as an appellation and excited the Septuagint to translate it merely as "theos", not as a sacred name (like YHWH). And then you have all the other lovely biblical and other names that were preserved in identifiable form through Greek.

There are strange assumptions behind what you call powerful in the argument: a. that if they sometimes translated names, they were committed to it, and do it literally. And b. that if they modified a local name to a with a Greek word, they had to have a story go with it. And thus, that whenever they inserted a Greek word to modify a direct transliteration, it has to be a reliable translation. They can't do one instead of the other. I.e. that when they called a foreign land Fighterland, it had to be about that fighter. Where is the fun in that?

trespassers william (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not a portmanteau, and your revision there was wholly unsupported. (it never even existed in any of the original sources)

Let's start with that. Will you revert to an earlier edit (or hunt down the appropriate term) so we may proceed from there? Mistamystery (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

A portmanteau can be a little flexible with the order of components, specifically there is an overlapping overlapping type. Wp has examples:

• adorable + dork → adorkable
• Smoke + fog → smog

Can you clarify what never existed where?

trespassers william (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Update: Philo is an interesting case. He definitely does portray Jacob as a gymnast and a wrestler, an archetypal Man of Practice, Practicing Soul. But he consistently translates his name "Israel" as the one who sees God. (Presumably, YeshurEl?). On the change of names: 81-84; On dreams: I, 129; 171; II, 173. In Loeb classical library, Philo, vol 5, orig 1934.

trespassers william (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the greek? Mistamystery (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The Loeb edition has it. I used Libgen.

trespassers william (talk) 09:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Add entry

Perhaps add this map (date: 1729). According to Kurşun 2020, p. 93, FN 39, this is "the first appearance of the name Palestine in Ottoman maps." The heartland of Palestine is called Eyalet Sham, the heartland of Egypt Amlak Miṣr, and on the border of the heartland of Palestine and the Negev stands ارض فلسطين (Arḍ Filasṭin, "Land of Palestine"). DaWalda (talk) 05:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Katip Çelebi 1656 Mediterranean Sea map from Asfar il-bihar

Thank you @DaWalda:. I have found a better (color) version and uploaded the maps to Commons:Category:Asfār al-Bihār - here is the one you linked to. The author of that paper (Kurşun) is oversimplifying - Çelebi's Cihânnümâ was written between 1648–1657, whereas Asfār al-Bihār was apparently published in 1656. The map of the Arabian peninsula which Kurşun mentions was published in the Cihânnümâ, not the Asfār al-Bihār. Note in this article the relevant Çelebi entries 1648–57, c. 1649, and the image of the Arabian Peninsula map. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Cool. Nice work :)
FYI: I wanted to check whether the map was already included in Çelebi's manuscript or was only created in the print edition that Kurşun refers to. But this cannot be verified; apparently, there are only two manuscripts: The first one (SOAS, MS 139868) is undated and not yet accessible, while the second one (Bodleian, MS. Sale 67) has not yet been digitized and is from 1726; thus, the evidence could only be dated back three years anyway. DaWalda (talk) 08:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@DaWalda: good news - the website you linked to shows only the manuscripts held in the UK. I would expect that more manuscripts are available at the Turkish Directorate of State Archives. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

You are right again. Hagen has a list of manuscripts. I have looked at some of them. The map is probably not from Çelebi , but I cannot be sure yet. There are two major editions of the work (A + B), and of both, there exist manuscripts without (1) and with (2) maps. Here are four exemplary links: A1, A2, B1, B2. In none of the manuscripts I have found so far (most manuscripts are Topkapi manuscripts, thus not accessible online) is there a corresponding map. It is further complicated by the fact that the maps vary according to the date of copying, as the maps were adapted to the current political conditions (see Hagen's notes on manuscript G). Maybe there are manuscripts in which our map can also be found; I have not found them so far. My suggestion: Leave it as it is for now; to falsify this, archival studies in Turkey would need to be conducted. DaWalda (talk) 11:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 October 2024

I want to add this text in the time liner from year 1900. Source is part 2 of the novel Jerusalem by Selma Lagerlöf, published in Stockholm 1902.

1899-1900 the future Nobel laureate Selma Lagerlöf makes a longer trip in Western Asia including Palestine and writes the books Jerusalemwhere she describes a real event, how it went for a group of Swedish farmers who had sold their farms to emigrate from Sweden to settle in what they believed to be the holy land of Palestine. In part 2 she writes about how the group arrives to Jaffa in Palestine and a very poor Jerusalem where Muslims own most of the property in competition with various Christian congregations and a Jewish minority; the Jews are distinguished by their dream of taking power. Leif Stenberg (talk) 08:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done While this is interesting, it would not be a good addition to the page. There are literally thousands of European usages of the name "Palestine" in that time frame and we need a better reason for adding particular examples. Incidentally, Jerusalem had a Jewish majority in 1899–1900. Zero^talk 11:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)