Jump to content

Talk:Timeline of the name Palestine/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

editorializing

@Onceinawhile: The usage of "only" here is editorializing. "There is cirsumstantial evidence of X" and "there is only circumstantial evidence of X" are not the same thing. The source doesn't use "only" here and neither should we. We are explicitly not allowed to "produce implications that are not supported by the sources". See WP:EDITORIAL No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree we should follow what the source say--Shrike (talk) 18:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
We are following what the source says.
The source says:
  • ”While it is true that there is no evidence as to precisely who changed the name of Judaea to Palestine and precisely when this was done, circumstantial evidence would seem to point to Hadrian himself”
We write:
  • ”There is only circumstantial evidence linking Hadrian with the name change and the precise date is not certain.”
The alternative is to write:
  • ”There is no evidence as to who was responsible for the name change, but circumstantial evidence links Hadrian to it, and the precise date is not certain.”
It is much less elegant, despite having exactly the same meaning.
Onceinawhile (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I like the second, more detailed version better. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Pomponius Mela

Hello.

I fall in this talk page without reading anything and maybe I come with "stupid" comments. I add that I have not read any single 2nd source on the topic.

I just point out that if Pomponius Mela (just a few years before Bar Kochba revolt) draw this map: File:Karte Pomponius Mela.jpg where both Judea and Palaestina are mentioned together simultaneously, then I would conclude (in pure WP:OR) that at the time :

  • Palestine refers to the Kingdom/area of the Philistins [I think this idea is controversed and even refuted by scholars (?)] ;
  • After Bar Kochbah, Hadrien wiped Judea and decided to merge both regions using only one of the name.

If not, how to explain this ?

And this also fits Josephus's sentence that we discuss here: Talk:Palestine (region)#Josephus where both words are used in the same sentence even if the translation can be discussed...

Nb: I really hope not unearthing a topic which has been solved for years...

Pluto2012 (talk) 05:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Pluto2012: (also pinging @Davidbena:), some initial thoughts from me on the above:
  • The Pomponius Mela map is a modern creation. They based it on the quote shown in this article (see 43AD), which is not entirely clear, so the map may or may not show what Pomponius Mela had in mind.
  • The Palestine = Philistia topic is complex. They are cognates, but which came first is unclear. As Timeline_of_the_name_"Palestine"#Biblical_references shows, usage in the 5 books of the Torah do not define the term, and they could well be referring to the whole country. The Judges period clearly uses the smaller coastal definition, but they had previously defeated them and pushed them into a small corner. Herodotus and Aristotle clearly use the wider usage. So whether wider or narrower represents the "original" usage is unclear.
  • The Hadrian story is a modern invention with no proof. See the references in 135AD in this article.
Onceinawhile (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
When you complied this page you omitted many mainstream views. I guess that is fine since you did cited those authors work which anyone can read.Jonney2000 (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for tagging me. I think that what lends to confusion in this arcane topic is that the Romans (Byzantines), in the 4th and 5th centuries of our Common era, were already giving the name "Palestina" to the entire country of Israel (Galilee and Judea included), just as we see in this reproduction of the Tabula Peutingeriana map of the world (click here and scroll down to the lower right hand corner of the map to see "Palestina"). Earlier, in Jewish parlance of the 1st and 2nd centuries, Judea was the midland country, as attested by the Mishnah (Tractate Shebiit 9:2) and by Josephus (Wars of the Jews, 3.51), while Samaria was a little further north of that, and Galilee a little further north of that, whereas "Palestina" was restricted to the coastal region of Judea, to places formerly inhabited by the 5 Philistine city-states (confederacy). Davidbena (talk) 03:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Your last sentence is incorrect. That area was called Paralia at the time. Even at the time of Samson et al, the term Philistine did not refer to just that corner - it referred to "non-Israelites of the Promised Land" (See Robert Drews). There is an analogy with the colloquial confusion between Britain/England, Netherlands/Holland and Persia/Iran.
On the other topic, see Timeline of the name "Judea". Onceinawhile (talk) 07:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
No, I'm very sorry, but you seem to be confusing the place names given by the Greeks (e.g. Paralia) for this region of our country and which name was not used by Hebrew/Aramaic speaking Jews. Jews at that time would have still called the coastal area by its appellation, "Palestina", just as we find it used by Josephus himself in his work, Antiquities 13.174 (13.5.10), and which area extended as far as Ashqelon, just as he reiterates there. In fact, the Midrash Rabba (Lamentations Rabba - Eikha Rabba 1:32) mentions one of four auxiliaries who fought against Israel alongside the Roman army in 68 CE, and which army unit was called "Filasṭīnī" (Heb. פלסטיני), meaning, "the Palestinian unit". The other three auxiliaries named there were the Arabians, the Alexandrians and the Mauretanians (i.e troops enlisted from the Roman provinces of North Africa). You see, the language employed by the indigenous peoples differed from that employed by the Greeks in their daily usage. Therefore, "Palestine" in the 1st-century CE ought to be viewed as a specific district in Judea, just as "Upper Idumaea" was a specific district in Judea, and referred to as such by Josephus in Antiq. 12.8.6, Wars 4.9.7, ibid. 4.9.6, Antiq. 12.9.4, ibid.. 13.9.1, Wars 1.2.5, Antiq. 13.9.1, Wars 1.2.5, ibid. 4.9.9, ibid. 4.8.1, et al.Davidbena (talk) 10:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi David, there are two major problems with this: (1) most Jews at that time spoke (and many wrote in) Greek, so it’s impossible to draw the distinction you just did; and (2) there are many sources which treat Judea as part of Palestine but none which treat Palestine as part of Judea, so your last claim cannot be right.
Separately, what did you think of the analogy to the modern confusion around terms like Holland, England and Persia? Onceinawhile (talk) 12:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Actually, only the intelligentsia spoke and wrote in Greek, such as Josephus, Agrippa II, Justus of Tiberias, Philo and the Alexandrian Jews. The vast majority did not speak Greek, but Aramaic and Hebrew, just as our writings from that period attest. Greek and Latin loanwords did, however, creep into the colloquial language spoken by Jews at that time. As for the confusion of words and terminologies, this is well-known to me. I see this all the time in Hebrew etymology. The meanings of the words "Judea" and "Palestine" have evolved over the years. Nothing surprises me here. It all depends on which period in history you are talking about.Davidbena (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Re: Josephus and Greek. "Josephus frequently uses the name Judaea. This name sometimes has a political significance in his writings, referring to Provincia Iudaea, created and named by the Roman administration. At other times Judaea signifies those areas of Palestine whose inhabitants are Jews, and it may also signify the area which was the biblical inheri tance of Judah. Yet it seems that Josephus also uses the term to signify "the land of the Jews," indicating the territorial area of the country which, according to Josephus' ideology, belongs to the Jewish state. This sometimes conforms with the biblical utopian vision en compassing all the territory allocated to the Jews-Eretz Israel-and sometimes refers only to a part. I shall use "Judaea" to refer to this last option, unless otherwise stated. "Palestine" will be used to signify the whole region connected with the land of Israel in Josephus' time, including the coastal region, although at that time the term was restricted to the southern part of the coastal region." (http://www.jstor.org/stable/1454789)
"When Herodotus in the fifth century B.C.E. mentions Palestine he refers only to the coastal area, so called because it had been inhabited by the Philistines... Moreover, writers on geography in the first century clearly differentiate Judaea from Palestine. Even vicious anti-Jewish writers, such as Apion, Chaeremon, and Seneca in the first century, generally do not use the term Palestine. Jewish writers, notably Philo and Josephus, with few exceptions refer to the land as Judaea, reserving the name Palestine for the coastal area occupied by the Philistines....Occurrences of the adjective Palestinian in such poets as Tibullus, Ovid, and Statius are due to metrical considerations; Palestinian as a noun does not occur in all antiquity.... Josephus also (Antiquities 1.136) refers to Palestine, but this, too, is in connection with the land of the Philistines. (http://www.jstor.org/stable/23508170)
I also noticed a reference to Herodotus in the article, but strangely, the text said the exact opposite of what Louis Feldman wrote, and didn't note the dispute. Similarly, the lead states that Josephus called the land of Israel Palestine, even when we have sources explicitly saying that's not true. Even with one going into every mention of Palestine by Josephus, and putting it into context. While I haven't read the entire article, I'm getting a strong sense of bias and misleading sourcing from what I've seen.Drsmoo (talk) 13:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, User:Drsmoo, for sharing with us this very important information, especially the articles that treat on this subject!Davidbena (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Care needs to be taken with Feldman. As Foster writes on p.105 (footnote):

Feldman worked hard to ram his thesis into his sources. He claimed that Pomponius Mela “clearly differentiates Judaea from Palestine,” since Pomponius Mela wrote: “here is situated Palestine [presumably only a minor part of Syria], where Syria touches the Arabs…” Louis H. Feldman, Studies in Hellenistic Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 560. Feldman seems to force his thesis onto the evidence with Philo as well. “The one passage that is difficult to explain is the one (Quod Omnis Probus Liber Sit 12.75) in which he [Philo] declares that Palestinian-Syria has not failed to produce high moral excellence. He states that a considerable part of the Jews live there, and cites as an example the Essences.” (ibid, 563-4). It is only “difficult to explain” if one presupposes the erasure hypothesis from the outset. Feldman describes evidence that undermines his argument as a “problem” in another instance as well: “the one passage in Josephus which seems to present a problem is the one at the very end of the Antiquities (20.259), where he says that his work contains a record of the events “that befell us Jews, Egypt, Syria and in Palestine” (ibid, 564-5). On his point about the “correct” use of the word Palestine, see ibid, 576.

In Drsmoo’s recent edit, in what is now footnote 16, Feldman says “with few exceptions”, which is a crucial point currently missing from the new sentence added to the lead. He then says “reserving the name Palestine for the coastal area occupied by the Philistines” without evidence, apart from the reference to Antiquities, which was not referring to the contemporary region, but to ancient (Biblical) times. The same is true in footnote 12, where Feldman writes “A problem arises in the passage where Herodotus asserts that the Phoenicians and the Syrians of Palestine acknowledge of themselves that they learnt the custom of circumcision from the Egyptians”; again this “exception” is nowhere mentioned in the new sentence added to the lead.

Onceinawhile (talk) 23:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I have now been through the three other sources added by Drsmoo:

  • The 200-year old Beloe quote does not support any specific interpretation of how Herodotus used the word, since he equates it with the Arab (wider) use of the term as well.
  • Tuell does not state whether or not he believes Judea is part of or adjacent to Palestinian Syria. His thesis is that “Two arguments can be raised for placing the eastern border of Abar-Nahara at the Jordan. First is the fact that...” (excised from the quote added) and as to Judea he says that “Particularly to be noted, however, is that the piece of Syria in which the Phoenicians are said to have settled, called here Palestine, is also explicitly said to be ("next to, alongside of, the sea"). According to Herodotus, the satrapy of Abar-Nahara, which consisted largely of Phoenicia and Palestinian Syria, was a strip of coastland. As we know that the satrapy included Yehud, and hence the central highlands, the mountains are not the eastern border. The next logical, geographical border is the Jordan— as described in Herodotus 2.106.” (some of the wording is similar but different to Drsmoo’s quote - I must have a different version of the same text). And finally the words: “"Palestinian Syria" as a Coastal Region in Herodotus” are not in the source (at least not the one I have). Either way, he does not state at any point whether or not he considers Judea is separate from Palestine Syria. The mainstream view of other scholars is that Herodotus considered Judea within Palestine per his circumcision reference, but Tuell does not comment on this point.
  • Rosenfeld states “at that time the term was restricted to the southern part of the coastal region”, but he does not say that Josephus used it in that way. In fact, of Josephus he says “At other times [Josephus’s use of the term] Judaea signifies those areas of Palestine whose inhabitants are Jews”, ie Judaea he thinks is in Palestine.

Onceinawhile (talk) 11:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

These sources were already in the article, I merely cited them correctly. Please actually read the sources before commenting on them. Only a few sentences later Rosenfeld explicitly says ""Palestine" will be used to signify the whole region connected with the land of Israel in Josephus' time, including the coastal region, although at that time the term was restricted to the southern part of the coastal region." Similarly, Feldman, who is highly esteemed as a scholar of Josephus, and who you claimed was "without evidence", devotes two pages to going through every mention made by Josephus and how they were references to Philistines/the coastal area. Regarding the mainstream view of scholars, the consensus that I've observed is that Herodutus used the word Palestine to describe the coastal area Drsmoo (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
@Drsmoo:My third bullet above includes the exact quote you have bolded above, which you claimed I did not read. Rosenfeld does not say that Josephus himself uses the term in that way, and explicitly gives an example of where Josephus uses the wider definition.Onceinawhile (talk) 13:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Again, no. The quote is clear and explicit that the term used in the time Josephus was writing only applied to the coastal region.. And if you need further confirmation, the citation Rosenfeld uses for that statement is Feldman, who as you now know, provides a whole page of examples about how the references are describing to the coastal region/philistines. Drsmoo (talk) 15:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
The consensus re Herodotus, as you rightly say, is that Palestine describes the coastal area. That same consensus considers that coastal area to extend inland to include Judea, on the basis of the circumcision quote and also Aristotle’s later Dead Sea reference. Only Feldman takes a different interpretation, and he acknowledges the contradictions or “problems” in doing so.
That's incorrect. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40105058 "The form Palestine, used by Greek and Latin authors, is first attested in the history of Herodotus, and occurs in a number of later classical texts.2 It occasionally appears as a noun, but more commonly as an adjective in apposition to Syria. In normal usage Palaistine Syria or Syria Palestina seems to have meant the coastal plain formerly inhabited by the Philistines. It was sometimes extended to include territories further but was not usually applied to Judaea, which in Roman times was still officially and commonly known by that name
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1357657 The map here shows Palestine as being distinct from Yehud.
There are additional sources which do describe uses of Palestine for the interior region, though they start after Herodotus. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24669108 "The earliest occurrence of this name in a Greek text is in in the mid-fifth century bce, Histories of Herodotus, where it is applied to the area of the Levant between Phoenicia and Egypt. Josephus [1st century ce] explicitly links this name to the land of the Philistines and modern consensus agrees with him. However, the Septuagint version of the Pentateuch chose Philistieim rather than Palaistinoi to describe the Philistines. In the earliest Classical literature references to Palestine generally applied to the Land of Israel in the wider sense. A reappraisal of this question has given rise to the proposition that the name Palestine, in its Greek form Palaistine, was both a transliteration of a word used to describe the land of the Philistines and, at the same time, a literal translation of the name Israel. This dual interpretation reconciles apparent contradictions in early definitions of the name Palaistine and its compatible with the Greeks' penchant for punning, especially on place names)"
Another reference to the word Palestine in a wider sense occurring after Herodotus and being a non-offical name http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt1pnd22.5 "Palestine is first mentioned in the extant Greek sources by Herodotus, who referred to the “Syrians who are in Palestine” (2.104 [also quoted by Josephus, CAp 1.169], 7.89) and the “Palestinian Syrians” (3.5; cf. 1.105). Herodotus used the term to describe a subsection of Syria, in particular, the coast as far as Egypt (7.89). It was similarly used by Pliny (NH 5.68) and Josephus (AJ 1.137; cf. also 13.180, where he distinguished between Palestine and Judaea), both of whom lived in the first century a.d. Nevertheless, it could also be used to refer to the interior region as well. Aristotle, writing at the end of the fourth century b.c., described a lake in “Palestine” where “if there were any truth to the stories they tell about the lake in Palestine . . . they say if you bind a man or beast and throw him into it he floats and does not sink beneath the surface; and that the lake is so bitter and salty there are no fish in it and that if you wet clothes in it and shake them out it cleans them.”47 Philo, who lived in the first century a.d., equated ancient Canaan with “Palestinian Syria” (De Abrahamo 13, De Vita Mosis 1.163). And finally, Arrian, who was writing in the second century a.d., said of Alexander’s conquests in this area that except for Gaza all of “Syrian Palestine, as it is called” (ta; me;n a[lla th¸ˇ Palaistivnhˇ kaloumevnhˇ Surivaˇ, 2.25.4), came over to the Macedonian king. Nevertheless, it is important to note that despite its appearance in various literary texts of and pertaining to the Hellenistic period, the term “Palestine” is not found on any extant Hellenistic coin or inscription. In other words, there is no attestation for its use in an official context in the Hellenistic period. Even in the early Roman period its use was not especially widespread. For example, Philo and Josephus generally used “Judaea” rather than “Palestine” to refer to the area.48 Furthermore, “Palestine” is nowhere attested in the New Testament. “Palestine” did not come into official use until the early second century a.d., when the emperor Hadrian decided to rename the province of Judaea; for its new name he chose “Syria Palaestina.”49 The new name took hold. It is found thereafter in inscriptions, on coins, and in numerous literary texts.50 Thus Arrian (7.9.8, Indica 43.1) and Appian (Syr. 50), who lived in the second century a.d., and Cassius Dio (e.g., 38.38.4, 39.56.6), who lived in the third, referred to the region as “Palestine.” And in the rabbinic literature “Palestine” was used as the name of the Roman province adjacent to Phoenicia and Arabia (e.g., Bereshith Rabbah 90.6). Drsmoo (talk) 15:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Drsmoo I do not have time to read those sources added them to the article would be helpful for readers. Jonney2000 (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
@Drsmoo: Sometimes I wish we could speak over the telephone instead of having to write everything down, because it is easier to avoid misunderstandings.
I think we are saying the same thing. These sources are explicitly agreeing with my position, and seemingly you consider them to be in agreement with you too.
Perhaps I can try explaining a different way: all scholars consider Palestine or cognates to be a coastal region. As to whether Judea was considered to be in that region or not, it is clear scholarly consensus that both Herodotus and Joesphus are considered to have included Judea on some occasions. So then the question is, on other occasions, did they exclude it?
Do you agree that this is what the debate is about?
Onceinawhile (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
My impression is that this is a serious omission and not very precise. A misinterpretation of Herodotus became used by foreign sources which Josephus may have been aware of and may have used but rarely. But in no way was this the only way that the term was used. Nor was this rare usage officially usedJonney2000 (talk) 15:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
The following URL with its content may be a little "outdated," as its author was born in the early 17th-century of our Common Era, it still carries a lot of pertinent information. Highly recommended to read this.Davidbena (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Josephus

@Davidbena: per this edit, it is a plain fact that Josephus included Judea in Palestine, at least in some of his writings. See below two crystal clear quotes:

  • c. 94: Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews: "...these Antiquities contain what hath been delivered down to us from the original creation of man, until the twelfth year of the reign of Nero, as to what hath befallen us Jews, as well is Egypt as in Syria, and in Palestine" (see s:The Antiquities of the Jews/Book XX)
  • c. 97: Josephus, Against Apion: "Nor, indeed, was Herodotus of Halicarnassus unacquainted with our nation, but mentions it after a way of his own... This, therefore, is what Herodotus says, that "the Syrians that are in Palestine are circumcised". But there are no inhabitants of Palestine that are circumcised excepting the Jews; and, therefore, it must be his knowledge of them that enabled him to speak so much concerning them." (see s:Against Apion/Book I) Onceinawhile (talk) 08:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
@Onceinawhile:Yes, Josephus, when concluding the writing of his Antiquities, mentions "Syria and Palestine," just as the Greeks would have known the country. Syria is sometimes used by Josephus to refer to Greater Syria, and which would include all of Galilee and Judea, just as we see in Josephus' account of Antiochus V Eupator, the Seleucid king, who invaded Judea in 161 BCE with eighty elephants (others say thirty-two), some clad with armored breastplates, in an attempt to subdue the Jews who had sided with the sixth Ptolemy. Antiochus Eupator and his father vied with Ptolemy VI over the control of “the whole country of Syria” (see Josephus, Wars i.i.§1). So, by this account, Josephus in his conclusion of his Antiquities (Book xx), may have simply been referring to the entire country, with its specific regions. Note that he does not use the name typically employed by Jews in their native language for the country, ie. "Judea" (Heb. יהודה - Aramaic: יהוד), a name that appears for the country in the Mishnah and in the Aramaic Scroll of Antiochus, but rather uses the words "Palestine" and "Syria." It seems that, here, Josephus is appealing to a non-Jewish audience, the Greeks, who would have known the country by those names, and just as he writes explicitly in the very same paragraph where he mentions Palestine: "[no one could have] delivered more accurately these accounts to the Greeks as is done in these books." (see s:The Antiquities of the Jews/Book XX). Elsewhere, he mentions together "Judea and Palestine" (see: Antiquities 13.174 (13.5.10). There were colonies of Grecians living along the coast in Palestine. Anyway, the matter is quite complex as we see, and as we shall discuss later. Here, accuracy would demand of us to have no superficial readings of Josephus.Davidbena (talk) 18:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
@Davidbena: That makes sense to me. As you rightly say, Josephus was writing for a Greco-Roman audience. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand why the arguments its about interpretation of primary sources its not our job instead find secondary sources that discuss it.--Shrike (talk) 09:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Also, why complain about an edit to a different article on the wrong talk page? Drsmoo (talk) 11:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
@Onceinawhile:, @Drsmoo:, and friends, this is for your information: With respect to Josephus and how that he mentions in one breath "Syria" and "Palestine" in the 20th book of his Antiquities, I found where Josephus expressly states what he means by writing "Syria." Josephus, when writing about Titus' movements with the Roman army, marks the stations he passed while en route from Egypt to Jerusalem, saying that the city Rafah (a place south of Gaza) was "the beginning of Syria" (see: Wars 4.11.5; 4.656). So, here, once again, Josephus distinguishes between the "Land of Israel" (i.e. "Syria"), and the smaller enclave within the boundaries of the "Land of Israel" (i.e. "Palestine"). You may also wish to see how the name "Palestine" has evolved over the years by reading what the Christian Hebraist, John Lightfoot, had to write about this name in his opus magnum, The Works of Lightfoot, condensed here in this recent publication,From the Talmud and Hebraica (vol. 1). There, he cites THE ENACTMENTS OF JUSTINIAN, THE NOVELS (ch. CIII), written by Justinian I (c. 482– 565 CE), who says: "Palestine, at first, only constituted a single province, but when it was divided into three parts, it did not retain the Proconsulate, but was placed under the jurisdiction of an ordinary magistrate," among other things.Davidbena (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jonney2000: Per this edit I agree something like that is helpful. I am not comfortable with the exact form of words, because we have other scholars saying the opposite and numerous first century primary sources which explicitly include Judea or the Dead Sea. I think we need a sentence which is more precise on the specific point being made if possible. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

What is going on?

@Drsmoo: your recent revision needs urgent discussion. I am holding back from reverting as I want to avoid an edit war. But please slow down.

You wrote two plainly false sentences:

  • “The first use of the term Palestine as a place name was in 5th century BC Ancient Greece when Herodotus wrote of a "district of Syria, called Palaistinê" in The Histories.[7][8][9]” => This is directly contradicted by the prior paragraph!
  • “Herodotus was describing the coastal region inhabited by the Philistines, but also called "the whole land by the name of the coastal strip" => the sources you attached say the opposite (Rainey and Jacobson).

Onceinawhile (talk) 16:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect, the first sentence is supported by multiple reliable sources, and incidentally, does not appear to contradict the prior paragraph.
The sources attached support the sentence they're citing accurately. Rainey, btw, is cited for the first sentence, not the second, but supports both just the same. Rainey is so clear as to literally include a map which shows Palestine as being in the southern coastal region and distinct from Yehud. Please actually read the sources. What is "going on" btw, is that the article is actually being treated in a scholarly fashion, rather than using message boards as sources and misrepresenting other sources Drsmoo (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
@Drsmoo:
The prior paragraph is a description of how the term was used as a place name in the prior eras. Then you amend the first sentence of the next paragraph to say it was not?! And Rainey says almost exactly what you deleted (“...the entire area between Phoenicia and Egypt”)
Rainey specifically describes it as being between Phoenicia and Egypt, ie, the coast. He didn't say between Phoenicia and Arabia. In any case, it's a moot point as Rainey literally includes a map that shows Palestine in Herodotus' time as being distinct from Yehud and restricted to the coast. It seems clear you don't have access to the source. I'd include a screenshot of it, but think that might be against copyright/wikipolicy. Regarding the first paragraph, "Palestine" comes from the Greek Palaestine, a name used extensively by Herodotus in his History (fifth century BCE) (The Oxford Companion to Comparative Politics, Volume 2). Both the 1999 and 2001 Jacobson papers have as their thesis that the word Palestine was created by Herodotus as a combination of names for the area of the Philistines with a direct translation of Hebrew. ie., that the name didn't exist before then. All three of these sources are saying that the first use of Palestine is from Herodotus. I didn't remove the earlier paragraph regarding Peleset, as it's useful to indicate the "proto version" of the name, but they are different names. Drsmoo (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
As for the second sentence, you outrageously ignored a quoted source (which you knew was there as you moved it yourself [1]) that states the exact opposite of what you wrote (Jacobson: “As early as the Histories of Herodotus, written in the second half of the fifth century B.C.E., the term Palaistinê is used to describe not just the geographical area where the Philistines lived, but the entire area between Phoenicia and Egypt—in other words, the Land of Israel. Herodotus, who had traveled through the area, would have had firsthand knowledge of the land and its people. Yet he used Palaistinê to refer not to the Land of the Philistines, but to the Land of Israel”)
Onceinawhile (talk) 20:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: any comments? In the meantime, here are a bunch of further sources which confirm the text as it was before your recent edits:

  • Martin Sicker: “The name later appears in the Persian Wars of the Greek historian Herodotus in the form of an adjective describing "the Philistine Syria," which presumably was intended to include all of Cis-Jordan. ”
  • James Rennell: “Herodotus, as we have said, had visited Palestine, if not Phoenicia also. The city of Jerusalem he names Cadytis, doubtless meant for the Arabian name Al Kads, the holy : in effect, a translation of the other. He says, Thalia, 5, " that it is a city belonging to the Syrians of Palestine; and in his opinion, equal to Sardis."”
  • Gosta Ahlstrom “The Greek historian Herodotus (1.105, 3.5) called Cisjordan the Palestinian Syria or sometimes only Palaestina. Thus, there is a tradition from at least the fifth century BCE for the use of this name”
  • Jewish Encyclopaedia: “As early as Herodotus, who is followed by other classical writers, as Ptolemy and Pliny, the phrase Συρίε ἡ Παλαιστίνη (Syrian Palestine, Palestine of Syria) denotes both the littoral and the neighboring inland region (Judea and Palestine), as well as the entire interior as far as the Arabian desert”
  • Nur Masalha: “Herodotus uses the name accordingly and Aristotle, for example, used the term in a way that includes the regions of Transjordan, or 'Eastern Palestine', beyond the Jordan Rift Valley. Herodotus' conception of Palaistine included the Galilee and applied to Palestine in the wider sense.” Onceinawhile (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Your objection makes no sense. Jacobson says that Herodotus described both specifically the coastal area and a wider area. "not just" = both Herodotus was describing the coastal strip, but also occasionally used the word to describe a wider area. This is consistent with scholarship. Jacobson states this more clearly in his 1999 article, which is already cited in the article. "The first known occurrence of the Greek word Palaistine is in the Histories of Herodotus, written near the mid-fifth century B.C.4 Palaistine Syria, or simply Palaistine, is applied to what may be identified as the southern part of Syria, comprising the region between Phoenicia and Egypt.5 Although some of Herodotus' references to Palestine are compatible with a narrow definition of the coastal strip of the Land of Israel, it is clear that Herodotus does call the "whole land by the name of the coastal strip." (http://www.jstor.org/stable/1357617) "The form Palestine, used by Greek and Latin authors, is first attested in the history of Herodotus, and occurs in a number of later classical texts.2 It occasionally appears as a noun, but more commonly as an adjective in apposition to Syria. In normal usage Palaistine Syria or Syria Palestina seems to have meant the coastal plain formerly inhabited by the Philistines. It was sometimes extended to include territories further but  was not usually applied to Judaea, which in Roman times was still officially and commonly known by that name" (http://www.jstor.org/stable/40105058) "Herodotus used the term to describe a subsection of Syria, in particular, the coast as far as Egypt (7.89). It was similarly used by Pliny (NH 5.68) and Josephus (AJ 1.137; cf. also 13.180, where he distinguished between Palestine and Judaea), both of whom lived in the first century a.d. Nevertheless, it could also be used to refer to the interior region as well. (http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt1pnd22.5) Hence, when Herodotus (3.91), the first classical writer to mention Palestine speaks of the fifth province of the Persians as including Phoenicia and the part of Syria called Palestine and Cyprus; the part of Syria called Palestine either refers only to the coastal area, so called because it had been inhabited by the Philistines, or he is speaking loosely, since the only part of the area that he had visited was apparently along the coast. Hence he called the whole land by the name of the coastal strip." (http://www.jstor.org/stable/23508170) From Zachary Foster, ""Herodotus used the term multiple times to refer to the entire coast from Egypt to Phoenicia, and potentially the interior as well." In other words, he did use Palestine to describe a wider area, but his actual descriptions were only of the coast. Hence he was "describing the coastal region inhabited by the Philistines, but also applied the name of the coastal strip to the inland region." as is now in the article. Drsmoo (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
As I said above, I think we have been saying the same thing all along. I'm not sure there is much disagreement after all. I have fixed the first sentence by making the point about borders instead, and moving your toponym point into the first paragraph. On the second sentence, the piece I didn't like was the reference to "inhabited by the Philistines", because even the coast which Herodotus explicitly described is a much larger region than the cities of the "five Lords of the Philistines" described in the Bible. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Zachary J. Foster dissertation cites oncenawhile

From Zachary J. Foster dissertation

Millions of contributors to Wikipedia made the most comprehensive encyclopedia we have ever known, as well as the most comprehensive timeline of the history of the name Palestine. Special thanks go to the Wikipedia alias oncenawhile, who created and maintains that page with painstaking diligence and resourcefulness. Whoever you are—and I know you do prefer to remain anonymous—shukran alf marra.[1]

References

  1. ^ {{cite thesis|last=Foster|first=Zachary|title=The Invention of Palestine|date=November 2017|degree=|publisher=Princeton University|url=https://www.academia.edu/34686627/The_Invention_of_Palestine_Ph.D._Dissertation_Princeton_University_2017_%7Cisbn=9780355480238%7Cdoi=%7Ctype=thesis%7Cchapter=Southern Syria|docket=10634618|oclc=|access-date=9 February 2018

This does not give me the warm fuzzys. I think the source should be replaced by another source. Otherwise we end up with a wiki circular citation.Jonney2000 (talk) 02:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I second that. "Thanks a thousand times" - Todah rabbah elef pe'amim, to our friend Onceinawhile who created this article. Hopefully, we'll reach a consensus about the evolving nature of the word "Palestine." BTW: Today the word is often used "politically," with a clear political-geographical connotation. Maybe we can all work together to somehow change this and restore its more pure, sublime and apolitical connotation throughout Wikipedia articles. For obvious reasons, Arabs do not like using the word "Israel," while Israelis do not like using the word "Palestine" because of what these words conjure up in their minds.Davidbena (talk) 04:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks both. How refreshing for (all of) our work to be recognized like that.
The explicit acknowledgement gives me much more comfort as to the quality of the work. This is Princeton University, one of (if not the) most prestigious universities in the world. The fact that he publicly acknowledged Wikipedia in his work must have attracted a great deal of extra scrutiny from his supervisor and reviewing panel. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
By the way, I also created Timeline of the name "Judea" - given the passion shown here in recent weeks, it would be great if interested editors would help build that article out as well. There are lots of secondary sources which describe the history of that name as well, and the overlap versus this article will be fascinating to compare. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Agree that Foster shouldn't be used, as it' too much of a feedback loop. Especially given that sections of the paper seem to mirror the wikipedia article very closely (and the wikipedia article itself here used a message board as a source, for example). Drsmoo (talk) 11:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I suggest opening a discussion at RSN, as a follow on to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_240#Princeton_PhD_re_Southern_Syria. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

First century authors

"It has been contended that in the first century authors still associated the term with the southern coastal region." This is in contradiction to Philo, who wrote in the first century "There is a portion of those people called Essenes." The Essenes according to Pliny lived "on the west side of the Dead Sea, away from the coast... [above] the town of Engeda" which is NOT in the Southern Coastal region [1] Philo also writes "[Moses] conducted his people as a colony into Phoenicia, and into the Coele-Syria, and Palestine, which was at that time called the land of the Canaanites, the borders of which country were three days' journey distant from Egypt." The "land of the Canaanites" was not generally referred to as only being part of the "southern coastal region". Pliny was a Jewish writer writing for Jews and would presumably only have used proper place names that the Jews of the time (early first century CE) would have related to and used themselves. Therefore "It has been contended that in the first century authors still associated the term with the southern coastal region." is demonstrably false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michardav (talk • contribs) 17:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essenes#Location

Edit warring

Much ado about nothing. The entire paragraph is spurios and should be deleted (and the entire article rewritten). Ancient Egyptians named people from Palestine and Syria "kharu". There's no trace of either "peleset" or "p-r-s-t" in Budge's dictionary, and it is doubtful whether these names refer to Palestine, assuming the quoted sources have been correctly cited. Herodot's Palestine is the Biblical Philistia פְלֶשֶׁת (pɘlešet) (Assyrian Palastu, Pilistu). Polesh (פלש) means dig/break open/through in New Hebrew, but its etymology is dubious (see Brown-Driver-Briggs). The Jewish Encyclopedia (or Judaica) article on Palestine nicely sums it up. --83.137.1.208 (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

The people called Peleset in multiple Egyptian sources (mostly from the time of [[Ramesses III]) are identified with the Philistines by many scholars. The book by Killebrew is a good starting point. Zerotalk 00:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Linguistics root of the name - sources

Let me make this clear - we can't use Wiktionary as a source anymore than we could use another of our articles. www.morfix.co.il also clearly fails WP:RS. Please use academic sources. Doug Weller talk 18:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

root of the term "Philistines"

I can't revert as I'd break 1RR, but the source added today is a self-published book by a fringe author. Doug Weller talk 13:47, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's self published self-published ([2] - 1st Book Library seems to be a prior incarnation of AuthorHouse) - and it does not seem to be a WP:RS. Reverted. Icewhiz (talk) 13:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't know why he thought it was an academic source. In any case, the bottom line here seems to be that we don't know the answer. Doug Weller talk 14:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
See Talk:Timeline of the name "Palestine"#Unsourced claim - it is probably either from wallowing in dirt (an act of grief - in this case - the grief caused by the Philistines to the locals) or possibly from burrowing under walls of a city (which eventually morphed into the more modern invade). I've seen a few sources around to this effect (in Hebrew) - though not of a caliber I think I would want to introduce here to the article (this is mainly discussed in bible commentary). The "invade" meaning of פלש, is to my understanding, more modern (not biblical Hebrew (-2500 to -3000). Possibly Mishna (-2000) or later). For modern speakers פלש is used almost only for invade (the exception would be an inflection used for pigs wallowing in mud (and the like) - which sounds different) - so it is not surprising that there are various modern speakers (including the SPS used as a source) who cast the modern meaning onto the biblical name.Icewhiz (talk) 14:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
LOL I came here to see the whinings, I am a native speaker of Hebrew there is a difference between "to be cover with" which is "Lehitpalesh" (להתפלש) and "to invade" = "Liflosh" (לפלוש) where the root of the term Philistine and palestine come from, it was in the Biblical Hebrew and even in it's ancestor tongue the Canaanite language. u can cry about it and debate it in this section and wherever but it won't change the fact that this term comes from the defaming name "invaders" towards the Sea People who invaded this land while the Ancient Indigenous Canaanites were pushed away and eventually took part in the formation of the Israelites in the hill-country; don't believe me? try to ask any linguistics schooler or just look at a Hebrew dictionary. --Wolfman12405 (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I've pointed out to this editor (who was blocked for a week for violating 1RR on this article) that we expect civility and assumption of good faith on talk pages. User:Wolfman12405 referring us to a dictionary is pointless, we aren't talking about modern Hebrew and if you mean "scholar" it's pretty clear that sources debate the meaning of the word and that the consensus you suggest doesn't exist. And that's ignoring your dubious claim about the formation of the Israelites in the hill-country from Sea Peoples. Doug Weller talk 17:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
LMAO thanks for that! I have said that the Sea People/Philistine INVASION had caused the movement out of refuge of the Coastal Plain INDIGENOUS Canaanites to the hill-country, that's where many Canaanite refugees from various city-states in Southern Canaan and Shasu setteling down became the Israelites. do me a favor and learn how to read. It's not a theory, it is the historic truth. Philistine = Invader.--Wolfman12405 (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
If your writing is ambiguous don't be surprised if you're misunderstood. Doug Weller talk 19:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Wolfman12405, you lost this argument here, doing the same thing and expecting a different result has a technical term for it, but regardless you may not use what you think you know in an encyclopedia article. We use reliable sources, and you are emphatically not one. Revert again and I will request you be topic-banned, this discussion along with the one at Talk:Palestine (region) provides ample evidence as to your inability to both follow our content policies and to edit collaboratively. nableezy - 17:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Which school of research holds that repetition of claims, aided by a measure of scoffing, is all that's needed to establish them as facts, and that "everybody knows" is a magical incantation that allows one to ignore the people against whom one is debating who, quite obviously, don't "know" it? Largoplazo (talk) 18:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
On his talk page I asked him to be more civil and assume good faith. He says he won't back down and suggests that the motivation of some editors may be evil. Discretionary sanctions apply to behavior on talk pages... Doug Weller talk 19:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Article contents

The lead section claims This article presents a list of notable historical references to the name Palestine. I don't believe the article does that. It seems to be a catch-all of every pre-20th century book that can be found which includes the word Palestine. Without some reduction and/or more focus on why the listed claims are important, I don't think this is an encyclopedia article at all; it's a card catalog / inverted index. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree - this also ventures into WP:NOTESSAY as well as WP:NOTDICTIONARY (or etymology).Icewhiz (talk) 06:00, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
See the article's Bibliography, which includes many lists of notable uses of the name, mostly in essay or monograph format.
In our article we explain the notability for many of the uses, others are implied.
I agree however that it could well do with some pruning. If notability cannot be established for a particular usage, either individually or in conjunction with other usages, it shouldn't be here.
Onceinawhile (talk) 09:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Seems like wp?

@Wolfman12405: I didn’t understand your edit comment - what does “seems like wp” mean? Onceinawhile (talk) 11:40, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

"willed propaganda".--Wolfman12405 (talk) 17:56, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
@Wolfman12405: I still don’t understand in the context of your reversion of a single citation. Please explain properly? Onceinawhile (talk) 19:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Just as u folks keep going on and on against the fact that the very root PLSH which "palestine" comes from means "invders" and reverting these edits, I'll stop ur z grade sources propaganda.--Wolfman12405 (talk) 05:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Give reliable sources that establish as a confirmed fact that the name comes from that root, or stop calling it a fact. The question of where the /t/ comes from is the first thing that should put you off your hypothesis, unless you're going to argue that the putative invaders were women. Largoplazo (talk) 12:53, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

The terms Philistia and Palestine have existed in parallel

@Jonney2000: Jacobson writes: "[In the LXX]... the Land of the Philistieim. Bearing in mind that the word Palaistinē had already entered the Greek vocabulary, one might have expected the translators of the Septuagint Pentateuch to have selected that word when mentioning the country of the Philistines..."

He is explicitly stating that the terms existed in parallel.

Onceinawhile (talk) 01:06, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

We can not say that they exited in parallel in Wikipedia's voice without evidence. At best you have a source that debates why the translators did not use Palaistínē. Many possibilities exit as to why they did not. The Septuagint may have been simply translated too early.
1: What was the first use of Palaistínē by Hellenized Jews Philo?
2: Does any source exist that uses both terms? If it was used by Jews there should be a whole host of cites from the Pseudepigrapha.
If the LXX had translated Israel as Palaistínē that would be strong evidence for Jacobson's theory. As it is his etymology is extremely speculative.Jonney2000 (talk) 12:32, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi Jonney2000, I think I understand what you are saying. We could stay closer to the source and state that “The terms Philistia and Palestine coexisted in the Greek vocabulary around the same time”?
Onceinawhile (talk) 20:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
LMAO, That was never the case. Until the destruction and renaming of Judea which was this land's name since the Persian era, there was not even a scratch of memory from the Philistines left in the region's history. Or do u believe in that BS claim that "palestine" is here since the Natufians? LOL--Wolfman12405 (talk) 05:24, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Footnote cleanup needed

Came here from cleanup page. Footnote 10 (after "Jordan Rift Valley" in the text ) should be separated into four separate footnotes and proper form used. I can't edit the page, if someone else would do the honors...thank you173.217.182.134 (talk) 03:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Confusion of the names Palestine and Plishtim

There seems to be a terrible confusion (or simply lack of differentiation) between the words Palestine (as the whole region was known by the Arab conquorers) and Plishtim, the land of the Greek/Mediterranean Philistines, whose base between Ashkelon and Gaza. I think someone would do well to clarify or clean up this confusion of terms - it is incredibly misleading. 2A00:23C8:169B:D901:15A9:61E6:5297:1BFA (talk) 10:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

The word "plishtim" isn't present in the article so I don't understand what the confusion is about? ImTheIP (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 June 2021

The origin of the word Palestine/Palestinians is most probably related to the region around the area of the river Strymon, which was once named Palaestinus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palaestinus (Ancient Greek: Παλαιστῖνος) after the homonymous mythical king who drowned there from grief after the death of his son. During the Ancient Dark ages the Sea Peoples invaded and overrun all of the East Mediterranean except Egypt, Some of those Sea Peoples survived in the area forming the Philistine Pentapolis, until they were fully absorbed into the neighboring Semitic peoples.

There is already enough evidence to suggest a small migration from European settlers during the early Iron age in the original Philistia, which has been incorporated in the wikipedia article for the Philistines, so the claim is by no means far fetched, while almost all of the Sea Peoples' origins are being speculated according to the similarity of their name to Greek/Italian/Anatolian tribes or specific geographic locations as pointed out in the wikipedia article for the Sea Peoples (Denyen - Danaians, Ekwesh - Achaians, Lucca - Lycians, Shekelesh - Sicels, Sherden - Sardinians, Teresh - Tyrrhenians, Tzeker - Teucrians, Weshesh - Achaeans e.t.c.) Sikader (talk) 00:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 18 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. Consensus is to move the articles and italicize the article titles as proposed using {{DISPLAYTITLE}} (that is, as "Timeline of the name Palestine" and "...Judea"). (closed by non-admin page mover) SkyWarrior 03:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

– Please place your rationale for the proposed move here. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Per MOS:ITALIC, the names Palestine and Judea should be italicized when referred to as a name, which can be accomplished by dropping the quotation marks and using {{DISPLAYTITLE}}. This discussion is subject to WP:ARBPIA sanctions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:36, 18 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.

Etymology

@Zhomron: would you be ok to merge the new section with the two existing sections “Biblical references” and “Etymological considerations”? There is a lot of duplication between the three and I think they would be best merged into one. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: I see no problem with that. Just give me a little while as I'm currently in the middle of something, and I'll make the change. Zhomron (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Article is missing the point

Who used the name and why? Endless lists only manage to reproduce the pattern of kindergarten fights: I have more pebbles! No, I do!

The name comes from the Philistines. Where did they settle? Until when did their civilisation survive? Why did the Greeks name the land all the way to the Jordan Rift Valley after them even after their demise? Romans picked it up from the Greeks and we're still living in the aftermath of their civilisation, so from Herodotus onwards it's largely a waste of breath.

The rest are secondary questions, such as:

Why didn't Canaan survive as a name?

Why didn't Israel survive as a name outside Jewish culture?

A logical argument looking for causality is very different from a "list article" or rhetorical punch that aims to drown a supposed adversary under piles of vaguely connected "facts". Arminden (talk) 00:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

We can certainly improve it. This article follows the sources which track the development of the name via quotations from ancient history to the modern day. Why those sources choose to do this is in the eye of the beholder.
A couple of comments on what you wrote:
  • The idea that the name “came from” the Philistines has scholarly consensus, but what the Philistines were does not. I was reading something on this a couple of days ago which we might add here: Drews, Robert (2000), "Medinet Habu: Oxcarts, Ships, and Migration Theories", Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 59 (3), University of Chicago Press: 161–190, ISSN 0022-2968, JSTOR 546252, It seems that "Philistines" or - more clearly - "Palestinians" was simply one of the names (another being bene Yisra'el) that at the beginning of the Iron Age replaced "Canaanites," the now-odious name during the New Kingdom had been used for the Egyptians' subjects in the Southern Levant... Except at Medinet Habu, where evidently it was first used, prst rarely appears in Egyptian texts. Two references to prst in Iron Age texts, however, clearly associate the name with a land and people in the southern Levant, and we may therefore be certain that the prst of the Medinet Habu texts is ancestral to the name that in the King James Bible was rendered as "Philistines" and that today would be rendered as "Palestinians." Evidently the name "Canaanites," found so often in New Kingdom texts, was by the reign of Ramesses III obsolescent in the southern Levant itself, and more "respectable" names were coming into vogue.34 Needless to say, for Ramesses' scribes the semantic field of the name prst could have borne little resemblance to the semantic field of our word "Palestinians." Perhaps the Medinet Habu scribes regarded prst as a term especially appropriate for those rebellious Canaanites who had recently begun to cause the Egyptians trouble.
  • There are some who claim that the name was not used by the Ottomans or modern Arab Palestinian inhabitants prior to the 20th century; a number of scholars have shown that to be untrue, and this article includes the quotes they identify
  • Canaan was a bigger region, and Judea was a smaller region. They are not true synonyms of Palestine. I agree though that is would be interesting to state in the respective articles why and when they were phased out as contemporary geographical terms
Onceinawhile (talk) 02:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Typo in the "Roman Aelia Capitolina period" section

"established by the merge of Roman Syria and Roman Judaea"

the word "merge" should be "merger"

 Done Zerotalk 00:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Typo in the "Roman Aelia Capitolina period" section

In the sentence

The common view that the name change was intended "sever the connection of the Jews to their historical homeland" is disputed.

the word "to" is missing. The text should read: ...was intended to "sever the connection..." (unsigned)

 Done Zerotalk 04:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

request- add lang tags to the german

Please put {{lang|de|text}} before this entry: "1607: Hans Jacob Breuning von Buchenbach, Enchiridion Orientalischer Reiß Hanns Jacob Breunings, von vnnd zu Buchenbach, so er in Türckey, benandtlichen in Griechenlandt, Egypten, Arabien, Palestinam, vnd in Syrien, vor dieser zeit verrichtet (etc.)" TreeReader (talk) 11:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

129 AD

The first sentence of the first bullet point under "Roman Aelia Capitolina period" reads "c. 129 or 135: Syria Palæstina was a Roman province between 135 and about 390." but the sources only mention 135 for the date of the founding of Syria Palestina. There are sources which say the date of the change is unknown but 129 seems to be picked out of a hat. Unless there's a source for it it should say something like "around 135". Anothracountiges (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Timeline_of_the_name_Palestine/Archive_2&oldid=1263901732"