Hadrian renamed Judea as Palestine to piss off the Jews.

S

serendipity

Verified User
Roman Emperor Hadrian renamed the province of Judea to Syria Palaestina after the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135 CE. This renaming was a punitive measure aimed at severing the Jewish connection to the land and erasing the name Judea. The term "Palestine" was derived from the Philistines, an ancient enemy of the Israelites.
 
This is what passes as "current events" in your world? Almost 2,000 years ago? @serendipity

You are basically correct. What is now considered Southern Israel was renamed from Judea to Palestine by the Roman's after the Jewish Uprising. Part of the area had been referred to as Palestine before, mostly close to where Gaza is today. Judea was always more Judea close to Jerusalem.

Now here is a real question, why was it Judea, and not Israel?

Or why is England England? The Saxons united it, and were the dominant group in it. The people of England called themselves Saxons, as did their Celtic neighbors in Scotland and Wales. So why would it be called Angles'-Land(England) and not Saxon's-Land(Saxland)?
 
Walt said:
This is what passes as "current events" in your world? Almost 2,000 years ago? @serendipity

You are basically correct. What is now considered Southern Israel was renamed from Judea to Palestine by the Roman's after the Jewish Uprising. Part of the area had been referred to as Palestine before, mostly close to where Gaza is today. Judea was always more Judea close to Jerusalem.

Now here is a real question, why was it Judea, and not Israel?

Or why is England England? The Saxons united it, and were the dominant group in it. The people of England called themselves Saxons, as did their Celtic neighbors in Scotland and Wales. So why would it be called Angles'-Land(England) and not Saxon's-Land(Saxland)?
Click to expand...

Was the name Judah from one of the major Israelite tribes?

The Angles were the other major Germanic peoples in England during the Early Medieval period (hence, Anglo-Saxons), and England got its name from the Anglian kingdoms.
 
Cypress said:
Was the name Judah from one of the major Israelite tribes?
Click to expand...
There was a Judah, which later claimed to be a major Israelite tribe...

OK, here is the question, if a group broke away from Israel, wouldn't that group be called something else, and Judea be called Israel? Why did Judea change its name, if it was the original Israel, with the political and religious capital given to it by God?

Many historians argue that the United Monarchy of Israel is a myth. That when Israel was conquered, educated refugees brought Israelite stories to Judea. Even if it was not a myth, the United Monarchy only lasted for about 70 years with Jerusalem as its capital. For most of Israel's history, Samara was the political capital, and Mount Gerizim

That being said, Judea/Judah definitely existed for about a thousand years. The Jews definitely were in Southern Israel, and expanded out over all of Israel, including the West Bank. They were weaker in Gaza, where the Philistines/Greeks were stronger. Much of that expansion included conversion, so todays Jews are definitely partly descendent from the Israelites who stayed behind in what today is Northern Israel.

Cypress said:
The Angles were the other major Germanic peoples in England during the Early Medieval period (hence, Anglo-Saxons), and England got its name from the Anglian kingdoms.
Click to expand...
And yet England was united by Wessex(West Saxons), you would think the Saxons would name their kingdom after themselves.
 
serendipity said:
Roman Emperor Hadrian renamed the province of Judea to Syria Palaestina after the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135 CE. This renaming was a punitive measure aimed at severing the Jewish connection to the land and erasing the name Judea. The term "Palestine" was derived from the Philistines, an ancient enemy of the Israelites.
Click to expand...
wow zzzzzzzzzzzzz
 
serendipity said:
Roman Emperor Hadrian renamed the province of Judea to Syria Palaestina after the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135 CE. This renaming was a punitive measure aimed at severing the Jewish connection to the land and erasing the name Judea. The term "Palestine" was derived from the Philistines, an ancient enemy of the Israelites.
Click to expand...
What is the significance of that in this day and age?????
 
Walt said:
There was a Judah, which later claimed to be a major Israelite tribe...

OK, here is the question, if a group broke away from Israel, wouldn't that group be called something else, and Judea be called Israel? Why did Judea change its name, if it was the original Israel, with the political and religious capital given to it by God?

Many historians argue that the United Monarchy of Israel is a myth. That when Israel was conquered, educated refugees brought Israelite stories to Judea. Even if it was not a myth, the United Monarchy only lasted for about 70 years with Jerusalem as its capital. For most of Israel's history, Samara was the political capital, and Mount Gerizim

That being said, Judea/Judah definitely existed for about a thousand years. The Jews definitely were in Southern Israel, and expanded out over all of Israel, including the West Bank. They were weaker in Gaza, where the Philistines/Greeks were stronger. Much of that expansion included conversion, so todays Jews are definitely partly descendent from the Israelites who stayed behind in what today is Northern Israel.


And yet England was united by Wessex(West Saxons), you would think the Saxons would name their kingdom after themselves.
Click to expand...
I was under the impression that in the late Bronze Age, the word Israel referred to a people, and not a geographic entity. I understood that the northern Kingdom had ten of the Israelite tribes, and the southern Kingdom had two tribes. I have no idea why the southern Kingdom chose the name Judah, unless it happened to be the name of the most important tribe.


As for ancient Briton, I think while the tribal distinctions between Saxons, Angles, and Jutes may have been important during the 6th century migrations across the channel, by the 10th century these distinctions weren't important, and they were more or less a unified Anglo-Saxon people, especially in light of the Viking incursions. For some reason I am not aware of, there may have just been a tradition that England as a whole eventually got it's name from all the lands of Anglia.
 
The naming of Palestine and its origin is just as important today as 2000 years ago. Pretty damn sure that Aunty Phanny moved it as she hates my guts, no doubt that supercilious fucker Crypiss complained about it to her
 
Last edited:
serendipity said:
Knowing the historical origins of names is a current event in my book
Click to expand...
The origin of all three words (Judea, Palestine, and Israel) go back to the Bronze Age Collapse plus or minus 200 years(1,277 BC to 877 BC).

The Philistines were Sea People of proto-Greek origin, who were settled in the area around Gaza by the Egyptians they had attacked during the Bronze Age Collapse(around 1077 BC). The Israelites were of Canaanite origin, and had a story that they escaped Egypt sometime close to the Bronze Age Collapse. The Judean were also of Canaanite origin, who may have been part of the Israelites.
 
Cypress said:
I was under the impression that in the late Bronze Age, the word Israel referred to a people, and not a geographic entity. I understood that the northern Kingdom had ten of the Israelite tribes, and the southern Kingdom had two tribes. I have no idea why the southern Kingdom chose the name Judah, unless it happened to be the name of the most important tribe.


As for ancient Briton, I think while the tribal distinctions between Saxons, Angles, and Jutes may have been important during the 6th century migrations across the channel, by the 10th century these distinctions weren't important, and they were more or less a unified Anglo-Saxon people, especially in light of the Viking incursions. For some reason I am not aware of, there may have just been a tradition that England as a whole eventually got it's name from all the lands of Anglia.
Click to expand...
They are all peoples, who became tribes. The tribes became linked to land, and became kingdoms. And then powerful empires pushed people out, and changed names. It all happened sometime roughly 1,000 to 3,000 years ago(whether we are talking about Israel or England).

What is important is today the Israelis live in Israel, and the English live in England. Moving millions of people with established lives would make no sense. Arguing about what happened 3,000 years ago is fun, but hardly a current event.

There is an issue with all this, that those of you that are paying attention will realize: "What about the Palestinians that live in Palestine?" A two state solution would be great, but we are coming out of a severe terrorist attack by Palestinians in Gaza(under Hamas), and the Fatah is a non-governing mess. For there to be a two state solution, there would need to be a reasonable Palestinian state, and that is a long way away.

In short, I have no solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but at least I am willing to admit it.
 
Walt said:
They are all peoples, who became tribes. The tribes became linked to land, and became kingdoms. And then powerful empires pushed people out, and changed names. It all happened sometime roughly 1,000 to 3,000 years ago(whether we are talking about Israel or England).

What is important is today the Israelis live in Israel, and the English live in England. Moving millions of people with established lives would make no sense. Arguing about what happened 3,000 years ago is fun, but hardly a current event.

There is an issue with all this, that those of you that are paying attention will realize: "What about the Palestinians that live in Palestine?" A two state solution would be great, but we are coming out of a severe terrorist attack by Palestinians in Gaza(under Hamas), and the Fatah is a non-governing mess. For there to be a two state solution, there would need to be a reasonable Palestinian state, and that is a long way away.

In short, I have no solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but at least I am willing to admit it.
Click to expand...

Hamas basically made a two state solution impossible in our lifetimes. There's no way a state governed by Hamas can ever be allowed to exist.
 
Cypress said:
Hamas basically made a two state solution impossible in our lifetimes. There's no way a state governed by Hamas can ever be allowed to exist.
Click to expand...
You are basically correct. That being said, we should still keep trying to figure out a way to make it work. Even if we cannot get it done in our lifetimes, if we can even move the ball forward.

Biden's attempts to get a ceasefire was not going to get us a solution in our lifetimes, but it was going to move he ball forward. trump's idea of making a resort somewhere that literally no one wants it has not moved the ball forward.
 
serendipity said:
Roman Emperor Hadrian renamed the province of Judea to Syria Palaestina after the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135 CE. This renaming was a punitive measure aimed at severing the Jewish connection to the land and erasing the name Judea. The term "Palestine" was derived from the Philistines, an ancient enemy of the Israelites.
Click to expand...
Yep.

The Arabs were just starting to migrate from North Africa at that time. The great genocide they waged on the Hittites and Medes. The white people who lived there before the Arabs slaughtered them all.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
The Arabs were just starting to migrate from North Africa at that time. The great genocide they waged on the Hittites and Medes. The white people who lived there before the Arabs slaughtered them all.
Click to expand...
Wrong direction. The Semitic Peoples, including the Arabs, came from the Fertile Crescent. The proto-Arabs basically migrated south towards Arabia, and then did enter Northern Africa.

The Hittite Empire was destroyed by the was destroyed by the Egyptian and Akkadian Empires, and then was finally wiped out by the Sea People during the Bronze Age Collapse. Only one of those groups is even Semitic, like the Arabs, and they were Western Semitic, not Central Semitic.

The Medes were destroyed by Indo-European people, including the refugees from the collapse of the Hittites.

The Bronze Age Collapsed caused lighter skinned people to invade the Middle East. Not the other way around.

The Arabs did invade just about the entire Middle East, 2,000 years later. Is that what you are thinking about?
 
Walt said:
Wrong direction. The Semitic Peoples, including the Arabs, came from the Fertile Crescent. The proto-Arabs basically migrated south towards Arabia, and then did enter Northern Africa.

The Hittite Empire was destroyed by the was destroyed by the Egyptian and Akkadian Empires, and then was finally wiped out by the Sea People during the Bronze Age Collapse. Only one of those groups is even Semitic, like the Arabs, and they were Western Semitic, not Central Semitic.

The Medes were destroyed by Indo-European people, including the refugees from the collapse of the Hittites.

The Bronze Age Collapsed caused lighter skinned people to invade the Middle East. Not the other way around.

The Arabs did invade just about the entire Middle East, 2,000 years later. Is that what you are thinking about?
Click to expand...

2000 years after 135 AD would be in the future. Are you claiming to be a time traveler?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top