Jump to content

Talk:Gerasa (Judaea)

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

Feel free to improve on this article

[edit]

User:Zero0000, User:Icewhiz, User:Huldra, since you have all been helpful and instrumental in the making of this article, please feel free to improve on it, as you may deem fit. Meanwhile, this is a preliminary work, done here hastily, with yet more information to add, such as the coordinates of Kh. Jurish. Hopefully, I will visit the ruin Kh. Jurish (near Tzur Hadassa) in the coming days and will take pictures of the site. Zissu has a few photographs of the place in his own article.Davidbena (talk) 02:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier discussions prior to the creation of this article

[edit]

Those interested in seeing the discussions which led-up to the creation of this article, they may find the discussions here.Davidbena (talk) 04:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the name is wrong, as it also includes places outside "Judaea" (however that area has been defined through history). AFAIK, Jerash was never a part of Judaea. This article should be moved to Gerasa, Huldra (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that whenever there is one view that is way-out in "left field" and nearly all scholars agree that that view is incorrect, such as the fringe view that Josephus' Gerasa in The Jewish War 4.9.1 is to be understood as meaning that city in the Decapolis (Transjordan), Jerash, we do not fix the title of the article in accordance with that one, singular and unpopular view. On the contrary, here, the entire object of this article is to treat on the scholarly identifications given for the Gerasa mentioned by Josephus in The Jewish War (4.9.1). If 98% of the people say that a certain flu or virus is an infectious disease, but 2% of the people think that it is not, we write without apprehension that it is an infectious disease. The same principle applies here. But just to allay your concerns, there is another book that I failed to cite (written by two German authors) whose outstanding contribution in the field of historical geography I will bring down here for you to see. The book is entitled "Siedlungen Palästinas nach Flavius Josephus" (Settlements of Palestine after Flavius Josephus), by Christa Möller and Götz Schmitt, published by Dr. Ludwig Reichert Publishers in Wiesbaden 1976. On pages 72–73 of that work they write about "Gerasa (entry number 2)". Note that they write "entry number 2," because the Gerasa which is most commonly heard about is the Gerasa (Jerash) in Transjordan. That we might have no doubt as to which Gerasa they are talking about, they open their discussion in these words:
"Ǧūrīš", followed by a question mark "?", and which question mark is followed by the grid: "180 167". They then mention the reference in Josephus, namely, "The Jewish War 4,487", followed by "4,503", another question mark, "?" and the word "Gerasene." The reference here, with some skepticism, is to Simon Bar Giora who was called a Gerasene.
Then comes the entire discourse, which is as follows:
The place was conquered and destroyed on behalf of Vespasian by Lusius Annius. It cannot be identical with Gerasa 1 (i.e. Jerash), which was a Greek city on the side of the Romans (cf. Wars 2,458). The opinion of [Paul] Perdrizet, Revue Biblique 9, 1900, p. 434, that the Jews had taken possession of Gerasa and expelled the Greeks, leaves unexplained why Annius destroyed the city and also devastated the surrounding area - in the area of the Decapolis hardly Jewish; in fact, the excavations there have revealed no destruction at the time of the Jewish uprising.
Press holds that in Wars 4,487, it refers to Ǧaraš [grid] 151 127, west of Jerusalem; Schlatter, in Topographie and Avi-Yonah suggested Ǧūrīš [grid] 180 167, which better fits the situation: Vespasian is in Jericho and then returns to Caesarea; even the supposed → Adida in Wars 4,486 does not mean a place in the west, which see. Probably Simon bar Giora, who is called in Wars 4,503 'the Gerasene', comes from this Gerasa, because he has [under his authority] the Akrabattene [territory] (→ Akrabeta) as a base (Wars 2.52) (Schlatter). [It is a place] very close to Ǧūrīš, [and] there is also a possible localization for Simon's later base → Ain. Nevertheless, the approach in Ǧūrīš remains problematic. Gerasa appears in Wars 4,487 as a "city" with surrounding villages; but Ǧūrīš was only 4 km away from the chief town of the toparchy, Akrabeta, and must have been one of the surrounding villages in comparison to it. So would not Akrabeta have been attacked and named [in Josephus' narrative]? A conceivable, but quite speculative, solution to this difficulty would be that in this Jewish-Samaritan mixed district, Akrabeta had remained predominantly Samaritan and quiet, while Gerasa was the Jewish capital of the area. (END QUOTE)
While it is clear that their approach is to place Gerasa in Samaria, the arguments raised by Zissu and Safrai have dispelled all doubts as to where we ought to be looking for the city Gerasa. If you'd like, though, and if the others will agree, we can always change the title to read "Gerasa (Provincia Ivdaea)", which name would be more inclusive. The reason why I think that it is unnecessary to alter the title is because the Mishnah[1] refers to only three regions in Roman-era Palestine: Galilee, Judea and Transjordan, meaning, the word Judea is also used sometimes to include Judea proper and all of Samaria.

References

  1. ^ Rabbi Judah the Prince, The Mishnah (ed. Herbert Danby, Oxford University Press: Oxford 1933, s.v. Tractate Sheviit 9:2.

Davidbena (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, according to yourself, the translator of The Jewish War, that is Henry St. John Thackeray (1928: 145), also though that Josephus's Gerasa was Jerash. So it was an opinion which was common, it seems among main stream researchers for a long time. And moving it to "Gerasa (Provincia Ivdaea)" is not acceptable, as Josephus does NOT mention Judaea in connection to Gerasa ....that is a connections which later researcher (and you) are making. Also having a "Jurish (Samaria)" as part of an article named Gerasa (Judaea) is confusing, to say the least, Huldra (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Two antiquated opinions, against the vast and overwhelming majority that the Gerasa of Wars 4.9.1 is NOT to be placed in Transjordan, is what we are dealing with here. Gerasa of Jordan has its own unique history, and there is no reason to burden our readers with the details about a second Gerasa. It is precisely for this reason that we started this new article, under the directives of our fellow co-editors.Davidbena (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But that "antiquated" opinion was the dominating opinion for a very long time, to me it looks as if you are wanting to conclude for our readers. And again: Josephus does NOT mention Judaea in connection to Gerasa, why on earth do you want to have it in the title, when you at the same time say that "Jurish (Samaria)".......that must be confusing as heck for the average reader, Huldra (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dominated by whom? We have already shown to you how many there were that disagreed emphatically with Thackeray. The article does well in explaining that, as also Talk:Jarash,_Jerusalem#Yesterday's_Findings. And, besides, he was not an archaeologist, nor a historical geographer. He was merely a translator who expressed his personal view. Now, just for the record, I'll write down for you what Professor Samuel Klein has written about the Gerasa of The Jewish War (4.9.1) in his work "Sefer Ha-Yishuv," s.v. גרש (p. 106). He writes there:
"Gerasa. The Jewish War 4.9.1. They have already made it known, quite consummately, that it is impossible to say that his intention here is to the city Gerasa which is in Transjordan. For this reason, some have sought to make different emendations [to the original text]: such as 'Gazara', that is to say, 'Gezer,' etc. However, these same people who assay to 'correct' the text do not ask themselves what need was there for them (i.e. the Roman army) to capture Gezer in the Shefelah in order to shut-off Jerusalem from all sides? Hadn't they already captured the mountain passes, with Emmaus in the West!? [...] It is also self-understood that there is no need to correct the text to 'Marissa' (as others have tried to do), since all of the region known as Darom was already under the control of Vespasian, etc."Davidbena (talk) 23:21, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That Thackeray was not an archaeologist, nor a historical geographer, isn't an argument against the "commonness" of the claim; rather the opposite. Thackeray would most probably just have accepted what was the common opinion of the day, Huldra (talk) 23:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Avi Younah, p. 61 operates also with a Gerasa in the Negev, at grid 105/021. That place should also be mentioned here, Huldra (talk) 23:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Huldra: As for Avi-Yonah, does he specifically mention the Gerasa in the Negev as being associated with The Jewish War (4.9.1)? If not, there's no reason to mention it, since here we are only concerned with the Gerasa that is mentioned in The Jewish War (4.9.1) and its stated connection or identification with a known place.Davidbena (talk) 00:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, there is no "commonness of the claim" at all. I think you're confusing the frequency with which the name Gerasa occurs in Josephus, with understanding that many place-names used by Josephus actually represent multiple sites, such as Gaba (to the best of my knowledge there at least four different places with that name!).Davidbena (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 November 2018

[edit]
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 section.

Not moved. See consensus below for article title to remain as is for now. Kudos to editors for your suggestions, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  03:01, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gerasa (Judaea) → Gerasa – Josephus didn't mention Judaea in connection with Gerasa. In addition, the article now mentions sites which are clearly outside Judaea Huldra (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC) --Relisted. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  01:55, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relist comment. Members of WikiProjects Archaeology, Cities and Israel have been notified of this requested move discussion. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  02:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The main argument against changing the title of this article to Gerasa is that there is currently a redirect from "Gerasa" to Jerash, and rightly so, since it is the most common usage for that name, widely recognized as such in all academic works. This article will, of necessity, require a title that distinguishes itself from the other article, especially since there is a consensus among scholars that the Gerasa mentioned by Josephus in Wars 4.9.1 was a distinct place of its own.
It is plain to me, without any doubt, that there is a place here for two separate articles on Gerasa, for the reasons discussed here, as well as on the Talk-Page of this article. The consensus of modern scholarship is that there are several places that bear the name Gerasa. Therefore, to deprive the other article of that unique name which it is widely known and recognized by, or, conversely, to merge these two articles into one, is wrong, not to mention how burdensome it would be to our readers.Davidbena (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It just occurred to me that there is a way here that we can satisfy everybody. We can leave the title as it is, but for those entries which are clearly outside of Judea proper, we can put them under a separate heading: "Places outside of Judaea proper." In this way, the designations are accurate while not taking away from the overall discussion, and the disambiguation remains in force.Davidbena (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
Comment: so now we have an article, named Gerasa (Judaea), which discuss 5 places which all have been suggested as the Gerasa of Josephus 4.9.1...and where 2 of those 5 place are outside Judaea(!) My 2 cents: this looks ridiculous, Huldra (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rejoinder: Actually, we're following here the latest conclusion of the academics involved in this study, viz. that Gerasa of Josephus (The Jewish War 4.9.1) is to be placed in Judaea! There's nothing ridiculous about it at all, as it follows the consensus of recent scholarship. The other two sites, needed for our discussion, are also discussed here, although one of them (Jerash in Jordan) is merely a fringe view -- as everyone can see who has read through these discussions in Talk:Jarash, Jerusalem, as well as here, on this very Talk-Page. Considering the difficulties of the issues at hand, this seems to me the best solution that we're able to come-up with.Davidbena (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After all is said and done, there is no real problem with the current title, as per Judea (Roman province). Judaea during the Roman period included Samaria and Idumea. The only site which is clearly outside of "Judaea" is the Gerasa in Transjordan. This should be viewed as an anomaly, similar to what we see in the Eurovision Song Contest, which, although started by the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) to search for ways of bringing together the countries of the EBU around a "light entertainment programme," now includes countries such as Israel and Turkey and which are not part of Europe or the EBU. Just as we do not change the title of that article because of the introduction of these two countries, since the majority are definitely in Europe, so too would the principle apply here.--Davidbena (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, this is like arguing that since Israel participates in the Eurovision Song Contest, we should also have that Israeli music is a subsection of European music. Good luck with that. Huldra (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's a wrong analogy, since the title of the Eurovision Song Contest remains the same, in spite of Israel's participation in it, and that, mind you, because the majority are, indeed, from Europe. It's the same here: the majority of places named here, in this article, are also in Roman Judaea - with or without subsections, since Roman Judaea included all of Samaria, Judea proper and Idumea.Davidbena (talk) 01:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Judea which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gerasa_(Judaea)&oldid=1206023696"