Talk:Ancient synagogues in Palestine


Requested move 4 June 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. For increased clarity, a parenthetical disambiguator should apply to the entire page title rather than to just a part of it. Since this new title proposal was so obviously controversial, I am unable to rename to any other suggested titles made within this proposal. So this decision is made without prejudice, i.e., if anyone would like to begin a new RM proposal of a title suggested herein, such a proposal would be within the guideline, WP:RMCI, and is fine by me. (closed by a page mover)  OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine  05:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient synagogues in Palestine → Ancient synagogues in Palestine (region)? – To avoid confusion between the political entity State of Palestine and the region Palestine (region). These are distinct areas, the region being the wider of the two. The present article includes a multitude of synagogues in the wider region. The lead sentence of the article was recently improved to read "Ancient synagogues in Palestine refers to synagogues in the region commonly referred to as Palestine", after I urged the point, and I think it is important the title also reflect this.

I would like to stress a small technical point, because it has been misunderstood by some editors in the discussions on this talkpage above. This move is requested to avoid confusion, which I would call disambiguation. The term "disambiguation" as used on Wikipedia may be a bit more limited, but that does not detract from the point, which is the fact that some clarification needs to be added to the word "Palestine". In this regard, please notice that recently, many instances of the word "Palestine" have been made to link to either the state, the region or "Mandatory Palestine", and this is just another case where some clarification is needed.

On a note, I am open for alternative proposals along the same line, like Ancient synagogues in the Palestine region, for example. Debresser (talk) 18:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as nominator. Debresser (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support if paraphrased Ancient synagogues in the region of Palestine. Better than an everlasting argument between Israel and Palestine. The lead will say that "Region of Palestine today encompasses the State of Israel and Palestinian Territories".--Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me as well. But why do you need that phrase in the lead? Why wouldn't it be enough to simply link to Palestine (region)? Debresser (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. This is the third effort to destabilize a perfectly neutral title. Repeated recyclying of a complaint after it is turned down, each within days, is poor practice.Nishidani (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is my first official move discussion, as suggested above by Nableezy.[1] and [2] Whining is also poor practice. Debresser (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify for you what a native speaker of English understands by "whining". It means a nagging pertinacity typical of children in the face of adult refusals to placate the obstinately reiterated whimsies of the immature. Nishidani (talk) 19:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is what a non-native speaker would be referring to as well. You couldn't have described your last few posts here in any better way. Debresser (talk) 21:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be silly, and inanely provocative. The reiteration of a turned down suggestion is in the record, and you with it. You are totally unfamiliar with any serious scholarship outside your profession, and I'll say this in Chesdovi's favour, that his personal religion never gets in the way of an omnivorous curiosity about, and respect for, secular scholarship. That is why, unlike yourself, he is useful to this encyclopedia, even if I often disagree with him.Nishidani (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Insinuating that of my over 80,000 edits nothing was useful for Wikipedia is rather insulting, weren't it that it is patently incorrect. I doubt you have any way of knowing my attitude towards what you call secular scholarship. Suffice it to say that I have studied in universities in Europe and Israel. Debresser (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - completely unnecessary and displaying a complete disregard for the language that modern sources use for the topic of the article, that being invariably "Palestine" and "Palestinian". The thing of this is that there are so many entangled POVs here that they overlap in somewhat surprising combinations. There are those that want to lay claim as being "in the state of Palestine" anything in the occupied territories, ignoring the crucial difference between a state and a country and just because one exists the other does not automatically follow, combined with those that want to remove any mention of "Palestine" as having been the place that Israel now largely occupies, either as lawful sovereign or belligerent occupant, so they go along with the X is in Palestine formulation in modern village articles in order to relegate the commonly used name of the place for the time period under discussion here. Then there are those that want to deny any existence of such a thing called Palestine, both present or past. What should be followed is something similar to WP:WESTBANK in which we use the terminology that sources use for a given time period, eg for antiquity we say something happened in Judea or some place was in Samaria, and for things past a certain point we again follow the sources. Sources refer to these synagogues having been built in Palestine. Full stop. There isnt any other meaningful destination topic for an article titled Ancient synagogues in Palestine, and as such no need to disambiguate. There is zero policy basis for this, and it should be rejected. nableezy - 06:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
“ignoring the crucial difference between a state and a country”
Country, state and nation state are all interchangeable in common usage. Nation can be used in an ethnic sense but I have never heard state used this way. You hear of stateless peoples or stateless nations but countryless states is an oxymoron.Jonney2000 (talk) 01:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A country controls its territory, a state is a political entity that other states say is a state. Thats the primary difference. nableezy - 08:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reminds one of 國 guó which in Chinese refers to all three: country, nation, state. But in the ancient chronicles describing China’s periphery, it was the reflex term for all sorts of entities, from tribal centres to ethnic aggregates controlling a territory. Modern scholars now understand it in those con texts as meaning what it meant etymologically, any walled town or set of towns (vs. 城 chéng, inner wall) controlled by local chieftains opposed to Han/Wei dynasty expansionism.Nishidani (talk) 09:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The state has very limited recognition. Note, even those who say that certain areas are not Israel, do not automatically recognize a Palestinian state. The country also has limited control over its territory, more policing than in the sense a sovereign state controls its territory and defends it against foreign powers. Historically, neither ever existed. So all POVs aside, Nableezy, the single most neutral term available to us is "Palestine (region)"/"region of Palestine". Debresser (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That isnt true. 136 states recognize Palestine. The rest of your comment makes absolutely no sense to me, as it is seemingly a completely disconnected set of thoughts that dont really have anything to do with the comment your responding to. All that said, no, it isnt (see I can just assert things and say its true just like you!). nableezy - 16:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1. That is an unsourced statement. 2. That is still not all 3. The UN does not recognize Palestine as a full member state. 4. Which begs the question, as what do those 136 states (claimed) recognize Palestine. 5. Where are all those 136 embassies? 6. If so, what is the relevance of that "recognition"? 7. What does all of that mean for us on Wikipedia? Debresser (talk) 13:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1. Heres 135, ill find the 136th lol. 2. Who said all. 3. Who cares. 4. As a state. 5. Not relevant. 6. The relevance is that they say its a state. 7. That its a state, not necessarily a country. 8. None of this has anything to do with this article, and I have no idea why it is youre badgering me over it. My point above that Palestine is a state, not a country, meaning it doesnt actually control its territory so places arent "in Palestine" as a modern country. So when we say "in Palestine" it means the region by default. Even more so for an article like this where any other use or any other word would be anachronistic, much like the Judea /Samaria or West Bank guideline. nableezy - 16:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That still leaves the considerable number of 57 states that do not recognize Palestine. Including Western Europe and the Northern America. Also take into account that there are 22 Arab countries and 48 Muslim-majority countries (overlapping), whose opinion on the issue is rather predictable. Debresser (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly does that have to do with anything at all? nableezy - 23:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All of these points were made in the preceding 2 discussions, so repeating them is pointless, except as an exercise in mnemonics, if one needs to learn by rote.Nishidani (talk) 15:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. This is an independent proposal, so there is nothing pointless about any part of this discussion. Don't try to diminish this proposal, please. Debresser (talk) 13:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia policy on disambiguation is what diminishes the "proposal". nableezy - 16:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I showed above, that point is incorrect.
Why the parentheses ("proposal")? This is a proposed move. I don't appreciate the attitude. Debresser (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have not shown any such thing above. You make an unsupported assertion and act like that makes it so WP:DAB doesnt apply here. Wikipedia disambiguates titles when a title may have two separate titles. That doesnt apply here. As for your last line, I cant really say I care. But they were quotation marks, not parentheses. nableezy - 19:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I never claimed WP:DAB applies. All I said is that the title is ambiguous, confusing, and in need of clarification. Debresser (talk) 21:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I said it applies, and I said based on it this title as it stands is fine. And I say it is not ambiguous, not confusing, and not in need of any clarification. I actually said you said it doesnt apply based on a series of unsupported assertions, so your comment doesnt make a whole lot of sense to me. Hey look, there are those unsupported assertions again. nableezy - 21:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My point has been well argued, and you have nothing substantial to say against it, and resort to attempts at sarcasm. I will stop here replying to this now useless polemic, and hope other editors will join the discussion. Debresser (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, you say we should include a disambiguation for a place that is routinely used in scholarly sources, including the sources of this article. That isnt an argument, it is an unfounded and unsupported assertion. I wasnt even being sarcastic. Facetious yes, but sarcastic no. nableezy - 22:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per all of the above arguments, Huldra (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • New Proposal. Ancient synagogues in the Southern Levant. It is accurate, NPOV and cuts this wearying argument off at the knees. I am talking to both "camps" here. Irondome (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No fierce opposition, but the term "Southern Levant" has recently been discussed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_March_16#Category:Southern_Levant in relation to Category:Southern Levant, which in the end was emptied and turned into a soft redirect, and one of the arguments against using the term was the vagueness of the term. Also, I don't disagree that "Palestine" was the historic term to refer to this region, so I see no reason to avoid it, and I think that finding evasive terminology is not a solution. Debresser (talk) 22:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Support. I find Debresser's opening statement compelling. I take on board also the statement by Nableezy (06.22 5/6/16). The precision of Debresser's proposal would be useful. In talking of a region it is actually attempting a more NPOV approach. Irondome (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I really dont understand the NPOV argument. The common English name of the place is the name of the place. Now, based on how Ive read Wikipedia policies and articles over the past decade, would see a Wikipedia article titled Ancient synagogues in Palestine (region) and think that there is some region by the name of Ancient synagogues in Palestine. Because thats how and why we disambiguate titles. Compare this with the guideline on when to use West Bank and when to use Judea and/or Samaria (WP:WESTBANK). For the time period that modern sources refer to the area there as Judea or Samaria or whatever, our articles do the same. We dont qualify it because theres a modern Israeli district by the name of Judea and Samaria Area, we dont downplay it. Todays sources will refer to something that was built in ancient times as having been in Judea, and we do the same. They also refer to these things as being in Palestine, and we do the same. How is this any different? nableezy - 03:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed Nableezy. Article lead specifically links to Palestine (region). I withdraw my support, and am beginning to wonder why we are actually having this conversation, if all concerns appear to be met. It would appear that we have a broad cross-party consensus here. Simon. Irondome (talk) 16:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Irondome The claim that the region is always called "Palestine" is factually incorrect in academic literature from after 1948. The lead does link to the region, but that is a relatively recent improvement, and one that editors are likely to try to revert, if the title isn't changed as well. In addition, the title should be unambiguous, and at present it isn't. Also, per Nableezy's argument, the article should be called "Ancient synagogues in Syria Palaestina", which is what the region was called when these synagogues were active. Nableezy is just trying to oppose a perfectly logical nomination with whatever argument he can think of, without checkeing if they actually make sense. Debresser (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong, and 'academic literature after 1948? is frankly, bizarre, unless one imagines that by 'academic literature' you are referring to the adoption of 'eretz yisrael' in Hebrew texts in the new state. That's understandable, but it is not what 'academic literature' in the non-Hebrew speaking world uses: there, 'Palestine' is still the default term for all scholars, Jewish, Israeli or otherwise, for the land from the Paleolithic down to modern times, esp. when discussing the history of the country, of which 'ancient synagogues' is an integral part.Nishidani (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is flatly untrue, as even a quick read at the sources cited in this article will show. You have repeatedly said untrue things in this move request, with the apparent expectation that nobody will call you out on it. From 2012 used Palestine, full stop. Also 2012, uses Palestine, full stop. Kindly stop making false claims. nableezy - 17:31, 13 June 2016 (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.

Alternative proposal

Since the above previous proposals don't seem to gain much consensus, I (now formally) propose the following to remove any real or perceived ambiguity. The latest discussion shows at least some support for this title although so far not all editors have commented on it or indicated if they would support such move as an alternative or second choice.--TMCk (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Ancient synagogues in Palestine" - - - > "Synagogues in ancient Palestine" (Note: No template b/c of bot problem.)

Support/oppose

  • Support as an alternative - As previously indicated, this title would address voiced concerns and is still within the scope of usage in reliable sources.--TMCk (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Id support this over any other choice, but I still dont think its necessary. nableezy - 19:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As per Nableezy. It's not necessary, but it is solidly grounded usage, even if less common.Nishidani (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Reason 1: "synagogues in Y" so far referred to Y as a location, not a time period, and I think it should stay that way. Compare Synagogues in India, Synagogues in Omaha, Synagogues in Washington State etc, but never a time period. Reason 2: by the same token the article might as well be called "Synagogues in ancient Israel". Reason 3: inferior to the proposal above. Debresser (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please also note that the proposal above is still open, and has more support than opposition, so I don't think it was prudent to open this proposal at the time it was opened. Debresser (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It does not have more support than opposition. Looks like its 5-4 opposed, 4-4 when you wrote that, to me. nableezy - 22:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: name clearly reflects the topic of the article and is actually a name used in reliable sources. Ebonelm (talk) 21:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

How is this different than Synagogues in Ancient Israel which would make even more sense? Sir Joseph (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Israel would be anachronistic. Sources use Palestine as the place name for this time period, so to should Wikipedia. nableezy - 19:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily, Israel is today and ancient Israel is the same place in ancient times. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh good grief!Nishidani (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which Israel or kingdom are you referring to? Not that it would make any difference tho. + I thought we go by sources while avoiding ambiguity and not trying to add some?--TMCk (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Without the "good grief", please. I agree with Sir Joseph, and that is one reason I think this proposal is inferior to the one above, because both "ancient Palestine" and "ancient Israel" can be argued. Debresser (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief, because anyone who makes Sir Joseph's proposition has never opened a serious book on the history of Palestine. Ancient 'Israel' was never coterminous with 'Palestine'. That is kindergarten level basic knowledge.Nishidani (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since the obvious is not obvious to some, let's parse what you Dovid, assent to without grasping its inanity, with the appropriate grammatical correction.

Israel (is) today and ancient Israel is the same place in ancient times.

Sir Joe is stating that 'ancient Israel' (the northern Kingdom of 'Samaria', when Israel does not refer, as often, to the community of worshippers wherever they dwell) was situated within the recognized territory of the modern state of Israel, and not on the West Bank. Do you guys ever think?, equating modern Israel on the traditional territory of Philistia and the Phoenicians etc. in good part, with the area in the hills of Samaria in the northern West Bank? This kind of nonsense makes me blasphemously religious, as I expire for the evening muttering 'Jeezus!'Nishidani (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Debresser, when you write something "can be argued" that is close to meaningless. I can argue that rainbows are made of marshmallows and that clouds are just giant pillows for angels to sleep on. We on Wikipedia however use reliable sources for arguments, and they, in the English language, overwhelmingly use "Palestine" for the territory during this time period. So yes, you can argue whatever you like, but good grief is a perfectly acceptable response to that argument or to one in which somebody says a rainbow tastes delicious. nableezy - 22:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

To editor TMCk: Please forgive me, as you did nothing wrong. It's just that the RM bot can only handle one open RM on a talk page. One suggestion would be to make the above title suggestion as a variant proposal to the open move request and make it within that request preferably in a subsection for easy readability. Another suggestion is to wait until the open request plays out, then go from there. In any case, it was a bot limitation and only a bot limitation that required the above discussion closure.  What's in your palette? Paine  00:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As an involved editor you realy shouldn't have touched this at all + the sincere thing would've been to simply point out to me what is nothing more than a simple bot problem. Please don't do this again, but of course I do forgive you.--TMCk (talk) 14:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's two opinions that I was wrong (the first was expressed on my talk page), and since I really don't know the time constraints as to how long before the RM bot has a problem after a second RM is opened, there may have been time for me to ask you to withdraw and turn your formal request into an informal discussion as has been done above. Thank you for your consideration in this matter, and I will try to be more considerate myself in the future.  What's in your palette? Paine  02:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate your response.--TMCk (talk) 03:14, 22 June 2016 (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.

2nd Temple period synagogues

I made a larger edit today, which was surprisingly contested and almost entirely reverted by my dear colleague Debresser.

Here are my arguments, one by one.

Why a distinct paragraph about "Second Temple Period synagogues". The pre-/post- 70 CE distinction is essential. Pre-70 CE synagogues are of high interest to both Jews (before Yavneh and Yohanan ben Zakkai they only served as place of reading the Bible, not for prayer), and Christians (Jesus preached in many of them).

I used the term Land of Israel in the context of ancient synagogues because synagogues are, by definition, places of religious activity, and in Judaism the religious activities within the halakhically clearly defined borders of the "Land of Israel" are radically different from those outside these borders. The Byzantine-era mosaic of Rehob, among others, proves how well-aware Jews were of these borders, even if they meant economic hardship (sabbatical year obligation of [not] harvesting the fields), and even in times when no worldly authority was around to enforce them - on the contrary, when defining oneself as Jewish led to persecution.

The Capernaum synagogue as "the best preserved" one: a) The older (basalt) structure is not proven to be a synagogue, and is anything but well-preserved. The comment only refers to the 4th-century "white synagogue", which is not made clear. b) The 2012 comment is outdated. Umm el-Kanatir can easily contest the title: a 2-floor structure that seems to be pretty much complete to the last stone; is being reconstructed by an Israeli archaeologist who has already reached the 2nd floor level. It was found collapsed, but the "white synagogue" of Capernaum was also reconstructed by Franciscans using collapsed elements, there was almost nothing left standing when they first arrived. c) It's a silly topic to begin with.

"Gamla - oldest known Palestinian synagogue": maybe as of 2012, but outdated by now - see Modi'in's Kh. Umm el-Umdan, dated to the end of the 2nd c. - beginning of the 1st c. BCE.

Migdal/Magdala: Magdala is the Aramaic name, which was in use at the time when the synagogue was built. It is also how the most recognisable name associated with it came to be: Mary Magdalene = Mary of Magdala. So adding it makes perfect sense. FYI: Migdal (Hebr.), Magdala (Aramaic), al-Majdal/el-Mejdel (Arabic).

Adding "Tulul Abu el-Alayiq" to "Wadi Qelt": That's how it's known from those who discovered it, i.e. Ehud Netzer & Co. The Wadi is long, the site's name is Tulul Abu el-Alayiq, period. There are many sites in Wadi Qelt, which are not at Alayiq.

Added"refers to the modern State of Israel" next to the link Ancient synagogues in Israel: WHO can really be bothered by this?!! OK, and beyond that: Making a clear distinction between State of Israel and in the scope of the two pages dealing with Ancient synagogues in Israel and Ancient synagogues in Palestine is more than needed. Israel is shorthand for Jacob, the children of Israel, the Land of Israel, the United Monarchy, the northern kingdom, AND the modern state. Sufficiently argued? Concrete case of confusion: I looked up smth. on the "Israel" page and thought I'm reading a Hamas brochure till I understood that it's an (as such almost useless) sub-page of the larger "Palestine" page, which was only mentioned at "Also see", a category easily missed by most. Arminden (talk) 18:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To start with the easy replies: The article is at Migdal Synagogue. Alternative names can be added there, with sources. Wadi Qelt is perhaps not the most precise name, but it is the name of the synagogue, and that is enough. Wadi Qelt Synagogue is also linked, and more details can be found in that article. No problems with the see also's.[3] Debresser (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does this[4] lay your worries to rest? I simply implemented the same solution as here on Ancient synagogues in Israel. Debresser (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have also no problem with clarifying that Gamla is not the oldest any more, but only if you find a reliable source for that. Debresser (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Temple Period Syn.: list needed

I introduced the following sub-paragraph, and Debresser removed it for formal reasons (not discussed on talk-page). I am convinced - no, I know - this info is needed and useful, so I place it here so it can be reintroduced by whoever as soon as the opposition to it ceases. Of course, reference and reformatting as a table can only enhance it, but that's how material usually makes it into articles: step by step. As it is, it's already a) up-to-date and complete, b) properly linked to WP articles, and c) useful to students and other users, which should always be our main (if not only) criterium. Cheeres, Arminden (talk) 06:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second Temple Period synagogues

Here is a list of all the structures from the Land of Israel discovered so far and interpreted by some as Second Temple Period synagogues. The list is set up in a tentatively chronological order according to the excavators' estimate of the time of construction.

Location -- Built; in use till -- Discovered by -- Comments/reservations

-- Also suggested --

  • Qumran (two gathering rooms) -- around 100 BCE (?) -- highly contested; if indeed a synagogue: of a sectarian type
  • Chorazin -- found in 1926 by Jacob Ory 200 metres west of 3rd-century CE synagogue; exact location unknown until now
  • Shuafat -- structure excavated in 1991 by the late Alexander Onn, who dated it to early 1st century-31 BCE; insufficiently published, some claim the "case evaporated" and the "claim should be withdrawn"
My problem is with the "in Palestine" part of some of these synagogues. Is Masada in Palestine, or Capernaum, or Tel Rechesh, Chorazin or Qumran? Capernaum, Chorazin and Masada are already in Ancient synagogues in Israel. Debresser (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the list and added sources. I added an intro regarding the fact that Second Temple period synagogues served a different purpose than those in use after 70 CE.

Debresser: "Palestine" is clearly defined here in the lead as Palestine (region), which is about the same as the Land of Israel. Nothing to do with modern politics. So then yes, Masada, Capernaum, Tel Rekhesh, Chorazin, Qumran are indeed in this geographical region. Btw, Ancient synagogues in Israel is a lost case, utterly abandoned, incomplete, and I dare say, useless, since the "politically correct" camp disconnected it from its logical & archaeological context - leaving us now with this article instead. I linked that article by hattag or what it's called to this, and that's all one can do. Arminden (talk) 14:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Golan WAS, in the relevant period, part of the Palestine region

The Golan Heights were - all or partially - part of: the ancient Kingdom of Israel, Alexander Jannaeus' Hasmonean kingdom after his last campaign, Herod's kingdom, his son's Philip the Tetrarch's realm (in Jesus' time!), Syria Palaestina, Palaestina Secunda... Golan was for a looong time undisputed part of Palestine. Just check the scholarly sources in the "References": Gamla synagogue had the most seating places IN PALESTINE. Etc. The synagogues we're talking about here are precisely from these periods: the Hasmonean, Herodian, Roman and Byzantine periods. When there was a continuum of culture and habitation for Jews from Judaea, Perea, Galilee and Gaulanitis. Enough argued? Meant for Greyshark09 and anyone who mixes up politics with scholarly discussions. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What about Early Muslim to Mamluk or even Early Ottoman sites?

"Ancient" in English covers everything from before the modern era (19th c., probably the Egyptian invasion is the best time limit). But those can be made part of another category, say "Synagogues in Muslim-era Palestine", to include 638-1918. There are very few examples from the Early Muslim period, about the rest I'm not informed. The Crusader/Ayyubid period is probably not represented, or very little, and about the Mamluk and Early Ottoman periods we need somebody knowledgeable. In Jerusalem there are a few. Arminden (talk) 17:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What about "Ancient synagogues in the Land of Israel"?

Synagogues are a religious institution in Judaism and Samaritanism, where the "Land of Israel", Eretz Israel, is a religious concept with well-defined borders in the specific periods we're talking about, borders which are very relevant in the conduct of religious life (see Laws and customs of the Land of Israel in Judaism). There is no connection whatsoever between the concept of "ancient synagogues in the Land of Israel", which only refers a) to synagogues, and b) to the time span when they flourished, i.e. between the Late Second Temple/Roman period and the Byzantine period, and modern political discussions on what the "Promised Land" encompasses or not. The term Palestine is misleading and out of place in this context, adds nothing, is quite naturally uncommon in academic literature dealing with the topic, and gives rise here to a lot of confusion and to comments like those above, including "why the Golan" etc.. You may also check the Rehov synagogue inscription (section "Legal (halakhic) background") to remember what the topic is about and that the definition was back then literally "set in stone". So for the time period we're dealing with here, "Land of Israel" is not just the correct and very precise term, but a highly significant one in religious practice in Judaism - and we're talking synagogues.

The leading authors in the field wouldn't even consider a different term and regularly split their works in chapters about "The Land of Israel" and "The Diaspora" - see for instance A. Runesson, D. Binder, B. Olsson (BRILL, 2008), The Ancient Synagogue from its Origins to 200 C.E.: A Sourcebook, Steven Fine, ed. (Oxford U. Press & Yeshiva University Museum, 1996), Sacred Realm: The Emergence of the Synagogue in the Ancient World, or Rachel Hachlili (BRILL, 1988), Ancient Jewish Art and Archaeology in the Land of Israel.

So, can we do the right thing and forget for once about "The Conflict" (still not enough capital letters...) when dealing with topics 1.5-2 millennia old? Arminden (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both Runesson and Hachlili use "Palestine" frequently in their books, though you are correct they use "Land of Israel" more often. I don't believe you are correct about "Land of Israel" having precise boundaries or that modern authors work with precise boundaries except ones they adopt for their own convenience (Golan?? Hauran??). The same is true of "Palestine", of course. Personally I'd prefer a more vague term like "Levant". Zerotalk 01:09, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Zero0000:, hi. Please check what I have indicated. There was an extremely clear concept during the Byzantine period regarding which areas are considered to be "land of Israel" under the relevant aspect, i.e.: where do the laws of the halakha apply. It mainly had to do with actual area of Jewish settlement. If you had to give up on your harvest every 7th year, or pay certain substantial tithes and taxes, you'd want to know exactly where you belong. Samaritan areas, the Arava/Arabah, parts of the Phoenician coast which are now in modern Israel, the area of Maresha (lost to the Idumeans after the Babylonian conquest) are clear examples of territories previously part of the Israelite kingdoms, but not part of the halakhical territory of the land of Israel in the Byzantine period. What I am not sure about is how this "map" evolved during the Roman and Byzantine periods, but the vast majority of "ancient synagogues in Palestine" are post-3rd century and fit in perfectly. Of course they would use in English the term Palestine, but check out the headings of chapters, the names used for sections and categories: it's always "land of Israel" vs. "Diaspora", for good reason, based on religious laws, which created the perception and worldview of the time. There were a whole lot of commandments relevant only for the LoI. I learned now looking it up that specifically in synagogues, in LoI weding rings were to be shown, whereas in "Babylon" they were to be kept more concealed. In general, there were LoI-only laws concerning shmita, but not only, all of it discussed in crazy detail in the Talmud. The Rehob mosaic is sensational because it shows exactly how these theological discussions were mirrored into concrete, exact lists of villages & towns and down to specific plots of land, where one was subject of the LoI law and where not, enough so as to lay a huge inscription (29 lines of dense text!) on the floor of the synagogue with such considerations. Nothing decorative about it, a boring list of places, but essential to daily life. A Muslim knew exactly where the Dar al-Islam is, a Christian knew where he's under the jurisdiction of this or that Church authority, and a Jew knew exactly where the "Eretz Israel" laws apply. And they applied according to the actual demographics of the time, so they could change. That's what I'm talking about. It's not about counting how often Hachlili uses "Palestine" in this or that article, that's irrelevant, I mentioned it just for those who don't have the time to read and understand the facts. Arminden (talk) 03:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Levant would include far too much. The Jewish synagogue at Dura Europos is in the Levant, but very far from the LoI. The same goes for Cyprus, to show you how far that would stray away. No, it has nothing to do with modern definitions of historical or archaeological regions. It was far, far more concrete and precise than that. I'm not sure any rabbi could tell today where the exact limit was on the Golan Heights, or, as you know, historically the Galilee went up to the Litani River, but the coast has never been Jewish, so which village was "in " and which "out", maybe they know, maybe don't anymore. But there aren't all that many ancient synagogues in such places, I wouldn't worry aboout that. What I want to say: during that time, people knew the boundaries as well as a pre-modern parish priest knew what diocese he belonged to, which families belonged to his parish, and which lands belonged to which family. No more, no less. Arminden (talk) 04:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ever since biblical times there were disputes about where the boundaries of Eretz Israel were. The Rehov inscription is only one definition and even that is vague for much of the border. Eyal Ben-Eliyahu Identity and Territory, discusses this. I'll quote from p200 (epub edition): "An additional dimension of the sages' approach to the land was the principle of the boundaries' elasticity. According to halakhic principles in rabbinic literature, the expansion of Jewish settlement brings with it an increase in the area in which people are obliged to observe priestly gifts and tithes and which is not inherently impure." And he gives examples of the boundaries shrinking too. So you are not correct about the boundaries being certain and fixed. I would say it isn't much relevant, either, since there is no reason to believe that the modern scholars we cite look to the Byzantine meaning of Eretz Israel in deciding how to organize their books. It's more likely they use Eretz Israel in its modern fuzzy meaning, which is more or less synonymous with Palestine. Zerotalk 10:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. We're saying the same. The comparison with the "parish", to use Christian terms, is a very good one. It can be dissolved, it can be merged, it can be moved to another bishopric, so yes, it evolves with time (see my example with Maresha). But at the given time, people know very well where it belongs, and as long as there's a Christian congregation there, it will be part of the Church realm, period. In our case, since the halakhic definition was dependent on Jewish presence, the changes were substantial only in times of large demographic change, which essentially came as a result of war, see Babylonian conquest and result of revolts in the Roman period. No such thing in the Byzantine period. There was very little appetite among Jews to participate in Samaritan revolts, and those were the big events of the time, nothing else happened between Constantine and the Muslim conquest that would have had a serious effect on Jewish demographic patterns.
But this conversation between two non-specialists is a bit funny. Yes, I do believe that we shouldn't make decisions if we're not familiar with the basic facts. But we can and should use as a guide those who do know the topic in and out, and they clearly and consistently use the two categories, "synagogues in the land/Land of Israel" versus "Diaspora synagogues". This was the reality, and it's sufficiently well studied. Like always, there are parallel geographies: Christian dioceses, Jewish Eretz Israel, Byzantine administrative units, regions dominated by "Greek" cities, Samaritan-majority areas in and outside Samaria, these all existed simultaneously and their boundaries never overlapped. But when discussing Jewish synagogues, the relevant point of reference is LoI. One can only discuss how Samaritan synagogues relate to this point of reference in a time when there were lots of them, and it's an interesting one, but that point hasn't even been raised yet. The official administrative provinces were mainly the two northern Palaestinas, no doubt about it, and the region is "Palestine" since 70 CE and the term is used with this meaning by the authors; that doesn't contradict in any way the connection (Jewish) synagogues - Land of Israel vs Diaspora. Fact, like the two Talmuds are a fact: one is called in Western usage the Palestinian Talmud and in Jewish usage the Jerusalem Talmud, even if it originates in the Galilee, and the other one is the Babylonian Talmud, after the main Diaspora, where it did indeed originate ("Babylonia" being yet another anachronistic term used in Judaism, but well-established and never put in doubt in the West; or on Wiki). Western scholars were early in establishing the term Palestinian Talmud, never used by Jews; opposed to that, there is no firmly established Western term "synagogues of Palestine", but there is a better established one "synagogues in the Land of Israel", because nowadays research is more advanced and local realities usually trump attempts at setting standards from outside. Except on Wikipedia, where far smaller majorities can change that. There is a meaning for "Palestinian synagogue", that refers to such frequented by Palestinian Jews in the Diaspora, as opposed to Greek-speaking or other local categories of Jews. But that's something else, and a possible source of misunderstanding, although what we have here is "in Palestine", not "Palestinian", but the step is short and leads in the wrong direction.
I can live with both solutions –without agreeing, not for uncalled-for political reasons, but for the explained ones of historical reality–, I just see myself making mistakes again and again when I'm adding or moving this or that site to/from a list in a hurry, because more often than not "Palestine" is code for West Bank and Gaza. For me the current title doesn't work well, neither academically, nor in practical terms. Those who support it most likely do it out of a political reflex, but are paradoxically not from the camp of those much interested in dealing with historical Jewish presence in the area. So it's in a way very funny, like any paradox, and worth a permanent smile. I think I have nothing useful to add. Arminden (talk) 13:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Today I've lost it, far too many words, the breaks went loose.
"It's more likely they use Eretz Israel in its modern fuzzy meaning" - not the good authors we care to quote. And I think you're talking in general. I'm strictly referring to "ancient synagogues in Palestine". They all date to the Roman (very few, just a handful) and Byzantine periods (almost all belong to the latter). In the context of Byzantine-period Jewish synagogues, the Jewish religious concept of where the laws of the Land of Israel apply is very clear and the boundaries don't move much, because the Jewish settlement area is not changing much. It was a matter of set theory again: where "Dan to Beersheba" overlapped with actual Jewish presence. I don't think anything in what I've written now can be contradicted. Again, it wasn't about history, "Promised Land" or anything abstract: it was about not using the fields every 7th year, being allowed or not to purchase and eat certain foods and drink certain wines, selling/leasing specific plots of land, etc., etc., so very numerous and relevant day to day issues. Nobody could be fuzzy about that. And researchers have a good idea where the boundaries were. Also, the Talmud was put to paper in that time span, it was available to local rabbis who applied the verdicts to their immediate area. The issue I don't know anything about is how to cover the Samaritan synagogues under the same title, that is indeed a hole in my argument. Maybe others have an answer to that, but I won't start reading on that topic now. Arminden (talk) 01:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ancient_synagogues_in_Palestine&oldid=1204836110"