File talk:Iturea-Trachonitis.PNG

1st c. CE, really?

Machaerus, hi. Thank you for creating and posting this map.

The most common source for the trio Auranitis, Batanaea and Trachonitis is Josephus, when he refers to Augustus entrusting these districts to Herod the Great. So 1st c. BCE/BC, and not CE/AD. What is the base of you dating your map to the 1st c. CE? Looking for instance at the book review listed below, written by a French specialist in this field, it seems to me that this choice of terms might even be specific ONLY for that historical moment. I have the hunch that the choice of CE rather than BCE might be for no specific reason, or maybe just out of a general interest in the time of Jesus. If that is indeed the case, I will feel free to modify the caption, both of the Wikimedia file, and of its various uses on Wikipedia. What do you think? Thanks, Arminden (talk) 01:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

see for instance Fergus Millar, ‘’The Roman Near East: 31BC - AD337’’, Harvard University Press, 1993 (4th printing 2001), 37: “The area … is described by Josephus as Trachonitis (the lava plate), Auranitis (the Hauran) and Batanea … After the police-action by Varro, it was now, in 23 BC, added to Herod’s territory, which already included Galilee and, as we have seen, Hippos and Gadara to the east and south-east of the Sea of Galilee. Three years later, as Josephus records, Augustus paid a visit to Syria, in fact in 20 BC, and is descibed as granting to Herod Trachonitis (again), Ulatha (…) and Paneas … they were to remain under the rule of members of the Herodian dynasty almost (though not quite) continuously until the end of the first century AD.”

to be honest I read the “a Herodian district (and only the Herodian one)” in the book review as a reference to the Herodian Period, not only to Herod the Great (also because Sartre refers to Herod Philip as one having authority). The Herodian Period includes the first century, and Herod (sic) Philip was a first century Herodian ruler (as were Herod Agrippa and his son of the same name, both of whom later in the first century CE ruled over the area). Furthermore, I believe the point of Sartre’s emphasis on the area being “only” a Herodian district, is that PC confused Herod Philip (who ruled the rea from 4 BCE- 34 CE) and the third century emperor Philip the Arab (which, indeed, is a major mistake in a dissertation). Sartre’s emphasis underscores that the situation has changed between the time descibed by PC and the time of Philip the Arab. At least, that is how I read Sartre’s review. I understand from your comments that you interpret it as a reference to Herod the Great only. Please explain, for I do not really see how such a reading makes sense of either Sartre’s review, or the references in Josephus linking the area to the first century CE Herodian rulers mentioned above.

I do not object, of course, to changing BC/AD to BCE/CE, or maybe an even better designation would be ‘in the Herodian Period’.

Machaerus (talk) 09:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)