Ancient Inscription Found Calling the Land of Israel IVDAEA [Judea]

The Roman and Greek name for the Land of Israel as a whole in the heyday of the Roman Empire was Judea, spelled in Latin IVDAEA.
[as a caution bear in mind that Latin has case endings for nouns so in cases other than the nominative case the name may be spelled other than IVDAEA. Also the V was pronounced like a U while I was pronounced like Y]. This Latin name for the Land of Israel was pronounced more like Yudaya. The word Judea apparently comes from the Aramaic word Yehudaya, meaning The Jews. Since Greek and Latin do not have a soft H sound, it was dropped when they uttered the Aramaic YeHudaya [יהודאיא] and the sound came out Yudaya, IVDAEA.

I have already shown here on Emet m'Tsion that the name Judea is found on inscriptions as well as on Roman coins, military diplomas [see one here], books, etc.

Here is an inscription found in 1961 at Caesarea  [also  Caesarea Maritima] on the coast of Israel, in ancient times Judea. The Roman name for Israel is Judea, IVDAEA, shows up on the stone inscription. Also appearing is the name Pontius Pilatus, who was the Roman governor of Judea [called a PRAEFECTVS in this inscription]. Pilatus appears in the New Testament story of Jesus, thus also confirming that part of the New Testament account.

TIBERIEVM

 [PO]NTIVS PILATVS

  [PRAEF]ECTVS IVDA[EAE]

In reading the inscription on the rock in the photo below, note that the Romans ran the words together, so that on the third line we see: ECTUSIVDA. Today of course we separate words. Thus we should read the inscription as [PRAEF]ECTUS IVDA[EAE].
The second and third line translate as Pontius Pilatus, Prefect of Judea. Hence, we have confirmation of two facts: 1) the Roman/Latin name of the country was Judea; 2) the governor was Pontius Pilatus at a certain period.  The word Tiberieum refers to a building devoted to worship of the Emperor Tiberius [reigning 14-37]. So this large rock could have been part of or set up near to a temple devoted to the worship of Tiberius.




The photo is found here.

See more on this general subject here and here.

The Romans Saw Jerusalem as Part of Judea, that is as Jewish

Pliny the Elder was one of the greatest scholars of ancient Rome. His most famous work is the Natural History [Historia Naturalis. He wrote about Jerusalem in that book. Here is one many mentions of Jerusalem in it:

Jerusalem, by far the most famous city of the East, not merely of Judea.

Hierosolyma longe clarissima urbium Orientis, non Ivdaeae modo.
[Historia Naturalis, V:xv:70]

Here is another quote which refers to Machaerus [מכור], a Jewish mountain fortress east of the Dead Sea. Yes, Machaerus is east of the Dead Sea:

Machaerus, at one time next to Jerusalem the most important fortress in Judea.

Machaerus, secunda quondam arx Ivdaeae ab Hierosolymis.
[Historia Naturalis, V:xv:72]

Note the respect that Pliny the Elder, Gaius Plinius Secundus [23-79 CE], showed for Jerusalem and for Judea, and thus for the Jews. European attitudes toward the Jews have changed for the worse since then. Also note that in Pliny's time, the Romans called the country where Jerusalem was located Judea. It was not until the Roman defeat of the Jewish Bar Kokhba Revolt, about  56 years after the death of Pliny the Elder, that Emperor Hadrian changed the name of the Provincia Ivdaea to Provincia Syria Palaestina. a name that evolved over the centuries into simply Palaestina. Bear in mind that Hadrian imposed the new name on the country as a punishment for its people, the Jews, who had bravely rebelled against the Roman Empire. Use of the name today is a kind of taking sides after the fact with the Roman imperialists. Hadrian likewise changed the name of Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina, bringing together his own clan or gens name, Aelius, with the name of the famous hill in Rome where the Senate was located [now the Campidoglio].
Another point, Judea was the Roman name for the land that the Jews called the Land of Israel.  A Jew was called Ivdaeus and Jews were Ivdaei.

It is also significant that in its original form, Syria Palaestina meant Palestinian Syria, with the word Palaestina being an adjective, whereas Judea was seen as part of Syria which was an old geographical conception of Greeks and Romans. As indicated, this changed over the centuries, with Palaestina --coming to be seen as a noun rather than as an adjective-- as the Roman name for the Land of Israel, which the Romans had earlier had called Judea [Ivdaea], the country's name in the heyday of the Empire. Judea stretched along both sides of the Jordan River --as we see from Machaerus [מכור] being east of the Dead Sea, a southern extension of the Jordan. Judea to be sure stretched much further west of the Jordan than east of the River. And today Israel only has its ancient lands that were to the west of the River.

This matter of ancient names of the country and the country in which Jerusalem was located is of course of great importance nowadays when Mahmoud Abbas, potentate of the Palestinian Authority, utilizes a false history of this country in order to deny Jewish rights in Jerusalem, in any part of Jerusalem. Yes, he denies Jewish rights in any part of the Holy City. Otherwise why would he object to President Trump recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital, which it has been since 1948, and whereas Trump is transferring the embassy for the time being to the present main consular building of the  USA consulate general in the city which is located in a place that Israel has held since 1948 and was not acquired by Israel in the 1967 Six Day War?
- - - - - - - - - -
For those who know the New Testament, the country is called Land of Israel in Matthew I:20-22. Elsewhere in the NT the country is called Judea, following the Roman usage. In some places, in the NT, Judea is used together with Samaria, following the narrower Jewish usage of the place name Judea which saw Judea as the continuation of the name Judah for the southern kingdom of the Israelites/Jews.

See a Roman document, an truly ancient document fairly well preserved for its age, that shows that ancient Rome called this country Judea or IVDAEA [here].

About the name Aelia Capitolina:
Aelia was still in use when the Arabs conquered the country. The Arabs retained pre-Arab place names in the conquered territories. Hence, they called Jerusalem at first Iliya, their pronunciation of Aelia (as proven by their coins, inter alia). Only a few hundred years after the conquest did they begin to use al-Quds and Bayt al-Maqdis which were copied from Jewish terms, haQodesh and Beyt haMiqdash, which originally referred to holiness and the Temple, and later were applied by Jews to the city of Jerusalem.

Edward Said Falsifies History -- But You're Not Surprised, are you?

Lying seems to have come naturally and comfortably to the late Professor Edward Said, a prof of comparative lit at Columbia University, who was somehow able, with the help of the organized American communications media, to change how Americans, especially would-be intellectuals saw Islam and the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Here is one of his gems:

p56 ". . . . both [Zionism & Judaism] speak of Palestine as the land of Israel. . . . Zionism sees itself as redeeming the land whose natives [Said means the Arabs] have called it 'Palestine' for over a millenium." [emphasis added, see: Edward Said, Peace and Its Discontents (New York: Vintage Books 1995), p 56]

Said was a professor so he could get away with a Big Lie as long as he delivered it in a very Authoritative manner, allowing no contradiction or nuance. In fact, Jews have traditionally called the Land the Land of Israel. This usage appears in the Christian New Testament [Book of Matthew, chap. 2, vv. 20-22]. So Christians have been aware of the name Land of Israel since the New Testament circulated among them in the first centuries of the Common Era. Indeed, Said was right about what Jews called the Land, and this usage was maintained by Zionists. However, Jews were not the only ones to be aware of it. Christians who read the New Testament were too. The New Testament also calls the country Judea, which was the usual Greek and Roman/Latin name for the whole country up to the Bar Kokhba Revolt [approx 131-135 BCE]. So Said is not lying as to the name that Jews and Zionists used for the country -- Land of Israel. Watch out for the usage in the New Testament. In some places in the NT Judea refers to the whole country. This is the broad Greco-Latin usage. However, in some passages in the NT, the term "Judea and Samaria" is used. In these passages, Judea refers only to the south of the country, including Jerusalem. That is, the former kingdom of Judah. This is the narrow Jewish usage of the term Judea [and Judah], whereas  Greek and Latin writers used the broader meaning of the name.

His lie has to do with what the Arabs and Muslims in the country and beyond generally called it.  After the Crusades, the Mamluk and Ottoman Empires saw the country as an undefined, indistinct part of bilad ash-Sham [variously translated as Levant, Syria, Greater Syria]. The Muslim Arab majority did not call the land Palestine.

Few except for the rare scholars among them [and illiteracy was very high] even knew that once, before the Crusades, the Arab and Muslim rulers had used the term Filastin for the southern part --roughly speaking-- of the country, of the Land of Israel. Filastin did not mean the whole country but only what today we call southern Samaria, Judah [not Judea but Judah, the territory of the southern Israelite kingdom], and the southern and middle coastal plain and coast. The Arabs took the term Filastin from the Roman district of Palaestina Prima which had roughly speaking the same borders. Palaestina Secunda, northern Samaria, the Galilee and Golan as well as territory east of the Jordan River was called Urdunn by the early Arab conquerors.

Judea was in fact in Roman usage the name for --roughly speaking-- what the Jews called the Land of Israel. See an authentic Roman document, a metal military discharge certificate [called a diploma] which attests to a veteran of the Roman legions having served in Judea [IVDAEA in Latin]

Another of Said's lies was calling the Arabs in the country the "natives." The Jews were the indigenous population of the Land, inhabiting it long before the Arab invasion of the 7th century. The Jews were reduced by the Crusader massacres to a small fraction of the population but Jews have always lived in the country since ancient times, for more than 3000 years. So out of three assertions that Said makes in this short excerpt, two are false.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Historical sketch of the land  and its name [here]

Jewish exile from Jerusalem [here]

The usage of the name Judea or PROVINCIA IVDAEA by Rome [here]

My assertion that the Arabs generally did not call what is today Israel by the name "Palestine"  or "Filastin" is acknowledged by one of Said's professorial Arab friends, none other than Rashid al-Khalidi, who just so happens to be a good buddy of one Barack Hussein Obama, the previous president of the United States. Khalidi acknowledged this, for instance, in an article in the journal International Journal of Middle East Studies in the year 1988 or about then. I do not now have the exact citation but you can check the journal for the years 1988, 1987, and 1989.

Judea & Samaria Belong to Israel by International Law -- Declare this to the world

It has been reported that Obama and his administration --in their boundless rancor against Jews-- plan to join France's initiative for a "peace conference" to "settle" the Israel-"palestinian" conflict. The plan would be take the resolution resulting from the conference to the UN Security Council and there "sanctify" it as it were with a UN SC resolution which would replace and cancel UN SC 242 of 1967 which has been considered the international legal framework for settling the Arab-Israeli conflict since that year.

The content of the resolution is expected to "undermine the legitimacy of Israeli activity in Judea and Samaria. The estimate is that the Palestinians will raise it [the resolution] towards the end of the secular year, in the three weeks before President Barak Obama ends his tenure." [Maqor Rishon, 11-11-2016] Other reports consider a possible effort to define the before between Israel and the projected Arab state of palestine along the 1949 armistice lines --which were never borders-- and a demand for immediate or very quick Israel withdrawal to such lines. This is obviously unacceptable to Israel and would encourage Arab warfare and terrorism against Israel. The Arab state-in-waiting called the "Palestinian Authority" has already made it clear that it wants to drive Jews out of the whole country, on both sides of the Green Line, the armistice line from 1949. The PA has made clear its hatred for peace with Jews, which is also illustrated by its refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

In these circumstances, the best strategy for Israel is to declare that international law has already, long ago, recognized Jewish sovereignty over the whole land of Israel, including a belt of land east of the Jordan river. The ancient kingdom of Judea, recognized by Rome, included that belt of land as well as Samaria, the Galilee, the Golan Heights and the Bashan.

There is a sufficient body of legal argumentation supporting Israel's sovereignty and ownership of the land in question, and Judea-Samaria in particular. See notably the work of Howard Grief and Eugene Kontorovich and Avi Bell in English, and David Ruzie' in French. See a broad selection of articles and videos in English and French and Hebrew here.

Prime Minister Netanyahu can announce this through his facebook page as can other ministers. Likewise, the foreign ministry should make such a declaration. Now is the time.

Why Do the Arabs Oppose Recognizing a Jewish State?

Prime Minister Netanyahu suggested to US  secretary of state John Kerry that the framework he was drawing up for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority include Palestinian Arab recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, as the nation-state of the Jewish people. Kerry did intend to include this Israeli proposal but since has backed away from it in view of Arab opposition, first of all from Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah and Palestinian Authority. Just today, the Arab League voted its support for Abbas' position.

One of the justifications for this opposition that apologists for the PA/PLO present is that by Israel being a Jewish state, the civil rights of Arab citizens of Israel would be adversely affected. However, all states belonging to the Arab League define themselves as Arab states. All Arab League member states but Lebanon define themselves constitutionally as Islamic states in one way or another. This does not stop them from opposing Israel being defined as a Jewish national state. The arguments against Israel as a Jewish state could logically be applied to Arab and Islamic states, and with more justification, since we have the benefit of hindsight to know just how non-Arabs and non-Muslims have been treated in Arab states.

The explanation for the Arab position lies, I believe, in the traditional Arab-Muslim view of Jews as an inferior dhimmi people, a millet [see below] devoid of national rights, and only entitled to live if they pay a yearly head tax on dhimmis called the jizya. The dhimma system applied to all non-Muslims who were subjects of the Islamic state, with individual exceptions. Within this system, the Jews were at the bottom of the barrel, at least in the Fertile Crescent  countries, including the Levant, where the Jews' status was inferior to that of their fellow dhimmis, the Christians.

Whereas the Quran and medieval Arab historiography, such as the writings of Ibn Khaldun, recognize the Jews as a nation or people, the entrenched Islamic view of Jews as an evil, inferior contemptible millet is now dominant. Moreover, in fact, in practice, that was the actual status of Jews in the Arab-Muslim countries for centuries. Even today in the 21st century Muslims believe that Jews do not deserve the dignity of having a national state of their own, the Quran and the old Arab historians notwithstanding.

This contemptuous view of Jews is clearly stated by the PLO in its charter. Article 20, already denies that the Jews are a people, claiming that they are merely a "religious" group. Jewish tradition holds that the Jews are both a people and a  religious group. Here is the relevant text of Art. 20:

"The claim of historical or religious ties between Jews and Palestine does not tally with historical realities nor with the constituents of statehood in their true sense. Judaism in its character as a religion is not a nationality with an independent existence. Likewise the Jews are not one people with an independent identity. They are rather citizens of the states to which they belong."

Note the contempt for Jews which oozes from this text. The history of Israelite/Jewish kingdoms in the country, as well as of the Roman province of Judea, is denied. The setting of much of the Hebrew Bible lies in the Land Of Israel which the PLO denies in a way reminiscent of Holocaust denial. Further, Jews do not have "the constituents of statehood in their true sense." Just by the way, the Nazis and other German Judeophobes claimed that the Jews were not capable of being a "state-forming nation." [see Francis R  Nicosia, The Third Reich and the Palestine Question (Austin, TX: University of Texas Press 1985)].

For texts of the PLO charter and the  Hamas charter, see here.
- - - - - - - - -
Addition: in ancient Greek Jews were sometimes referred to as Ethnous Ioudaion, Jewish nation.
millet -- Turkish word referring to a recognized, organized religio-ethnic community within the Ottoman Empire [from the Arabic word milla or millatun, meaning originally people or nation but in Turkish usage referring specifically to the legally inferior communities of dhimmis (zimmis in Turkish), who were in turn the non-Muslim subjects of the Islamic states]. The millet was charged with keeping order among its members and often charged with collecting the jizya tax from them, and the millet enjoyed a certain religious autonomy and authority over its members, provided that Islamic restrictions on dhimmis were not violated. The traditional millets were the Armenians, Ermeni millet, like the Jews a religio-ethnic community, the Jews, a millet within the Ottoman Empire and also including Samaritans defined as Jews in Muslim tradition; as well as Greek Orthodox Christians, who were called I believe Rumi millet. The Greek Orthodox millet included Arabic-speaking Christians as well as other Eastern Orthodox Christians, such as Vlakhs [the old name for Rumanians], Bulgars, Serbs, etc. In the 19th century up to 1914, eleven millets were added to the original three, with the new millets representing ethnic subdivisions of the Greek Orthodox.There were no doubt nuances of the law in effect in different places.

The Name "palestine" an Imperialist Imposition

When the Roman empire under Emperor Hadrian had suppressed the last major Jewish revolt in the Land of Israel, the Bar Kokhba Revolt [135 CE], the Romans renamed the Province of Judea "palaestina," more exactly Syria Palaestina, using "palaestina" as an adjective and thus subordinating the country semantically to Syria. That is, as by Herodotos much earlier, Israel was seen by the Romans as a mere section of Syria, the "palestinian" section. The historian and classical archeologist, Elsa Laurenzi, affirms that although "palestine" had been used in early classical times by Herodotos [also as an adjective for what he believed was part of Syria], the term was not generally used in the Roman period until it was brought back from "the dustbin of history," so to speak, after defeat of the Bar Kokhba Revolt. I see the name change as a sign of Roman triumphalism and vindictiveness, an expression of antagonism to the vanquished Jews.

Palestine
This place name, connected with the Philistine population, is first found in the classical [Greek] sources in Herodotos [5th century BCE]. It was introduced as the official name for the region by the Romans after the events of 132-5 [CE], deliberately counterposing it to the official name Iudaea, traditionally used up to that time, in the setting of a series of repressive actions. As such it is often rejected in Jewish circles who prefer "Land of Israel."

Palestina
Questo toponimo, legato alla popolazione dei Filistei, si riscontra per la prima volta nelle fonti classiche in Erodoto (V secolo a.e.c.). E` introdotto come nome ufficiale della regione dai Romani dopo gli avventimenti del 132-5 [e.c.], contrapponendolo programmaticamente a quello di Iudaea, tradizionalmente usato fino a quel momento, nell'ambito di una serie di interventi repressivi. Come tale e` spesso respinto negli ambienti ebraici, che preferiscono "Terra di Israele." [Elsa Laurenzi, Le Catacombe ebraiche (Roma: Gangemi 2011) p22].

Again, as Laurenzi says, "palestine" was a name imposed on the country by enemies of the Jews. It was part of a series of repressive actions by imperialists who had defeated a Jewish rebellion. Nevertheless, the Romans too considerably regretted the Bar Kokhba War which had seen many Roman soldiers slain by the Jews, as the Roman Fronto pointed out. As least one full legion was wiped out, the XXII Deiotariana Legion. Maybe one more met the same end. In the view of the Bar Kokhba Revolt making such an important impact on both the Jews and the Roman Empire, it is curious that Laurenzi refers to the uprising as "the events of 132-5."

Note that in Roman usage the name Judea applied to the whole country, to all of Israel. In fact the Province of Judea and the earlier Kingdom of Judea ruled by Herod, a client king of Rome, included Samaria, Galilee, the Golan Heights, and the east bank of the Jordan River. Sometimes, as in several verses of the Christian New Testament, Judea is used in a narrow sense together with Samaria as separate regions. But this was a reflection of Jewish usage, not Roman. Jews sometimes used Judea to translate Judah [Yehudah], the ancient southern kingdom of the Israelites after the split of the monarchy.

UPDATING 8-3-2014
Gian Domenico Mazzocato in his footnote 1 to his translation of the Histories of Tacitus, on p1240 [Tacito, Publio Cornelio, Storie, Intro. Generale di Lidia Storoni Mazzolani, cura e traduzione di Gian Domenico Mazzocato (Roma: Newton 1995). Latin text on facing pages]

"Judea, in this context, indicates Palestine as a whole (that is, beyond  Judea in the true and proper sense, the Galilee, Samaria, Perea)"

"Giudea, in questo contesto, indica l'intera Palestina (cioe', oltre la Giudea vera e propria, la Galilea, la Samaria, la Perea)"

Judea the Roman & Greek Name for Israel -- "palestine" a Later Imperialist Imposition

Judea was the Roman name for the Land of Israel, for all of it, including Samaria, the Galilee, the Golan Heights and the east bank of the Jordan River. This is often forgotten today in the face of the massive propaganda campaign aimed at convincing the world that there was a historical "palestinian people" with an ancient history living in a land that was --supposedly-- always called "palestine." We know the ancient history of the Jews in the Hellenistic and Roman periods not only from Jewish sources --which the Judeophobes prefer to view as suspect-- but also, and even more so, from Roman and Greek sources. These include Hecataeus [Hekataios] of Abdera, Varro, Alexander Polyhistor, Livy, Suetonius, Tacitus, Plutarch, Cicero, Pliny the Elder, Diodorus, Polybius, Strabo, Ptolemy, and so on. Most or nearly all of the extant writings of these authors concerning Jews are conveniently gathered in Menahem Stern's Greek and Latin authors on Jews and Judaism (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences 1974-). Otherwise, they are also found scattered among many ancient and later manuscripts, print publications and translations. Of course, the falsifiers habitually overlook these writings, while discrediting ancient Jewish writings. After all, it would not do to have non-Jewish authors confirming what the Jews say. So they are overlooked, as said.

We have already presented documentation that the official Roman name of the Land of Israel was Judea. This place name was actually written IVDAEA in Latin and Ioudaia in Greek [as transcribed into the Latin alphabet]. We see this name on coins & military diplomas and in manuscripts, etc. The Roman Empire used the terms Iudaea and Provincia Iudaea until it defeated the Jews in the Bar Kokhba Revolt 132-135 CE. It was only after victory in that war that Emperor Hadrian imposed the name "Syria Palaestina" on the country, replacing the name Judea, as a punishment for the Jews, by renaming their very homeland so that it would no longer seem to be theirs. This may have given a certain psychological satisfaction to some of the Roman imperialists, as if their Jewish enemies had been wiped out with the name of their country.

Of course, despite today's pervasive propaganda in favor of "palestine" and "palestinian", the real scholars are aware of the true historical names in use in ancient times. Elsa Laurenzi, a historian and specialist in classical archeology at the La Sapienza University in Rome, supplies concise definitions of relevant terms. Now we will present her definition of Iudaei; in another post we will present her definition of "palestine":

Iudaei
The name Iudaei identifies the people of Israel in the Latin sources, both literary and legal. It derives from the place name [toponym] of their place of origin, Iudaea, and indicates a double identification, religious and ethnic. Its extensive spread is attested by the very permanence of the term "giudeo" [= Jew] in the Roman dialect [of Italian]. Only starting with the 6th century, with the issue of the Novelle [new laws] of Emperor Justinian, was the synonym Hebraei [Hebrews] established, which remained rare however up to Medieval Latin.

Iudaei
Il nome Iudaei identifica il popolo di Israele nelle fonti latine, tanto letterarie quanto legali; deriva dal toponimo del luogo di provenienza, la Iudaea, ed indica una doppia identificazione, religiosa ed etnica; la sua diffusione e` testimoniata dalla stessa permanenza del termine "giudeo" nel dialetto romanesco. Solo a partire dal VI secolo, con l'emanazione delle Novelle del'Imperatore Giustiniano, si afferma il sinonimo Hebraei, che rimane comunque raro fino al latino medievale. [Elsa Laurenzi, Le Catacombe ebraiche (Roma: Gangemi 2011), p 12]

Elsa Laurenzi points out that in the Roman mind, the Jews were named after their country, Judea. She adds that Emperor Justinian introduced the term Hebrews as the official name for the Jews, although --I would add-- it had been used earlier by Pausanias and others. It is interesting that in both Italian and Russian Hebrew is used today as the proper name for Jew, of course in forms specific to each language: Ebreo in Italian and Yevrey in Russian.

British Press Censors Historical Truth, Promotes Lies

UPDATE 12-25 & 27-2009 & 1-2 & 3-9-2010 at bottom

Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools

In its smear campaign against Israel, much of the the British press --indeed of the British "quality" press-- both "leftist" like the Guardian and frankly business-oriented, pro-capitalist like The Financial Times, bash Israel with smears and lies. They promote falsifications of Jewish history as well as smears relating to current events, such as last winter's Israeli effort to stop Hamas rocket attacks on Israel's civilian population.

In this context, the FT censored significant historical facts in a book review. The FT asked one of its regular book reviewers, the respected historian Simon Schama, to review the book The Invention of the Jewish People, by Shlomo Sand. In this book, Sand, an Israeli Communist, seems to be trying to validate the claim of the former leader of his Communist movement, Stalin, that the Jews were not a nation in his time. Stalin wrote this in 1915, apparently to delegitimize Zionism. Since then, the Jews set up a state in 1948, obviously refuting Stalin. Neither Stalin nor Hitler nor the British Foreign Office had thought that a Jewish state should or could come into being. Of course, for hard-line Judeophobes, such as populate the Foreign Office, the problem then became how to destroy the Jewish State that had been established. Hence, a Communist's fanatical invention meant to confirm and update Stalin's claim of 1915 gets support in the capitalist United Kingdom. Without getting into Sand's book too deeply, suffice it to say that he claims that Ashkenazi Jews are descended from a medieval northern Caucasus or Turkic people called Khazars, whose ruling elite, at least, converted to Judaism but who disappeared after military defeat in the northern Caucasus-northern Black Sea region. Sand also claims that North African Jews are mainly descended from the Berbers of North Africa. Thus, modern Jews are not descended from ancient Jews, according to Sand, and thus have no historical right to return to the Land of Israel, nor does Israel have a right to exist as a state.

Arthur Koestler raised a similar argument about Ashkenazim being descended from Khazars about 30 years ago, although he was more tentative, less positive in his claims than Sand is today. Koestler got little scholarly support for his tentative argument. One strong critique was the demolition of his book by Edward Grossman. There were a lot of things wrong with Koestler's theory that were perceived 30 years ago. That did not deter Sand when he wrote his book a few years ago, although a whole new set of factual data refuting his and Koestler's theory had emerged since publication of Koestler's book. This data is the study of Jewish DNA. A number of researchers have found great genetic proximity among Ashkenazic, Sefardic, Oriental and Yemenite Jews. There is also proximity to various Arab groups as well as Armenians and Kurds. To a lesser extent, there is Jewish genetic proximity to Greeks, Turks and Italians. This scientific data effectively refutes Sand and Koestler's theory. But fanatics want to believe what suits their prejudices. So Sand dismisses and largely overlooks all of the DNA research by Professors Bonne-Tamir, Hammer and others. That very significant data does not fit the conclusion that Sand wants to reach. Of course, the DNA data was not available in Koestler's time, but now it is. Hence, Sand had less justification for publishing his crackpot theory than Koestler did. But that didn't stop Sand.

This has taken us far from censorship by the British press. The FT published, as said, a critical review of Sand's book, but the review seemed peculiar. Certain points that one would expect to be brought up in a critical review were not there. Then there is a passage in the review that very clearly seems to have been altered, tampered with, bowdlerized, censored, eviscerated. Schama outlined Roman anti-Jewish actions after defeat of the Bar Kokhba Revolt [131-135 CE]:

. . . there was also the mass extirpation of everything that constituted Jewish religion and culture; the renaming of Jerusalem as Aelia Capitolina, the obliteration of the Temple, the prohibition on rituals and prayers. Sand asserts, correctly, that an unknowable number of Jews remained in what the Romans called Palestina. [here]

This outline, as it stands, is mainly correct, but it is misleading on a crucial point as well as incomplete. Indeed, Rome, under Hadrian, the emperor of the time, renamed Jerusalem Aelia Capitolina, Aelia referred to Hadrian's clan or gens and Capitolina to a hill in the historic center of Rome where a Roman temple was located. However, in addition to Jerusalem, the Romans also renamed the whole country, which up to the defeat of Bar Kokhba was called Provincia Iudaea [IVDAEA], Province of Judea. The Romans did call the country Palaestina, but that name came only after defeat of the Bar Kokhba Revolt. According to most authorities [Michael Avi-Yonah, Felix Abel, Solomon Zeitlin, Mary Sherwood, inter alia, as I read them], the whole country, all of the Land of Israel, was called Judea by the Romans up to the aftermath of the Jews' defeat in 135 when it was renamed at the same time as Jerusalem, and made symbolically subordinate to Syria with the name Syria Palaestina. In this name, Palaestina is an adjective, not a noun, by the way.

Now, Simon Schama is a respected historian and I cannot imagine that he did not know that both Jerusalem and the Province of Judea were renamed by the Romans at the same time, and that Palestine was a name introduced by the Romans as a replacement meant to degrade and humiliate the Jews. The structure of the text that I have quoted also seems to support my surmise. It is likely that he wrote "the renaming of Jerusalem as Aelia Capitolina and of Judea as Palestina." Or perhaps he wrote: ". . . Jews remained in what the Romans thereafter called Palestina" or ". . . what the Romans henceforth [or from then on] called Palestina." After all, if he is writing about changing geographic names of political import, then why not also point out that the country too was renamed? Schama is aware of the name Judea for the country, since he uses it --or was allowed to use it-- elsewhere in the review. But that usage of the name does not indicate that it was the Roman official name for the country throughout the heyday of the empire up to Hadrian's difficult victory over the Jews led by Bar Kokhba.

I believe that burying the fact that the country was called Judea officially by the Romans is likely a policy in the British press. I say this from personal experience. Some years ago, a letter of mine was published in a prestigious British weekly, which I shall not name to protect my own identity. The letter was published in its entirety except for one sentence which pointed out that the official name of the country was Judea until Hadrian changed it upon defeating the Bar Kokhba Revolt. It seems that the British psychological warfare/cognitive warfare experts do not want their own people to know that the Land of Israel, all of it, not just the southern inland area, was called Judea by Rome at the height of the empire.

An omission from the review was any mention of the DNA evidence, which would seem to naturally come up in a critical review of Sand's book. However, I am less certain that Prof Schama had mentioned this in his review. But it is surprising that it is not there, unless the editors of the FT did not want it there.

Additional support for my belief that the review was tampered with, distorted, weakened deliberately by the FT editors is that they took the most unusual step of publishing a second review of the same book, a favorable review this time. Martin Kramer commented on the Financial Times' felt need to publish a second review of Shlomo Sand's tract:

The Financial Times decided one review of Shlomo Sand's 'The Invention of theJewish People' (reviewer, Simon Schama: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/b74fdfd2-cfe1-11de-a36d-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1J4C3P7CY) just wasn't good enough, and so runs another by Tony Judt, who knows even less about the subject than Sand. The result is entirely predictable: a rant against Israel in the thin disguise of a review.

Kramer's comment appeared on facebook [here].

This affair leads to the conclusion that the British press, daily and weekly, as well as many of the UK's supposed scholarly and scientific journals, are unreliable and politically guided and motivated where Israel is concerned and where Jewish history is concerned. It is no secret that the BBC is directed politically in regard to foreign affairs by the UK Foreign Office. The BBC long delayed reporting on the Holocaust as it was happening and then minimized its extent, thus failing to warn Jews and others in the Axis occupied countries who depended on the BBC for news. The BBC did this as part of a policy decided by the Ministry of Information [Orwell mocked it as the Ministry of Truth in his novel 1984] while the BBC's foreign news was directed by the Foreign Office. The British press, daily, weekly, scientific, professional, and scholarly has been mobilized, at least in large parts, to a Crusade of slander and demonization against the Jews and Israel, in which crucial facts are often omitted.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Here are some useful links:

Here is a strong demolition of Koestler's book by Edward Grossman.
Here are posts on the Bar Kokhba Revolt and its aftermath, including the expulsion of Jews from the area of Jerusalem: here & here & here & here & here & here & here & here
Arab auxiliary troops fought for Rome in the earlier war against the Jews which resulted in destruction of the Temple in 70 CE [here]
On the Arch of Titus in Rome as a monument to the Roman destruction of the Temple [החורבן] here.
Coins issued by Rome to celebrate victory over the Jews [here]
Names of the Land of Israel before and after the Bar Kokhba Revolt: here
A fairly well preserved ancient Roman metallic military diploma showing Roman use of Judea [IVDAEA] as the name of the Land of Israel [here].

Here are print accounts by ancient sources on the Jewish revolts against Rome. Some of these ancient works may be available online but I do not have the links.
Ancient accounts of the Jewish revolt and its suppression by the Roman Empire:
Orosius, VII, 9:5 f.
Sulpicius Severus, II
Dio Cassius [or Cassius Dio], Roman History [Italian edition: Cassio Dione, Storia Romana], LXIII, 22; LXV, 8:1-3, 9:2; LXVI, 1:1-4, 4-7, 9:2, 12:1
Menahem Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, vol. II (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences 1980), pp 64-67.
- - - - - - - - -
UPDATE 12-25-2009 Martin Peretz, editor of the New Republic, frankly calls The Financial Times, a "viciously anti-Israel newspaper" [here]
12-27-2009 Link to article on Jewish DNA, plus speculations on possible 11.5% Khazar genetic heritage among Ashkenazim [here]. H/T to Martin Kramer [here].
UPDATE 1-2-2010 The BBC in English disregarded an important story about Iranian involvement in mass murder of Jews. However, the BBC in Spanish did cover the story, which was reported by the Spanish-speaking media in any case [here].
UPDATE 3-9-2010 Martin Goodman, a historian of the Jews in Roman times, takes on Sand's tract in the TLS and throws it in the trash bin of history [here]

More on Nadia Abu el-Haj's Frauds

UPDATING ADDITION as of 12-14-2007

Since I last posted on Nadia Abu el-Haj, Columbia University gave her undeserved tenure.

The Current, a publication at Columbia, invited three scholars [Fall 2007 issue] to consider Abu el-Haj's book, which apparently won her tenure. Tenure means that a professor cannot be dismissed. [Here is the link]. These scholars are David Rosen, an anthropologist, James Russell, a specialist in Armenian studies, and Dr Jonathan Rosenbaum, President of Gratz College in Philadelphia. Let's just take a few quotes from Rosen and Russell and comment on them.

David Rosen, Professor of anthropology, Fairleigh Dickinson University:

Facts on the Ground takes issue with the archeological exhibition at Burnt House, a museum located in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem's Old City. The official interpretation is that Burnt House is the home of a wealthy Jewish family, possibly of the priestly class, that was destroyed during the Roman siege and conquest of Jerusalem in 70 AD. El-Haj participated in a tour of this Museum and other related sites along with an "American writer" and a "British archeologist," both of whom are unnamed. El-Haj recounts that during the tour, the unnamed and uncited American writer whom she describes as "having authored several books and articles on the politics of archeology in Israel" objected to the established narrative of Burnt House. He argued that the destruction of the house might have resulted from class conflict among Jews in Jerusalem, the result of the simmering anger against Jerusalem's nobility by working class laborers whom Herod the Great had imported to build the temple. He postulated that Burnt House might have been burnt down by an angry Jewish mob long prior to 70 CE. The curator countered that a coin found at the site and dated to approximately 66 CE suggests that the house was burnt close to the 70 CE time period. (The building of Herod's Temple began in about 19 BCE. Herod died in 4 BCE, but the building project may have continued well past his death.) El-Haj counters that this evidence does not preclude the possibility that the site, including the House, may have been burnt down more than once. The unnamed "British archeologist" apparently adds another view by asserting that "most cities burn every twenty to twenty five years."

The point here is that El-Haj suggests there are possible interpretations other than the established narrative. If the Museum were to present either the class struggle narrative or the natural cycle of fire narrative as alternative possibilities, it would, in her view, be a strong corrective to the narrative of national loss and ascendance that she believes wrongfully pervades Israeli archeology. But the text offers no evidence that either of these alternate narratives is probable or even plausible. What weight would any scientific study accord to this exchange other than it demonstrates a passion for contested narratives? It certainly offers nothing probative of the existence of any facts different from those now presented at Burnt House. Certainly it would be interesting and important if El-Haj were actually able to demonstrate that the ethos of Israeli nationalism screened out important and contradictory data. But she offers nothing stronger than anecdote to make the case. Given its methodology, Facts on the Ground accords carefully constructed archeological evidence and off-the-cuff anecdote exactly the same weight.

Here are two bizarre "alternative" narratives about the Burnt House in Jerusalem, on a hill [once called the Upper City] overlooking the Temple Mount, now in the Jewish Quarter. The Upper City was the home of prosperous citizens of Jerusalem. Many residents there were priests [kohanim, כוהנים, "Cohens"] who wanted or needed to live close to the Temple. Let's first look at the bizarre claim that "most [ancient?] cities burn every 20 or 25 years." Ancient cities did burn sometimes as modern cities have. Rome burned under Emperor Nero just a few years before Roman forces --including Arab auxiliaries-- set fire to the Jerusalem Temple. But are there other fires registered in historical records that destroyed all of Jerusalem in the Second Temple period?? On the other hand, the fire that devastated Jerusalem when Vespasian & Titus' forces conquered it from Jewish rebels in 70 CE is registered in a book in Greek by Josephus Flavius [The Jewish War, Book VI: 4:5-5:2], a Jew and protege of Vespasian's family, the Flavians, while the same war is described --from an offensively Roman imperialist viewpoint-- by Tacitus, a Roman historian [The Histories, Book V:1-13]. So this "British archeologist" clown is raising the hypothetical possibility of a hitherto unknown fire at a different time in order to discredit the evidence of written history and of artifacts found in place --such as stone utensils and furnishings-- which point to prosperous inhabitants who carefully observed Jewish dietary laws [I have been in the Burnt House]. Among the artifacts found in the Burnt House was a stone weight inscribed in Aramaic in Hebrew letters: דבר קתרוס , meaning " belonging to Bar Kathros" OR "belonging to the son of Kathros". The Kathros family was a prosperous priestly family mentioned in the Talmud. Further, excavators found Roman coins as well as Jewish coins minted by the rebels for the years 67-69 CE, and none later. Thus, the date of the latest coin found helps set the earliest date for the fire.

The next clown believes the fire resulted from a class uprising by laborers forced by King Herod to work on rebuilding the Temple. Again, is there any written evidence in contemporary historical accounts or in inscriptions that mention or indicate such a mutiny of laborers working on the Temple? Nevertheless, we know something about the Temple builders. Herod recruited kohanim to rebuild an enlarged Temple. In other words, the laborers belonged to the priestly class and most likely would have considered it an honor and a holy duty to rebuild, enlarge and embellish the Holy Temple of Jerusalem. Now, the kohanim --who were a large group in the population-- were divided into shifts or watches [mishmarot, משמרות , sometimes translated as the "courses" of the priesthood]. There were 24 of these watches, based on descent/lineage. Each watch was ordinarily called upon to serve in the Temple in rotation for two weeks at a time. Now, the kohanim as builders were most likely subject to the same periods of service as the kohanim doing purely priestly work at the Temple. In such circumstances, they would not feel like prisoners on a chain gang or shanghaied sailors. They would likely feel pride in doing holy work which was reserved for kohanim alone. Besides, there are other problems with the notion of a laborers' mutiny or riot causing the undeniable fire in the Burnt House. Yet Abu el-Haj in her profound ignorance and malice, in order to further her political purposes, takes the very unlikely hypothesis of a laborers' mutiny seriously. And for this, she gets tenure at a university that ought no longer be considered prestigious.

James Russell, Professor of Armenian Studies, Harvard

The Soviet posture strengthened anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist trends in the Western Left. . .

Edward Said's 1978 book Orientalism. . . proposed a vague socialist agenda, a conspiracy theory, and a new set of victims of imperialism quite unlike the Soviets. These were of course the Arabs—and it was even better that the proximal villain was the ever-sinister, colonizing, comprador Jew. But there is a problem. Said dealt with the 18th and 19th centuries, for the most part, but the Arabs were not the political player in the region then: Ottoman Turkey, a powerful empire and seat of the Muslim Caliphate, ruled them. Millions of Christian Greeks, Romanians, Bulgarians, Serbs, and Armenians labored under Ottoman misrule too. The first four broke away, but the Armenian homeland was in Anatolia itself. So in 1915, during World War I, the Turks decided upon genocide, and carried it out.

Said did not mention the Armenians even once in his book, for it would have made his passive, victimized Islamic world look rather less passive and not at all the victim. It is a glaring omission. Said's book was properly dismissed by many prominent reviewers as amateurish and dishonest—though on other grounds. They did not even notice the Turkish and Armenian aspect. The book might have been consigned to well-deserved oblivion.

I'm not sure that Russell is right about the effect that exposing Said's failure to take the Armenian genocide into account in his propagandistic Orientalism would have had on the book's reputation. Of course, I agree with Russell that Said's omission is a major sign of his dishonesty.

As to Nadia Abu el-Haj, while she denies or minimizes the long-known history of the Jews in the land that the Romans called Judea, she --on the other hand-- espouses the invented notion of a "palestinian people," a big lie created with the purposes of delegitimizing Israel and --in the long term-- of erasing the memory of Jewish history in Israel and anywhere.

UPDATING ADDITION: That the builders assigned by Herod to rebuild the Temple were kohanim [כוהנים ] is attested by Josephus Flavius [יוסף בן מתתיהו ] in The Antiquities of the Jews [XV: 420][Also see Ehud Netzer, "Herod's Building Projects," in Lee I Levine, The Jerusalem Cathedra, vol I (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben Zvi; Detroit: Wayne State University Press 1981)]:

Into none of these courts [of the Temple during reconstruction] did King Herod enter since he was not a priest [kohen, כהן] and was therefore prevented from from doing so. But with the construction of the porticos and the outer courts he did busy himself. . . [Antiquities, XV: 420]

This indicates that the laborers on the Temple rebuilding were not "imported" laborers but kohanim. Before Abu el-Haj undertook to criticize or debunk the generally agreed account of ancient Jerusalem, of Herod's rebuilding and embellishment and enlargement of the Temple, she should have been very familiar with the ancient sources, such as Josephus' account above. That might have saved her from making a fool of herself. On the other hand, maybe the gang of fools, liars, and fanatics that support her don't see her as a fool, since her foolishness or deceit or self-deluded fanaticism --or any combination of these-- fits in well with their own.

Another argument against the two bizarre "alternative" theories is that if the fire had taken place long before the Roman capture in 70 CE, the house would likely have been rebuilt in place as political control and the social order would have remained constant, resuming after the fire. Now, especially if the house had burned down in one of a series of "natural," recurring fires, it is likely that everyone would have had a chance to get away. Yet, the partially calcified skeleton of a young woman was found in the house, indicating that she had not gotten away and the body had not been removed later by survivors, which would likely have occurred in the case of the riot and recurring-fires "alternative" narratives. Nor was the body --in the cellar of a collapsed, burnt house-- removed by Roman soldiers who no doubt removed dead bodies from the city's ruins, but most likely did not bother to exert themselves digging through the ruins looking for bodies that they would not have known were present or not.
Historians hold that the city stayed in its ruined state for 65 years after its destruction in the year 70 CE, with some impoverished Jews living among the ruins. It was rebuilt starting in or shortly after 135 CE by Emperor Hadrian, after he had crushed the Bar Kokhba Revolt. He also renamed the city Aelia Capitolina [Aelius was his clan or gens name] and renamed the Province of Judea [Provincia Iudaea] --Provincia Syria Palaestina. Hadrian's rebuilding was done in a radical, drastic way, although it seems that in various places ruins were not removed but merely built over.

UPDATING OF 12-14-2007 -- additional ancient accounts of the Jewish revolt and its suppression by the Roman Empire
Orosius, VII, 9:5 f.
Sulpicius Severus, II
Dio Cassius [or Cassius Dio], Roman History [Italian edition: Cassio Dione, Storia Romana], LXIII, 22; LXV, 8:1-3, 9:2; LXVI, 1:1-4, 4-7, 9:2, 12:1
Menahem Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, vol. II (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences 1980), pp 64-67.
- - - - - - - - - -
Coming: the big lies and pretenses of Annapolis, propaganda, peace follies, Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron, and the Land of Israel, etc.

INSCRIPTIONS ON THE ARCH OF TITUS שער טיטוס & MORE PHOTOS - Part 2

The Arch of Titus in Rome is a monument to Jewish history, albeit a monument to a Jewish defeat. Yet, the very fact that Roman emperors of the Flavian dynasty built a triumphal arch to commemorate their victory over the Jews of Judea [war of 66 CE-73 CE] demonstrates that this victory was very important and significant to them and that they considered the Jews a formidable enemy. Likewise, the fact that the emperors minted various coins too --and over a period of twenty-five [25] years-- to commemorate the victory demonstrates its importance to them. This solidly refutes the attempts by certain historians today, especially "leftists" and others writing in the tradition of German philosophy (that is, of Kant, Hegel, and their followers), to belittle or even deny the Jewish role in history, as do the PLO and its academic toadies today. Now, it is true that the Romans built other victory arches, but they did not build an arch for every victory. Only when the victory was significant.

The coins too demonstrate the importance of this victory. They carry the inscriptions Judea Capta, Judea Devicta, or simply Judea, etc. Bear in mind that in Latin inscriptions, Judea was written IVDAEA. This name was applied by Greeks and Romans to the country that the Jews have traditionally called Land of Israel (also appearing in the New Testament Book of Matthew, 2:20-21). The Greek Ioudaia and the Latin IVDAEA derive from the Aramaic word Yehudaya [= "the Jews"]. Maybe a Greek traveler touring the region of Syria, Lebanon, and Israel, asked a speaker of Aramaic, "Who lives over there?" And the answer was: Yehudaya (the Jews). An H sound in the middle of a word very easily drops out, in English too, and that is likely how the word changed from Yehudaya to Ioudaia. As to the coins, bear in mind that there were several coin issues commemorating this victory and that they were issued over a period of twenty-five [25] years.

The arch and the coins together attest to the antiquity of Jewish history back to the time of the Roman Empire, as well to the destruction of the Temple by Roman forces. They are a concrete refutation of the claims not only of "leftist" historians trying to belittle Jewish history, but of Arab and other pro-PLO historians who nowadays try to deny Jewish history in the Land of Israel altogether. This revolt was only the first of three major Jewish revolts against Rome. The second one occurred in the Diaspora, especially Egypt, in the years 115-117 CE, while the third began in 132 CE. This third revolt, led by Bar Kokhba, lasted four years until 135 CE. This war cost the Romans dearly took, since the Jews wiped out at least one full legion, and the Roman emperor had to replace the commander on the ground with another commander --Julius Severus-- called to Judea from far away Britain.

The Romans continued to call Israel PROVINCIA IVDAEA until they had defeated the Jews in the war [135 CE]. The war is described in earlier posts on this blog concerning its conduct and results [search for Bar Kokhba, Eusebios, Fronto, Dio Cassius, etc.]. Besides massive killing of Jews by Roman legionaries, another result, meant as an insult, punishment and humiliation for the Jews, was the name change from Judea to Provincia Syria Palaestina [apparently carried out in 135 CE].

VIEWS OF THE INNER FACES with bas reliefs, of the ARCH of TITUS

The inner face on the south side seen from the north. The trees in the background are on the Palatine Hill. Note the famous image of the Menorah looted from the Temple in Jerusalem, here being carried in a Roman victory procession. Click on photo to enlarge.

The inner face on the north side seen from the south. The arch is located in the main Roman forum. On this relief, we see "the emperor Titus in a triumphal quadriga, driven by the goddess Roma while Victory holds a crown over his head." [Joseph Fattorusso, ed., Wonders of Italy (in the Medici Art Series), (Florence: repr. ed. December 1944); p 399] Click on photo to enlarge.

The inscription below appears above the arch on the outer face on the east side facing east.

SENATVS POPULVSQVE ROMANVS
DIVO TITO DIVI VESPANIF
VESPASIANOAVGVSTO

The name Titus appears here in the form of TITO. Note that the emperor still acted in the name of the Senate, referred to here as The Roman Senate and People in the top line of the inscription. This term is often shortened to SPQR.

The inscription below appears on the west side facing west above the arch. It is not original but was engraved by Pope Pius VII who presided as pope from 1800 to 1823. The original inscription had apparently been destroyed in warfare or defaced or damaged in some way. The pope's inscription replaced the original.

Insigne religionis atque artis monumentum
vetustatque Fatiscens
Pius Septimus Pontifex max
Novis Operibus Priscum exemplar imitantibus
Fulciri Servanque ivssit
anno sacri Principatus Eius XXIIII

<>For more information on and photos of the Arch of Titus, see Part 1 on this topic.
[minor corrections of some dates made on 11-13-05]

- - - - - - -
Coming soon: A Roman military diploma showing the Roman official usage of the name Judea.

Arch of Titus [שער טיטוס] in Rome - Monument to Jewish History -- Part 1

6-25-2012 Updating at bottom

The Roman Empire was the enemy of the Jews, yet Rome erected an important monument to Jewish history, which was preserved more or less intact by subsequent rulers of Rome, up to today's Italian Republic which devotes great resources to preserving, exhibiting, and sometimes restoring the many antiquities in the country. The Arch of Titus is especially important nowadays when the Arabs and the pro-Arab Nazi forces, sometimes described as "leftists" or "democrats" or some other conventionally innocuous term, are trying to deny that there is such a thing as Jewish history or that the Jews ever existed before Theodore Herzl, while they especially try to deny or minimize any Jewish history in the Land of Israel.

The Arch of Titus was built by the Flavian emperors, Titus and Vespasian, who had led the Roman armies against the Jewish freedom struggle in the province of Judea [PROVINCIA IUDAEA] and had besieged Jerusalem in the year 70 CE. This historical episode is mentioned and described by Josephus Flavius, a Jewish renegade who went over to the Roman side, in his book The Jewish War [De Bello Iudaico]. It is also described by Roman historian Tacitus in his Histories, and by other ancient writers. Tacitus points out that Arab auxiliary troops fought for the Romans against the Jews [see an earlier post on this blog for the text in Latin and English]. The ancient Arabs had this habit of collaborating with imperialists, although the current semi-scholarly orthodoxy in Middle Eastern studies would not want to give any attention to that fact. These two emperors were called Flavians from their clan or gens name. Josephus became their protege and took on their clan name Flavius.

Here is a picture of the Arch of Titus taken from the west side looking east and up, and slightly to the south, the famous menorah may be visible with difficulty (click on photo to enlarge it).

Here's another picture, from a different angle. The shot was taken from the steps leading up to the Palatine Hill, just outside the fence enclosing the main Roman Forum. This photo was taken from the south side and shows the bas relief of an award being given to the emperor for winning the war.

And here above is the bas relief on the south side of the interior showing the famous menorah. According to some, the menorah is being carried by Jewish captives, while others claim that it is being carried by soldiers.

In Latin the arch is called Arcus Titi, in Italian Arco di Tito, in French Arche de Titus or Arche de Tite, and in Hebrew שער טיטוס Sha`ar Titus.

The Arch of Titus, erected to commemorate the victories of Titus and Vespasian in the Judean War ending with the destruction of the city and temple of Jerusalem A.D. 70 [= 70 CE], was not completed until after the death of Titus and dedicated by Domitian A.D. 81. This splendid arch entirely faced with pentelic marble is one of the gems of the first century. The vaulting is decorated with rosettes in richly carved coffers and by splendid reliefs of the highest interest. On one side is represented a triumphal procession with captives and soldiers carrying the Jewish spoils including the table of the shew-bread and the seven-branched golden candlestick [menorah]; opposite is seen the emperor Titus in a triumphal quadriga, driven by the goddess Roma while Victory holds a crown over his head. The relief in the centre of the vault represents the apotheosis of Titus who is carried to heaven by an eagle.
[Wonders of Italy (in the Medici Art Series), edited by Joseph Fattorusso (Florence: repr. ed. December 1944); p 399]

Note: Vespasian was father of Titus and became emperor in 69 CE while leading his legions against the Jews. Titus took command when his father became emperor and unfortunately concluded the war with success, although the last Jewish fortress, Massada, was not taken until 73 CE. Domitian too belonged to the Flavian dynasty; he was a son of Vespasian and brother of Titus. Vespasian, according to the Petit Larousse, "pacified Judea, built the Colosseum . . . and erected the Temple of Peace." This temple was in fact devoted to the victory over the Jews and contained objects looted from the Holy Temple in Jerusalem by the Romans. That was what "peace" meant for the Romans.

This all shows that defeating the Jews was very important for the Roman Empire, and that the imperial class considered it a great victory. Obviously, the Jews were much more important in ancient times than most standard historians would like to acknowledge, especially most of those identified as "leftists" [consider Gibbon's effort to belittle Jews]. The Romans issued several different coins in honor of their victory over the Jews, and this over a period of 25 years. The most common inscription on these victory coins is IVDAEA CAPTA, while others are IVDAEA DEVICTA or simply IVDAEA, etc. The coins were minted in gold, silver, and bronze. These coins too are signs of how important Rome considered victory over the Jews.

Some more details:
1) Several years, a large stone was dug up near the Colosseum in Rome with an inscription indicating that it was built with money looted from the Temple in Jerusalem. It was on display in the Colosseum for about a year or two. I do not know its present location.
2) Tacitus points out that Arab auxiliary troops helped the Roman legions in this war [see an earlier post on this blog]. Here we have Arabs fighting on the side of an empire against the freedom struggle of another people.
3) Judea [= IVDAEA] was the Roman name for their imperial province that more or less covered the territory that the Jews have long called the Land of Israel. In the Christian New Testament, Judea is also used in a narrow sense meaning the southern part of Israel, what the Jews call Erets Yehudah. However, in Latin and Greek usage Judea included the Golan Heights, Galilee, Samaria, northern Negev, and the east bank of the Jordan River.
- - - - - -
Next: more on the repercussions in Israel of the Greek revolt
- - - - - - - - - -
UPDATING 6-25-2012 Scientists discover that the menorah on Arch of Titus was painted a yellow ochre color, similar to the color of gold [New York Times article]