Do you claim that there were no Jews in the Ḥijāz? Are there no sources documenting their presence? What about Medina?
1/ Probably.
2/ Nope as Mazuz say :
There are no—and perhaps never were any—Jews or Christian sources documenting the history of the Ḥijāzī Jews. The Mishna along with the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds lack any detailed information on the lives of Arabian Jews, and provide little assistance in building a comprehensive profile of these communities. 3/ There is no"Medina" my friend as described by the Sira. There is a Yatrib, of course, But no "prophet" in it , a normal oasis with few people.
And what about the this statement, also from Mazuz:Before discussing the meaning of Arabia (ערביא) in Rabbinic sources, one must address oneself to Roman Arabia, since it is likely that the Jews under Roman rule in the Land of Israel in Talmudic times were familiar with that term and, more or less, with the borders of the area that it denoted.
Yes the peninsula as such does not exist in Late Antiquity. Nor the "Hijaz".
The term “Arabia” was originally used by Greek and Roman geographers; thus, it was probably borrowed by Jews, given that the Bible calls the land of the Arabs ʿArav (e.g., Is. 21:13; Jer. 25:23–24). The Biblical references to Arabia plainly refer to northern Arabia because they mention Dedan and Teima.
Yes, northern. Not Mecca/Medina. But what that mean "northern"? Transjordan? Iraq?
In the early twentieth century, after Jaussen and Savignac’s Mission archéologique en Arabie, scholars assumed that the Ḥijāz was not part of Roman Arabia.
Of course as they believe that the Muslim narratives was historical. It was not. (no plot here, bona fide, the 9th c. Muslims thought it was historical as they had no other explication about the existence of the Quran...)
Three decades later, this premise was challenged by Seyrig on the basis of his discoveries of Roman outposts on the road to Medina. Consequently, scholars almost completely abandoned Jaussen and Savignac’s view—with one exception—and research after Seyrig reinforced his stance.
Nope, there is no Yatrib in Roman area, not even in the "road". Roman road? Surely not...
In view of this broad consensus, it would not be unreasonable to claim that Arabia in Rabbinic sources refers, inter alia, to the Ḥijāz as well.
Lol. Ḥijāz was an unknown word until the end of the 7th c.
The consensus regarding the territory of Roman Arabia is crucial to the discussion about the information on the Jews of northern Arabia, mainly regarding those in Ḥegger/Ḥagrā, that emerges several times from Rabbinic sources.
Hegra is in the Roman side until the 4th c. They goes at that time. And the city is abandoned before Islam.
Now that this matter has been clarified among scholars,
Lol... nothing is really clarified...
the Rabbinic literature can teach us more about the Jews of northern Arabia than is known today.
"northern"? Transjordan? Dumt al Jandal ? Iraq?
But not of the Hijaz...
Topic: Qur'anic studies today