Jesus was Palestinian and why it matters - Jehanzeb Dar

[azurnoir]

Because of modern alarmist reactions to the word “Palestine,” many non-Arabs and non-Muslims take offense when it is argued that Jesus was a Palestinian (peace be upon him).

Jesus’ ethnicity, skin color, and culture often accompany this conversation, but few people are willing to acknowledge the fact he was non-European. A simple stroll down the Christmas aisle will show you the dominant depiction of Jesus: a blonde-haired, blue-eyed, white man.

<snip>


When I’ve spoken to people about this, I’ve noticed the following responses: “No, Jesus was a Jew,” or “Jesus is not Muslim.” The mistake isn’t a surprise to me, but it certainly is revealing. Being a Palestinian does not mean one is Muslim or vice versa. Prior to the brutal and unjust dispossession of indigenous Palestinians during the creation of the state of Israel, the word “Palestine” was a geographic term applied to Palestinian Muslims, Palestinian Christians, and Palestinian Jews. Although most Palestinians are Muslim today, there is a significant Palestinian Christian minority who are often overlooked, especially by the mainstream Western media.

That dominant narrative not only distorts and misrepresents the Palestinian struggle as a religious conflict between “Muslims and Jews,” but consequentially pushes the lives of Palestinian Christians into “non-existence.” That is, due to the media's reluctance to report the experiences and stories of Palestinian Christians, it isn’t a surprise when white Americans are astonished by the fact that Palestinian and Arab Christians do, in fact, exist. One could argue that the very existence of Palestinian Christians is threatening, as it disrupts the sweeping and overly-simplistic “Muslim vs. Jew” Zionist narrative. To learn about many Palestinian Christians opposing Israeli military occupation, as well as Jews who oppose the occupation, is to reveal more voices, perspectives, and complexities to a conflict that has been immensely portrayed as one-sided, anti-Palestinian, and anti-Muslim.

Yeshua (Jesus’ real Aramaic name) was born in Bethlehem, a Palestinian city in the West Bank and home to one of the largest Palestinian Christian communities. The Church of the Nativity, one of the oldest churches in the world, marks the birthplace of Jesus and is sacred to both Christians and Muslims. While tourists from the around the world visit the site, they are subject to Israeli checkpoints and roadblocks. The Israeli construction of the West Bank barrier also severely restricts travel for local Palestinians. In April of 2010, Israeli authorities barred Palestinian Christians from entering Jerusalem and visiting the Church of Holy Sepulchre during Easter. Yosef Zabaneh, a Palestinian Christian merchant in Ramallah, said: “The Israeli occupation in Gaza and the West Bank doesn't distinguish between us, but treats all Palestinians with contempt.”

http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=345198

[Behind the Aegis]

1. A wonderful piece of propaganda.

Very crafty way to paint an anti-Israel animosity, while re-working history. Clever.

[azurnoir]

2. Besides being a Jew what was Jesus then? n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

3. A citizen of the Roman province known as Judea. Making him Judaean or Roman.

[azurnoir]

4. actually Judea is an area within that "province" both in Roman times and the present

Palestine (Greek: Παλαιστίνη, Palaistinē; Latin: Palaestina; Hebrew: ארץ־ישראל Eretz-Yisra'el, (formerly also פלשׂתינה, Palestina); Arabic: فلسطين‎ Filasṭīn, Falasṭīn, Filisṭīn) is a conventional name used, among others, to describe a geographic region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, and various adjoining lands.<1>

As a geographic term, Palestine can refer to "ancient Palestine," an area that today includes Israel and the <2> Palestinian territories, as well as parts of Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.<1> In classical or contemporary terms, it is also the common name for the area west of the Jordan River. The boundaries of two new states were laid down within the territory of the British Mandate, Palestine and Transjordan.<3><4><5><6> Other terms for the same area include Canaan, Zion, the Land of Israel, and the Holy Land.

This page was last modified on 13 December 2010 at 04:42.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine#Roman_rule_.2863_BC.29

Judea or Judæa (from the Hebrew: יהודה, Standard Yəhuda Tiberian Yəhûḏāh "Tribe of Judah", Greek: Ιουδαία, Ioudaía; Latin: Iudaea) was the name of the mountainous southern part of the historic Land of Israel (Hebrew: ארץ ישראל‎ Eretz Yisrael) from the 8th century BCE (Assyrian rule) to the 2nd century CE, when Roman Judea was renamed Syria Palaestina following the Jewish Bar Kokhba revolt.

This page was last modified on 22 December 2010 at 00:49.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judea

however I did not post this article in this forum to discuss the geo/political aspects of the article, but rather its religious aspect,it was also cross posted in the I/P where such a discussion would be more proper

[Behind the Aegis]

5. Did you not read the title of your own article? Seems you didn't.

Edit:

From your link:

Judea or Judæa (from the Hebrew: יהודה, Standard Yəhuda Tiberian Yəhûḏāh "Tribe of Judah", Greek: Ιουδαία, Ioudaía; Latin: Iudaea) was the name of the mountainous southern part of the historic Land of Israel (Hebrew: ארץ ישראל‎ Eretz Yisrael) from the 8th century BCE (Assyrian rule) to the 2nd century CE, when Roman Judea was renamed Syria Palaestina following the Jewish Bar Kokhba revolt.

[azurnoir]

6. Once again the geo/political or ethnic aspects of this article should be discussed in the cross post

[Behind the Aegis]

7. Once again, you posted the article here and anything can be discussed here.

What else is to discuss? He was a Jew. End of "Religion/Theology" discussion.

Edit: I must ask again; did you read the article you posted?

[azurnoir]

8. Perhaps for you it is over and of no signifigance other than the geo/political aspect

and of course I read the article and no not anything can be discussed here I/P issues can only be discussed in the I/P forum

[Behind the Aegis]

9. Except I wasn't discussing I/P issues...the article is.

I was discussing the misinformation that Jesus was Palestinian...he was not. The article is the one that magically casts doubt that he was Jewish. We seem to be in agreement that distinction is not in debate.

The only person, other than the author, trying to make this about "I/P" is you.

[azurnoir]

10. Did you read the entire article? You seemed to have missed this part

When the Romans came to dominate the area, they used the name Palestine. Thus, when Yehoshu'a was born, he was born a Palestinian as were all of the inhabitants of the region, Jews and non-Jews. He was also a Nazarene (being born in Nazareth) and a Galilean (born in the region of Galilee)… At the time of Yehoshu'a's birth, Palestine was inhabited by Jews-descendants of Hebrews, Canaanites, and many other Semitic peoples-and also by Phoenicians, Syrians, Greeks, and even Arabs.

[Behind the Aegis]

11. I thought this wasn't about geo/political?

I did read the entire article which is why I made the comment I did in my first post. At the time of Jesus' birth, the area was called Judea, not Palestine. Therefore, he was Judean, not Palestinian. It still doesn't change the fact he wasn't Muslim (which hadn't come to be) nor was he Christian (which also hadn't come to be) and it is highly unlikely he was Pagan.

[azurnoir]

12. nothing in the article claimed that Jesus was anything but a Jew

and that fact is quite common knowledge

[Behind the Aegis]

13. Really? Well, it could be just a product of bad writing (the author) or bad editing (you).

"When I’ve spoken to people about this, I’ve noticed the following responses: “No, Jesus was a Jew,” or “Jesus is not Muslim.” The mistake isn’t a surprise to me, but it certainly is revealing."

Again, if the fact "Jesus was a Jew" is not in question, at least to you, then why was it posted here?

[azurnoir]

14. or perhaps very selective editing on your part

the entire paragraph

When I’ve spoken to people about this, I’ve noticed the following responses: “No, Jesus was a Jew,” or “Jesus is not Muslim.” The mistake isn’t a surprise to me, but it certainly is revealing. Being a Palestinian does not mean one is Muslim or vice versa. Prior to the brutal and unjust dispossession of indigenous Palestinians during the creation of the state of Israel, the word “Palestine” was a geographic term applied to Palestinian Muslims, Palestinian Christians, and Palestinian Jews. Although most Palestinians are Muslim today, there is a significant Palestinian Christian minority who are often overlooked, especially by the mainstream Western media.

eta the author was pointing out that apparently people feel that being a Jew is somehpw historically incompatible with also being Palestinian

as to my reason it has to do with the common presentation of Jesus as a European man rather than the Semite he was

[Behind the Aegis]

15. Trying to force the discussion? Or was he?

Since you claim your "reason it has to do with the common presentation of Jesus as a European man rather than the Semite he was" and you claim "the author was pointing out that apparently people feel that being a Jew is somehpw historically incompatible with also being Palestinian", how do you reconcile Jesus wasn't a Palestinian? (Review the title of the article you posted.)) Furthermore, why do you insist this isn't geo/political if you and I, and allegedly the author, believe Jesus was a Jew?

On edit: How about you explain how Jesus being Palestinian matters, though not accurate, and why it matters.

[azurnoir]

16. But Jesus was a Palestinian

Judea was a region of Palestine even in Roman times

Herod the Great: 37-4 BC

In Palestine one rich local family increasingly enjoys Roman favour - that of Herod. The family are practising Jews, though not descended from one of the tribes of Israel, and they seem able to deliver the stability which the Roman empire requires in the region.

Herod is in Rome in 40 BC, when the senate appoints him king of Judaea (the Roman name for the area round Jerusalem). He returns to the east with a Roman army, and by 37 BC is firmly in control of his new kingdom. He will rule it till his death in 4 BC, becoming known to history as Herod the Great.

http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ab29

I am amazed that you would find so very important to deny this fact and in doing so prove the authors point IMO

[Behind the Aegis]

17. No. Perhaps you should read your earlier link in post #4.

"Judea or Judæa (from the Hebrew: יהודה, Standard Yəhuda Tiberian Yəhûḏāh "Tribe of Judah", Greek: Ιουδαία, Ioudaía; Latin: Iudaea) was the name of the mountainous southern part of the historic Land of Israel (Hebrew: ארץ ישראל‎ Eretz Yisrael) from the 8th century BCE (Assyrian rule) to the 2nd century CE, when Roman Judea was renamed Syria Palaestina following the Jewish Bar Kokhba revolt."

I am amazed you can't piece together that Judea was not renamed "Palestine" or "Syria Palaestina" until the 2nd century CE. What is not as amazing that you think, even if history has to rewritten, that Jesus must be Palestinian.

So, you going to answer the questions posed to you?

[azurnoir]

18. IMO you make the authors point quite convincingly thank you

and I supplied additional information which you hose to ignore that is your prerogative

[Behind the Aegis]

19. And you make the point this article has nothing to do with R/T.

You supplied additional information which you failed to understand. BTW, you still have yet to explain, why is this a R/T topic?

As I said, what a wonderful piece of revisionist propaganda you have provided, a little bit of possible anti-Semitism (R/T) (on edit: maybe this was the "R/T" part you were "wanting to discuss") and anti-Israel propaganda (I/P) all rolled into one.

[azurnoir]

20. then alert it there is nothing of worth that has been discussed here IMO

so really I do not mind and you may find it somehow satisfying to you however I did invite you to bring your choice odf discussion to I/P which you chose not to do

[Behind the Aegis]

21. Why would I alert? I wasn't the one saying it couldn't be discussed here.

I didn't discuss I/P, you and the author did. Did I claim Jesus was Israeli? Nope.

I didn't see your "invite," all I saw was your claiming this was about "religion." If you believe Jesus was Jewish, then why did you feel the need to post this article here?

I know you don't often answer questions posed to you, but at least answer this one: how does this article fit into R/T?

[azurnoir]

22. I already answered that one question several posts back

Jesus was a Semite not a European as he is commonly depicted

[Behind the Aegis]

23. Let's review...

Previous post:

Behind the Aegis (1000+ posts) Sun Dec-26-10 07:30 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. Why would I alert? I wasn't the one saying it couldn't be discussed here.
I didn't discuss I/P, you and the author did. Did I claim Jesus was Israeli? Nope.

I didn't see your "invite," all I saw was your claiming this was about "religion." If you believe Jesus was Jewish, then why did you feel the need to post this article here?

I know you don't often answer questions posed to you, but at least answer this one: how does this article fit into R/T?

Your very odd response:

I already answered that one question several posts back
Posted by azurnoir
Jesus was a Semite not a European as he is commonly depicted

Not a single one of those questions (to the post to which you responded) was answered.

Questions asked by me in that post (your response):

"Why would I alert?" Jesus was a Semite not a European as he is commonly depicted (Makes no sense)

"Did I claim Jesus was Israeli?" Jesus was a Semite not a European as he is commonly depicted (Was a rhetorical question, but still doesn't make sense.)

"why did you feel the need to post this article here?" Jesus was a Semite not a European as he is commonly depicted (Makes no sense)

"how does this article fit into R/T?" Jesus was a Semite not a European as he is commonly depicted (Makes no sense)

You do realize "Semite" is not a religion, right?

[azurnoir]

24. please reread comment #14

and the depiction of Jesus as a European rather than a Semite has IMO colored the course of history where Christianity is concerned and not for the better

[Behind the Aegis]

25. And yet, it still didn't answer any of the questions I asked in the post to which you responded.

Talking about "coloring history," answer this: why is so important to claim Jesus was Palestinian? (There is only one question in this post; answer it and not obscure/distract by 'pretending' to answer other questions not asked in this post.)

[azurnoir]

26. why is it so important to deny it seems a theme

with some here I am done if it makes you happy you "win" lol it seems so important to you

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[azurnoir]

28. self delete personal insults not worth answering n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

35. Answer the question asked of you.

It isn't a matter of "winning," it is a matter of correcting historical revisionism and confronting rancid propaganda.

Now: why is so important to claim Jesus was Palestinian?

[azurnoir]

31. actually Herodotus first used the term

This article critically reexamines the origin of the name Palestine. The earliest occurrence of this name in a Greek text is in the mid-fifth century B. C., Histories of Herodotus, where it is applied to the area of the Levant between Phoenicia and Egypt. Josephus, the Jewish historian of the first century A. D., explicitly links this name to the land of the Philistines and modern consensus agrees with him. Yet, some 300 years earlier, the translators of the Greek Septuagint version of the Pentateuch chose Philistieim rather than Palaistinoi to describe the Philistines. In the earliest Classical literature references to Palestine generally applied to the Land of Israel in the wider sense. A reappraisal of this question has given rise to the proposition that the name Palestine, in its Greek form Palaistinē, was both a transliteration of a word used to describe the land of the Philistines and, at the same time, a literal translation of the name Israel. This dual interpretation reconciles apparent contradictions in early definitions of the name Palaistinē and is compatible with the Greeks' penchant for punning, especially on place names.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1357617

[Behind the Aegis]

36. Irrelevant.

There wasn't a question about that area once being called "Palestine."

[rug]

29. The mods' dilemma: I/P or R/T?

:dilemma:

[azurnoir]

30. I posted this thread in both if this one is locked oh well n/t

[Iggo]

32. My own atheism aside, I don't see the problem with his being a Jew from Palestine.

What's the beef?

(EDIT: Unless the problem is purely political, that is.)

[Behind the Aegis]

34. It's nothing but political revisionism.

Suppose what the author had written was historically accurate, the question would be why does it matter? It would be at at that point the rest of his nonsense might make sense. It would be in a similar vein of saying "Jesus is Jewish." However, like a typical revisionist propagandist who tries to redefine "antisemitic," this author manipulates information and, instead of it being for something positive, uses it as a weapon.

[Iggo]

37. So the problem is poitical.

Thank you.

[Behind the Aegis]

38. The problem is historical revisionism.

[ZombieHorde]

33. Are you saying Jesus' religion was Jewish, but his ethnicity was Palestinian? nt

[azurnoir]

39. Neither is mutually exclusive of the other prior to the founding

of the modern state of Israel all of the inhabitants of that region were Palestinian

[Odin2005]

40. What a dumb article.

Jesus was ethnically Jewish and was a subject of Rome.

"Palestinian" is a modern ethnic group which formed as a RESULT of Israel's atrocious policies.

[azurnoir]

44. the name Palestine was used as early as 500 BCE

it is not a modern ethnic group

[Odin2005]

45. "Palestine" is an old place-name, but "Palestinian" is a very recent ethnic group.

Before the 50s the Lebanese, Palestinians, and Jordanians were simply called Levantine Arabs (there is an Arabic term, IIRC, but I cannot remember it).

Your posts are ignorant of modern anthropological and sociological theories of Ethnogenisis, relying on 19th Century ethnic essentialism, instead.

You are engaging in propaganda and thinking that the people on this board are uneducated idiots.

[azurnoir]

46. a new twist on an old saw "there was a Palestine but no Palestinians"

and I am spreading propaganda? wow

[Odin2005]

47. LOL, you just outed yourself as a hack with that post.

I hate Israel's ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, but I also hate blatant nationalistic propaganda of a style I normally associate with the Balkans, nowadays. You are pushing nonsense with no basis in reality, it is 19th-century-ish ethnic essentialism that, as i said before, goes against everything today's sociologists and anthropologists know about ethnogenesis.

There were no Palestinians AS AN ETHNIC GROUP prior to the 1950s. before then it was a mere geographic label.

[azurnoir]

48. really? outed myself how? I am actually surprised by the responce from ProIsraeli posters here

in fact I am shocked by it, there was no intent on propagandizing in this forum or any other for that matter

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[azurnoir]

50. first your claims about Israeli genocide are ludicrous IMO

and I am ProPalestinian and antiOccupation as to your ethnic ramblings you are reading way too much into this really my intent in posting this thread was stated way up thread, it is nothing more or less

also it is something I do this time of year last year I posted this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=230513

and I expected about as much response from as I got there

[Odin2005]

52. Uh, I am on your side, I am AGAINST Israel's occupation and ethnic cleansing.

I just don't like nationalist nonsense.

[azurnoir]

58. Please see post #57 as that about covers it for me sorry to be

short but I am tired of writing the same thing

[Silent3]

41. Why give a flying f*ck about 2000 year-old borders and tribal affiliations?

Even setting aside serious reasons to doubt that there was an actual historical Jesus, why should anyone care about his ethnicity or nationality if he did exist? Even if you cared about ethnicity and nationality, how much commonality between what might have been called "Palestinian" 2000 years ago, and what's called Palestinian now, is there?

The problems in the Middle East aren't going to be solved by arguing over historical details about the past. They're more likely to be solved by getting people to deal with the present conditions as they stand, by dealing with people as people and not as members or representative of ancient lineages.

[Igel]

42. How oddly incoherent.

When writing about history one has to keep in mind history. One cannot discuss "Maryland" in 2000 BC, or the Western Shoshone's present in Nevada and Utah in 100 AD or the "Cree" language in 4000 BC. They are 'facts' that arose at a given time: Maryland required a speech act, the Western Shoshone required migration and ethnogenesis, and the Cree language resulted from language change long after 4000 BC. The territory currently covered by Maryland existed in 2000 BC, but almost certainly not as the quasi-coherent entity it now is. The ancestors of the Western Shoshone existed in 100 AD, but almost certainly not as Western Shoshone. A linguistic system that changed to become Cree existed in 4000 BC, but many of the features necessary to define it at Cree, to identity it as Cree, didn't yet exist.

We use sometimes use terms as though they inherently mean something outside of any context. This allows their meanings to be adapted, flexed, expanded and contracted as needed to make sure that the argument goes through.

Sometimes details matter. I had a roommate who said he was Pol-Russ. He was Jewish. But he said his grandfather had been born in Poland to parents who were born and raised in Lithuania; that he was raised in Russia, died in Poland, and is buried in Belorussia. Which is to say, he, like his parents, was born, lived his life, died and was buried in one little village. He could be said to be Polish. Or Russian. Or Belorussian. Or all three, although he was of Lithuanian descent, yet none of the above. Area of residence, ethnicity, language, and citizenship are confused because we use one term for all of them and can't think, "Gee, what does this term mean?" before we use it.

"Palestinian" means a number of different things. It is polysemous. It can refer, for some, to the Philistines--the probably non-Semitic peoples that occupied the southern Levant coast in 1000 BC. They were newcomers to the area. The area it extends over varies over time: Sometimes Jerusalem is Palestinian, sometimes it isn't. Jesus was born in the area now called Palestine, if you buy the Gospel narrative; he was not a Palestinian in the ethnic sense that developed mostly in the 20th century, or in the sense generally used in this millennium (by which time the generic Palestinian was Arab). While the population is genetically similar to what it was 2k years ago, it's also true that Arabization proceeded mostly by assimilation of the then-current population and that ethnogenesis tends to not fall neatly along genetic lines. Forgetting about polysemy and letting terms wander aimlessly around even after they're supposed to be harnessed and pulling a particular train of thought is fine rhetoric. But let's not confuse speech with reality, and speech acts with deeds. If an eggbeater in somebody's gray matter can destroy geopolitical reality spanning thousands of square miles and thousands of years with a simple turn of the crank, then we need to back up and reconsider what "reality" is.

As for the Ma'an article, I'd point out that using the same terms in the sloppy manner would force us to admit that Bibi Netanyahu was born in Palestine, and is therefore Palestinian. He is consequently an elected leader of a Palestinian state, elected by Palestinians--although I'm sure Abbas would not be pleased to have it pointed out that there is a more legitimately elected Palestinian leader to represent the Palestinians than Abbas himself. Therefore the occupation is basically fratricide and cannot be genocide nor can it be apartheid. Or we can introduce rigor into keeping terms unchanged and historically correct--requiring a bit of mental sophistication and concentration--and let the current understanding be expressed in the commonly used terms, according to their current common definitions. (Of course, we then introduce the word "indigenous," which is true of Palestinian qua current ethnicity--they produced a moderately distinct ethnicity there; then again, Israeli is also an ethnicity unlike Polish or German or even Egyptian, and that ethnicity is also indigenous to the area. Terms are squirrelly. It's best to keep them grounded and not to follow them up trees after nuts or as they jump from branch to branch.)

[azurnoir]

43. Netanyahu was born in TelAviv on 10/21/1949

after Israel was officially a country and there fore is clearly Israeli, however the name Palestine had been in use since around 500 BCE and therefore the point is valid

[oberliner]

51. How about Ariel Sharon?

He was born in Palestine before the modern day country of Israel existed.

[azurnoir]

55. Sharon was Palestinian until he became an Israeli citizen

why even ask such a IMO obvious question? When it comes to citizenship the nearest equivalent to modern citizenship in the times this post was about was Roman citizenship, something that while I am no expert I do not think Jesus ever was

[salvorhardin]

53. This is without a doubt one of the dumbest things I've ever read here

Lucy the Australopithecus Afarensis was born in what came to be called Ethiopia but that doesn't make her Ethiopian any more than the fact that I was born in Central New York State make me a Mohawk.

[laconicsax]

63. That's just what you'd expect a Mohawk to say.

:rofl:

[LeftishBrit]

54. As I said on another forum...

Israelis and Palestinians in the modern sense did not exist in Biblical times.

Jesus was a Middle Eastern Jew - one cannot be more precise about nationality without getting into absurdities (e.g. calling the contemporary region an Italian colony because Rome was the ruling power in Biblical times).

No doubt Jesus - and his surroundings - looked more Middle Eastern than the Germanic illustrations you often get nowadays, especially in portrayals of Christmas.

But trying to portray him as any particular modern nationality is misleading IMO.

[azurnoir]

56. Palestinian is really not that modern as Palestine was mentioned as a place name

much earlier on, as I pointed out to another poster the nearest equivalent to modern citizenship at that time was Roman and there is the fact that by where Jesus according to the story was born was in the area of Palestine, it strikes me though that no one complains about Jesus of Bethlehem or Nazareth which is called the Arab capital of Israel, but say Palestine and all hell breaks loose

[Bad Thoughts]

59. If Jesus had been born 100 years later ...

... the application of the term Palestine by Hadrian over the province would be associated with the defeat of the native peoples of the territory and the migration of many of them under harsh political repression. I doubt that anyone would have been eager to embrace it as an identity. Ironic.

[azurnoir]

60. the term was used by Herodotus in around 500BCE

moreover please reread the very first sentence of the OP, the reaction here has been a "stunning" affirmation of that IMO

[Bad Thoughts]

61. Applied by an outsider

First, Herodotus never went to the region--anywhere in the modern day Near/Middle East. His knowledge came second hand, often from spurious sources, particularly as they got farther from Greece.

Second, Herodotus marginalized the Orient, intending to prove the superiority of Greek civilization over people in the Near East. Conquering Greek and Roman soldiers carried his characterizations with them across Asia, and they shaped the prejudices of even 20th century British colonial administrators. Read Said.

Third, the term Palestine was used by Greek and Roman administrators in order to undermine native claims to sovereignty. These were Roman territories with Roman names.

Fourth, the fact that people during the era would shun the name does not make it a repudiation of modern day Palestinians' claims of oppression. Plenty of groups have taken ownership of what had once been shameful names. Indeed, if you had read your Anderson, ethnic groups must identify with an existing territory in order to advance their claims of citizenship.

[azurnoir]

62. all applicable points except that Jesus is not claiming citizenship

nor is anyone trying to advance their own citizenship

[Bad Thoughts]

66. Citizenship is moot

Citizenship wouldn't have existed for an imperial subject in Judea or Galilee. Your argument, however, infers notions of identity based on what were essentially containers. Just because someone ascribes a name to a place doesn't mean that the name is descriptive of that place or the people who are there. In the case of Jesus, Palestinian could have easily been replaced by Levantine, Canaanite, or any other foreign concept designed to express the inferiority and subjecthood of the people. It's like inferring the properties of a bottle of milk based on the qualities of the bottle.

[Behind the Aegis]

64. Very good.

If we use the tortured logic of the original article, then we can say Jesus was Italian! ("These were Roman territories with Roman names.")

As for Herodotus, here is what he said about "Palestine."

"In the 5th century BC, Herodotus wrote in Ancient Greek of a 'district of Syria, called Palaistinê" (whence Palaestina, whence Palestine)."

"The boundaries of the area and the ethnic nature of the people referred to by Herodotus in the 5th century BC as Palaestina vary according to context. Sometimes, he uses it to refer to the coast north of Mount Carmel. Elsewhere, distinguishing the Syrians in Palestine from the Phoenicians, he refers to their land as extending down all the coast from Phoenicia to Egypt." source

Not very comprehensive and sounds more as if he is talking mostly about coastal regions and not inland areas.

[Bad Thoughts]

65. "Render unto Caesar ..."

If we really thought hard about Jesus--at least as he appears in the Bible--we'd have to conclude that he would largely reject the temporal authority, especially that which was grounded geo-politically. Surely he advises attending to one's obligations to the state, but his vision was largely post-political, even with regard to native authority.

[azurnoir]

57. Moreover

my initial reason for posting this was what I have said prior and you pointed out that Jesus was Middle eastern not Germanic in appearance and what that says about the notion of Christianity and how that has colored perceptions, but it has evolved because of the reaction some which is stated in the very first sentance of the OP

Because of modern alarmist reactions to the word “Palestine,” many non-Arabs and non-Muslims take offense when it is argued that Jesus was a Palestinian (peace be upon him).

and that is exactly what has happened and with both sides of the I/P question