"The word Palestine derives from Philistia, the name given by Greek writers to the land of the Philistines, who in the 12th century bce occupied a small pocket of land on the southern coast, between modern Tel Aviv–Yafo and Gaza."
https://www.britannica.com/place/Palestine
Palestine in the ancient world was part of the region known as Canaan where the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah were located. The term `Palestine’ was originally a designation of an area of land in southern Canaan which the people known as the Philistines occupied a very small part of, the Canaanites, Canaanite-Phoenicians, and the Israelites, among others, having established themselves in the area much earlier. The Philistines are thought to have come to the area toward the end of the Bronze Age c. 1276 BCE and established themselves on the southern coastal plain of the Mediterranean Sea in an area afterwards known as Philistia.
The whole of the region was referred to as `Canaan’ in Mesopotamian texts and trade records found at Ebla and Mari as early as the 18th century BCE while the term `Palestine’ does not appear in any written records until the 5th century BCE in the Histories of Herodotus. After Herodotus, the term `Palestine’ came to be used for the entire region which was formerly known as Canaan.
https://www.ancient.eu/palestine/
Momto2boys973 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 4:10 pm Exactly where is Palestine mentioned? You’re probably thinking of Philistia, the Greek name for the area named after it’s previous occupants, the Philistines- you know, those guys killed by Samson. The name was used in various forms until the fall of the Roman Empire. The name “Palestine” was revived by the British after the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the beginning of the British mandate of the region.
But fact is, Palestinians aren’t descendants of these Philistines, that term to refer to the inhabitants of that region wasn’t used until after WWI. So there’s no way Jesus could be a “Palestinian”. Unless the author is suggesting Jesus was a Philistine...
And again, he could’ve used the term “Middle Eastern”. Why did he go to “Palestinian” if not to throw political connotations in his arguments? Especially considering most people who read probably won’t know what “Palestine” is beyond what they read here and there and won’t bother fact checking that.
pinkbutterfly66 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 3:57 pmPalestine is mentioned in the Old Testament which predates Britain colonialism as does the actual country. So I don't think the author was trying to be inflammatory.Momto2boys973 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 3:47 pm If you read the article, the author says that Jesus was more likely “Palestinian”. That’s grossly inaccurate, since the term “Palestinian” is actually of British origin. Now “Arab”, “Middle Eastern”, those are accurate terms, but deliberately using the fallacious term “Palestinian”, is obvious he was trying to bring political connotations into the mix.
http://www.hebrew-streams.org/works/heb ... stine.html
