Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I read this headline:
'Jesus was a Palestinian,' claims U.S. history text
And thought, "Yeah. And? Jesus WAS a Palestinian." Then I looked at the article to find that, sure enough, they've got the panties in a bunch over the fact that a textbook said something entirely true:
The level of outrageousness grew: "Christianity was started by a young Palestinian named Jesus," claims "The World," published by Scott Foresman.
Yeah, how....outrageous. Perhaps they should tell the good folks at sundayschoollessons.com, who seem to agree that the land Jesus lived in was called Palestine at the time, which means he was, in fact, a Palestinian. Or the Encyclopedia Britannica. Or this Christian site. Or this one.
Politics
Comments
Ah, but you miss the point, Ed. All Palestinians are Muslim terrorists, therefore calling Jesus Palestinian means he was also a Muslim and a terrorist. You can see how that would be offensive.
(yes, sarcasm)
Posted by: schism | October 10, 2008 9:49 AM
Re Ed Brayton
Despite the fact that the Worldnutdaily is a totally whackjob web site, Mr. Brayton should be aware that there are many in the Arab world who, by assigning the term Palestinian to Joshua of Nazareth, are doing it for the purpose of denying that he was a Jewish Palestinian. This particular book has been heavily criticized in the Israeli press for not making that fact crystal clear.
Posted by: SLC | October 10, 2008 9:58 AM
This could be funny.
WND: "Your history book says Jesus was Palestinian! That's wrong."
Textbook Maker: "Oh, you're right" (scribbles something) "Ok, it's corrected."
Revised Text: "Although there is no historical evidence for Jesus Christ's existence, this mythological character's place of origin was reported as being in the Palestinian region."
WND: Face turns red, head explodes.
Posted by: Jason Failes | October 10, 2008 10:01 AM
I just received some noxious e-mail that was spammed to several family members and friends. It contains a litany of atrocities committed by (wait for it!) Muslim male extremists. It goes on to "reason" that Barack Obama is of "Muslim descent" (which is as close to "Muslim" as necessary) and that he is an "extremist" (the "most liberal" senator, hence "extremist"). He may, in fact, be the Antichrist. Therefore we must vote for McCain. Uh, QED, or something like that.
As is my wont when I receive toxic e-mail, I push back, using "Reply to All" in order to distribute my refutation to the collateral victims. Sometimes I get thanks for taking the trouble, other times I get snippy responses about how "I didn't write it, but I thought people should see it" or "If you didn't like it, why didn't you just delete it?" That brings the next round, in which I point out I didn't merely dislike it, I was embarrassed that a family member was ignorant enough to find it worthy of sharing.
I usually get a few weeks of peace after that (although it might actually be "shunning").
[My supply of quotes appears severely depleted, so I guess I need to stop now.]
Posted by: Zeno | October 10, 2008 10:04 AM
I forgive the ignorance of the people who contribute and report for World Net Daily.
Posted by: Cato | October 10, 2008 10:16 AM
As if. Next you'll be telling us Jesus was a Jew.
Posted by: Dunc | October 10, 2008 10:19 AM
Thank you, Jason!
Posted by: Gingerbaker | October 10, 2008 10:32 AM
This reminds me of the glee I feel every time I refer to Jesus as "the rabbi, Jesus of Nazareth" to my Southern Baptist relatives - it drives them crazy.
Posted by: CPT_Doom | October 10, 2008 10:32 AM
I kinda understand the outrage; Christians believe that Jesus was born in Israel(not the present nation state) which is why, unlike the Romans, they don't call that area Palestine.
Posted by: Dave4 | October 10, 2008 10:33 AM
Jews and Palestinian are closely related genetically so it wouldn't be wrong to call Jesus a Palestinian Jew. The current Mideast conflict is more a result of religion than anything else
Posted by: Draconiz | October 10, 2008 10:47 AM
It took them five years to analyze twenty-eight books? Perhaps they should have gotten a second first-grader on it?
Posted by: ShadowWalkyr | October 10, 2008 10:54 AM
Hmm...I'm not so keen on agreeing with the WorldNut, but in a sense `Palestine' is somewhat misleading, as the term wasn't used in Jesus's time, or at most to refer to area in modern-day Lebanon (`Philistia'). The people of that time would have called Jesus's main stomping grounds `Judea and Samaria', I think. Probably the best thing for a textbook is to say that Jesus lived in places in modern-day Israel and Palestine.
Posted by: Vincent | October 10, 2008 10:54 AM
I agree with SLC.
Posted by: libarbarian | October 10, 2008 10:55 AM
Re Draconiz
Actually, the population most closely related to the population of Sephardic Jews is the Kurds.
Posted by: SLC | October 10, 2008 11:01 AM
Reminds me of my tour guide in Jerusalem that constantly referred to Jesus and a "good Jewish boy".
Posted by: camanintx | October 10, 2008 11:07 AM
Jews who migrated to Palestine in their efforts to found the state of Israel were commonly referred to, and commonly called themselves, "Palestinians." Duh. People really are clueless!
Posted by: Kristine | October 10, 2008 11:10 AM
It was `Palestine' for a few centuries before the foundation of the State of Israel. It was not Palestine in Jesus's time.
Posted by: Vincent | October 10, 2008 11:13 AM
Y'know what would really blow their mind?
That there are Arab Christians and Arab Jews.
BUT NO WAI! ARAB = MUSLIN OMGMGOM!!1!1
Posted by: Jon | October 10, 2008 11:19 AM
It was `Palestine' for a few centuries before the foundation of the State of Israel. It was not Palestine in Jesus's time.
It was part of the Roman Empre in Jesus's time. Better?
Posted by: Kristine | October 10, 2008 11:22 AM
Vincent:"It was `Palestine' for a few centuries before the foundation of the State of Israel. It was not Palestine in Jesus's time."
Wikipedia: "Palestine is a name which has been widely used since Roman times to refer to the region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River."
Hmmmm. Which to believe. Since Palestine is the Roman name for the region, I think I'll believe Wikipedia.
I agree, though, that a more informative and less potentially misleading sentence would be "Jesus was a Palestinian Jew..."
Posted by: ruidh | October 10, 2008 11:34 AM
I always thought Jesus was born in the Roman Client State of Judea. I could be wrong though -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | October 10, 2008 11:37 AM
It was `Palestine' for a few centuries before the foundation of the State of Israel. It was not Palestine in Jesus's time.
"Palestine" is Greek word from the 5th century BC. It was widely used during the Roman occupation of the area.
Posted by: Alan B. | October 10, 2008 11:37 AM
The earliest authors of the Gospels wouldn't even brook the notion that Jesus was an actual man who had physical existence. He was a God, from above, made up of light.
Between two hundred and hundred years after the mythical God-Man supposedly was living on Earth, Christian/Roman apologists/revisionists started planting the literature that established a mortal biography of Jesus.
Unfortunately, they couldn't even get that straight between them, and Jesus gets attributed to a number of places in the district. Hence the confusion. Bethlehem, Nazareth, Capernaum, Galilee - all aboard!! :D
Posted by: Gingerbaker | October 10, 2008 11:46 AM
Posted by: CW | October 10, 2008 11:51 AM
"I always thought Jesus was born in the Roman Client State of Judea. I could be wrong though"
Jesus lived in Galilee. He was widely known as a Galilean. Galilee was not part of Judea. It was part of Syria.
Posted by: ruidh | October 10, 2008 11:52 AM
Gingerbaker,
Thanks for clearing all that up. The Jesus Seminar is calling; they want their little colored cards back.
Posted by: heddle | October 10, 2008 11:53 AM
DingoJack is right re: Judea (as opposed to "Israel").
Posted by: Adrienne | October 10, 2008 11:54 AM
The problem is that the article lacks context. There are actually some nutcases who believe that the Jews never set foot in Palestine before modern times (and the Wailing Wall is an Ottoman artifact, yadda yadda). If the book in question was indeed hinting at that (unlikely, but not impossible), then criticism would be warranted.
If, as is more likely, the book was simply using the term in a geographical sense,then it's simply your run-of-the-mill fabricated outrage du jour.
FWIW, "Philistines" (from which the term "Palestine" derives) were apparently a non-Jewish Canaanite people who dwelled around what is now the Gaza strip.
Posted by: toto | October 10, 2008 11:55 AM
I know we could spend an hour or two every day picking out outrageous headlines from WND, but this one is particularly funny:
"Decision to teach kids to be 'gay' allowed to stand"
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=77373
How would you go about teaching kids to be gay? That would be a sight.
Posted by: The Egg Man | October 10, 2008 11:59 AM
Perhaps Jesus (and his closest friends) called him "Galilean", but he was registered by Herod (Rome's Client) in Bethlehem, which is in Judea (I think). Again, I stress, I don't have a good map of the area in Roman times, so can only say "on the balance of probability Jesus was Judean", if he existed at all. ;) -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | October 10, 2008 12:04 PM
Heddle said:
"Gingerbaker,
Thanks for clearing all that up. The Jesus Seminar is calling; they want their little colored cards back."
The Jesus Seminar doesn't back the Mythical Jesus hypothesis, I don't think.
Besides, you are a believer, so you have no status on this question! ;D
Posted by: Gingerbaker | October 10, 2008 12:08 PM
Maybe the Christians think that we can't back Israel if Jesus was a Palestinian. After all, it would be blasphemous.
What a bunch of crackpots.
Posted by: JStein | October 10, 2008 12:31 PM
Actually, Palestine was the name given to the land by the Roman Occupation authorities.
Posted by: James | October 10, 2008 12:41 PM
years ago, I used to point out to Christians that the historical Jesus would have looked a lot more like Yasser Arafat than Charlton Heston. The typical response was either outrage or the equivalent of covering up their ears while shouting yayayayaya i don't want to hear I don't want to hear. Facts have never mattered much to the fundies.
Posted by: kevin | October 10, 2008 12:43 PM
Actually, Palestine was the name given to the land by the Roman Occupation authorities.
Posted by: James | October 10, 2008 12:45 PM
Jesus (if indeed real) was a community organizer.
Arafat was a resistance fighter.
Shamir was a fascist terrorist.
No amount of godwin bots can detract fron this.
Posted by: eddie | October 10, 2008 1:09 PM
Yeah, I kinda get caught up at the part that says "jesus was" being represented as true...
Posted by: CanadianChick | October 10, 2008 1:16 PM
There are two reasons why the statement that "Jesus was a Palestinian" is offensive. One is the one already mentioned, that the modern reader is very likely to take this to mean that he was not a Jew. The other is that the very name "Palestine" is associated with the oppression of the Jewish people. The term comes from the Philistines, who were deadly enemies of the Jews. The Romans used the name "Palestina" in a deliberate attempt to humiliate the Jews. It would be analogous to Russia conquering Iran and the Arabian Peninsula and calling its new colony "Persia".
Posted by: Bill Poser | October 10, 2008 1:17 PM
SLC, my bad
I was just trying to point out that according to several other studies, Palestinians and Jews are genetically closer to each other than either is to the Arabs of Arabia or to Europeans.
Without religion driving them apart, they would have realized this kinship
Posted by: Draconiz | October 10, 2008 1:22 PM
Perhaps it would make everybody happy if the entry was changed to;
"Jesus was a fictitious jew who lived in the Roman's Mediterranean Spear Point Democracy Spreading Area.
Posted by: democommie | October 10, 2008 2:04 PM
Re eddie
Yasir Arafat was a murdering rapist.
Posted by: SLC | October 10, 2008 2:16 PM
Bill, nowadays I think the name "Palestine" is far more associated with oppression by the Jewish people (at least as represented by the government of Israel). I can guarantee you that 999 out of 1000 people wouldn't draw the connection you did.
Posted by: Tulse | October 10, 2008 2:32 PM
The Jesus Seminar focuses on the historical Jesus. According to scholarship, the development of Jesus' divinity comes late; Jesus as martyr is one of the earliest interpretations of Jesus' life and death.
Posted by: Garibaldi | October 10, 2008 2:51 PM
The Jesus Seminar focuses on the historical Jesus. According to scholarship, the development of Jesus' divinity comes late; Jesus as martyr is one of the earliest interpretations of Jesus' life and death.
Posted by: Garibaldi | October 10, 2008 2:53 PM
Posted by: WScott | October 10, 2008 2:57 PM
Re tulse
Bill, nowadays I think the name "Palestine" is far more associated with oppression by the Jewish people (at least as represented by the government of Israel).
Oppression of the Palestinians? The Palestinians are just lucky that the late Hafaz Assad is not the Prime Minister of Israel. When faced with an Islamist uprising emanating from the City of Hama, Syria, dictator Assad, in 1982, surrounded the town with several hundred artillery pieces and subjected it to a 2 day bombardment resulting in the demise of some 20,000 individuals. This episode was dubbed by Thomas Friedman, "Hama Rules." If the Goverment of Israel applied Hama Rules to the Gaza Strip, Mr. tulse would really have something to whine about.
Posted by: SLC | October 10, 2008 3:01 PM
Posted by: c-serpent | October 10, 2008 3:01 PM
Indeed, but I guarantee that 999 out of 1000 wouldn't know that "The term comes from the Philistines, who were deadly enemies of the Jews. The Romans used the name "Palestina" in a deliberate attempt to humiliate the Jews", which was the specific point I was making.
Posted by: Tulse | October 10, 2008 3:06 PM
I have to say that calling Jesus a Palestinian without explaining that Palestine was the Roman name for the conquered and occupied area yadda yadda is probably going to be misleading for most people, bringing to mind the modern Palestinians rather than the Jews under Roman conquest.
Posted by: Adrienne | October 10, 2008 3:10 PM
Oh, well then, that makes Israel's treatment of West Bank and Gaza residents OK (just like, I suppose, those under South African apartheid should have looked at US slavery and realized that, compared to that, they actually had it quite cushy...)
Posted by: Tulse | October 10, 2008 3:18 PM
They're all wrong. Jesus was a Philander-stinian.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjOflq4Ef4c
Posted by: Dano | October 10, 2008 3:19 PM
Garibaldi said:
"The Jesus Seminar focuses on the historical Jesus. According to scholarship, the development of Jesus' divinity comes late; Jesus as martyr is one of the earliest interpretations of Jesus' life and death."
Well, everybody has got their own ideas about all this, and 90% of what has been written about this whole story has been by Theology professors, nearly every one a professional believer and apologist. The record of their scholarship is one principally of shamefully bad apologism.
The work of recent scholars seems, to this amateur, much more honest and interesting. The problem is that nearly every available Biblical relic, text, source is nearly unusable as a historilogical document - as any real historical documents were likely searched out and destroyed by the early proponents and architects of Christianity.
In other words, the sources do not make much sense, and virtually every single one of them is in whole or in part a forgery or a piece of revisionism.
The development of Jesus' divinity was a several hundred year hiccup ending in a Roman decree around 400 ad.
In what appear to be the earliest writings, Jesus is all divine myth, and is NOT a man. Later on, as I said, the rehabilitation of the myth into Man-God takes place. Then Jesus, the human Son of God is officially declared divine by decree.
The martyrdom and resurrection are all part of the rehabilitation process.
The Jesus Seminar, by focusing on the Historical Jesus has its work cut out for them, as there really is no good evidence for a historical Jesus to be found. Anywhere.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | October 10, 2008 3:20 PM
The term "Palestinian" has multiple meanings and connotations. If I say someone is a "Palestinian" people generally use that to refer to people who identify as ethnically or nationally Palestinian. In certain contexts one would use the term also to refer to anyone living in the area prior to 1948 but would need to be careful about the phrasing. One rarely uses the term to mean someone from historical Palestine. The issue that World Net Daily seems to be irked about although they don't say it that well is that the simply saying "Palestinian" brings along with it all sorts of emotional and historical baggage, whereas saying "Jesus lived in Palestine" avoids those issues. One could fill (and people have filled) books discussing the terminology and historical validity of such terms. For example, it seems clear that the people we currently call Palestinians were mainly not in the immediate area of Palestine 2000 years ago. There is a lot of subtlety involved in this sort of issue and a textbook writer should have the minimal awareness to either avoid the issues or to discuss them in detail. But the simple statement that "Jesus was a Palestinian" is at best sloppy textbook writing. (And before anyone accuses me of oversimplifying, yes I've left a lot of details out. This is a blog comment, not a treatise).
SLC, um, as a general rule generally defending one group by pointing out that someone else in a neighboring country did something a lot worse is really not a good idea or much of a valid argument.
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | October 10, 2008 3:25 PM
Thanks for the clarification, Tulse. I get what you meant now.
Posted by: WScott | October 10, 2008 3:36 PM
OT
The BC Human Rights Tribunal has just dismissed the complaint against Mark Steyn (Sorry about the address, and warning PDF)
http://www.bchrt.gov.bc.ca/decisions/2008/pdf/oct/378_Elmasry_and_Habib_v_Rogers_Publishing_and_MacQueen_(No_4)_2008_BCHRT_378.pdf
Posted by: Bob Smth | October 10, 2008 4:06 PM
The Romans initially called the area Judea (following their normal approach of allowing most local customs/government/identity remain ) but after the Bar Kokhba revolt (so around 135 ad) they changed the name to Palestine as part of the retaliation.
Posted by: kevinj | October 10, 2008 4:54 PM
IF, there was a Jesus born in Bethlehem, as it is in the Gospels, he would have been, by birth, a Judean. Iudaea [latin] was part of the Herodian Kingdom. There is no evidence outside the Gospels that that occurred. If he was born in Nazareth [more likely], he would have been a Galiliean, a separate province - but still a subject of the Herodian kingdom [not Syria]. Pheonicia -the coastal region to the north and west of Galilee- was part of Syria. Directly o the northeast of Galilee were Ulatha and Panias - part of the province of Gaulinitis, but still part of the Herodian kingdom, the Roman subject Syria proper, which was not a vassal of Herod [who was a vassal of Rome]. From the map on p.767 of Asimov's Guide to the Bible.
The term Palestine referred to all of Herod's kingdom plus Phoenician Syria and areas to the south and east. So, technically Jesus would have been generically a Palestinian, but more specifically a Galilean. The area became officially referred to as Palestine after the first Jewish Revolt [66-70 CE] and the Bar Kokhba Revolt [132-5 CE]. Almost all of the surviving Jews had been exiled following these revolts and massacres [the Diaspora], The Romans wanted to wipe out any identification of the Jewish survivors with the land, so they officially changed the names of the provinces of Judea, Samaria, Galilee and surrounding areas up the the Syrian and Egyptian borders. Once the Jews had been exiled, a sizable number of Gentiles remained in the area [no doubt glad to be rid of the rebellious and quarrelsome Jews] and soon migrants also entered Palestine. The current Palestinians are their descendants.
Posted by: natural cynic | October 10, 2008 4:56 PM
Re natural cynic
Actually, most of the current Arab inhabitants of Palestine are descended from rather more recent immigrants who moved then in the latter half of the nineteenth century. When the American writer Mark Twain toured Palestine in the 1860s, he found the area almost depopulated, with Jerusalem a village smaller then his native St. Joseph, Mo.
Re tulse
Apparently, Mr. tulse is of the opinion that the Government of Israel should just overlook Kassem rockets and homicide bombings by Palestinian extremists. Not going to happen, any more then the US is going to overlook the 9/11 attacks by Islamic extremists. IMHO, the Government of Israel has been far too lenient with the Palestinians. They should applied Hama Rules a long time ago.
Posted by: SLC | October 10, 2008 6:41 PM
Of course, People's Front of Judea! Didn't they watch The Life of Brian?
Posted by: Shaden Freud | October 10, 2008 6:42 PM
Y'know what would really blow their mind? That there are Arab Christians and Arab Jews.
Hmmm... I'm not so sure. What might blow your mind is that Joe Farah, the founder of Worldnut, is an Arab Christian.
Posted by: Dr X | October 10, 2008 8:37 PM
Egg Man: The surefire way to teach kids to be gay is to show them lots of Judy Garland movies, starting with the Wizard of Oz. Works every time.
Posted by: wrpd | October 10, 2008 9:42 PM
Ed,
When did you stop pointing out these things are "WND exclusive"s?
Posted by: scienceteacherinexile | October 10, 2008 9:42 PM
SLC: Read your history. The Palestinians only began turning to Islamist parties like Hamas after their attempts at secular rebellion/resistance either failed or abandoned them. And, just in case you weren't aware, the major reason why Palestinians support Hamas is not their Islamist message (born out of, in someways, the secular Pan-Arabist movement which produced men like Assad, ironically enough), but instead the fact that they provide services, like hospitals, schools, running water, electricity and wellfare, which both Arafat and the Israelis have perennially proven either unable or unwilling to provide.
As to the ethnic question, all Arabs are semitic, and that tribe claiming descent from a person named Israel were likely gifted the land now given that name, not by any God, but by the Pharaoh as a stopgap in his eternal regional war against the Hittites. As to where they came from before that, read up about the Sea Peoples and the Hyksos then take your pick.
Posted by: Julian | October 10, 2008 9:47 PM
Egg Man: The surefire way to teach kids to be gay is to show them lots of Judy Garland movies, starting with the Wizard of Oz. Works every time.
Posted by: wrpd | October 10, 2008 9:48 PM
Re julian
1. The issue that has been blocking any agreement between the Palestinians and the Israelis for 60 years is the demand of the former that Palestinians living in refugee camps be resettled in what is now Israel. Since there is no way any Government of Israel will accept any such demand, the result is that there is no agreement and until this demand is scuttled, there will be no agreement. The fact is that here is currently no Palestinian leadership that is in a position to drop this demand and there appears no such leadership on the horizon either. The replacement of the previous Palestinian leadership with the Hamas leaders is a red herring.
2. Mr. julian apparently has a reading comprehension problem. My statement was that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians currently living in Palestine are not descended from ancestors who were living there before the late 19th century. The big lie perpetrated by the Palestinian leadership is that they have been living there for thousands of years. For most of the time that the Ottoman Empire controlled the area, it was a wasteland and a backwater of little interest to the Turkish authorities. Only in the late 19th century did newcomers start to appear, in large part because of interest of the German Kaiser and subsequently the British Goverment. This interest was in addition to the beginning of immigration of Jews from Europe which, by the way, preceded the founding of the Zionist movement.
Posted by: SLC | October 10, 2008 11:06 PM
And not all Palestinians are Muslim. One of our ELCA Lutheran pastors who serves less than ten miles from me is Palestinian and was raised in that land.
BTW-I loved telling the southern Baptist relaties that Rabbi Jesus of Nazareth. Obviously they don't read the gospel of Matthew much!
Posted by: Rev. AJB | October 10, 2008 11:46 PM
Did I really say that? Wait, let me check....hmmm...funny, I don't see where I said that...
Posted by: Tulse | October 11, 2008 12:00 AM
hmmm....so it's okay for jews to act like nazis? right slc?
Posted by: jws | October 11, 2008 1:08 AM
Genetically Palestinian Arabs appear to be closely related to the Jews and other populations in their immediate vicinity. Many of their ancestors have apparently been living in the region for thousands of years. This does not exclude the possibility that they vacated the Palestinian area for a while and came back in the 19th century, but the presence of substructure in the Palestinian population would suggest to me that a significant amount stayed.
Posted by: windy | October 11, 2008 1:27 AM
Oh, and I didn't mean to ignore the earlier comment about the genetic affinity of Jews and Kurds, the article that discovered that connection also discusses Palestinians. At least Y-chromosome-wise they appear to be a mixture of local lineages with some influx from the Arabian peninsula.
Posted by: windy | October 11, 2008 1:50 AM
I was going to post something but this blog post I just read says it best:
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=701
Posted by: Michael | October 11, 2008 3:45 AM
who really cares, odds on he was nothing more than myth, made up by those who wrote the new testement, there is no actual proof of his existance.
Posted by: Ex Partiate | October 11, 2008 6:47 AM
Re Ex Partiate
Actually, the man Joshua of Nazareth may be a confluence of several individuals who were traveling the area as itinerant preachers at the time.
Posted by: SLC | October 11, 2008 7:44 AM
I beg to differ. Jesus was a Judean. It wasn't until nearly 7 decades after the man's death, that Judea was renamed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judea
The Jews rebelled again 70 years later under the leadership of Bar Kokhba and established the last Kingdom of Israel, which lasted three years, before the Romans managed to conquer the province for good, at a high cost in terms of manpower and expense.
After the defeat of Bar Kokhba (132-135 CE) the Roman Emperor Hadrian was determined to wipe out the identity of Israel-Judah-Judea, and began using the name "Palastina" to describe all the land of Israel. Until that time the area had been called "province of Judea" by the Romans. At the same time, he changed the name of the city of Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina. The Romans killed many Jews and sold many more into slavery; many Jews departed into the Jewish diaspora, but there was never a complete Jewish abandonment of the area.
Posted by: J.L | October 11, 2008 12:58 PM
This was posted (in error) on another thread, I reproduce it verbatim:
Posted by: DingoJack | October 11, 2008 1:00 PM
Oops sorry about that! -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | October 11, 2008 1:06 PM
Thanks, Michael.
Shorter Language Log -
It's wrong to call jesus a palestinian, even though he was, because stupid, ignorant racists think that palestinian = arab, even though they are different words.
Again, thanks. Most informative.
Posted by: eddie | October 11, 2008 3:20 PM
I always thought Jesus was a catholic.
Posted by: wobert | October 12, 2008 5:23 AM
wobert:
No, that would have made him a papistinian.
Posted by: democommie | October 12, 2008 7:30 AM
SLC,
I'm affraid your assertions that most of the current Palestinians are descendants of 1th century immigrants is not corroberated with other statements like the following: The official British Census data for Palestine, the reports made by the Mandatory Administration to the League of Nations, the 1938 Palestine Partition Commission, Population expert A.M. Carr-Saunders, and the Anglo-American Committee concluded that Arab population growth was attributable to "natural increase", not to any substantial immigration. This was made in respons to claims of massive immigration in the late 19th century. Most of the population growth from the 1850's onward were the result of improved medical care and an economic rise. there were indeed migrations, but none of a scale to comparable to the natural increase.
On the subject of Mr. Twain's travel writings, there have been numerous criticisms of his work, as he had little information to work with and his writings have some discrepancies with known facts. This may be due to litterary freedoms, which as a satirist was his ight, but must be taken into account as wel.
Posted by: Taxandrian | October 12, 2008 3:48 PM
Re Taxandrian
1. The British estimates are totally worthless. The British Government was looking for an excuse to fail to fulfill the Balfour Declaration because of the agreements with various Arab governments relative to development of Middle East oil deposits and so published bogus numbers of inflow of Arabs from elsewhere in the Arab world.
2. The League of Nations estimates are based on population estimates inherited from the Ottoman authorities. These latter estimates failed to distinguish between the native Arab population and the Bedouins who were not tied to the land but were nomads who traveled over the area that currently makes up Egypt, Israel, Jordan, and Iraq.
3. Mark Twain reported on what he observed which was that he saw very few inhabitants during his travels in what is now Israel. The criticisms mostly come from Arab sources or pro-Arab sources who have an axe to grind relative to their claim that the State of Israel is illegitimate.
Mr. Tasxandrian, stop falling for Arab propaganda which is nothing but a tissue of lies.
Posted by: SLC | October 12, 2008 6:13 PM