Mahmoud Abbas: "Jesus was 'Palestinian"

[Erikl]

No, it's not an anachronism. An anachronism would be if I referred to a modern-day Italian as a "Roman" (assuming they weren't born in, or live in, Rome). Calling Caesar 'Italian' could be seen as a parachronism, but that still doesn't make it technically incorrect.

Erm, no. Calling Julius Ceaser an Italian is using a term which didn't exist yet (modern Italy) to refer to someone/something at another time:

"Parachronisms are objects or ideas which were once common, but are now considered rare or inappropriate. They often take the form of obsolete technology or outdated fashion. This is different from a prochronism, in which the object or idea has not yet been invented when the situation takes place, and therefore could not have existed at the time"

You use the term Italy, which is a modern state, to a person at the time the area wasn't called by that name. If Italy existed and the area was called Italy at the time of Ceaser, then yes, you could do that. That's not the case though.

That you might not appreciate or understand a concept only makes it "jibber-jabber" to you - unless you can demonstrate how that concept is nonsense, which you have not done.

As for the argument you make regarding the Jewishness of Jesus, nothing in the bible is of the hand of Jesus. That is why I asked "Did Jesus claim himself to be a Jew?"

Jesus himself has made no claims whatsoever about anything, because nothing we read was written by that person - or by anyone who was travelling with him as he spoke the words as written.

Leonardo, this is jibber-jabber because you simply try to play with terms and words to prove, what exactly? that Jesus was a Palestinian? I can ask you - where in the Bible does it says Jesus claims to be Palestinian? where in the Bible does the word "Palestine" even appears, considering most of it's stories happened in that area?

You have yet dealt with the fact that the area was not named Palestine but Judea. Hence, a person who lived there couldn't be called a Palestinian.

There is also no historical proof that Jesus existed at all. But as I said, let's assume he did. And let's assume that we can learn about him from what is said about him in the NT. Btw, the part with the Samaritan woman, is as close as you have to some sort of evidence by Jesus himself that he's Jewish. All the evidence we have, is that Jesus was a Jew, not only dealt with Jews.

[Leonardo]

Erm, no. Calling Julius Ceaser an Italian is using a term which didn't exist yet (modern Italy) to refer to someone/something at another time:

"Parachronisms are objects or ideas which were once common, but are now considered rare or inappropriate. They often take the form of obsolete technology or outdated fashion. This is different from a prochronism, in which the object or idea has not yet been invented when the situation takes place, and therefore could not have existed at the time"

You use the term Italy, which is a modern state, to a person at the time the area wasn't called by that name. If Italy existed and the area was called Italy at the time of Ceaser, then yes, you could do that. That's not the case though.

My mistake, I apologise. I meant to write prochronistic, but had just read about parachronsim and had that in my mind. Fingers followed mind.

Leonardo, this is jibber-jabber because you simply try to play with terms and words to prove, what exactly? that Jesus was a Palestinian?

No, I have not claimed that at all. Read the first post I made in this thread.

Option A) - He was a Jew, and option B ) - He was a Palestinian, are not the only options possible, so couching the argument as an either/or is a false dichotomy.

The truth is nobody knows, so any claim regarding ethnicity carries with it doubt and the chance of error. Add to this the distinct possibility the person described in the bible did not exist, but was based on one or more other persons, and countering a claim of "Jesus was Palestinian" with a claim "Jesus was a Jew" provides a tenuous argument at best. It could easily be claimed Jesus was a Palestinian Jew, and this claim is just as correct, as has as much validity, as the other claims.

Edited December 30, 2013 by Leonardo

[Erikl]

My mistake, I apologise. I meant to write prochronistic, but had just read about parachronsim and had that in my mind. Fingers followed mind.

Prochronism = anachronism. So again, what I wrote is correct. This is anachronism.

Option A) - He was a Jew, and option B ) - He was a Palestinian, are not the only options possible, so couching the argument as an either/or is a false dichotomy.

The truth is nobody knows, so any claim regarding ethnicity carries with it doubt and the chance of error. Add to this the distinct possibility the person described in the bible did not exist, but was based on one or more other persons, and countering a claim of "Jesus was Palestinian" with a claim "Jesus was a Jew" provides a tenuous argument at best. It could easily be claimed Jesus was a Palestinian Jew, and this claim is just as correct, as has as much validity, as the other claims.

Actually, this is the subject of the topic. The Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas claims that Jesus was a Palestinian. There is a debate on this topic going on here in these posts.

As for the options - option - aka, "Jesus was a Palestinian" is not an option. I could put an option C)- "Jesus was an Ottoman/Byzantine/Mamluke" because that land was part of those empires after the time of Jesus. We can actually say Jesus was not a Palestinian for certainty, so this option is rendered moot. This is exactly what I claim - Jesus couldn't be called a Palestinian, especially not in the anachronistic term that Mahmoud Abbas is implying. First of all, the land was not called Palestine when Jesus was alive. Second of all, there were no Palestinians at the time (and the people there didn't call themselves Palestinians at all). There were Jews, Samaritans, Romans and other groups, but no Palestinians.

Also, from all the evidence we have, it is most likely that Jesus was a Jew. Now a relevant debate would be asking "was Jesus a Roman or a Jew?" - that's actually a valid debate, but off topic altogether.

[Leonardo]

Actually, this is the subject of the topic. The Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas claims that Jesus was a Palestinian. There is a debate on this topic going on here in these posts.

As for the options - option - aka, "Jesus was a Palestinian" is not an option. I could put an option C)- "Jesus was an Ottoman/Byzantine/Mamluke" because that land was part of those empires after the time of Jesus. We can actually say Jesus was not a Palestinian for certainty, so this option is rendered moot. This is exactly what I claim - Jesus couldn't be called a Palestinian, especially not in the anachronistic term that Mahmoud Abbas is implying. First of all, the land was not called Palestine when Jesus was alive. Second of all, there were no Palestinians at the time (and the people there didn't call themselves Palestinians at all). There were Jews, Samaritans, Romans and other groups, but no Palestinians.

Also, from all the evidence we have, it is most likely that Jesus was a Jew. Now a relevant debate would be asking "was Jesus a Roman or a Jew?" - that's actually a valid debate, but off topic altogether.

Of course "Jesus was a Palestinian" is an option, because it is one of the claims made. Your argument regarding it's temporal displacement is irrelevant, as I have already explained. Yours is a purely semantic, not technical, argument.

While one cannot be labelled as something that has ceased to exist, one can subsequently be labelled as something which comes into existence. That is the technicality of the matter.

Edited December 30, 2013 by Leonardo

[Erikl]

Leonardo, by your logic, I can call an Inuit from the 10th century a Canadian; or a Byzantine from Anatolia of the 6th century Turkish.

This is technically, logically, simply impossible. But we both know this is not what Mahmoud Abbas claims at all, he's trying to imply the people of the 1st century A.D in Judea were Palestinians: he's trying to revise history to erase Jewish history. Jesus is known to be Jewish; by claiming he's a Palestinian, as if there were Palestinians back then, he's trying to rewrite history as if it was Palestinian territory even back then in the 1st century.

What else? he'll recall how the Palestinians fought Neanderthal occupation 30,000 years ago .

[+and-then]

Leonardo, by your logic, I can call an Inuit from the 10th century a Canadian; or a Byzantine from Anatolia of the 6th century Turkish.

This is technically, logically, simply impossible. But we both know this is not what Mahmoud Abbas claims at all, he's trying to imply the people of the 1st century A.D in Judea were Palestinians: he's trying to revise history to erase Jewish history. Jesus is known to be Jewish; by claiming he's a Palestinian, as if there were Palestinians back then, he's trying to rewrite history as if it was Palestinian territory even back then in the 1st century.

What else? he'll recall how the Palestinians fought Neanderthal occupation 30,000 years ago .

Those Neanderthals were a sinister bunch, oh boy

[Leonardo]

Leonardo, by your logic, I can call an Inuit from the 10th century a Canadian; or a Byzantine from Anatolia of the 6th century Turkish.

It's not "my" logic, it's simply the logic of language. And yes, Inuits could be Canadians, or Alaskans, if they lived in what is now Alaska. That is not to say people would want to be given certain labels, but it would not be incorrect to do so.

But we both know this is not what Mahmoud Abbas claims at all, he's trying to imply the people of the 1st century A.D in Judea were Palestinians: he's trying to revise history to erase Jewish history. Jesus is known to be Jewish; by claiming he's a Palestinian, as if there were Palestinians back then, he's trying to rewrite history as if it was Palestinian territory even back then in the 1st century.

I am not arguing Abbas is right in the meaning of what he claims, but there is a case for arguing "Jesus was a Palestinian" is correct in the technical sense - in that Jesus was a native of the region later known as Palestine. It might not be the only correct appellation that could be attributed to Jesus, but it is possibly one of them.

As for the rest of the argument, that Jesus is known to be Jewish is based only on circumstantial, anecdotal evidence from a single, questionable source.

Edited December 31, 2013 by Leonardo

[Yamato]

Judging from the foundation of the Palestinian national movement in the 1920s, then this is rubbish. Palestinians have been attacking Jews who were not Zionist before Israel was established in 1948. Palestinians exchange between "Jews" and "Israelis" as if the two meant the same thing. Palestinian hate propaganda uses the word "Yahud", which means Jew.

If the settlements were inhabited by Israeli Arabs (which are basically Israeli Palestinians), he would not insist on evacuating them. The future Palestine you support will be free of Jews. This is what they want, and they don't even try to hide it.

There's all kinds of ugly politics we can dig up on Israel as well, so that doesn't provide a way forward. I think Palestinians will warmly embrace and befriend many Jews from America who sympathize with their circumstances and will come in to help them when these dehumanizing economic blockades come down and their statehood and legal legitimacy are established.

[Erikl]

It's not "my" logic, it's simply the logic of language. And yes, Inuits could be Canadians, or Alaskans, if they lived in what is now Alaska. That is not to say people would want to be given certain labels, but it would not be incorrect to do so.

No sorry that's wrong. In the 10th century Canada didn't exist. The land it occupies today existed but Canada didn't, nor did the vast majority of the ancestors of modern day Canadians. While ofcourse today, or after Canada was created, Inuits can be called Canadian or Alaskan or whatever, when we talk about a 10th century Inuit may not. Same goes for the case of Palestine - while the inhabitant of the land after 135 AD may be called a Syrian-Palestinian (or simply Palestinian), someone who lived and died before it was renamed Palestine cannot. This is precisely the definition of anachronism, and it serves a political agenda in this case, not mere linguistic error.

Btw, while a 3rd century resident of Byzantine Syria-Palestine might be called Palestinian, they would have little to do with what you and I call Palestinian today. These are not the same people, and frankly, until 1920 when the British called the area Palestine, they didn't come to call themselves Palestinians, but Arabs or Syrian Arabs.

I am not arguing Abbas is right in the meaning of what he claims, but there is a case for arguing "Jesus was a Palestinian" is correct in the technical sense - in that Jesus was a native of the region later known as Palestine. It might not be the only correct appellation that could be attributed to Jesus, but it is possibly one of them.

As for the rest of the argument, that Jesus is known to be Jewish is based only on circumstantial, anecdotal evidence from a single, questionable source.

The evidence for the historical existence of Jesus is circumstantial. All the evidence we have of him comes from those scriptures. So if we consider his existence to be an historical fact, based on those scriptures, we also need to consider that those scriptures describe him as a Jew. Unless you can find another group of people in 1st century Judea which used to circumcise at the 8th day, called their religious leaders Rabbis, worshiped kn the Jewish temple in Jerusalem, and had a concept of the Hebrew word Messiah. Good luck with that.

[Leonardo]

No sorry that's wrong. In the 10th century Canada didn't exist. The land it occupies today existed but Canada didn't, nor did the vast majority of the ancestors of modern day Canadians. While ofcourse today, or after Canada was created, Inuits can be called Canadian or Alaskan or whatever, when we talk about a 10th century Inuit may not. Same goes for the case of Palestine - while the inhabitant of the land after 135 AD may be called a Syrian-Palestinian (or simply Palestinian), someone who lived and died before it was renamed Palestine cannot. This is precisely the definition of anachronism, and it serves a political agenda in this case, not mere linguistic error.

Believe what you want, but it is not incorrect to refer to a 10th century Inuit as Canadian or Alaskan. Most would probably precede the label with the word "ancient" or a synonym thereof.

This is not an anachronism because there is no chronological inconsistency. Having the 10th century Inuit refer to him/herself as Canadian or Alaskan would be anachronistic, but not us referring to to them as such.

Abbas saying "Jesus was a Palestinian" is not an anachronism. It might be incorrect - depending on whether Jesus was actually a native of the region that would become Palestine - but it is not chronologically inconsistent. If Abbas had said "Jesus considered himself a Palestinian", that would have been an example of anachronism.

Edited December 31, 2013 by Leonardo

[+and-then]

If the land that is now called Palestine is reconquered totally by the Jews of Israel and they lay claim to everything between the Nile and the Euphrates (as an example) would we then be correct to call him an Israeli? And if so then what possible difference would a label have (if one is trying to be consistent in NAMING anything?) The point of all this exercise for Abbas was to de-legitimize Israel's claim to the land at ANY point in history. It's just another example of the big lie. In this act the Palestinians are like 5 year old children in the midst of an argument - if they believe it and say it often enough then for them it is true and what other's think is immaterial to them. That is their right but it doesn't mean that others need be restrained by it in any way.

[Erikl]

Believe what you want, but it is not incorrect to refer to a 10th century Inuit as Canadian or Alaskan. Most would probably precede the label with the word "ancient" or a synonym thereof.

This is not an anachronism because there is no chronological inconsistency. Having the 10th century Inuit refer to him/herself as Canadian or Alaskan would be anachronistic, but not us referring to to them as such.

Indeed, most would understand what your are saying, but it will still be wrong, logically and chronologically. St. Nicholas (Santa Claus) was a Byzantine Christian from 3rd century Anatolia. Would you call him a Turkish Christian? ofcourse not. Not only did Turkey not exist as a state back then, the region itself was not called Turkey (it actually wasn't called Byzantine Empire as well, but was part of the Roman Empire), and the Turkish language was not spoken there.

Would accept then that Jesus was an Israeli? after all, he was "Jesus of Nazareth" and Nazareth is a city in Israel.

This latest Palestinian propaganda works well because many people do not understand that it's anachronistic - and calling Jesus a Palestinian is anachronistic and in this case is used to rob a nation (Jews) of one of it's most influential famous figures (Jesus) in a larger skim to undermine the historical ties of this nation to a land (Israel). You can argue with that as much as you want because you believe otherwise; that doesn't change this fact.

[Erikl]

If the land that is now called Palestine is reconquered totally by the Jews of Israel and they lay claim to everything between the Nile and the Euphrates (as an example) would we then be correct to call him an Israeli? And if so then what possible difference would a label have (if one is trying to be consistent in NAMING anything?) The point of all this exercise for Abbas was to de-legitimize Israel's claim to the land at ANY point in history. It's just another example of the big lie. In this act the Palestinians are like 5 year old children in the midst of an argument - if they believe it and say it often enough then for them it is true and what other's think is immaterial to them. That is their right but it doesn't mean that others need be restrained by it in any way.

And then, you took the words out of my keyboard lol. I pushed "Post" before reading the very same question (albeit asked differently). According to Leonardo's logic, Jesus should be called Israeli, since Nazareth is a city in Israel, and as of yet there is no country or a state called Palestine.

[spud the mackem]

Is this guy just stirring up crap again, why doesn't he take a day off and be good for a change.

[SHaYap]

Etymology

Nazareth is not mentioned in pre-Christian texts and appears in many different Greek forms in the New Testament. There is no consensus regarding the origin of the name.^[8] One conjecture holds that "Nazareth" is derived from one^[9] of the Hebrew words for 'branch', namely ne·ṣer, נֵ֫צֶר, and alludes to the prophetic, messianic words in Book of Isaiah 11:1, 'from (Jesse's) roots a Branch (netzer) will bear fruit.' One view suggests this toponym might be an example of a tribal name used by resettling groups on their return from exile.^[10] Alternatively, the name may derive from the verb na·ṣar, נָצַר, "watch, guard, keep,"^[11] and understood either in the sense of "watchtower" or "guard place", implying the early town was perched on or near the brow of the hill, or, in the passive sense as 'preserved, protected' in reference to its secluded position.^[12] The negative references to Nazareth in the Gospel of John suggest that ancient Jews did not connect the town's name to prophecy.^[13]

• wiki link
  

The Lost City

The Gospels tell us that Jesus's home town was the 'City of Nazareth' ('polis Natzoree'):

And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a CITY of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.

(Luke1.26,27)

And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the CITY of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; because he was of the house and lineage of David:

(Luke 2.3,4)

But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee: And he came and dwelt in a CITY called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

(Matthew 2.22,23)

And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own CITY Nazareth. And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.

(Luke 2.39,40)

The gospels do not tell us much about this 'city' – it has a synagogue, it can scare up a hostile crowd (prompting JC's famous "prophet rejected in his own land" quote), and it has a precipice – but the city status of Nazareth is clearly established, at least according to that source of nonsense called the Bible.

However when we look for historical confirmation of this hometown of a god – surprise, surprise! – no other source confirms that the place even existed in the 1st century AD.

• Nazareth is not mentioned even once in the entire Old Testament. The Book of Joshua (19.10,16) – in what it claims is the process of settlement by the tribe of Zebulon in the area – records twelve towns and six villages and yet omits any 'Nazareth' from its list.

• The Talmud, although it names 63 Galilean towns, knows nothing of Nazareth, nor does early rabbinic literature.

• St Paul knows nothing of 'Nazareth'. Rabbi Solly's epistles (real and fake) mention Jesus 221 times, Nazareth not at all.

• No ancient historian or geographer mentions Nazareth. It is first noted at the beginning of the 4th century.

None of this would matter of course if, rather like at the nearby 'pagan' city of Sepphoris, we could stroll through the ruins of 1st century bath houses, villas, theatres etc. Yet no such ruins exist.

The Lost City

The Gospels tell us that Jesus's home town was the 'City of Nazareth' ('polis Natzoree'):

And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a

CITY of Galilee, named Nazareth

, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.

(

Luke

1.26,27)

And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the

CITY of Nazareth

, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; because he was of the house and lineage of David:

(

Luke

2.3,4)

But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee: And he came and dwelt in a

CITY called Nazareth

: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

(

Matthew

2.22,23)

And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own

CITY Nazareth

. And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.

(

Luke

2.39,40)

The gospels do not tell us much about this 'city' – it has a synagogue, it can scare up a hostile crowd (prompting JC's famous "prophet rejected in his own land" quote), and it has a precipice – but the city status of Nazareth is clearly established, at least according to that source of nonsense called the Bible.

However when we look for historical confirmation of this hometown of a god – surprise, surprise! – no other source confirms that the place even existed in the 1st century AD.

• Nazareth is

not mentioned

even once in the entire

Old Testament

.

The Book of Joshua

(19.10,16) – in what it claims is the process of settlement by the tribe of Zebulon in the area – records twelve towns and six villages and yet omits any 'Nazareth' from its list.

• The

Talmud

, although it names 63 Galilean towns,

knows nothing

of Nazareth, nor does early rabbinic literature.

•

St Paul knows nothing

of 'Nazareth'. Rabbi Solly's epistles (real and fake) mention Jesus 221 times, Nazareth not at all.

• No ancient historian or geographer

mentions Nazareth. It is first noted at the beginning of the 4th century.

- See more at: http://www.jesusneve...h.lW58jEib.dpuf

Sources:

René Salm, The Myth of Nazareth (Kevalin, 2007)

Dan Cohn-Sherbok, The Crucified Jew (Harper Collins,1992)

Henry Hart Milman, The History of the Jews (Everyman, 1939)

Josephus, The Jewish War (Penguin, 1959)

Jonathan Reed, Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus: A Re-examination of the Evidence (Trinity, 2002)

Leslie Houlden (Ed.), Judaism & Christianity (Routledge, 1988

Karen Armstrong, A History of Jerusalem (Harper Collins, 1999)

Jonathan N. Tubb, Canaanites (British Museum Press, 1998)

Norman Cantor, The Sacred Chain - A History of the Jews (Harper Collins, 1994) - See more at: http://www.jesusneve...h.lW58jEib.dpuf

• jesusneverexisted link
  

[Yamato]

I'll do one better than Abbas:

We Are All Palestinians

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

I'll do one better than Abbas:

We Are All Palestinians

I'll do one better then Yamato:

I'm Batman.

[SHaYap]

yea and yowwie .... " I am SPARTA !!!! "

[Phaeton80]

I'll do one better than Abbas:

We Are All Palestinians

Given the path we are on, the way the chesspieces are being positioned, 'we' certainly will be.

And we would more or less - as a society - deserve it.

[Leonardo]

It's just another example of the big lie. In this act the Palestinians are like 5 year old children in the midst of an argument -

...with other 5 year old children.

[+and-then]

...with other 5 year old children.

Fair enough - I guess. Ultimately there will be no agreement until one side or the other has bled to a point where they are about to collapse.

[Yamato]

Given the path we are on, the way the chesspieces are being positioned, 'we' certainly will be.

And we would more or less - as a society - deserve it.

1984 is on the way, I'd say.

[Phaeton80]

Seems so.

It will be interesting to see which will cross the finish first; awareness or fascism.

Let the cards fall where they may.

[Yamato]

Awareness or ignorance; individuality or Corporatocracy

[RavenHawk]

I can accept that Jesus and the other Jews were Palestinians. As the Canaanites were Palestinians before them. And after 135 AD to sometime after 1 AH was a whole different culture because the main Jewish influence was gone. Then from there to about 1300 there was at least one more different culture. When the Ottoman Empire took over, were the people there Palestinian or Ottoman? In the previous example, prior to about 1848, those that lived on the Italian Peninsula where not considered Italian. They were Roman, Genoese, Venetian, etc. So more than likely, those that lived in the region of Palestine were known by their tribal identity. Palestinian was not really used until Israeli statehood became a possibility after 1922 and then it wasn’t a self imposed identity. There was no one cultural entity that was Palestinian. Therefore, the people that are using the name Palestinian today are usurping the original identity.