Palestine
I do not understand why Faithlife (or Logos) calls Canaan or Israel "Palestine." It's my understanding that the name "Palestine" for that area did not exist until after AD 115. On today's front page it shows a picture of Dothan, where Joseph was sold to the Ishmaelites. But that Dothan could not have been in Palestine because Palestine (as I understand it) would not exist for another 2,000+ years.
I do know of a political consideration today, 4,000 years later, where Muslims try to legitimatize Israel by calling the area Palestine, but for scholars today to be swayed by that doesn't make sense to me.
Please tell me why Faithlife refers to ancient Canaan or Israel as "Palestine.
Comments
-
Jerald L. Brown said:
Please tell me why Faithlife refers to ancient Canaan or Israel as "Palestine.
I don't work there, so I don't have first hand knowledge, but my assumption is that this is simply the common, modern designation for that area of geography.
As to the origin of the name, a Wikipedia article cites instances far earlier than AD 115. But certainly since around that time, this has been a widely accepted name for this region.
As an aside I rarely refer to this region as Palestine either, at least not while preaching. In those cases I'll use the designation given at the time of the writing of the Scripture I'm reading.
Help links: WIKI; Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
0 -
Many of the historic photos used on the front page are from books published when the area was called Palestine, well before modern Israel was born in 1948.
Dothan, if it was indeed located a little north of Shechem or Sebaste would seem to place in it Area A, over which the Palestinian flag currently flies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dothan_(ancient_city)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bank_Areas_in_the_Oslo_II_Accord#divisionshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_administered_by_the_Palestinian_Authority
Most of the issues around boundaries and borders in the Holy Land are quite complex and several thousand years of frequently shifting borders have many people confused. Should we refer to a place by the state or territory it was considered to be in when the illustrated event happened, or where it was considered to be years later when the illustration was made or where we think it is now (given there is often considerable uncertainty as to the exact location of some of these events.)
We should also perhaps remember before bringing Muslims into the conversation that most Christians in the Holy Land are Palestinian.
0 -
I have some sympathy with your view. We all have these little things that make our ears bleed a bit; mine: 'BCE' and 'CE'. Best thing is to not let it bother you; the academics are going to do what they're going to do. Sometimes their motives are as naked as a jaybird, sometimes not so much. Palestine probably sounds better than the Levant.
macOS (Logos Pro - Beta) | Android 13 (Logos Stable)
0 -
FL, a bit like the land you refer to has had to many name changes over the years so it does become confusing, I tend to think of them as LRS still but that would confuse a lot of people so use what is commonly used today. Maybe this has happened in the designation that has been given to this photo. Without seeing the photo in question, it is quite possible that FL is not responible for the name used. The photo and its description has possibly been extracted from a dictionary, encyclopaedia or monograph in your library and so the editors of that resource are the ones responsible.
I understand though that if the description is inaccurate how that is an annoyance.
0 -
Jerald L. Brown said:
It's my understanding that the name "Palestine" for that area did not exist until after AD 115.
Welcome to forum.
The answer could be who owns it?
The person who had it from 1400 bc to 605 bc and then off and on from 457 bc to 70 ad and then took it back in 1948 or the person who had it [off and on] from 115 ad to 1948 ad?? [[Also who owns America? Those here from 4,000 bc to 1492 or those that arrived after 1492?]]
Or the answer could be political as in who do you think should own it.
0 -
0
-
Thank you for your many responses to my query. They have helped some. I'm kind of surprised that nobody mentioned my obvious typo when I said "Muslims try to legitimatize Israel" when I meant to say "de-legitimatize," meaning just the opposite.
As for calling ancient places as being in their modern-day named area still bothers me. I don't think of Ur as being in Iraq; it was in Chaldea, or Babylon. Nineveh was in Assyria, not Syria, Jordan and Iraq. Neither do I think of Sodom as being in Jordan.
A point was made by my gracious respondents that "Palestine" is the common designation of the Levant in modern times. How modern is "modern"? Since 1948?
The only thing I can think of is that today, in modern times, Muslims refuse to acknowledge Israel as a nation and try to de-legitimize them to the whole world by refusing to call Israel by its name today but refer to it only by a Muslim name. They are political enemies to Israel and are trying to gain the whole world over to their side against Israel. This modern-day world, and especially the Christian/Judaeo world, should not allow itself to be manipulated like that. How would the United States feel if Great Britain officially and only referred to this nation as "The colonies" and never recognized it as an independent nation?
0 -
Jerald L. Brown said:
Thank you for your many responses to my query. They have helped some. I'm kind of surprised that nobody mentioned my obvious typo when I said "Muslims try to legitimatize Israel" when I meant to say "de-legitimatize," meaning just the opposite.
Maybe surprising, I guess. I noticed, but knew what you meant ... didn't wish to erode your points.
You may wish to include (or not) the opinion that today's 1948 nation-state and 'Israel' (people, 7th-8th 'Judea' and earlier) are not the same. Starting with democracy, etc.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0
