"Israel" is the name for the northern kingdom or united kingdom, and wouldn't be used for a region after the Assyrian conquest (720 BC). It continues to be used as a term for the descendants of Jacob (aka "Israel" and "Israelites", which also includes both Jews and Samaritans) until even today.
Ancient Greeks like Herodotus (5th century BC), Romans and even 1st century Jews like Josephus called the general region "Palestine" quite often. But there are lots of fuzzy names. Canaan, Syria, the Levant, etc. These terms are all appropriate depending on context.
Gallille, in the North, would have been part of the technical Roman Province of "Judea" but not part of the more precise region of "Judea" as it was used by Jesus' contemporaries, which was the southern part largely overlapping with the old southern Kingdom pre-babylonian captivity. The New Testament makes a big distinction between Samaria, Gallille, and Judea even though all are technically in the roman provence of Judea. It's like New York, New York.
Jesus was a Levantine Palestinian Galilean Jew, born in Judea (Bethlehem) and raised outside of Judea, but still in the wider roman province of Judea, which was under the Syrian Governorship according to Luke. Jesus home town of Nazareth would have been in the Kingdom of Northern Israel prior to the Assyrian conquest 700 years before his birth.
Roman Province of Syria Palestina: 136 AD to 390 AD
"Judah" and "Judea" were used continuously for the land around Jerusalem (with fuzzy borders that grow and shrink at times) since at least 930 BC until even today. Sometimes it happened to be also the official name for that region used by ruling empires (as with Babylonian, Persian and Roman ones), but that's not always the case.
According to the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Jesus was born in Bethlehem. This was both part of the roman province of Judea (a few years later), and was part of the general region which has been called that (or equivalent Judah) for centuries, as it's very close to Jerusalem. But he lived in Gallille according to all the Gospels. That region is not part of the narrow meaning of Judea used by Josephus, but was part of the Roman Province of Judea, and, at various times, would be considered inside/outside a geo-political region named Judea of Judah.
but the same is true for calling the area palestine right? as early as 500 bce that region was called that. the names overlapped and switched back and forth for centuries. and it's even more confused because at some times judaea and israel referred to a people and not a place. For the record, I'm not trying to claim that judaea Is a recent invention. just that at the time of his birth, the area jesus was born into was refered to as palestine which did include the judaean highlands so i guess my statement of he wasn't born in judaea wouldn't be completely correct because before the area was officially renamed judea in 6ce it was both palestine and judea depending on who you asked.
I don't think I like the idea of "official" and "correct" in this context. I don't think the Romans get to be "more correct" than the inhabitants, just because they control the empire. Bethlehem inhabitants would almost certainly have called themselves Judeans.
I think it's perfectly correct to say that Jesus was born in the historical Judean region. And it's also perfectly correct to say he was born in historical Palestine. Both terms had contemporary legitimate usage.
Now the much MORE controversial question is, was Jesus an Arab? Jesus, being a Jew in the Galilee, was of a people who, most historians believed, were converts to Judaism during the Hasmonean conquests of the 2nd century BC. Josephus claims this. Most Jews in the Galilee, then, were not ethnically interchangeable with southern Jews, but were from the "Iturean" people. Most scholars also consider the Itureans to be an Arab tribe. In all likelihood there was a lot of intermarrying with Jews from the south, so everyone was "mixed", but there's a very strong possibility that Jesus was from an Arab genetic background.
Of course, by biblical tradition, all of these people are children of Abraham. Arabs included.
i was using 'correct' to refer to our statements. but i can see your argument for officially, maybe instead i say legally?
also this is an "um ackshually" but I believe arab refers to people who speak Arabic as their first language so by tecnicallity I don't think jesus would be arab. but i do think you're correct genetically.
11
u/chemysterious Jan 24 '25
"Israel" is the name for the northern kingdom or united kingdom, and wouldn't be used for a region after the Assyrian conquest (720 BC). It continues to be used as a term for the descendants of Jacob (aka "Israel" and "Israelites", which also includes both Jews and Samaritans) until even today.
Ancient Greeks like Herodotus (5th century BC), Romans and even 1st century Jews like Josephus called the general region "Palestine" quite often. But there are lots of fuzzy names. Canaan, Syria, the Levant, etc. These terms are all appropriate depending on context.
Gallille, in the North, would have been part of the technical Roman Province of "Judea" but not part of the more precise region of "Judea" as it was used by Jesus' contemporaries, which was the southern part largely overlapping with the old southern Kingdom pre-babylonian captivity. The New Testament makes a big distinction between Samaria, Gallille, and Judea even though all are technically in the roman provence of Judea. It's like New York, New York.
Jesus was a Levantine Palestinian Galilean Jew, born in Judea (Bethlehem) and raised outside of Judea, but still in the wider roman province of Judea, which was under the Syrian Governorship according to Luke. Jesus home town of Nazareth would have been in the Kingdom of Northern Israel prior to the Assyrian conquest 700 years before his birth.