A New York Times article claiming that Jesus “was most likely a Palestinian man with dark skin” is generating a fierce push-back from the Jewish community.
The executive director of Boston’s Jewish Community Relations Council, Jeremy Burton, tweeted, “Important to point out that no, Jesus did not identify as Palestinian. He was a Judean Jew and for him, the term Palestine was that of the Roman occupier.”
A professor of Jewish history at Yeshiva University, Steven Fine, responded on the Times comments page that “for sure” Jesus “was a youngish Jewish man” who “looked like other Jews of his place and time.”
Another Jewish Times reader responded in the comments section, “I am amazed that the author of this article cannot simply state that Jesus was a Jew. He uses the anachronistic term ‘Palestinian.’ During Jesus’ lifetime the Romans called the province which they controlled ‘Judea.’ Later they renamed it ‘Syria Palestina.’ Referring to Jesus as ‘Palestinian’ is simply misleading in the context of his era.”
The editorial director of the Times reader center, Hanna Ingber, responded to the complaint: “You are of course right that Jesus was Jewish. We never intended to imply that he wasn’t, and we didn’t leave that detail out to make a point, as some readers wondered. The article was focused on what he physically looked like. But again, we do hear your concern.”
A journalist with the Jewish Chronicle in London, Daniel Sugarman, has described the “Jesus was a Palestinian” claim as “idiocy” and “deliberate historical revisionism designed to deny the Jewish connection to the Holy Land.” (Read More)
