"The fact is we know the land has been called Palestine going back to Herodotus, so we know these maps are accurate..."
The fact is that the region has been called by several names over time.
Accuracy involves (1) utilizing the correct name for a given timeframe, (2) utilizing the correct name for a given set of boundaries, (3) utilizing the correct name for a given political status [independent, client-state, conquered territory, province, etc.] and (4) utilizing the correct name for a given dominant population.
The territory which ultimately became my home-state was, at one time, called by a variety of names by the Native Americans (Indians) of the region - most predominantly Illiniwek, it was called the Illinois Country when it was part of the French Empire, it was part of Virginia during the American Colonial Era, it was part of the Northwest Territory after the American Revolution, it became the Illinois Territory in 1809, and the State of Illinois in 1818.
It has been called many names over time, but it would be inaccurate to publish a map of Illinois portraying its final borders (1818) and utilizing the Illinois name, to represent any pre-1818 point in time, due to border changes and name changes and changes in its political organization or affiliation and changes in its population demographics.
Montana was, at one time, called one thing by the Natives, and then was part of the Louisiana Purchase, and was labeled on maps of the time as part of Louisiana, for convenience sake, but was then labeled the Montana Territory with redrawn borders in 1864, and eventually its borders were finalized and it was incorporated as a State in 1889.
And on and on and on... demonstrating that geographical regions can carry any of a number of names over time, with shifting boundaries, political organizations, populations, etc., and that, sometimes, earlier names for a region end-up being recycled, to label a region, which may include, in whole or in part, some portion of land that was labeled with the same name during an earlier epoch or era.
Same with so-called 'Palestine'.
There is no escaping the idea that the region, in whole or in part, was, indeed, labeled as 'Palestine' (with phonetic and spelling variations) for centuries prior to the Roman period, at various times; usually connected with the presence of the Philistines, an Agean Sea People who invaded and were defeated by the Egyptians, and forcibly resettled in the vicinity of Gaza, Ashkelon and the like.
It has been called Philistia, Gaza, Canaan, Israel, Judah, Judea, Syria-Palestina, the Kingdom of Jerusalem, the province of this and that, and, finally, Palestine, and Israel, recycling old names, along with shifting borders.
That does not, however, mean that a map, published inside a modern-day Bible, which labels that region as 'Palestine' during the lifetime of Jesus of Nazareth, is accurate, with respect to either boundaries or the naming conventions extant at that time, nor with respect to the way the inhabitants of the region identified themselves at the time.
One cannot (accurately and reliably and truthfully) label a region as "A", when it was called "B" by its residents and its governors and masters at the time.
Consequently, any labeling of the region as 'Palestine' during the lifetime of Christ, when that region had been the Kingdom of Judah for centuries beforehand, and when it had been the Roman Province and client-state Kingdom of Judea for years prior to and after the lifetime of Jesus - is an inaccurate labeling - regardless of whether such a map (listing it as Palestine during the lifetime of Jesus) appears in a modern-day published edition of the Bible or whether it appears in an old
Archie and the Jugheads comic book.
Doesn't matter... inappropriate usage is inappropriate usage... and trying to establish territorial bona fides using such fault-laden materials is erroneous at best, and disingenuous at worst.
