|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Story of the Jews
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
This is a new Simon Schama series, I thought we might like to discuss our thoughts on it.
[ 01. September 2013, 20:30: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
This is a new Simon Schama series, I thought we might like to discuss our thoughts on it.
Thought it was going to be good until the whole programme seemed to focus on Sigmund Freud and his own personal feelings/demons and the usual TV archaologist/theologians saying that Moses never existed.
*sigh*
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211
|
Posted
It WAS good. Very good. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
I'm evangelical, but I don't get bent out of shape every time a BBC doc doesn't share my perspective on all things biblical.
Freud hardly dominated the episode and beginning with his reflections on what it meant to be a Jew was actually a stroke of genius. Schama took you right in and developed the theme from there.
This was a rich, very informative episode packed with so much I could hardly digest it.
But, in a nutshell: Jews are people of the Word, and have survived centuries of exile, trauma, persecution and hardship because of this.
Great stuff. ![[Smile]](smile.gif) I've always liked Schama, he's a very engaging presenter and historian.
--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien
Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
would love to belong
Shipmate
# 16747
|
Posted
I enjoyed it, I have to say, but will need to watch again to take it all in.
Posts: 331 | From: Lost and confused | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
the usual TV archaologist/theologians saying that Moses never existed.
I liked the program but hadn't realised that there was a whole cadre of "TV archaologist/theologians" waiting for a chance to say Moses never existed. I've obviously been watching the wrong channel (or maybe the right ones).
One point amused me: that David killing Goliath may have been a metaphor before we made it into one.
The idea of the plurality of Jewish belief with a community in Egypt being ordered into line by the 'mother temple' was also new to me.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
I strongly dislike Schwama because he is the Tories' theologian and because he has an axe to grind in claiming that the State of Israel rightfully exists and rightfully stole land from the Palestinians.
Be that as it may, I liked his pesach/passover scene and his intelligent questioning about Jewish paranoia.
I like the fact that he took for granted that the Exodus never happened in anything like the Torah's account.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I was disappointed that more actual evidence was not presented - I was left with little sense of what life was really like for the folk of biblical times. I am hoping for more texture and detail n the next episode.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I haven't watched yet, but read the article he wrote in the Radio Times last week - not, unfortunately, available on line. So I'm having to type out bits from the end where he wrote about the issue I was worried about. I'm leaving out a lot I would have liked to include out of respect for copyright.
quote:
I am ... not the mystical kind (of historian-Zionist) who takes the Bible as an entitlement to land, territory, settlements. Historian-Zionists understand that one kind of tragedy can, alas, beget others, and in the case of the Palestinians, it's in keeping with the deepest ethical requirements of Judaism to understand and empathise with their nakba (catastrophe) and do something about it. ...*
Many of the founders of Israel understood the ethical obligation to understand the rights and grievances of the Palestinians...
*Here he said that Muslims should understand the nakba experienced by Jews evicted from Muslim countries.
He finished by quoting Hillel "What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbour..."
I don't think he is of one mind with the Israeli government, nor with the settlers.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I strongly dislike Schwama because he is the Tories' theologian and because he has an axe to grind in claiming that the State of Israel rightfully exists and rightfully stole land from the Palestinians.
Be that as it may, I liked his pesach/passover scene and his intelligent questioning about Jewish paranoia.
I like the fact that he took for granted that the Exodus never happened in anything like the Torah's account.
How is he the Tories' theologian? He supports the Labour party. He's so left wing he thinks we need to understand Israel's actions and thinking rather than just condemn it.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I tried to read Schama's book about the French Revolution once, but I didn't make it to the end; it's rather voluminous.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
I found his book on the French Revolution slow going. His book about Holland The Embarrassment of Riches was fabulous, maybe because of all the pictures. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I strongly dislike Schwama because he is the Tories' theologian and because he has an axe to grind in claiming that the State of Israel rightfully exists and rightfully stole land from the Palestinians.
Be that as it may, I liked his pesach/passover scene and his intelligent questioning about Jewish paranoia.
I like the fact that he took for granted that the Exodus never happened in anything like the Torah's account.
How is he the Tories' theologian? He supports the Labour party. He's so left wing he thinks we need to understand Israel's actions and thinking rather than just condemn it.
I did not claim 'theologian' for him. That would be an insult to all theologians.
I said 'historian'.
Michael Gove asked him to write a history curriculum. No consulting history teachers. no consulting pupils.
He readily agreed and produced a severely right wing document.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
What was wrong with it? I haven't read it.
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I like the fact that he took for granted that the Exodus never happened in anything like the Torah's account.
I'm never impressed with a priori assumptions based on lack of evidence. It just seems lazy to me.
a priori = Made before or without examination.
[ 02. September 2013, 20:28: Message edited by: Hawk ]
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I strongly dislike Schwama because he is the Tories' theologian
I've always thought he was a bit wet. Didn't know he was a Labour Party man.
quote:
I did not claim 'theologian' for him. That would be an insult to all theologians.
I said 'historian'.
I may be misunderstanding what you're driving at here, Leo, but it seems pretty clear to me that you did say 'theologian' originally and not 'historian'.
quote:
Michael Gove asked him to write a history curriculum. No consulting history teachers. no consulting pupils.
Why would one consult pupils? Was the purpose of the exercise to determine what children should be taught (as opposed to, say, how they should be taught)? If so, I'm not sure why a historian would feel the need to consult history teachers.
quote:
He readily agreed and produced a severely right wing document.
Is there a link to this? I know nothing of it.
[ 02. September 2013, 20:38: Message edited by: Anglican't ]
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charles Had a Splurge on
Shipmate
# 14140
|
Posted
Leo,
Although Simon Schama advised Gove on the cirriculum, he wasn't happy with the result: Telegraph report
"1066 and all that without the jokes"
--------------------
"But to live outside the law, you must be honest" R.A. Zimmerman
Posts: 224 | From: What used to be Berkshire | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I'm with Laurelin on this. It was good - albeit very much a secular historian's fairly personal approach rather than a theologian's or an anthropologists. And, unlike some similar programmes, it had plenty of facts (and no ghastly over-egged "dramatic reconstructions"). Well done BBC for still making programmes like this.
What I did like is that it quite clearly did not try to present (and possibly controversial) views as "objective truth" or "exciting new discoveries": Schama was very clear in telling us about his personal approaches and prejudices. And I loved his exploration of what it really means to be Jewish.
Hopefully later programmes will tell us more about what it "feels like" to be a Jew today. Interestingly enough I am in fact 100% (secular) Jewish and come from a very similar milieu to Schama, albeit 15 years younger ... I have never identified with the Jewish culture and community at all.
My wife was delighted to see a former fellow-student helping to officiate at the West London Synagogue and jumped out of her chair in excitement!
[ 02. September 2013, 21:32: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
leo said quote:
Michael Gove asked him to write a history curriculum. No consulting history teachers. no consulting pupils.
He readily agreed and produced a severely right wing document.
Schama produced a curriculum that Gove mocked for not being sufficiently right wing. Admittedly, it's easy to be to the left of Michael Gove, but Schama is not a right wing person. Schama says he thinks that Gove has some valid criticisms of history teaching, but he doesn't agree with the pro-British, polemicist, fact-rich style of history that Gove wants.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
he doesn't agree with the pro-British, polemicist, fact-rich style of history that Gove wants.
So he wants anti-British, pleasing to all, fact-free history?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Why would one consult pupils? Was the purpose of the exercise to determine what children should be taught (as opposed to, say, how they should be taught)? If so, I'm not sure why a historian would feel the need to consult history teachers.
It depends. If what you are producing is a list of things that 18-year-olds should know, or a list of skills that universities would like their entrants to know, then the history teacher isn't much use.
If on, the other hand, you want to take the desired end goal, and then ask "so what should we teach in year 5" then the experience of people who actually know something about the typical capabilities of year 5 pupils might just be relevant.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
he doesn't agree with the pro-British, polemicist, fact-rich style of history that Gove wants.
So he wants anti-British, pleasing to all, fact-free history?
Exactly! That's why he's such a good historian.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I don't understand why an historian would want no facts; unless, of course, they are getting in the way of prejudice and propaganda.
[ 03. September 2013, 08:06: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
It was you who talked about fact-free history, not Schama or me or any historian I know about.
Facts are tricky things, of course. '1066 and All That' is a good example of the idiocies that can result from learning facts without context and understanding. But aren't we supposed to be talking about the Jews?
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
No, you commented about good historians not wanting 'fact-rich' history and I said that fact-free history was what you want and you said 'exactly'
What's the problem with a fact filled history?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No, you commented about good historians not wanting 'fact-rich' history and I said that fact-free history was what you want and you said 'exactly'
What's the problem with a fact filled history?
I think you need to tune your sarcasm meter. It appears to be on the blink.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I strongly dislike Schwama because he is the Tories' theologian and because he has an axe to grind in claiming that the State of Israel rightfully exists and rightfully stole land from the Palestinians.
I haven't watched yet, but intend to at some-point, I was hoping that you would expand this comment and explain what you mean leo, since if I recall correctly, by international agreement the Nation State of Israel does rightfully exist...
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No, you commented about good historians not wanting 'fact-rich' history and I said that fact-free history was what you want and you said 'exactly'
What's the problem with a fact filled history?
If history is too "fact filled" then there's no room for anything else. History is about a lot more.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I like the fact that he took for granted that the Exodus never happened in anything like the Torah's account.
I'm never impressed with a priori assumptions based on lack of evidence. It just seems lazy to me.
a priori = Made before or without examination.
I watched the show last night and I was very pleased to see that despite leo's comment, the truth was very different (I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by now). Sharma did quite an excellent job of navigating the tricky waters between literalistic and metaphorical interpretations, not dropping his anchor in any one place, or making any assumptions. He left it open as to whether the Bible was useful historically, but agreed that whether it was or wasn't the symbolic and theological meanings were still valid.
I was pleased when he said, very carefully, that "despite a lot of digging no hard evidence has yet come to light to make the exodus or the wandering in the wilderness an historical reality". I was pleased since a lot of people prefer to say more bluntly that 'its been proved that the Exodus never happened', or similar. Whereas Sharma's careful wording showed an apprecation of careful thought and accuracy rather than careless sensationalism.
The program covered a thousand years in one hour. Unfortunately this didn't give much chance to really get to grips with the Israelite BC history. It was very much an overview, and didn't provide much more detail than I already knew. But I liked Sharma's presentation.
And the dearth of detail allowed Sharma to focus more on creating a sense of Jewishness as influenced by a rich history, even when that history is sparsely known. I found it interesting that at the Seder meal they were discussing whether the bitter herbs represented the tears of the slaves in Egypt, or the Dead Sea itself. The people at the meal didn't know. Yet they appreciated the Seder as a touchstone of their Jewishness nevertheless.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clint Boggis
Shipmate
# 633
|
Posted
I looked forward to watching this as I quite like Schama and thought a proper historian's view of the history of the Jews would be informative and interesting to compare with what the Bible tells us. I'd like to know how closely independent, evidence-based study agrees with Biblical history.
My heart sank when he said it was one of *those* "a personal view" programmes, rather than straight history. I usually see those 'a personal view' shows as a wasted opportunity to do a decent impartial treatment of a topic, while still costing the same.
But this was still pretty good. I'll watch the rest of the series.
Posts: 1505 | From: south coast | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I strongly dislike Schwama because he is the Tories' theologian and because he has an axe to grind in claiming that the State of Israel rightfully exists and rightfully stole land from the Palestinians.
I haven't watched yet, but intend to at some-point, I was hoping that you would expand this comment and explain what you mean leo, since if I recall correctly, by international agreement the Nation State of Israel does rightfully exist...
And the international community has condemned its annexation of Palestinian land time and time again.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
I did not claim 'theologian' for him. That would be an insult to all theologians.
I said 'historian'.
I may be misunderstanding what you're driving at here, Leo, but it seems pretty clear to me that you did say 'theologian' originally and not 'historian'.
Sorry - I typed 'theologian' but meant 'historian' - should have proof-read.
It had been a long day.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
beatmenace
Shipmate
# 16955
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl : Liberal Backslider
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No, you commented about good historians not wanting 'fact-rich' history and I said that fact-free history was what you want and you said 'exactly'
What's the problem with a fact filled history?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If history is too "fact filled" then there's no room for anything else. History is about a lot more.
Facts are just the data of history - the actual skill of being a historian is to sift the data to build up a picture of the period, writings, cultural worldview ,technology, art, law etc.
What do we learn from the cultural ideas and political / economic framework from years past and what would happen if we tried it again now?
Are we different from our predecessors or would we make the same decisions (even with the benefit of hindsight)?
And more subversively, what is the relationship of people to social, economic and political power, what factors unite a society and divide them - even to revolution. Who exactly benefits from having a war?
In other words getting the critical skills to find what History MEANS rather than just what happened.
A bland collection of dates of Kings , Battles and Acts of Parliament doesn't do any of that that - and i suspect that is more what Gove was thinking of - rather thsn 'questioning' History.
--------------------
"I'm the village idiot , aspiring to great things." (The Icicle Works)
Posts: 297 | From: Whitley Bay | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I enjoyed this programme, and learnt from it. I was under no illusions that it was likely to present any kind of theologically orthodox positions, and I didn't listen out for any. Schama was respectful towards religious belief, and towards his own religious upbringing, and I was pleased about that.
I did wonder when Jesus was going to make an appearance, and felt that Schama was skirting around him a bit. Maybe that's because Jesus appears more prominently in a later episode. I suppose that lots of Jews feel ambivalent at best about Jesus. This is likely to come out more and more as the series progresses.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Clint Boggis
Shipmate
# 633
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
My heart sank when he said it was one of *those* "a personal view" programmes, rather than straight history.
Isn't all history from the personal view of the historian?
It depends how professional they're being. A professor of history given a chance to present a TV programme might reasonably be expected to give the best information available (ie supported by the best evidence and academic consensus), and may offer their own position, if clearly signposted as their view.
Too many documentary presenters are given free reign to put aside any pretensions of impartiality, and give their own views. I almost never want a 'personal view' or a 'personal journey' (ugh!) when a programme is presented as a documentary. It's a waste of an opportunity (and budget) to learn something interesting.
If there is a personal connection with the material, it's fair enough to use it to give a 'human dimension' to the facts and in this case, it was well done.
Posts: 1505 | From: south coast | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I enjoyed this programme, and learnt from it. I was under no illusions that it was likely to present any kind of theologically orthodox positions, and I didn't listen out for any. Schama was respectful towards religious belief, and towards his own religious upbringing, and I was pleased about that.
I did wonder when Jesus was going to make an appearance, and felt that Schama was skirting around him a bit. Maybe that's because Jesus appears more prominently in a later episode. I suppose that lots of Jews feel ambivalent at best about Jesus. This is likely to come out more and more as the series progresses.
For most Jews, Jesus is pretty irrelevant - just another pretend messiah.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
leo
Oh, certainly. But he's not incidental to the story of the Jews, even if he's irrelevant to their theology.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
Too many documentary presenters are given free reign to put aside any pretensions of impartiality, and give their own views.
Possibly. But the worst is when they present their own personal views as objective truth - or, at least, when that is the impression that is given. Schama avoided that pitfall nicely.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I enjoyed this programme, and learnt from it. I was under no illusions that it was likely to present any kind of theologically orthodox positions, and I didn't listen out for any. Schama was respectful towards religious belief, and towards his own religious upbringing, and I was pleased about that.
I did wonder when Jesus was going to make an appearance, and felt that Schama was skirting around him a bit. Maybe that's because Jesus appears more prominently in a later episode. I suppose that lots of Jews feel ambivalent at best about Jesus. This is likely to come out more and more as the series progresses.
Unlikely. If he can go straight from Maccabees to Joesephus and the Roman destruction of AD70 without mentioning his name I'm sure he'll be happy to ignore him for the rest of the story. After all, Jesus had zero effect on mainstream Judaism. All those he had an effect on became Christians.
What may be discussed is how the Christian kingdoms oppressed the Jewish people, in the same way as the Assyrians, Greeks and Romans did before. That had an effect on Judaism, though Jesus didn't.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But he's not incidental to the story of the Jews, even if he's irrelevant to their theology.
I like Simon Schama as a historian, and I enjoyed the programme greatly. But in glossing over Jesus in one line, I suspect that Schama, like many other Jewish historians, has a "Jesus problem." This isn't caused so much by Jesus' own place in Jewish history, as by the abominations of the Church towards the Jews for two milleniia. By "The Church" in this context, I mean Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant. From John Chrysostom, the Golden Mouthed, who was foul-mouthed in his dealings with the Jews, through centuries of Catholic Inquisitions, murders and forced conversions, to Martin Luther's evil spoutings, which were arguably a blueprint for the Holocaust, great atrocities have been carried out in the name of the Prince of Peace.
Fortunately, there is a group of modern Jewish scholars, such as Talmudic scholar Daniel Boyarin, who see Christianity as having its origins firmly within the Jewish traditions of its time, and recognising that both Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism are descendents of the Judaism of Jesus' time. There are many things I love about Judaism, and so much of what we take for granted as Christians, such as ritual washing away of sins (baptism), the Messiah who will redeem all humanity, repentance and faith, even the sacrificial aspect of the Eucharist, emphasised in Catholic and Orthodox theology, all all firmly rooted in Judaism.
I noticed that Schama began his journey with Moses the Lawgiver, rather than with Abraham, the Father of Faith. This is significant to me, because, it's only with the Law, or Torah, given to Moses, that Judaism as such begins. Although Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are the Patriarchs on whose merits the Jews depended for generations, the story of Abraham is as relevant to Christianity as it is to Judaism, as beautifully explained by Paul in Galations. When Abram's faith was counted to him as righteousness (Gen 15:6), it was before the circumcision, and before the Torah (by several hundred years). The priesthood of the Order of Melchizedek (Heb 7:11 from Gen 14:18-20) predates the Levitical priesthood by centuries, and is the eternal priesthood of Christ.
Pope Benedict XVI has written:
"The faith of Israel was directed to universality. Since it is devoted to the one God of all men, it also bore within itself the promise to become the faith of all nations. But the Law, in which it was expressed, was particular, quite concretely directed to Israel and its history; it could not be universalised in that form. In the intersection of these paradoxes stands Jesus of Nazareth, who Himself as a Jew lived entirely under the Law of Israel but knew Himself to be at the same time the mediator of the universality of God..."
I genuinely believe that the Jews, in their history of four millennia, have had the divine protection of God's chosen people. Perhaps they were chosen to bring the universality of God to the world through Jesus, but they remain a remarkable people. It's unlikely that Simon Schama will ever see it that way, but he is rightly proud of his people's survival against great odds, and their awesome achievements in the world.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cedd007
Shipmate
# 16180
|
Posted
I really enjoyed the first programme, whilst taking some bits with a pinch of salt. The scholars have, as I understand it, three main theories concerning the nature of the Exodus, and no clear evidence to prove which one, or which ones, are correct. In contrast, the ancient fortress that Schama was shown was, as I understand it, important evidence that there was indeed a Kingdom of Israel in the 10th century B.C.
I like Simon Schama. For the record, in his capacity as Gove-appointed History Tsar, he did consult History teachers, and I believe students, before, like one or two other distinguished historians, he dropped out of the whole process – for some reason! During the final public consultations on the draft History Curriculum he made quite clear what he thought about Michael Gove's History Curriculum in rather colourful language: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/hay-festival/10090287/Hay-Festival-2013-Dont-sign-up-to-Goves-insulting-curriculum-Schama- urges.html
Posts: 58 | From: Essex, United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I strongly dislike Schwama because he is the Tories' theologian and because he has an axe to grind in claiming that the State of Israel rightfully exists and rightfully stole land from the Palestinians.
Calling Schama the tories' theologian is complete cobblers. And his "axe to grind" in claiming that Israel has a right to exist? When I was young we used to have a silly joke. If someone in the pub asked if you want another beer, we would say, "Is the Pope Catholic?" "Does a bear shit in the woods?" "Does a cat drink milk?" What part of you doesn't understand why a Jewish historian would think Israel has a right to exist? Whether land was "rightly" stolen from the Palestinans is another matter, but Plaestine was filled with Jews under a British mandate, and the State of Israel came into existence by a vote of the United Nations.
It was attacked from all sides by its neighbours the same day, as it has been numerous times since. It sometimes uses excessive force in retaliation to attacks made on it, but it has always been retaliation and self-defence. Israel has never initiated an attack on its neighbours, and lives with its back to the sea. I, as a non Jew, support its right to exist, and I entirely fail to understand why you wouldn't expect a man in Simon Schama's position to feel that way.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Israel has never initiated an attack on its neighbours...
I almost thought you were being serious until I read that.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ken:
I almost thought you were being serious until I read that.
I repeat that I don't always approve of the excessive retaliation that Israel uses when attacked, from Golan, Egypt, Gaza or Lebanon. But it has always been attacked first, before responding. Any hypothetical settlement to the problems of the region, which I don't expect to see in my lifetime, would need to be a trade between Israel's return to its pre six day war borders, with a copper bottomed, UN backed assurance that no one will fling rockets at Tel Aviv or any other centres of population. And what to do about Jerusalem?
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I repeat that I don't always approve of the excessive retaliation that Israel uses when attacked, from Golan, Egypt, Gaza or Lebanon. But it has always been attacked first, before responding. Any hypothetical settlement to the problems of the region, which I don't expect to see in my lifetime, would need to be a trade between Israel's return to its pre six day war borders, with a copper bottomed, UN backed assurance that no one will fling rockets at Tel Aviv or any other centres of population. And what to do about Jerusalem?
Didn't the Six Day War begin with a surprise attack by the Israelis on Egyptian military airfields? You mention the conflict, so you obviously know it existed, but you seem to have a very revised history of it.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But he's not incidental to the story of the Jews, even if he's irrelevant to their theology.
I like Simon Schama as a historian, and I enjoyed the programme greatly. But in glossing over Jesus in one line, I suspect that Schama, like many other Jewish historians, has a "Jesus problem." This isn't caused so much by Jesus' own place in Jewish history, as by the abominations of the Church towards the Jews for two milleniia. By "The Church" in this context, I mean Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant. From John Chrysostom, the Golden Mouthed, who was foul-mouthed in his dealings with the Jews, through centuries of Catholic Inquisitions, murders and forced conversions, to Martin Luther's evil spoutings, which were arguably a blueprint for the Holocaust, great atrocities have been carried out in the name of the Prince of Peace.
Fortunately, there is a group of modern Jewish scholars, such as Talmudic scholar Daniel Boyarin, who see Christianity as having its origins firmly within the Jewish traditions of its time, and [b] recognising that both Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism are descendents of the Judaism of Jesus' time.[b] There are many things I love about Judaism, and so much of what we take for granted as Christians, such as ritual washing away of sins (baptism), the Messiah who will redeem all humanity, repentance and faith, even the sacrificial aspect of the Eucharist, emphasised in Catholic and Orthodox theology, all all firmly rooted in Judaism.
...
Rabbinic Judaism is descended from the Judaism of Jesus' time but didn't have anything to do with Jesus, just the Judaism of the period. If you're telling the story of the Jews, there's no "Jesus problem" in ignoring Jesus. He's only interesting if you're telling the story of the Christians or the origins of post biblical European anti-Semitism.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
If he can go straight from Maccabees to Joesephus and the Roman destruction of AD70 without mentioning his name I'm sure he'll be happy to ignore him for the rest of the story. After all, Jesus had zero effect on mainstream Judaism. All those he had an effect on became Christians.
Some scholars I think believe that Judaism was a far more missionary faith before Christianity came along. Once Christianity arrived, it was offering all the advantages of Judaism plus eating pork. And no circumcision. It is at that stage, allegedly, that Rabbinic Judaism discovered that God had made a covenant with Noah that applied to Gentiles and therefore there was no need to evangelise.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
If he can go straight from Maccabees to Joesephus and the Roman destruction of AD70 without mentioning his name I'm sure he'll be happy to ignore him for the rest of the story. After all, Jesus had zero effect on mainstream Judaism. All those he had an effect on became Christians.
Some scholars I think believe that Judaism was a far more missionary faith before Christianity came along. Once Christianity arrived, it was offering all the advantages of Judaism plus eating pork. And no circumcision. It is at that stage, allegedly, that Rabbinic Judaism discovered that God had made a covenant with Noah that applied to Gentiles and therefore there was no need to evangelise.
Perhaps. I've never seen evidence of Judaism as a missionary faith or that there was a deliberate decision to drop it in recognition of Christianity or Islam as a successor to the Gentiles. I'd certainly be interesting in any evidence and not just the musings of scholars seeking to claim Jewish recognition of Christianity.
In any event, any Judaic outreach was probably a secondary priority given things like the occupation by the Romans, the destruction of the second Temple and the Revolt against Hadrian and it's consequences.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
