:00:00. > :00:12.Good evening. When you work or travel in the middle east you are
:00:13. > :00:17.immediately struck by how raw history remains in the region's life
:00:18. > :00:21.and politics. You can talk to two different people and be given
:00:22. > :00:26.entirely different accounts of the same period. The truth is more
:00:27. > :00:30.complex than either of them. That is the reality we are going to discover
:00:31. > :00:43.in this film. For those of you who did not watch
:00:44. > :00:49.the documentary earlier this evening, it takes as its starting
:00:50. > :00:54.point the Jewish revolt over Roman occupation which led to the
:00:55. > :00:58.destruction of the temple in A.D70 which is widely regarded as one of
:00:59. > :01:02.those junctions which helped alter the course of history. Ilan Ziv who
:01:03. > :01:07.made the film and the meaning of what happened then has been
:01:08. > :01:13.distorted, sometimes dangerously. In the studio three specialists, each
:01:14. > :01:17.approaching this with a different perspective. Joan Taylor is a
:01:18. > :01:22.professor at King 's College London. Francesca Stavrakopoulou is the
:01:23. > :01:25.Professor of Hebrew, Bible and ancient religion at Exeter
:01:26. > :01:33.University and Sacha Stern is from UCL. We should probably lay out the
:01:34. > :01:38.historical context for all of this. Francesca, give us a sense of the
:01:39. > :01:45.integral status quo in the region at the time. It was part of the Roman
:01:46. > :01:51.Empire. Absolutely. The Roman Empire, in the eastern part of the
:01:52. > :01:57.Empire, it was a very fluid period of time. It was also economically
:01:58. > :02:01.very vulnerable to certain changes in terms of what was happening,
:02:02. > :02:05.trade and other communities around the Empire were always kicking off
:02:06. > :02:10.and rebelling. Have to understand the Jewish rebellion in that
:02:11. > :02:14.context. The Jews were not the only group of people to have rebelled
:02:15. > :02:18.against their Roman overlords. At the same time there were all sorts
:02:19. > :02:24.of internal factions with the people in and around Jerusalem. Lots of
:02:25. > :02:28.different groups and subgroups who have slightly different ideas about
:02:29. > :02:33.religion, politics and the idea of Empire and the way in which that
:02:34. > :02:36.idea of Empire impacts on their own day-to-day life, in terms of their
:02:37. > :02:44.material culture and political ideologies. Joan, give us a sense of
:02:45. > :02:49.the religious jigsaw in the area at the time. Absolutely what Francesca
:02:50. > :02:54.says is right. There were many different Jewish attitudes towards
:02:55. > :03:03.Empire. The attitude of the people of Sepphoris, was very different
:03:04. > :03:08.from the people of certain Jews who fought against the Romans. I think
:03:09. > :03:17.Josephus shows that very well but there are different factions in Judy
:03:18. > :03:28.at the time -- Syria Paleastina at the time. -- in Judaea at the time.
:03:29. > :03:34.We will come to Josephus, a crucial figure in all of this in a moment or
:03:35. > :03:39.two. Sacha Stern, we have heard that rebellion was not unique to Jews at
:03:40. > :03:44.the time but what was the cause of the results? That is a very
:03:45. > :03:49.difficult question! One thing I would say is the rebellion that the
:03:50. > :03:55.Romans faced in this period is some way unique in the context of the
:03:56. > :04:01.Roman Empire. It is one of the largest revolts they had to put
:04:02. > :04:07.down. Given that this was a small province, it does raise a lot of
:04:08. > :04:10.questions, why was this revolt dealt with so brutally by the Romans, to
:04:11. > :04:15.the extent of destroying the Temple, something which was quite an
:04:16. > :04:20.usual. Perhaps it says something of some profound this understanding
:04:21. > :04:25.perhaps between the Romans and the Jews. It is a very debated question
:04:26. > :04:32.but it is a question we need to think about. We might explore that
:04:33. > :04:36.in a moment or two. Ilan Ziv, one thing that comes across in the film
:04:37. > :04:42.is the enormous significance of Jerusalem during that period. We
:04:43. > :04:52.fell into that myth of Jerusalem symbolising a nation in its heroic
:04:53. > :04:56.struggle against Rome. We had this amazing raconteur of the rebellion.
:04:57. > :05:07.In a way that brings you back to the question which you did not quite
:05:08. > :05:11.answer, what in your view caused it? It is such a complex question. We
:05:12. > :05:15.have already heard from Francesca about the division of society. There
:05:16. > :05:19.were profound struck trouble problems in terms of government and
:05:20. > :05:28.the Administration. There was a lot of multiethnic division in Judea.
:05:29. > :05:32.People who called themselves Greeks which means pagans of one kind or
:05:33. > :05:39.another. Within Jewish society there are further sub divisions. You have
:05:40. > :05:47.Pharisees and said he sees and other groups. The whole thing did not
:05:48. > :05:53.gelled together very well. It was a very problematic society. Francesca,
:05:54. > :05:58.you were nodding. The point that this was a huge rebellion, that is
:05:59. > :06:03.overstated. That is how it has been remembered culturally. The reason
:06:04. > :06:07.perhaps white Roman writers including Josephus wanted to make
:06:08. > :06:10.out this was a huge rebellion is because the bigger the enemy, the
:06:11. > :06:17.greater the defeat that the victors bring. It is part of a much bigger
:06:18. > :06:21.imperial colonial project to prevent your enemy as someone formidable --
:06:22. > :06:30.to present your enemy as someone formidable. Joan, what is your
:06:31. > :06:35.view? I would not want to downplay the significance of it. Have the
:06:36. > :06:41.holy city of Jerusalem destroyed, to have the Temple destroyed was so
:06:42. > :06:48.tremendously damaging to Judea and the Judaean people, and Jews all
:06:49. > :06:52.over the Greco-Roman world and the Babylonian east, to have the heart
:06:53. > :06:57.of your religion ripped out like that should not be downplayed. That
:06:58. > :07:02.brings us onto the first of the areas where we will look at the film
:07:03. > :07:08.in detail. Let's look at the issue at the heart of the whole thing
:07:09. > :07:10.exile. This is an extract which sets out some of the questions the film
:07:11. > :07:47.raises. On this central question, Francesca,
:07:48. > :07:52.what is the central evidence? Archaeologically, it is slim. Robert
:07:53. > :07:55.B there were some forced migrations and voluntary migrations of
:07:56. > :07:59.communities but a lot of communities we would associate with being
:08:00. > :08:07.Jewish, they remained. They continued to flourish. Joan. I think
:08:08. > :08:11.we have got to distinguish between two revolts here. There was the
:08:12. > :08:20.first one normally called the great revolt and then a second one in
:08:21. > :08:30.132-135. As a result of that one, we are told that 985 Judaea in villages
:08:31. > :08:35.were totally raised to the ground. 580,000 fighting men were killed,
:08:36. > :08:44.plus countless numbers of women and children and others. Judea was
:08:45. > :08:51.rendered a wilderness. After that, I think we do have to talk about an
:08:52. > :08:56.exile. It is not a case of saying in 70, yes, there were archaeological
:08:57. > :09:04.sites where Jews were continuing to live in Judea, which we can see But
:09:05. > :09:13.after 135, a lot of archaeology does confirm that there are not choose
:09:14. > :09:20.but they do go to Galilee and they go to Sepphoris. The issue is a
:09:21. > :09:25.migration to Galilee. We are not going to debate about numbers
:09:26. > :09:29.because it does not lead us for but the question about the exile in the
:09:30. > :09:35.sense that we grew up on, that the Jews left the country, and they come
:09:36. > :09:42.back in the 19th century, but is the way the myth has been presented
:09:43. > :09:48.Joan clearly had something to add. It is just to respond to that, going
:09:49. > :09:53.to Galilee is a kind of exile. To not live in Judea, to not live
:09:54. > :09:59.injuries and, to not be allowed to even see Jerusalem from afar, by
:10:00. > :10:05.Hadrian's decree, that is an exile. I think the difference between us is
:10:06. > :10:08.the perception of exile. Exile the way we were brought up,
:10:09. > :10:13.historically, even in Christian theology, is the sponsorship of Jews
:10:14. > :10:17.from their country, which has been emptied out and until the 19th
:10:18. > :10:20.century Jews started to trickle back and today we have the state of
:10:21. > :10:27.Israel. We cannot disassociate that perception. The historical evidence
:10:28. > :10:31.that you cite which means the migration to Galilee, the tremendous
:10:32. > :10:37.catastrophe of losing the Temple, the change in the religion because
:10:38. > :10:42.of that, that is not in the popular mind. We are slightly moving ahead
:10:43. > :10:45.of ourselves because I want to come to the contemporary meaning of all
:10:46. > :10:48.of this. It seems you are reasonably agreed about the basic facts, even
:10:49. > :10:55.if you disagree about the interpretation. I want to come onto
:10:56. > :10:59.Sasha's point about the enormous impact of the destruction of the
:11:00. > :11:06.Temple which changed Judaism in a central way. The Temple was a focal
:11:07. > :11:11.point of religious worship and it was also a centre of Jewish
:11:12. > :11:17.authority. There was a priesthood, a high priest and all this collapses
:11:18. > :11:24.with the destruction of the Temple. And the Jews split up into
:11:25. > :11:29.communities. Even in Palestine, there is no more a glue in the
:11:30. > :11:33.centre to hold them together. This is very much the narrative which is
:11:34. > :11:40.being told from a Western Jewish and Christian eyes to cultural
:11:41. > :11:44.inspector. Yes, there was the Temple but it was not the only important
:11:45. > :11:49.site for the people who worshipped the God that the Jews injuries and
:11:50. > :11:53.worshipped. There was a huge amount of religious diversity anyway. The
:11:54. > :11:58.importance of the Temple is something we have written back into
:11:59. > :12:03.history? It was important when you have these narratives like Josephus
:12:04. > :12:08.and the new Testament texts saying thousands of people coming to
:12:09. > :12:11.Jerusalem, firstly those numbers are properly hugely exaggerated but also
:12:12. > :12:15.Jerusalem was not the only religious centre for these people in their
:12:16. > :12:25.lives. It was catastrophic but only for a certain sort of elite. There
:12:26. > :12:28.was also tremendous continuity before and afterwards. It is
:12:29. > :12:32.debatable to a certain extent whether the destruction of the
:12:33. > :12:38.Temple was a watershed in the history of Judaism as a religion.
:12:39. > :12:44.That is why are you wanted to say it was a blow in social terms, it was a
:12:45. > :12:48.very big blow to the make up of the Jewish community, in Palestine and
:12:49. > :12:57.further abroad, but not necessarily a turning point in what Judaism was.
:12:58. > :13:04.How did Christians of that area fit into this? How were relations
:13:05. > :13:10.between them and Jews impacted by these two revolts? That is another
:13:11. > :13:17.big question! You ask these central thesis questions. There is this
:13:18. > :13:21.whole issue of how Christians separated out from Judaism and the
:13:22. > :13:28.destruction of the Temple is clearly something which in pact had on
:13:29. > :13:31.Christian thought. Where the film is correct to say Christians saw the
:13:32. > :13:39.destruction of the Temple and the terrible things that befell Jews in
:13:40. > :13:46.Judea, as indications of God punishing Jews for not accepting
:13:47. > :13:52.Jesus as the Messiah. I guess I would quibble with you in terms of
:13:53. > :13:57.it being exile which was key. It is more a series of calamities which
:13:58. > :14:01.befell the Jewish nation that was considered to be indicative of them
:14:02. > :14:08.not doing the right thing by God. The way I have been taught, I am
:14:09. > :14:16.only a film-maker not a scholar the way I have been taught is in early
:14:17. > :14:21.Christian beginning the notion of the word exile because Jews were
:14:22. > :14:25.exile from Jerusalem. It is not exile in the way we interpret it
:14:26. > :14:31.contemporary, meaning the mass expulsion, it is the exile and of
:14:32. > :14:40.the Jews and the exile and by God where he is abandoning his chosen
:14:41. > :14:42.people. If you look at the traditional observance of the
:14:43. > :14:47.anniversary of the destruction of the Temple, if you look at how it's
:14:48. > :14:53.developed in the last thousand years and so on, you find that the
:14:54. > :14:57.emphasis is not on exile at all It goes on the loss of Temple, loss of
:14:58. > :15:04.cult and bloodshed. It is interesting. It indicates that
:15:05. > :15:08.actually there has never been a claim of forced exile even within
:15:09. > :15:13.Jewish tradition. I want to move on very quickly before we run out of
:15:14. > :15:18.time in this section. One of the things you float is that idea that
:15:19. > :15:24.some of today's Palestinians are descendants of Jews that stayed on.
:15:25. > :15:28.What is the evidence for that? There is no evidence and anthropologically
:15:29. > :15:33.it is crazy to make that assertion. There is anecdotal evidence. There
:15:34. > :15:38.are lots of attempts by many different groups, DNA analysis here
:15:39. > :15:43.and there, all dismissed. The anecdotes are very moving but they
:15:44. > :15:48.show a continuity of tradition. Despite occupation and migration and
:15:49. > :15:55.conversion. What do you think of the evidence on this? I agree that you
:15:56. > :16:00.cannot track the population back to 3000 years ago at all. But there was
:16:01. > :16:05.no such thing as an empty land, whether it was Jerusalem, Judaea,
:16:06. > :16:09.Galilee. There were always people there. We have archaeological
:16:10. > :16:12.evidence of continued settlement all the way through. I think they have
:16:13. > :16:17.to disagree with you about the point you are making about the Jewish
:16:18. > :16:21.celebration marking the destruction of the Temple, the first and the
:16:22. > :16:24.second Temple. Exile is important because the Temple represents the
:16:25. > :16:29.presence of God in the land and if the Temple is not there, then God
:16:30. > :16:35.cannot be there. There is a sense of God abandoning his own house, his
:16:36. > :16:40.own land and people. So actually exile is important. It may not be as
:16:41. > :16:51.explicit motif as your film suggests in places, it is important. I agree
:16:52. > :17:03.that there is a concept of ex-isle but should this be the full focus?
:17:04. > :17:09.-- exile. One has to try and contextualise it. We have to move on
:17:10. > :17:13.because we have covered a lot of ground and we have more to do. We
:17:14. > :17:18.will touch now on a question that we have discussed a bit. But as to how
:17:19. > :17:24.reliable the story is does depend on the reliability of the storyteller.
:17:25. > :17:30.We have named Flavius once or twice, the author of the Jewish wars, and
:17:31. > :17:36.this is what we hear about him. His book, the Jewish War, is the most
:17:37. > :17:44.important historical record of the time and shape the rebellion as a
:17:45. > :17:52.national uprising. The family from which I am denied it is not an
:17:53. > :17:58.ignoble one that has descended from priests. -- derived. It is an
:17:59. > :18:05.indication of the splendour of the family. Jozef's desire
:18:06. > :18:13.retrospectively has the Jews unifying as a single group. --
:18:14. > :18:17.Flavius Josephus. It was a Jewish aspiration that never happened but
:18:18. > :18:23.it resonated perfectly with the Flavian Dyna steep's need to
:18:24. > :18:29.experience a great victory over a great nation. -- the Flavian
:18:30. > :18:34.dynasty's need. As a film-maker his life must have been the most
:18:35. > :18:39.fantastic story because he is a fascinating figure. The problem is
:18:40. > :18:43.that you get completely absorbed by the story. I wanted to make a film
:18:44. > :18:47.about the Jewish war because it is an amazing tale. As they started to
:18:48. > :18:54.research it, I came across the problem of the storyteller and the
:18:55. > :18:58.fascination with the story itself. That is what I have tried to show.
:18:59. > :19:02.We follow that narrative without understanding how faulty the
:19:03. > :19:09.narrator is. That was what I tried to show, I think. But the hugely
:19:10. > :19:14.important figure in Jewish history. He is one of the most important
:19:15. > :19:20.sources for Jewish historians of the period, but having said that, we
:19:21. > :19:24.have to know how to read a work like that. Traditional historians used to
:19:25. > :19:31.take it and treat it as fact, evidence. And build a history out of
:19:32. > :19:33.it. But of course he is somebody presenting his own perspective on
:19:34. > :19:37.the events that were taking place and what we are doing now is
:19:38. > :19:45.presenting our perspective on his perspective of the events. This is
:19:46. > :19:48.all we are doing. That does raise the question of how much
:19:49. > :19:54.archaeological or other evidence there is to check against what he
:19:55. > :19:58.says. Very little. We are very reliant on Josephus's retelling of
:19:59. > :20:03.the past. An important thing to make clear is not just his writing of the
:20:04. > :20:06.Jewish wars. He is also rewriting biblical history, retelling the
:20:07. > :20:10.story of the Jewish people right from the beginning. If you went back
:20:11. > :20:22.to the book of Genesis, he is retelling stories that we find there
:20:23. > :20:25.and all the way through. He is creating a past four people, and a
:20:26. > :20:28.nation cannot exist without the past. There is a sense among ancient
:20:29. > :20:30.writers that the people have to have a past, a story to tell. He is
:20:31. > :20:33.imitating the tone of Scripture if you like. Just like the new
:20:34. > :20:37.Testament imitates the tone of Jewish scripture. But there is a
:20:38. > :20:45.purpose. It is building his identity as a Jewish man but also a Roman. Is
:20:46. > :20:52.any other storyteller available Any other evidence? There are other
:20:53. > :20:56.storytellers around. Just before Josephus there was somebody who
:20:57. > :21:01.gives interesting snippets of information about the same period of
:21:02. > :21:08.time. He goes together with Josephus quite nicely, but all of history is
:21:09. > :21:11.rhetoric. In ancient times it was a form of rhetoric, so you present
:21:12. > :21:17.things in the way that you see things and try and argue a case You
:21:18. > :21:21.can see that with Josephus. You have to be careful with assuming that
:21:22. > :21:28.just because it is rhetoric that he is playing wildly with the facts.
:21:29. > :21:33.Josephus was working in a world where people knew what was
:21:34. > :21:39.happening. He was not telling people something fresh. So you are less
:21:40. > :21:45.sceptical? I am not completely naive about Josephus. But there could be
:21:46. > :21:49.more truth? A great deal of truth. Playing with fact, a lot of his
:21:50. > :21:53.facts have been proven right archaeologically. The town, the
:21:54. > :21:59.wars, the way he described it, so it is wrong to call him a raconteur of
:22:00. > :22:06.fate and fairy tale. But what about the idea that he was not that
:22:07. > :22:12.important? Should we be sceptical not sceptical? That is not the way
:22:13. > :22:16.to phrase it. We are not looking for facts at the end of the day. We are
:22:17. > :22:20.trying to reconstruct the view of the past which will suit various
:22:21. > :22:27.perspectives. Josephus is one perspective. If we read him and
:22:28. > :22:31.respect him as a perspective on the event, we achieve what we want to
:22:32. > :22:38.achieve and that is all that really counts. And that is all you can do?
:22:39. > :22:43.Yes. And we are not looking for facts? The same applies to
:22:44. > :22:50.archaeology. Archaeology is not facts and evidence. In what sense?
:22:51. > :22:52.These are material objects that are discovered and immediately
:22:53. > :22:59.interpreted. The interpretation starts before the digging begins. We
:23:00. > :23:03.cannot be sure of anything! That is precisely the point. Once we agree
:23:04. > :23:10.that it is very subjective then we get a very humbling view of history
:23:11. > :23:15.and identity. At I believe that is the beginning of searching for
:23:16. > :23:19.another solution of how to live I really like what you say about this
:23:20. > :23:24.narrative of history, this claim that people make on history, that it
:23:25. > :23:35.have to be a certain way. And the documentary footage of the burying
:23:36. > :23:39.of the soldiers with Yigael Yadin, and the finding of them, and
:23:40. > :23:43.connecting with the establishment of the state of Israel, I think that is
:23:44. > :23:51.beautifully done. So the subject we are talking about, the great
:23:52. > :23:57.revolt, what do we get when looking at that historical method? Josephus
:23:58. > :24:00.when talking about the great revolt is talking about the personal
:24:01. > :24:07.situation when he has been transported to Rome. He has become a
:24:08. > :24:13.client, so subservient relationship toward the Roman emperor, to whom he
:24:14. > :24:18.owes his life. He is at the same time an advocate of his own people.
:24:19. > :24:23.And that is how he comes to write the history of the Jewish war. He is
:24:24. > :24:30.involved in a web of cultural interests and political interests,
:24:31. > :24:38.and these perspectives determine to a large extent what he writes. That
:24:39. > :24:45.does not been what he writes is Rob -- rubbish. And it is a good read!
:24:46. > :24:49.Yes. It is no different to picking up a newspaper today and reading the
:24:50. > :24:53.news about what is going on in the Middle East, anywhere else in the
:24:54. > :24:59.world. You will read the story of a journalist. It is not rubbish but it
:25:00. > :25:02.is a viewpoint. Francesca, you were making the point that historians at
:25:03. > :25:10.that period saw what they did in a rather different way to the way we
:25:11. > :25:13.see it today. Absolutely. Although having said that, and they think
:25:14. > :25:17.this came through very well in the film, but of the way in which
:25:18. > :25:21.scholarship of the 17th, 18th, 9th and 20th centuries has been shaped
:25:22. > :25:27.in the western world has come to us through a prioritisation of Greek
:25:28. > :25:31.and Roman authors, always interested in the classics in that sense. So
:25:32. > :25:38.Josephus was privileged over other sorts of information in Western
:25:39. > :25:42.culture, which meant that his privileging of older biblical ideas
:25:43. > :25:45.about martyrdom and struggle, those were the sorts of things adopted in
:25:46. > :25:52.the 20th century by some of the founders, if you like, of the modern
:25:53. > :25:59.State of Israel. So it becomes a cyclical process. We think of
:26:00. > :26:03.history as the opinion of writers like Josephus, but our view of
:26:04. > :26:11.history has been shaped by the interest in the Greco Rumanian, --
:26:12. > :26:23.Greco-Roman, a Mediterranean centric viewpoint. Can I defend Josephus
:26:24. > :26:27.again? Do! Josephus doesn't really say it was the entire nation of the
:26:28. > :26:33.Jews that was fighting against the evil Roman Empire. He always insists
:26:34. > :26:37.that it was a small minority. And he says it was a small minority of
:26:38. > :26:42.fanatics who got the wrong end of the stick and had all sorts of
:26:43. > :26:46.interests, that were not really the interests of the nation and took
:26:47. > :26:51.over Jerusalem, did terrible things in Jerusalem, and revolted against
:26:52. > :27:00.Rome. And lead the naive mobs, the crowds, who were gullible. Do we
:27:01. > :27:06.have to believe that? No. What is interesting to me, from that, if you
:27:07. > :27:15.read Josephus correctly, you get the myth of the great nation of Israel
:27:16. > :27:21.fighting against Rome. In the caves, where Josephus is being claimed
:27:22. > :27:26.politically in a way that is not quite true to his spirit. All right.
:27:27. > :27:30.I am going to move it on there. We have talked about the way history
:27:31. > :27:34.can be used to make a broader point and this film is about exactly that,
:27:35. > :27:40.particularly the way the events of the first century became tied up
:27:41. > :27:48.with Jewish identity. Over centuries, Jews have spread
:27:49. > :27:53.throughout the world, but why did Roman jury embrace the concept of
:27:54. > :27:55.exile, too, like Jews around the world, as a central tenet of their
:27:56. > :28:33.religion? To put what we were talking about at
:28:34. > :28:39.the beginning of the programme into perspective, exile, it has been a
:28:40. > :28:45.recurring theme of biblical history. Yes, it certainly has. One of the
:28:46. > :28:51.things we tried to do in this film was to debunk the myth of exile And
:28:52. > :28:59.you are quite right to emphasise that there was actually no evidence
:29:00. > :29:04.of actual exile of Jews out of Palestine as a result of the
:29:05. > :29:09.destruction of the temple. This is something which has been widely
:29:10. > :29:20.known. But at the same time, it seems to me that exile is not just a
:29:21. > :29:25.concept, not just a narrative. For Jews or in the context of Jewish
:29:26. > :29:30.history. Because even if it is true that the Jews were not expelled ever
:29:31. > :29:35.from Palestine, I think that is probably correct, certainly in the
:29:36. > :29:39.last 2000 years, there were plenty of expulsions and evictions and
:29:40. > :29:44.other forced wanderings on the Jewish community of Europe. If you
:29:45. > :29:49.look at England at the end of the 13th century, France around the same
:29:50. > :29:53.time, then Spain at the end of the 15th century, and even in very
:29:54. > :29:58.recent history during the Second World War, millions of Jews in
:29:59. > :30:03.Central Europe were massacred or sent into exile. So exile is an
:30:04. > :30:14.historical reality also. We cannot just relegate it to the realm of
:30:15. > :30:23.unimagined narrative. -- imagined narrative. So therefore central to
:30:24. > :30:30.Jewish history? Yes. Jewish exile is a concept, very profound actually
:30:31. > :30:40.and I think it is the essence of religion. Exile is when there was
:30:41. > :30:44.the destruction of the Temple, there is a deep sense of exile which
:30:45. > :30:51.accompanies Judaism throughout. Jews in Israel think they live in exile.
:30:52. > :31:02.The rebuild of the state of Israel has nothing to do with the mess
:31:03. > :31:10.return. -- mess turn. Exile is a very profound concept. The only
:31:11. > :31:15.critic I have is how you use it religiously, the profound idea of
:31:16. > :31:24.exile is part of the Jewish experience. I never touch it. The
:31:25. > :31:29.problems start when you simplify history. When you say I was exile
:31:30. > :31:34.now we are coming back. We seem to be talking about three things, the
:31:35. > :31:39.reality, the religious and identity experience and the political use
:31:40. > :31:47.which is made of that. It is very interesting. You kind of go from one
:31:48. > :31:54.thing to another. I think your real argument is with the Zionist story
:31:55. > :32:06.and sort of seeing your film as a critique of that is I think helpful,
:32:07. > :32:11.because I think you tend to simplify history but I think you kind of need
:32:12. > :32:16.to in order to send a hard-hitting message back to the kind of myth
:32:17. > :32:22.perhaps that you have grown up with. But I do think exile is not only
:32:23. > :32:28.important overtime, and has been laid out in so many different ways
:32:29. > :32:32.from the beginning of the Jewish nation to the present, but I do
:32:33. > :32:38.really think that it happened in the second century, not the first revolt
:32:39. > :32:42.but the second revolt. It was not just exile to Galilee but it was an
:32:43. > :32:49.exile into other places as well And frankly, it was genocide. Genocide
:32:50. > :32:56.and exile go together. Terrible deaths, massacres of Jews go with
:32:57. > :33:00.that exile. It takes us back to something you remarked on early in
:33:01. > :33:05.the discussion which was the question about whether there was
:33:06. > :33:13.something uniquely brutal about the way the Romans treated the Jews
:33:14. > :33:17.Wide? I have two distinguished between the revolt itself and the
:33:18. > :33:22.aftermath. I am not sure the second revolt led to a mass migration from
:33:23. > :33:27.Judea to Galilee. I have never been convinced. That is the aftermath.
:33:28. > :33:38.The revolt itself was undoubtedly one of the largest revolt that the
:33:39. > :33:44.Romans had to deal with. The second one is known to have involved
:33:45. > :33:48.approximately ten legions of the Roman army. I am sorry to
:33:49. > :33:55.interrupted because it is fascinating stuff. We talked about
:33:56. > :34:00.how Jewish exile is central to Judaism itself, but it sounds as if
:34:01. > :34:05.this particular episode, call it genocide, exile or whatever, is of a
:34:06. > :34:13.particular kind in the way it bears on Jewish identity. Is that right? I
:34:14. > :34:17.think it is. It was a significant event. Christians should also be
:34:18. > :34:25.brought into the picture. They also made a huge fuss of the revolt. It
:34:26. > :34:32.represented a turning point in history, in the sense that the Jews
:34:33. > :34:41.are not known to have taken arms, maybe with an exception in the
:34:42. > :34:45.mid-4th century, but the Jews ceased taking up arms against their
:34:46. > :34:52.oppressors, I dare say until the 20th century. That is fascinating,
:34:53. > :34:57.isn't it? It is. I agree on one hand that this was a defeat, if you like,
:34:58. > :35:03.that was particularly significant. But this is not the first time that
:35:04. > :35:08.a superior force has had to lay into this part of the world. There are
:35:09. > :35:13.other experiences of colonial oppression, whether it was the
:35:14. > :35:16.Egyptians or the neo- Syrians or the Babylonians. The Greeks and the
:35:17. > :35:24.Romans are just the latest in a line of this ancient period of Imperial
:35:25. > :35:30.aggressors. This part geographically in terms of the topography of the
:35:31. > :35:35.land, this is America forgot land to pin down and control. Yes, the
:35:36. > :35:38.Romans probably did get anxious about it because they thought it
:35:39. > :35:44.would be easier to control these grid than perhaps they had realised.
:35:45. > :35:52.We find the same explanation being used in Afghanistan. I think it was
:35:53. > :35:57.significant for the Romans because it was a harder battle for them
:35:58. > :36:01.They realised they had a stronger contender to deal with. Because it
:36:02. > :36:04.is the Romans and because in Western culture we have this idea that the
:36:05. > :36:07.Romans are the greatest force the world has ever seen, we have this
:36:08. > :36:12.idea that the rebellion must have been extraordinary. I want to
:36:13. > :36:17.explore one other aspect of identity. You made the point that
:36:18. > :36:23.there were people who went on living in this area of the world. To what
:36:24. > :36:26.extent was there a Palestinian identity beginning to grow as
:36:27. > :36:32.distinct from a Jewish sense of identity attached to the place? I do
:36:33. > :36:38.not know if the word Palestinian is the best one to use, it is an
:36:39. > :36:43.incredibly loaded label. The point about exile and any use of the motif
:36:44. > :36:47.of exile throughout the biblical period, exile means not just people
:36:48. > :36:51.leaving land but the people who are left behind. There have always been
:36:52. > :36:56.people left behind in this land Part of the ideology of a return to
:36:57. > :37:01.exile, how do you cope with the people who have always been living
:37:02. > :37:06.in that land. Do you assimilate Do you integrate? Do you try to get rid
:37:07. > :37:11.of them? Some stories we find in Hebrew Bible and later on it is
:37:12. > :37:13.about conflict, genocide even. In other stories it is that just
:37:14. > :37:18.settling down and getting on with it. There has been continuous
:37:19. > :37:24.settlement in this land for hundreds and hundreds of years. Whether the
:37:25. > :37:28.roots of what we might call today's Palestinian communities are there, I
:37:29. > :37:31.do not know. I am going to move the discussion on because we are coming
:37:32. > :37:37.to the final section of this programme. The film concentrates on
:37:38. > :37:42.events nearly 2000 years ago but it has a contemporary message. Ilan you
:37:43. > :37:45.are trying to make a point about today's middle east. Let's watch a
:37:46. > :38:21.clip from the final section of the film.
:38:22. > :38:29.That is a very redemptive view of history but do we use it like that?
:38:30. > :38:34.Some people would say we use it in the opposite way to create division?
:38:35. > :38:38.History can be used in which ever way people choose. If it can be used
:38:39. > :38:44.for the good, wonderful, I fall for that. If it can be used to heal and
:38:45. > :38:50.point out errors of judgement, about the past, I think that is a very
:38:51. > :38:55.admirable project. That is precisely what I wanted the film to be. You
:38:56. > :39:01.can look at this history and look at it as one narrative or you can look
:39:02. > :39:06.at history and say, it does not substantiate anyone's narrative It
:39:07. > :39:10.puts us all in one bag which is factually very difficult to
:39:11. > :39:13.separate. If you start looking at that which is the opposite of the
:39:14. > :39:19.official narrative, then I think you have the beginning intellectually at
:39:20. > :39:22.least, of tracing the role to some kind of solution which means if you
:39:23. > :39:31.do not look at history for a mandate of what I am doing now, the humbling
:39:32. > :39:37.experience of this land was owned by so many people, I can make sense out
:39:38. > :39:42.of it besides the diversity. If you tried to embrace the diversity as an
:39:43. > :39:48.issue as a way forward, there is something redemptive about that But
:39:49. > :39:55.we tend not to, don't we? The lessons of history are is that we
:39:56. > :40:01.use history badly, surely? ! I think the principle of using history for
:40:02. > :40:09.conveying a modern message, a very good principle, I think it is a good
:40:10. > :40:15.way of making use of our culture and our intellectual insights into the
:40:16. > :40:22.past. Really I agree with Jones If you look at the Middle East, people
:40:23. > :40:27.use history to justify their positions when they do not use it to
:40:28. > :40:34.understand the other side. Fine What do you think, Francesca? I am
:40:35. > :40:40.introducing a realist note. I think up to the 20th century, we have
:40:41. > :40:46.tended to focus on the great men and moments or movements of history I
:40:47. > :40:50.think now we are more keenly the 21st century as academics and
:40:51. > :40:54.historians, to present something that is more palatable to modern
:40:55. > :40:57.views. But at the same time we have to recognise that there are some
:40:58. > :41:03.things which are endorsed in authoritative Barratt is that do is
:41:04. > :41:06.sit very uncomfortably with what we might like to think are our
:41:07. > :41:14.preferences now -- authoritative narratives. We have to face up to
:41:15. > :41:20.that. Until now we have avoided this discussion which means the Israeli
:41:21. > :41:27.conflict has been constantly debated on political grounds. I think we
:41:28. > :41:34.have shied away from the religious aspect, the historical aspect,
:41:35. > :41:38.particularly the seculars among us. I think we have to begin the
:41:39. > :41:44.discussion because avoiding it has not proved conducive to a solution.
:41:45. > :41:49.We need to delve into those myths, argue as much as we can, because
:41:50. > :41:54.avoiding it has left us in limbo for many thousands of years. That is why
:41:55. > :41:59.I personally did it, to try to grapple with that history. Maybe
:42:00. > :42:04.some people argue different points but to start grappling with those
:42:05. > :42:08.ideas, as possibly looking for a solution because I do believe that
:42:09. > :42:19.the conflict at its root has a huge religious component which we do not
:42:20. > :42:24.admits. We always cover it up. We have to delve into the religious
:42:25. > :42:29.aspect with rabbis, priests, is like scholars which we do not have around
:42:30. > :42:34.this table, and start dabbling into this history and arguing from the
:42:35. > :42:37.perspective of religion and history because avoiding it, pretending that
:42:38. > :42:43.it is some kind of secular conflict only about land... It is a slightly
:42:44. > :42:49.different argument but an important one, Sacha, would you care to
:42:50. > :42:53.respond? I think you are right. I am aware that your film may be regarded
:42:54. > :42:58.with suspicion by some viewers and they may consider it to be
:42:59. > :43:03.controversial or problematic. It might well be for people coming from
:43:04. > :43:06.certain perspectives, but what I would really invite everyone to do
:43:07. > :43:16.is to try and look at the message of your film in a positive light, as a
:43:17. > :43:22.positive attempt, not to be destructive or not to spoil
:43:23. > :43:27.people's narratives but rather as an attempt to try and create something
:43:28. > :43:32.positive, to create some sort of way forward in the situation that we are
:43:33. > :43:36.today, based on the rethink about our past. You say you should not
:43:37. > :43:40.spoil other people's narratives but you are bound to do that if you
:43:41. > :43:45.adopt the historical approach that Ilan wants to see. As soon as you
:43:46. > :43:53.say things are more complicated than you might have thought it will be
:43:54. > :44:01.painful. It can be but it does not have to be. A challenge is always
:44:02. > :44:06.intended to be constructive. Joan. I think a challenge can go too much
:44:07. > :44:10.the other way. I think there are elements of that in your film. But
:44:11. > :44:16.that is often the way in terms of historical debate, if there is a
:44:17. > :44:23.thesis that is in some way not quite right, then the challenge can go the
:44:24. > :44:32.other way to provoke and upset that is thesis. As time goes by a more
:44:33. > :44:39.moderate appraisal comes about. At that is necessary to get the debate
:44:40. > :44:45.going. You are saying we are all Josephus in trying to make a point.
:44:46. > :44:48.Yes, we are. The important thing is we have been given a voice and an
:44:49. > :44:53.opportunity to talk about these things. I think what your film is
:44:54. > :44:57.trying to do is to give a voice to those who have been silenced, not
:44:58. > :45:04.just in the case of modern-day Israel is to dispute, but about what
:45:05. > :45:08.it is to be Jewish or not to be Jewish. Identity is something which
:45:09. > :45:12.does rely on a certain retelling of the past but identity is always
:45:13. > :45:18.being constructed and reconstructed. It has been fantastic stuff. Sacha
:45:19. > :45:21.Stern, Joan Taylor, Francesca Stavrakopoulou and Ilan Ziv who made
:45:22. > :45:28.the film, thank you very much for joining us.