Searching for Exile: The Debate

Good evening. When you work or travel in the middle east you are

immediately struck by how raw history remains in the region's life

and politics. You can talk to two different people and be given

entirely different accounts of the same period. The truth is more

complex than either of them. That is the reality we are going to discover

in this film. For those of you who did not watch

the documentary earlier this evening, it takes as its starting

point the Jewish revolt over Roman occupation which led to the

destruction of the temple in A.D70 which is widely regarded as one of

those junctions which helped alter the course of history. Ilan Ziv who

made the film and the meaning of what happened then has been

distorted, sometimes dangerously. In the studio three specialists, each

approaching this with a different perspective. Joan Taylor is a

professor at King 's College London. Francesca Stavrakopoulou is the

Professor of Hebrew, Bible and ancient religion at Exeter

University and Sacha Stern is from UCL. We should probably lay out the

historical context for all of this. Francesca, give us a sense of the

integral status quo in the region at the time. It was part of the Roman

Empire. Absolutely. The Roman Empire, in the eastern part of the

Empire, it was a very fluid period of time. It was also economically

very vulnerable to certain changes in terms of what was happening,

trade and other communities around the Empire were always kicking off

and rebelling. Have to understand the Jewish rebellion in that

context. The Jews were not the only group of people to have rebelled

against their Roman overlords. At the same time there were all sorts

of internal factions with the people in and around Jerusalem. Lots of

different groups and subgroups who have slightly different ideas about

religion, politics and the idea of Empire and the way in which that

idea of Empire impacts on their own day-to-day life, in terms of their

material culture and political ideologies. Joan, give us a sense of

the religious jigsaw in the area at the time. Absolutely what Francesca

says is right. There were many different Jewish attitudes towards

Empire. The attitude of the people of Sepphoris, was very different

from the people of certain Jews who fought against the Romans. I think

Josephus shows that very well but there are different factions in Judy

at the time -- Syria Paleastina at the time. -- in Judaea at the time.

We will come to Josephus, a crucial figure in all of this in a moment or

two. Sacha Stern, we have heard that rebellion was not unique to Jews at

the time but what was the cause of the results? That is a very

difficult question! One thing I would say is the rebellion that the

Romans faced in this period is some way unique in the context of the

Roman Empire. It is one of the largest revolts they had to put

down. Given that this was a small province, it does raise a lot of

questions, why was this revolt dealt with so brutally by the Romans, to

the extent of destroying the Temple, something which was quite an

usual. Perhaps it says something of some profound this understanding

perhaps between the Romans and the Jews. It is a very debated question

but it is a question we need to think about. We might explore that

in a moment or two. Ilan Ziv, one thing that comes across in the film

is the enormous significance of Jerusalem during that period. We

fell into that myth of Jerusalem symbolising a nation in its heroic

struggle against Rome. We had this amazing raconteur of the rebellion.

In a way that brings you back to the question which you did not quite

answer, what in your view caused it? It is such a complex question. We

have already heard from Francesca about the division of society. There

were profound struck trouble problems in terms of government and

the Administration. There was a lot of multiethnic division in Judea.

People who called themselves Greeks which means pagans of one kind or

another. Within Jewish society there are further sub divisions. You have

Pharisees and said he sees and other groups. The whole thing did not

gelled together very well. It was a very problematic society. Francesca,

you were nodding. The point that this was a huge rebellion, that is

overstated. That is how it has been remembered culturally. The reason

perhaps white Roman writers including Josephus wanted to make

out this was a huge rebellion is because the bigger the enemy, the

greater the defeat that the victors bring. It is part of a much bigger

imperial colonial project to prevent your enemy as someone formidable --

to present your enemy as someone formidable. Joan, what is your

view? I would not want to downplay the significance of it. Have the

holy city of Jerusalem destroyed, to have the Temple destroyed was so

tremendously damaging to Judea and the Judaean people, and Jews all

over the Greco-Roman world and the Babylonian east, to have the heart

of your religion ripped out like that should not be downplayed. That

brings us onto the first of the areas where we will look at the film

in detail. Let's look at the issue at the heart of the whole thing

exile. This is an extract which sets out some of the questions the film

raises. On this central question, Francesca,

what is the central evidence? Archaeologically, it is slim. Robert

B there were some forced migrations and voluntary migrations of

communities but a lot of communities we would associate with being

Jewish, they remained. They continued to flourish. Joan. I think

we have got to distinguish between two revolts here. There was the

first one normally called the great revolt and then a second one in

132-135. As a result of that one, we are told that 985 Judaea in villages

were totally raised to the ground. 580,000 fighting men were killed,

plus countless numbers of women and children and others. Judea was

rendered a wilderness. After that, I think we do have to talk about an

exile. It is not a case of saying in 70, yes, there were archaeological

sites where Jews were continuing to live in Judea, which we can see But

after 135, a lot of archaeology does confirm that there are not choose

but they do go to Galilee and they go to Sepphoris. The issue is a

migration to Galilee. We are not going to debate about numbers

because it does not lead us for but the question about the exile in the

sense that we grew up on, that the Jews left the country, and they come

back in the 19th century, but is the way the myth has been presented

Joan clearly had something to add. It is just to respond to that, going

to Galilee is a kind of exile. To not live in Judea, to not live

injuries and, to not be allowed to even see Jerusalem from afar, by

Hadrian's decree, that is an exile. I think the difference between us is

the perception of exile. Exile the way we were brought up,

historically, even in Christian theology, is the sponsorship of Jews

from their country, which has been emptied out and until the 19th

century Jews started to trickle back and today we have the state of

Israel. We cannot disassociate that perception. The historical evidence

that you cite which means the migration to Galilee, the tremendous

catastrophe of losing the Temple, the change in the religion because

of that, that is not in the popular mind. We are slightly moving ahead

of ourselves because I want to come to the contemporary meaning of all

of this. It seems you are reasonably agreed about the basic facts, even

if you disagree about the interpretation. I want to come onto

Sasha's point about the enormous impact of the destruction of the

Temple which changed Judaism in a central way. The Temple was a focal

point of religious worship and it was also a centre of Jewish

authority. There was a priesthood, a high priest and all this collapses

with the destruction of the Temple. And the Jews split up into

communities. Even in Palestine, there is no more a glue in the

centre to hold them together. This is very much the narrative which is

being told from a Western Jewish and Christian eyes to cultural

inspector. Yes, there was the Temple but it was not the only important

site for the people who worshipped the God that the Jews injuries and

worshipped. There was a huge amount of religious diversity anyway. The

importance of the Temple is something we have written back into

history? It was important when you have these narratives like Josephus

and the new Testament texts saying thousands of people coming to

Jerusalem, firstly those numbers are properly hugely exaggerated but also

Jerusalem was not the only religious centre for these people in their

lives. It was catastrophic but only for a certain sort of elite. There

was also tremendous continuity before and afterwards. It is

debatable to a certain extent whether the destruction of the

Temple was a watershed in the history of Judaism as a religion.

That is why are you wanted to say it was a blow in social terms, it was a

very big blow to the make up of the Jewish community, in Palestine and

further abroad, but not necessarily a turning point in what Judaism was.

How did Christians of that area fit into this? How were relations

between them and Jews impacted by these two revolts? That is another

big question! You ask these central thesis questions. There is this

whole issue of how Christians separated out from Judaism and the

destruction of the Temple is clearly something which in pact had on

Christian thought. Where the film is correct to say Christians saw the

destruction of the Temple and the terrible things that befell Jews in

Judea, as indications of God punishing Jews for not accepting

Jesus as the Messiah. I guess I would quibble with you in terms of

it being exile which was key. It is more a series of calamities which

befell the Jewish nation that was considered to be indicative of them

not doing the right thing by God. The way I have been taught, I am

only a film-maker not a scholar the way I have been taught is in early

Christian beginning the notion of the word exile because Jews were

exile from Jerusalem. It is not exile in the way we interpret it

contemporary, meaning the mass expulsion, it is the exile and of

the Jews and the exile and by God where he is abandoning his chosen

people. If you look at the traditional observance of the

anniversary of the destruction of the Temple, if you look at how it's

developed in the last thousand years and so on, you find that the

emphasis is not on exile at all It goes on the loss of Temple, loss of

cult and bloodshed. It is interesting. It indicates that

actually there has never been a claim of forced exile even within

Jewish tradition. I want to move on very quickly before we run out of

time in this section. One of the things you float is that idea that

some of today's Palestinians are descendants of Jews that stayed on.

What is the evidence for that? There is no evidence and anthropologically

it is crazy to make that assertion. There is anecdotal evidence. There

are lots of attempts by many different groups, DNA analysis here

and there, all dismissed. The anecdotes are very moving but they

show a continuity of tradition. Despite occupation and migration and

conversion. What do you think of the evidence on this? I agree that you

cannot track the population back to 3000 years ago at all. But there was

no such thing as an empty land, whether it was Jerusalem, Judaea,

Galilee. There were always people there. We have archaeological

evidence of continued settlement all the way through. I think they have

to disagree with you about the point you are making about the Jewish

celebration marking the destruction of the Temple, the first and the

second Temple. Exile is important because the Temple represents the

presence of God in the land and if the Temple is not there, then God

cannot be there. There is a sense of God abandoning his own house, his

own land and people. So actually exile is important. It may not be as

explicit motif as your film suggests in places, it is important. I agree

that there is a concept of ex-isle but should this be the full focus?

-- exile. One has to try and contextualise it. We have to move on

because we have covered a lot of ground and we have more to do. We

will touch now on a question that we have discussed a bit. But as to how

reliable the story is does depend on the reliability of the storyteller.

We have named Flavius once or twice, the author of the Jewish wars, and

this is what we hear about him. His book, the Jewish War, is the most

important historical record of the time and shape the rebellion as a

national uprising. The family from which I am denied it is not an

ignoble one that has descended from priests. -- derived. It is an

indication of the splendour of the family. Jozef's desire

retrospectively has the Jews unifying as a single group. --

Flavius Josephus. It was a Jewish aspiration that never happened but

it resonated perfectly with the Flavian Dyna steep's need to

experience a great victory over a great nation. -- the Flavian

dynasty's need. As a film-maker his life must have been the most

fantastic story because he is a fascinating figure. The problem is

that you get completely absorbed by the story. I wanted to make a film

about the Jewish war because it is an amazing tale. As they started to

research it, I came across the problem of the storyteller and the

fascination with the story itself. That is what I have tried to show.

We follow that narrative without understanding how faulty the

narrator is. That was what I tried to show, I think. But the hugely

important figure in Jewish history. He is one of the most important

sources for Jewish historians of the period, but having said that, we

have to know how to read a work like that. Traditional historians used to

take it and treat it as fact, evidence. And build a history out of

it. But of course he is somebody presenting his own perspective on

the events that were taking place and what we are doing now is

presenting our perspective on his perspective of the events. This is

all we are doing. That does raise the question of how much

archaeological or other evidence there is to check against what he

says. Very little. We are very reliant on Josephus's retelling of

the past. An important thing to make clear is not just his writing of the

Jewish wars. He is also rewriting biblical history, retelling the

story of the Jewish people right from the beginning. If you went back

to the book of Genesis, he is retelling stories that we find there

and all the way through. He is creating a past four people, and a

nation cannot exist without the past. There is a sense among ancient

writers that the people have to have a past, a story to tell. He is

imitating the tone of Scripture if you like. Just like the new

Testament imitates the tone of Jewish scripture. But there is a

purpose. It is building his identity as a Jewish man but also a Roman. Is

any other storyteller available Any other evidence? There are other

storytellers around. Just before Josephus there was somebody who

gives interesting snippets of information about the same period of

time. He goes together with Josephus quite nicely, but all of history is

rhetoric. In ancient times it was a form of rhetoric, so you present

things in the way that you see things and try and argue a case You

can see that with Josephus. You have to be careful with assuming that

just because it is rhetoric that he is playing wildly with the facts.

Josephus was working in a world where people knew what was

happening. He was not telling people something fresh. So you are less

sceptical? I am not completely naive about Josephus. But there could be

more truth? A great deal of truth. Playing with fact, a lot of his

facts have been proven right archaeologically. The town, the

wars, the way he described it, so it is wrong to call him a raconteur of

fate and fairy tale. But what about the idea that he was not that

important? Should we be sceptical not sceptical? That is not the way

to phrase it. We are not looking for facts at the end of the day. We are

trying to reconstruct the view of the past which will suit various

perspectives. Josephus is one perspective. If we read him and

respect him as a perspective on the event, we achieve what we want to

achieve and that is all that really counts. And that is all you can do?

Yes. And we are not looking for facts? The same applies to

archaeology. Archaeology is not facts and evidence. In what sense?

These are material objects that are discovered and immediately

interpreted. The interpretation starts before the digging begins. We

cannot be sure of anything! That is precisely the point. Once we agree

that it is very subjective then we get a very humbling view of history

and identity. At I believe that is the beginning of searching for

another solution of how to live I really like what you say about this

narrative of history, this claim that people make on history, that it

have to be a certain way. And the documentary footage of the burying

of the soldiers with Yigael Yadin, and the finding of them, and

connecting with the establishment of the state of Israel, I think that is

beautifully done. So the subject we are talking about, the great

revolt, what do we get when looking at that historical method? Josephus

when talking about the great revolt is talking about the personal

situation when he has been transported to Rome. He has become a

client, so subservient relationship toward the Roman emperor, to whom he

owes his life. He is at the same time an advocate of his own people.

And that is how he comes to write the history of the Jewish war. He is

involved in a web of cultural interests and political interests,

and these perspectives determine to a large extent what he writes. That

does not been what he writes is Rob -- rubbish. And it is a good read!

Yes. It is no different to picking up a newspaper today and reading the

news about what is going on in the Middle East, anywhere else in the

world. You will read the story of a journalist. It is not rubbish but it

is a viewpoint. Francesca, you were making the point that historians at

that period saw what they did in a rather different way to the way we

see it today. Absolutely. Although having said that, and they think

this came through very well in the film, but of the way in which

scholarship of the 17th, 18th, 9th and 20th centuries has been shaped

in the western world has come to us through a prioritisation of Greek

and Roman authors, always interested in the classics in that sense. So

Josephus was privileged over other sorts of information in Western

culture, which meant that his privileging of older biblical ideas

about martyrdom and struggle, those were the sorts of things adopted in

the 20th century by some of the founders, if you like, of the modern

State of Israel. So it becomes a cyclical process. We think of

history as the opinion of writers like Josephus, but our view of

history has been shaped by the interest in the Greco Rumanian, --

Greco-Roman, a Mediterranean centric viewpoint. Can I defend Josephus

again? Do! Josephus doesn't really say it was the entire nation of the

Jews that was fighting against the evil Roman Empire. He always insists

that it was a small minority. And he says it was a small minority of

fanatics who got the wrong end of the stick and had all sorts of

interests, that were not really the interests of the nation and took

over Jerusalem, did terrible things in Jerusalem, and revolted against

Rome. And lead the naive mobs, the crowds, who were gullible. Do we

have to believe that? No. What is interesting to me, from that, if you

read Josephus correctly, you get the myth of the great nation of Israel

fighting against Rome. In the caves, where Josephus is being claimed

politically in a way that is not quite true to his spirit. All right.

I am going to move it on there. We have talked about the way history

can be used to make a broader point and this film is about exactly that,

particularly the way the events of the first century became tied up

with Jewish identity. Over centuries, Jews have spread

throughout the world, but why did Roman jury embrace the concept of

exile, too, like Jews around the world, as a central tenet of their

religion? To put what we were talking about at

the beginning of the programme into perspective, exile, it has been a

recurring theme of biblical history. Yes, it certainly has. One of the

things we tried to do in this film was to debunk the myth of exile And

you are quite right to emphasise that there was actually no evidence

of actual exile of Jews out of Palestine as a result of the

destruction of the temple. This is something which has been widely

known. But at the same time, it seems to me that exile is not just a

concept, not just a narrative. For Jews or in the context of Jewish

history. Because even if it is true that the Jews were not expelled ever

from Palestine, I think that is probably correct, certainly in the

last 2000 years, there were plenty of expulsions and evictions and

other forced wanderings on the Jewish community of Europe. If you

look at England at the end of the 13th century, France around the same

time, then Spain at the end of the 15th century, and even in very

recent history during the Second World War, millions of Jews in

Central Europe were massacred or sent into exile. So exile is an

historical reality also. We cannot just relegate it to the realm of

unimagined narrative. -- imagined narrative. So therefore central to

Jewish history? Yes. Jewish exile is a concept, very profound actually

and I think it is the essence of religion. Exile is when there was

the destruction of the Temple, there is a deep sense of exile which

accompanies Judaism throughout. Jews in Israel think they live in exile.

The rebuild of the state of Israel has nothing to do with the mess

return. -- mess turn. Exile is a very profound concept. The only

critic I have is how you use it religiously, the profound idea of

exile is part of the Jewish experience. I never touch it. The

problems start when you simplify history. When you say I was exile

now we are coming back. We seem to be talking about three things, the

reality, the religious and identity experience and the political use

which is made of that. It is very interesting. You kind of go from one

thing to another. I think your real argument is with the Zionist story

and sort of seeing your film as a critique of that is I think helpful,

because I think you tend to simplify history but I think you kind of need

to in order to send a hard-hitting message back to the kind of myth

perhaps that you have grown up with. But I do think exile is not only

important overtime, and has been laid out in so many different ways

from the beginning of the Jewish nation to the present, but I do

really think that it happened in the second century, not the first revolt

but the second revolt. It was not just exile to Galilee but it was an

exile into other places as well And frankly, it was genocide. Genocide

and exile go together. Terrible deaths, massacres of Jews go with

that exile. It takes us back to something you remarked on early in

the discussion which was the question about whether there was

something uniquely brutal about the way the Romans treated the Jews

Wide? I have two distinguished between the revolt itself and the

aftermath. I am not sure the second revolt led to a mass migration from

Judea to Galilee. I have never been convinced. That is the aftermath.

The revolt itself was undoubtedly one of the largest revolt that the

Romans had to deal with. The second one is known to have involved

approximately ten legions of the Roman army. I am sorry to

interrupted because it is fascinating stuff. We talked about

how Jewish exile is central to Judaism itself, but it sounds as if

this particular episode, call it genocide, exile or whatever, is of a

particular kind in the way it bears on Jewish identity. Is that right? I

think it is. It was a significant event. Christians should also be

brought into the picture. They also made a huge fuss of the revolt. It

represented a turning point in history, in the sense that the Jews

are not known to have taken arms, maybe with an exception in the

mid-4th century, but the Jews ceased taking up arms against their

oppressors, I dare say until the 20th century. That is fascinating,

isn't it? It is. I agree on one hand that this was a defeat, if you like,

that was particularly significant. But this is not the first time that

a superior force has had to lay into this part of the world. There are

other experiences of colonial oppression, whether it was the

Egyptians or the neo- Syrians or the Babylonians. The Greeks and the

Romans are just the latest in a line of this ancient period of Imperial

aggressors. This part geographically in terms of the topography of the

land, this is America forgot land to pin down and control. Yes, the

Romans probably did get anxious about it because they thought it

would be easier to control these grid than perhaps they had realised.

We find the same explanation being used in Afghanistan. I think it was

significant for the Romans because it was a harder battle for them

They realised they had a stronger contender to deal with. Because it

is the Romans and because in Western culture we have this idea that the

Romans are the greatest force the world has ever seen, we have this

idea that the rebellion must have been extraordinary. I want to

explore one other aspect of identity. You made the point that

there were people who went on living in this area of the world. To what

extent was there a Palestinian identity beginning to grow as

distinct from a Jewish sense of identity attached to the place? I do

not know if the word Palestinian is the best one to use, it is an

incredibly loaded label. The point about exile and any use of the motif

of exile throughout the biblical period, exile means not just people

leaving land but the people who are left behind. There have always been

people left behind in this land Part of the ideology of a return to

exile, how do you cope with the people who have always been living

in that land. Do you assimilate Do you integrate? Do you try to get rid

of them? Some stories we find in Hebrew Bible and later on it is

about conflict, genocide even. In other stories it is that just

settling down and getting on with it. There has been continuous

settlement in this land for hundreds and hundreds of years. Whether the

roots of what we might call today's Palestinian communities are there, I

do not know. I am going to move the discussion on because we are coming

to the final section of this programme. The film concentrates on

events nearly 2000 years ago but it has a contemporary message. Ilan you

are trying to make a point about today's middle east. Let's watch a

clip from the final section of the film.

That is a very redemptive view of history but do we use it like that?

Some people would say we use it in the opposite way to create division?

History can be used in which ever way people choose. If it can be used

for the good, wonderful, I fall for that. If it can be used to heal and

point out errors of judgement, about the past, I think that is a very

admirable project. That is precisely what I wanted the film to be. You

can look at this history and look at it as one narrative or you can look

at history and say, it does not substantiate anyone's narrative It

puts us all in one bag which is factually very difficult to

separate. If you start looking at that which is the opposite of the

official narrative, then I think you have the beginning intellectually at

least, of tracing the role to some kind of solution which means if you

do not look at history for a mandate of what I am doing now, the humbling

experience of this land was owned by so many people, I can make sense out

of it besides the diversity. If you tried to embrace the diversity as an

issue as a way forward, there is something redemptive about that But

we tend not to, don't we? The lessons of history are is that we

use history badly, surely? ! I think the principle of using history for

conveying a modern message, a very good principle, I think it is a good

way of making use of our culture and our intellectual insights into the

past. Really I agree with Jones If you look at the Middle East, people

use history to justify their positions when they do not use it to

understand the other side. Fine What do you think, Francesca? I am

introducing a realist note. I think up to the 20th century, we have

tended to focus on the great men and moments or movements of history I

think now we are more keenly the 21st century as academics and

historians, to present something that is more palatable to modern

views. But at the same time we have to recognise that there are some

things which are endorsed in authoritative Barratt is that do is

sit very uncomfortably with what we might like to think are our

preferences now -- authoritative narratives. We have to face up to

that. Until now we have avoided this discussion which means the Israeli

conflict has been constantly debated on political grounds. I think we

have shied away from the religious aspect, the historical aspect,

particularly the seculars among us. I think we have to begin the

discussion because avoiding it has not proved conducive to a solution.

We need to delve into those myths, argue as much as we can, because

avoiding it has left us in limbo for many thousands of years. That is why

I personally did it, to try to grapple with that history. Maybe

some people argue different points but to start grappling with those

ideas, as possibly looking for a solution because I do believe that

the conflict at its root has a huge religious component which we do not

admits. We always cover it up. We have to delve into the religious

aspect with rabbis, priests, is like scholars which we do not have around

this table, and start dabbling into this history and arguing from the

perspective of religion and history because avoiding it, pretending that

it is some kind of secular conflict only about land... It is a slightly

different argument but an important one, Sacha, would you care to

respond? I think you are right. I am aware that your film may be regarded

with suspicion by some viewers and they may consider it to be

controversial or problematic. It might well be for people coming from

certain perspectives, but what I would really invite everyone to do

is to try and look at the message of your film in a positive light, as a

positive attempt, not to be destructive or not to spoil

people's narratives but rather as an attempt to try and create something

positive, to create some sort of way forward in the situation that we are

today, based on the rethink about our past. You say you should not

spoil other people's narratives but you are bound to do that if you

adopt the historical approach that Ilan wants to see. As soon as you

say things are more complicated than you might have thought it will be

painful. It can be but it does not have to be. A challenge is always

intended to be constructive. Joan. I think a challenge can go too much

the other way. I think there are elements of that in your film. But

that is often the way in terms of historical debate, if there is a

thesis that is in some way not quite right, then the challenge can go the

other way to provoke and upset that is thesis. As time goes by a more

moderate appraisal comes about. At that is necessary to get the debate

going. You are saying we are all Josephus in trying to make a point.

Yes, we are. The important thing is we have been given a voice and an

opportunity to talk about these things. I think what your film is

trying to do is to give a voice to those who have been silenced, not

just in the case of modern-day Israel is to dispute, but about what

it is to be Jewish or not to be Jewish. Identity is something which

does rely on a certain retelling of the past but identity is always

being constructed and reconstructed. It has been fantastic stuff. Sacha

Stern, Joan Taylor, Francesca Stavrakopoulou and Ilan Ziv who made

the film, thank you very much for joining us.