Posts
since Wed, 26 Dec 2007 20:04:17.
Zionist Propaganda on the Shakespeare Conference
What is this compulsion that drives Zionists to litter the Shakespeare Conference and similar lists and groups with their completely irrelevant propaganda? Can't this sort of nonsense be excluded from the discussion?
There were no Jews at the time of Jesus. There were Judeans, Galileans, Idumeans and other populations, but not Jews, for "Jews" is a term that really only applies since the time of Saadyah Gaon (10th century). I know Shaye Cohen of Harvard University argues that "Jewishness" begins in the 4th century, but he is wrong, and in any case even his time frame is 4 centuries later than Jesus.
I have studied the early 1st century epigraphy near Nablus. The writing definitely refers to the area as eretz plishtim (Land of the Philistines/Palestinians). Akkadian usually refers to the area as palastu 100s of years before the Romans came to the Middle East, and the Egyptians often referred to the territory as peleset.
In most usages Palestine seems to have been the normal and common way of referring to the territory at least as far back as 1000 BCE until racist Eastern European Ashkenazim, who have only mythological connection to the region, stole the country from the native population in 1947-8 in an act of genocide that Eastern European racists had planned since the 19th century and that continues to the present day right before our eyes in the 21st century.
By denying Palestine, Lapides shows his moral turpitude as a genocide denier.
For more information on the sort of racism and genocide denial/incitement in which Lapides is engaging, please consult: http://eaazi.blogspot.com (Ethnic Ashkenazim Against Zionist Israel). Search in the upper left-hand corner for genocide, nakba, or Holoexaleipsis (the Great Erasure, which is the name of the genocide that racist ethnic Ashkenazi genocidaires committed and continue to commit in Palestine to this day).
Joachim Martillo
In a message dated 9/5/2007 9:03:17 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, editor@SHAKSPER.NET writes:
From: Bob Lapides <Roblapides@aol.com>
Date: Tuesday, 4 Sep 2007 09:26:40 EDT
Subject: Re: SHK 18.0578 Redheads
Peter Bridgman writes that "Bruegel (for example) painted the Holy Family as Flemish peasants, rather than as Palestinian Jews."
Actually, there were no Palestinian Jews at the time of Jesus. The term "Palestine" was created by the Romans more than a hundred years later, following the failed Jewish revolt. They imposed this name on Judaea in an attempt to crush the Jews' lingering sense of nationhood. It was also a way of adding insult to injury, as the Philistines had been in the relatively distant past the enemy of the Hebrews.
One wonders why this piece of history isn't better known. My own answer is that unless a non-hegemonic group has the power to make the mainstream pay attention, the hegemonic version will prevail.
I've recently written something about Dickens's "Life of Our Lord," a book about Jesus he wrote for his children's instruction. Although radical in some ways -- it takes the Unitarian position that Jesus was not divine -- it obscures the fact that Jesus was Jewish more than was possible in the Gospels. I wanted to know how unusual this was in Dickens's day, so I looked into other Victorian re-tellings of the life of Jesus and whatever discussion of these efforts I could find. Several 20C historians noted that it was because of pressure from Jewish scholars that a more accurate depiction of Jesus's connection to his background finally began to emerge.
Previously, Jewish villains were described in great Jewish detail, but Jewish heroes were "universal."
Also, I don't see Peter's point in mentioning that Jesus and Mary are referred to by their Hebrew/Aramaic names in the Aramaic version of the NT. How could it have been otherwise?
Bob Lapides
Professor of English
Manhattan Community College, CUNY
Sphere: Related Content
