Toto

I stumbled across this - I don't know much about it. I'm curious about what evidence he has. The movie is available for rental.

Exile: A Myth Unearthed trailer An archaeological mystery story

Nat Film Board of Canada

Duvduv

This all looks very interesting to me. However, I think there are some misunderstandings about the issue of the exile of 70 CE. Prior to that time we know there were extensive Jewish communities from Babylonia to Yemen to Asia Minor, Rome and North Africa aside from Judea.

What happened with the destruction of the Temple was not even necessarily that the overall majority of Jews in Palestine were exiled, since in any event they must have represented far less than a majority of the Jews of the world anyway. From a traditional Jewish perspective it meant that the Jews no longer had the Temple and some semblance of sovereignty. Of course we know that over the centuries few Jews lived in Palestine, so the exile encompassed the diaspora of the Jews outside of the Holy Land and with no temple.

So although all I saw was the trailer, the argument is really not that significant except perhaps to some aspects of Zionist propaganda about the Jews "returning" after they were all allegedly kicked out of their homeland.

I am glad the film is touching on the taboo subject of Masada. It is one of those Israeli icons (among several) that may not be questioned without being subject to claims of being a "self-hating Jew."

andrewcriddle

I'm a little puzzled.

I didn't think anyone was claiming that Jews were exiled from Galilee. What happened after after 70 CE (and even more after Bar Kochba) was the exile of Jews from (most of) Judea.

Andrew Criddle

Duvduv

But even if that were true it doesn't mean anything, since most Jews did not reside in Judea or anywhere in the Holy Land. So I don't understand what the archeologist wants to contribute to this. Traditional Judaism does not claim that "Exile" means that most Jews lived in Judea and that they were virtually all exiled. Exile simply means that the Temple was destroyed, any semblance of sovereignty ended, and there were Jews who were forcibly exiled (not all Jews or even most Jews) by the Romans, and that the majority of Jews were now living in Exile. However, the period of the Second Temple itself still constituted a form of Exile since the majority of Jews did not live there, and the Second Temple of Ezra was not at the level of the First Temple of Solomon.

semiopen

Suddenly we don't understand that there is an exile myth?

Jewish_diaspora

As we've discussed here before, whether the destruction of the temple was the big deal or the defeat of Bar Kochba is debatable. The temple had to be pretty dubious as a religious institution by the first century CE and my guess that its practical significance was mostly economic.

As my daughter learned on her birthright Israel trip, all the Jews were kicked out of Judea and we all really want to go home. They didn't bother to mention to her, that for most of us, our ancestors never actually lived there.

Everyone talks about the 2000 year exile. If we subtract 2000 from today, we get to the second temple ballpark. However, 500 years ago or so, you might wind up with the destruction of the first temple. I think that's why the Moshiach calculations were always fucked up.

Sabbatai_Zevi was a convincing candidate in 1676, especially considering that the first temple is said to have been destroyed in 432 or so BCE instead of 586 BCE

Destruction of First Temple

Which I guess makes it 432 or 431 BCE. That makes 2000 years between the destruction and Sabbatai - the guy should have been the Messiah - I can see how a lot of people were tricked.

outhouse

Correct.


The term "Jewish exile" doesnt mean all Jews.

Hellenistic Jews like those in Sepphoris and Tiberius who did not, nor ever intended to fight against Romans because they were never oppressed the way Israelite Jews were.

When we look at the socioeconomics of Judaism, there was a sharp division between "real" Jews and Hellensitic Jews. Poor and oppressed, VS those who lived in the lap of luxory and were more or less part of the Roman Empire.

While Zealots where trampled out of history during this time and exiled and hid or ran if they survived. Judaism was being redefined once again, never to be anywhere as diverse as it was during the temple period.

Toto

Please cite your sources.

outhouse

To who? is the question.

For Zealots, both were destructive failures.

For the Saducees the temple fall was the "biggest deal" because they didnt survive it.


Love hate relationship for the poor.

The wealthy loved it, the Saducees stayed rich, and some of the Pharisees had been usiong Roman muscle to extort tithes for a long time


Again a huge seperation between Hellensim and the typical peasant.


Significant for who?

outhouse

For what statements exactly?



From Semiopens link

Toto

Everything.

When you make these broad pronouncements about ancient history, where the facts are often disputed or ambiguous, it would be helpful to know what you have read and why you are so sure of yourself.