The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0618 Monday, 17 September 2007
[1] From: Peter Bridgman <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 14 Sep 2007 17:23:04 +0100
Subj: Re: SHK 18.0611 Redheads
[2] From: V. K. Inman <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Sunday, 16 Sep 2007 19:47:36 -0400
Subj: Re: SHK 18.0611 Redheads
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Peter Bridgman <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Friday, 14 Sep 2007 17:23:04 +0100
Subject: 18.0611 Redheads
Comment: Re: SHK 18.0611 Redheads
As this is my final posting on the subject I get to repeat myself for
the last time.
If we compare depictions of the Last Supper in Christian Art we notice
that southern European artists tended to depict Judas as dark-haired,
beetle-browed and mean-looking, while northern European artists often
depicted Judas as red-haired, hook-nosed and shifty. I maintain that
these traits did not derive from ideas of what Jews looked like. They
derived from local folkloric representations of evil (see Grimm's
Tales). Bob Lapides may think that Jews have hooked noses. I do not.
Bob writes ...
>It's true Palestine was a geographical designation in the
>ancient world, but Judaea was the name of the Jewish
>state the Jews lived in -- until the Romans renamed it
>Palestine in the 2nd century CE.
>
>... I have to wonder why he can't describe them [the
>Holy Family] as simply Jewish -- or, if need be, as Judaean
>Jews.
Because the Holy Family were Galilean Jews, and Galilee and Judea were
two different kingdoms. Palestine included both these areas, plus
Samaria, Idumaea, Peraea, and much of the country east of the Sea of
Galilee in present day Syria. The only useful terms for the
geographical area that included both Nazareth (Galilee) and Jerusalem
(Judaea) at the time of Christ are 'Palestine' and 'the Holy Land'. I'm
happy to use either.
I am surprised that my describing Jesus as a 'Palestinian Jew' has
caused such controversy. The term is used both by historians of 1st
century Palestine and 'the Historical Jesus' (E.P Sanders et al), and by
churchmen. This is from the recent proceedings of the General Synod of
the Church of England ...
"The Bishop of Southwark, the Rt Rev Tom Butler, moving the motion,
countered arguments that only men could represent Christ. He pointed out
that as well as being male, Jesus was also an Aramaic speaking,
first-century Palestinian Jew."
In Europe at least, this is a non-controversial term.
Joe Egert asks ...
>Does Peter Bridgman truly believe the name "Judas" and
> his nefarious red hair were not designed ab initio to villify "Judaism"?
Absolutely. I would remind Joe Egert that the other eleven apostles
were also Jews (as indeed were the authors of the Gospels).
I expect that the reason why the apostle (one of Twelve) who betrayed
Jesus was called 'Judas' was to remind Jewish listeners of Judah - i.e.
the brother (again one of twelve) who betrayed Joseph in Genesis ...
"Then Judah said to his brothers, 'What do we gain by killing our
brother and covering up his blood? Come, let us sell him to the
Ishmaelites ... They sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites for twenty shekels
of silver." (Genesis 37:26-28)
"Then one of the Twelve, the man called Judas Iscariot, went to the
chief priests and said, 'What are you prepared to give me if I hand him
over to you?' They paid him thirty pieces of silver." (Matthew 26:14-15)
By linking Judas with Judah the Gospel authors subtly remind Jewish
listeners of deeper parallels between Jesus and Joseph, e.g. when Joseph
reveals himself to his brothers ... "It was not you who sent me here but
God." (Genesis 45:8)
Peter Bridgman
[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: V. K. Inman <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Sunday, 16 Sep 2007 19:47:36 -0400
Subject: 18.0611 Redheads
Comment: Re: SHK 18.0611 Redheads
Good reasons to end this thread. by V. K. Inman
Quoting Bob Lapides
>There's no
>question that Jews and Arabs have hooked noses, though of course not all
>of them, least of all those who have intermarried.
V.K. responds: This sort of sweeping generalization has no place in
academic discourse. You seem to lack an undergraduate understanding of
physical anthropology.
>Peter points out that we've agreed red hair is not a particularly Jewish
>trait, but we've also noted it was thought to be --
V.K. responds: Did you read my post? Red hair is not dominate anywhere,
and it does appear among Jews from an ancient time in graves which have
been archaeologically researched.
>It's true Palestine was a geographical designation in the ancient world,
>but Judaea was the name of the Jewish state the Jews lived in -- until
>the Romans renamed it Palestine in the 2nd century CE. Peter writes, "I
>think we are therefore justified in describing the Holy Family as
>'Palestinian.' "I have to wonder why he can't describe them as simply
>Jewish -- or, if need be, as Judaean Jews.
V.K. responds: Because in Jewish Studies they have always been called
Palestinian Jews to distinguish them from Babylonian Jews in particular
but also Jews who settled elsewhere. Judean Jews would mean only those
of the tribe of Judaea or those resident in Judaea which the residents
of Bethlehem and Galilee were not. "Palestinian" is from the root
"Philistine." The Philistines were there a long time ago.
Quoting: Donald Bloom
>2 -- Is there any biological study of red hair as a genetic trait?
V.K. responds: yes! Google it! Or just go to Wikipedia
>3 -- Does anybody have the foggiest notion how a trait, apparently
>characteristic of the most northern of European peoples, came to be
>associated with (a) a people of Middle Eastern origin, (b) evil, and (c)
>some overlap of (a) and (b)
V.K. responds: Note above--not an exclusive northern European trait and
never was. I have followed this discussion and I don't find that either
of (a)(b)or(c)was ever established.
Quoting: David Basch
>If the discussion is about Jews living at the time of Jesus and the
>Temple, the country in which the Jewish Temple was located was Judea,
>not "Palestine," and the people were Jews, not "Palestinians."
>
>The Romans renamed the area "Aeola Palestina" after the Jewish revolt
>failed, much later in the first century. It was after that time that
>this designation of the area was widely used. Hence Peter Bridgeman's
>reference to Jews at the time of Jesus as "Palestinian" is misapplied.
>Jesus would not even know what he meant.
V.K. responds: not so. See above. They are at least Palestinians rather
than Babylonians, hence the Palestinian and Babylonian Talmuds!
Palestinian is anachronistic, true. But it is the word that is used.
Quoting: Joseph Egert
>Basch is correct in translating the
>Hebrew in SAMUEL 16:12 as "with beautiful eyes". The Greek Septuagint
>(transliterated "kallous ophthalmon") is probably closest to the Hebrew
>as "with beauty of eyes".
V.K. responds: What Greek Septuagint is that? Bagsters? There were
numerous Greek translations of Samuel 16:12 none of which would be
correctly referred to as "Septuagint" in current studies. "Septuagint"
is, due to contemporary studies, only correctly applied to the first
Greek translation of the Pentateuch.
>Did Inman's "Teutonic males" restrict
>their prey to Jewish women alone?
V.K. responds: Read it again!
>Peter Bridgman (SHK 18.0554) duly notes the early notorious association
>of red hair with the barbarous older brother Esau. But why Esau? Tony
>Burton's paleopresentist author(s) of this GENESIS tale took pains to
>link the duped and superseded older brother with Edom, and so justify
>contemporary Hebrew occupation of Edomite land and hegemony over its
>crude uncivilized hunter people. The Edomite region "Seir" is itself
>linked to the Hebrew word for hair. It seems the Lord's mysterious ways
>include force and (in Jacob's case) fraud. Not to be outdone, later
>Christian supersessors deliberately named the turncoat apostle "Judas"
>and painted him with Esau's red hair. After all, Christianity was the
>new kid on the block, intent on displacing the older brother Judaism. To
>these Christians the only good Jews were the dead Jews of the ancient
>past, whose birthright they claimed as the New Israel, the true heirs of
>the covenant. Does Peter Bridgman truly believe the name "Judas" and
>his nefarious red hair were not designed ab initio to villify
>"Judaism"? Even today in modern Israel, militant religious Zionists use
>these Old Testament tales to "legitimate" their Greater Israel movement.
>And so the Wheel turns.
V.K. responds: What???
Yeah, let's end this thread!
_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook,
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>
DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
|
