4 ms·
From other things I've seen from Schama I think he starts the book there because he is fascinated with the episode, not because he thinks it's the first solid e
by jrumbut 9y ago
From other things I've seen from Schama I think he starts the book there because he is fascinated with the episode, not because he thinks it's the first solid evidence of Jews.
He sees Elephantine as countering widely held beliefs about ancient Jewish life (that it was all in Israel, homogenous, etc), containing interesting analogues to the present day, and being an altogether interesting story.
It can be more difficult to spin a good yarn from the older material.
- golemiprague 9y agoI can understand why Schama start from there, it is the time where we have a lot of other sources except from the bible and archeological sights here and there. My grief was more with the article writer and the idea that anybody thought there were no Jewish life outside Israel at that time. It is pretty common knowledge, from the bible itself which mention the life of Jews in Persia in the book of Daniel to anybody who read the history of Jews. It is not news and not surprising, we all know that the Talmud was written in Babylon, that's why it is called the Babylonian Talmud. There is no "widely held belief" that Jews lived only in Israel after the destruction of the first temple.