Executive Council of Australian Jewry Inc.

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Executive Council of Australian Jewry Inc."

Valerie Davis
5 years ago
Views:

1 Executive Council of Australian Jewry Inc. The Representative Organisation of Australian Jewry Level 2, 80 William Street Sydney NSW 2000 Address all correspondence to: PO Box 1114, Edgecliff NSW 2027 Tel (+61 2) Fax (+61 2) Web: PRESIDENT Dr Danny Lamm DEPUTY PRESIDENT John Searle HON. TREASURER Robert Lissauer HON. SECRETARY Jillian Segal AM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Peter Wertheim AM VICE PRESIDENTS Yair Miller (NSW) Nina Bassat AM (VIC) Tony Tate (WA) Jason Steinberg (QLD) Norman Schueler (SA) Daniel Albert (TAS) Professor Kim Rubenstein (ACT) IMM. PAST PRESIDENT Robert M Goot AM, SC CONSTITUENTS NSW Jewish Board of Deputies Jewish Community Council of Victoria Inc Jewish Community Council of Western Australia Inc Queensland Jewish Board of Deputies Jewish Community Council of South Australia Hobart Hebrew Congregation ACT Jewish Community Inc AFFILIATES Australasian Union of Jewish Students Australian Federation of WIZO Union for Progressive Judaism Federation of Jewish Aged Care Services Maccabi Australia Inc National Council of Jewish Women B nai B rith of Australia/ NZ Jewish National Fund of Australia Council of Orthodox Synagogues of Australia OBSERVERS Council of Progressive Rabbis Federation of Australian Jewish Ex-Service Associations New Zealand Jewish Council Zionist Federation of Australia 10 July 2012 Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority Level Pitt Street Sydney NSW History@acara.edu.au Dear Sir/Madam Re: Submission in response to the Draft Senior Secondary Curriculum for Ancient History The Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ), the elected representative organisation of the Jewish community in Australia, presents the following submission on behalf of the Australian Jewish community in response to the Draft Senior Secondary Curriculum for Ancient History. Kindly note that this submission is made following consultation with the roof bodies representing the Jewish communities in each of the States and the ACT and with Jewish schools and educators across Australia. We understand that the Australian Council of Jewish Schools, and possibly some of the Jewish schools that are affiliated to it, propose to make additional submissions to further elucidate points made in this submission and to deal with pedagogic aspects of the draft curriculum that are not addressed in this submission. (i) Unit 1 Investigating the Ancient World Topic description and Content description The Hebrews and the Exodus (pages 4 and 6 of 46). The coupling of The Hebrews and The Exodus is artificial and needlessly tendentious. The existence of the Hebrews and a nation called Israel during the period of transition from the late Bronze Age to the Iron Age some 3,000 years ago is beyond dispute. It is attested to expressly by at least one extra-biblical source, namely the Merenptah Stele (circa 1205 BCE). 1

2 Systematic surface surveys in modern-day Israel and on both sides of the Jordan Valley since 1980, including digs at Bethel, Hazor and 29 other sites, have yielded a wealth of information about the origins of ancient Israel during the late Bronze Age and early Iron Age. The evidence from language, costume, coiffure and material remains suggest that the early Israelites were a rural subset of Canaanite culture and largely indistinguishable from Transjordanian rural cultures as well. 1 The discovery of the Tel Dan Stele in 1993 provides the first extra- Biblical reference to the Hebrew King David. In contrast, the historicity of the Exodus is clouded in uncertainty. There are no known extra-biblical sources which corroborate the Biblical story. It is therefore anomalous, to say the least, to conflate the study of the Hebrews and early Israel with the Exodus story, especially in a Unit whose stated purpose is to conduct an investigation of the nature of the remaining evidence of the ancient past, including new discoveries and the use of technology to uncover evidence. It is grossly misleading for the topic and content descriptions to imply, as they do, that the evidence regarding the Hebrews and early Israel has any bearing whatsoever on the evidence regarding the Exodus, or vice versa. It is also a fundamental misreading of the Bible to treat it primarily as an historical document and to expect it to meet modern canons of verifiability. Rather, the messages that the Bible intends to convey are, first and foremost, of a theological, cosmological and ethical nature. It would therefore be far more productive for this section of the curriculum to follow contemporary scholarship in the field, which long ago abandoned the method of beginning with the Biblical story and then seeking out extra-biblical evidence to support or contradict it. Instead of starting out with any a priori narrative at all, the Unit should encourage students to focus only on what evidence exists, how much or how little it can tell us and what level of reliability should be attributed to it. The weakness of the current draft of the Content Description, as the reference to Stephen Russell also signifies, is that its focus is on religious and sociological beliefs and perceptions rather than on historical evidence. We would therefore suggest that the Topic Description be changed to The Hebrews and early Israel, and that the Content Description be completely re-written as follows: The origins of the Hebrews and early Israel; cyclical migration patterns between Mesopotamia and Egypt; Egyptian domination of late Bronze Age Canaan; assessing the Merenptah Stele and its reference to Israel as a nation; evidence of the late Bronze Age and early Iron Age Israelite presence in Canaan; the transition from nomadic to settled life; the conquest hypothesis versus the peaceful and gradual settlement hypothesis. 1 Lawrence E. Stager, Forging an Identity, in Michael D. Coogan (ed), The Oxford History of the Biblical World, Oxford University Press, 1998, p

3 Evidence of early Iron Age Israelite society; social organisation and the Bet Av (house of the father); dietary rules, religious worship and burial rites. Encounters with neighbouring peoples; the Egyptian-dominated Canaanite city-states; the invasion of the Gaza region by the Sea Peoples; the origins and early history of the Philistine settlement. The period of the United Israelite Kingdom; David and Solomon - great kings or mountain chieftains?; evaluating evidence of monumental architecture in 10 th century BCE Israel (Amihai and Eilat Mazar versus Israel Finkelstein). Assessing the historicity of the Bible from what point, and to what extent, does the Biblical narrative become corroborated by extra-biblical evidence? (ii) Unit 1 Investigating the Ancient world Topic description and Content description Masada (pages 8-9 of 46) We query the choice of Masada as the vehicle through which Roman-era Judea is to be studied. In our view, that period could be covered more completely through a much richer source like the Dead Sea scrolls and the Qumran community or a more general study of the works of Josephus (beyond merely the section on Masada) and the Roman writers, Tacitus and Pliny the Elder. It is important that Masada not be misrepresented as a stand-alone event in Jewish history. It was in fact an epilogue to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple in 70 CE, which were regarded at the time, and ever since, as truly cataclysmic culminating events marking the end of the Second-Temple Jewish commonwealth after more than 600 years of continuous existence. If Masada is to be included as a topic for investigation, this essential background must be provided in the interests of accuracy. We recommend that the draft Content description for this Topic be amended as follows: The first dot point in the Content Description should open with the words: An overview of the Jewish Commonwealth in the Second Temple period, 538 BCE to 70 CE; The draft content description refers to the events at Masada as having taken place in the years It is more generally accepted that the 3

4 events occurred in the years CE and that the Romans captured the fortress in April or May 73 CE. 2 The reference to Masada as a symbol of Jewish persecution should be changed to Masada as a symbol of Jewish independence and resistance. The words the role of patriotic archaeology should be removed. Whilst there is undoubtedly a patriotic element to the archaeological study of Masada, Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Persian, Greek and Roman archaeology also have strong patriotic elements to them and there is no basis for singling out this one topic. This particular Content Description should therefore either be included in all other relevant topics in the curriculum or be deleted. An obvious omission from the draft which should be added as a dot point is: The impact of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple on the early development of Christianity and western civilisation. (iii) Unit 2 Ancient Societies Topic Electives (page 14 of 46) Topic number 14 is Israel, BC. The juxtaposition of Israel with this time period is confusing. As previously noted, the Merenptah Stele (about 1205 BCE) contains the earliest known extra-biblical reference to Israel. The word is accompanied by the hieroglyphic determinant for a nation. 3 It follows that the tribes comprising Israel in this early period functioned in some sense as a nation from at least the thirteenth century BCE until the beginning of the United Kingdom of Israel in about 1025 BCE. The United Kingdom existed from about 1025 BCE until the schism between the north (Israel) and the south (Judah) in about 925 BCE and the sacking of Jerusalem and the Temple of Solomon by Egypt under the Pharaoh Shishak. (The First Temple was dedicated during this period in about 961 BCE). The northern kingdom of Israel existed from about 925 BCE until it was destroyed by the Assyrian military invasion in 722 BCE. The First Temple, which was located in Jerusalem in the southern kingdom of Judah, remained standing until it was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BCE. We are frankly mystified by the reference to 637 BC, as no epochal event concerning Israel or Judah occurred in or about that year. As early Israel is dealt with in Unit 1, and the stated period of Topic number 14 in Unit 2 begins in 961 BCE, we assume that the intended Topic is the First Temple 2 Duncan B. Campbell, "Capturing a desert fortress: Flavius Silva and the siege of Masada", Ancient Warfare Vol. IV, no. 2 (Spring 2010), pp The dating is explained on pp. 29 and The determinant consists of a depiction of three throw-sticks, a man and a woman. 4

5 period. If that is correct, then the Topic should be described as Israel and Judah in the First Temple period, 961 BCE to 586 BCE. (iv) Place names There are at least two anachronistic references to place names in the draft curriculum. On page 24 the name Syria-Palestine is used in the context of Egypt during the Middle Bronze period. The land in question was never at this time (or for centuries thereafter) referred to as Syria-Palestine by the Egyptians or by any other people. After the Romans crushed the Jewish revolt led by Bar Kochba in 135 CE they renamed the land from Judea to Syria-Palestina. But during the Middle Bronze period, some 1,500 years earlier, the name Syria-Palestina was unheard of. The name Syria referred to a territory approximating that of modern-day Syria. The Egyptian records refer to the land in question at different times during this period as Amurru, Retenu or Hurru. Canaan would also be more accurate. The mistake is repeated on page 37 with the reference to Palestine during the Amarna period (approximately BCE). If a generic name is sought, we would suggest Canaan or ancient Canaan. (v) Dating system terminology Throughout the draft curriculum the dating system that is adopted is based on the Grigorian calendar, that is, the Western calendar which measures years from the birth of Jesus. The calendar has wide international acceptance and we agree that its use is appropriate. However, the traditional terminology associated with that calendar, namely the symbols AD and BC, are expressions of Christian religious faith and for that reason do not enjoy similar international acceptance. Most of the world s people do not come from a Christian religious or cultural background. The letters AD stand for the Latin words Anno Domini, meaning in the year of our Lord. The letters BC stand for Before Christ. The word Christ derives from the Greek christos which means messiah. These symbols are therefore professions of religious belief in the messiah-ship and/or divinity of Jesus. Christian-centric terminology of this kind does not reflect contemporary international best practice in the disciplines of ancient history and archaeology and should not be imposed on Australian students who come from diverse religious and cultural backgrounds. Students who go on to study these disciplines at University, especially overseas, will only have to unlearn the AD/BC terminology later on. The neutral CE (Common Era) and BCE (Before the 5

6 Common Era) should be substituted for AD And BC. We note that in the 2010 iteration of the draft Senior Secondary Curriculum for Ancient History, CE and BCE were adopted, but the latest draft has lapsed back into AD and BC. We thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Senior Secondary Curriculum for Ancient History and look forward to publication of the next version. Yours sincerely Peter Wertheim AM Executive Director 6

The Australasian Union of Jewish Students. National Assembly and Annual General Meeting 2014

The Australasian Union of Jewish Students National Assembly and Annual General Meeting 2014 Executive Council of Australian Jewry Inc. The Representative Organisation of Australian Jewry Level 2, 80 William