Holy Land 2018 – Preparatory Reading and Movies

One thing I try to do before I go on a big trip or pilgrimage is learn something about my destination. Of course, for the two trips to the UK that was easy – in a sense my entire professional life as a historian, including my training at LSU, was prep for that! Sort of the same thing was true for Italy, since I teach World Civ as well as Ancient History and a course specific to Ancient Rome. In the case of Mexico I had much less background, so I did read several books specifically on the object of that pilgrimage, the apparitions of Our Lady of Guadalupe – but once I was there I wished I had read more broadly, especially on more recent Mexican history.

In the case of the Holy Land, both my religious background and my historical training give me a pretty firm grounding in the Biblical History (I even teach a course on that, specifically), but frankly I know little to nothing about the later history except insofar as it was peripherally significant to Roman and European history – that only up through the Crusades. Even though I have lived through most of the history of the modern state of Israel, moreover, I have had only a reasonably aware layman’s knowledge of that history as well. Yes, I read James Michener’s The Source thirty-odd years ago, but I remember almost nothing from it specifically.

So I decided to rectify that lacuna in my knowledge. My reading and movie-watching hasn’t really been systematic, but here’s what I have read and watched so far – and I may supplement this with dated updates over the next few weeks:

Besides having watched the video blogs of Steve Ray’s April pilgrimage (mentioned in my previous post), some scouting around on the Internet and mainly in Amazon led to me starting with a movie that I’d never heard of: Cast a Giant Shadow (1966), starring Kirk Douglas leading a cast including John Wayne, Yul Brynner, and Angie Dickenson. Douglas plays American Col. David “Mickey” Marcus, recruited by the fledgling Israeli state just after the UN voted for the partition of Palestine in November 1947, first as an adviser then ultimately as the first commanding general, overseeing the monumental task of building an alternate route through the mountains from Tel Aviv to the starving, besieged city of Jerusalem. It ends tragically, just after that triumph in June 1948, with Marcus being killed by one of his own Israeli sentries late one night when he is unable to reply with the proper password – in Hebrew.

This movie being very specifically about David Marcus (is it just a coincidence that is also the name of Captain Kirk’s son in the 1980s Star Trek movies? – probably), his death left a huge part of the story of the 1948 War of Independence untold.

As far as I’m concerned, the best entré into the events giving birth to the modern nation of Israel is to be found in the pages of O Jerusalem by Larry Collins and Dominique LaPierre. It is a wonderful, majestic account – solidly researched history written in a very novelistic style, balancing a myriad cast of characters from both sides of the conflict, Israeli and Palestinian both in the attention they get and in the sympathy with which they are treated. By the time I finished it – it’s a long book – I felt like I’d practically lived through the events! The book is quite old at this point – it came out around 1970 – but it still would be my recommended starting point for anyone interested in the events of 1948. The more recent (2005) movie of the same name (at least outside the US) is, however, a bit of a disappointment. It clocks in at considerably less than two hours long (a mere 101 minutes) while attempting to tell a story that took over seven hundred pages in written form, plus creating new main characters who never get a chance to be developed into people the audience cares about. Here’s the text of a review I  submitted to Amazon.com:

I certainly understand why they changed the name for US distribution ….

Well, I can certainly see why this movie received such critical disdain. There is a good movie here – but it’s at least twice as long as the current running time of 101 minutes. I enjoyed it well enough, having read the book just recently (the reason I picked up this movie). It would, in my opinion, be fairly incomprehensible to anyone who has not read the book – or at least anyone who does not have a fair working knowledge of the events of the 1948 War. Frankly, this movie bears about as much resemblance to the literary source material as the Brad Pitt version of World War Z bore to the brilliant book on which it was “based.” Actually, the relationship between film and page is far less in this case because this film could very easily exist without the existence of the book since the historical events that form the context for the story are not the product of Larry Collins and Dominique LaPierre’s imagination, whereas World War Z the movie does construct a narrative within a fictional situation created by Max Brooks. The one facet of the book that I think is conveyed fairly well in this movie is a fair balance and lack of overt bias in dealing with a very complex situation in which, in truth, there is no absolute right nor wrong. The desperate conviction driving the Jews, having just endured a genocidal disaster unparalleled in human history, that they must have their own state vs. the Palestinian Arabs’ determination to maintain their longstanding residence in the only land that the Jews would – could – ever consider their homeland are tragic and seemingly irreconcilable imperatives. David Ben-Gurion’s rabidly intense determination to hold Jerusalem at all costs seems insane from any practical, strategic standpoint – and yet was absolutely necessary because he rightly perceived that without Jerusalem there is no Israel. That comes through very clearly in Ian Holm’s scenery-chewing performance which makes his casting the highlight of this film. Ultimately, however, this movie is very much a failure, especially when set aside the book. If marketing it in the US as “Beyond Friendship” was an attempt to distance it from the book, I think that was a wise choice – although ultimately the film falls face-down off its own two feet even without the inevitable comparison with the book.

I moved directly into Return to Zion: The History of Modern Israel by Eric Gartman, which is a more comprehensive account from the beginning of the Zionist movement in the late 19^th century through just a few years ago, with fairly heavy emphasis on the wars that Israel has endured and the seemingly irreconcilable conflict with the Palestinians. After O Jerusalem it’s pretty dry reading, but quick, and I do feel like I’ve got a fair handle on the overall history up to just a few years ago.

 I took a break from trip prep reading to finally get around to Rod Dreher’s The Benedict Option. I also read a fascinating little book, John Wenham’s Easter Enigma: Are the Resurrection Accounts in Conflict, meticulously collating everything known about the various participants in the events of the Passion, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension of Our Lord – as well as the Evangelists – including their relationships and other connections – to demonstrate that contrary to conventional wisdom the apparent contradictions between the various accounts are easily explicable and the natural result of different points of view, perspectives, and interests. Wenham being Anglican, he does accept the modern Protestant contention that the “brothers of the Lord” mentioned at various points were blood-brothers of Jesus, children of Mary and Joseph, explaining away the multiplicity not just of names between two sets of siblings but even of the order of birth between those two sets as just because the names were so common during that time! The appendix where he “proves” that case is the weakest part of the book; everything else is top-notch. The slim volume is replete with little maps, diagrams, and schematics essentially reconstructing the known and reasonably conjectured movements of individuals and groups into an hour-by-hour, sometimes almost minute-by-minute account. At some point I would like to take the time to plot it all out on a large-scale map and maybe even attempt an animated PowerPoint version including the relevant scriptures and other primary sources into a unified audio-visual narrative. If nothing else, next time I teach Biblical History, I’m sure I’ll draw heavily from this book’s argument.

Wanting something with an even longer perspective, I turned to Jerusalem: The Biography by Simon Sebag Montefiore – I have only partially read this book at this point – and may not finish it…. I recently have been availing myself of digital borrowing privileges through my local parish library – but I was only about halfway through when my two-week check-out period expired and it wouldn’t let me renew it. Argh! I’d only made it up to the period of the Third Crusade in the late 12^th c., but had started picking up a lot of nuggets of information that I’d never known before – such as that the Armenian Cathedral is properly “St. Jameses’ Cathedral” because it is dedicated to both of the Apostles by that name, both the Greater (son of Zebedee and brother of John) and the Lesser (“brother” of Christ)! The earlier parts of the book – covering the history I’m pretty familiar with – were solid enough (albeit with a surprisingly secular slant), but after AD 70 it had really gotten good and I was looking forward to learning plenty more as I progressed through over a thousand years of Middle Eastern history that I know in only its broadest strokes. It’s fairly expensive in the Kindle edition, which makes me loath to purchase it when I’ve been reading it free so far…

Back soon after I committed to the pilgrimage, I ordered the travel guide for Jerusalem, Israel, Petra, and Sinai from the wonderful DK Eyewitness Travel series. Fully illustrated in color, with scads of cut-away schematic diagrams of the major sites as well as a pull-out city map for Jerusalem, I love these books – I’ve picked one up for every trip I’ve made in the past ten years, and have never regretted it. They do tend to be a little pricey, which is why I actually usually drop back a couple of years to the previous edition. I will have this with me on the ground, but it makes fascinating browsing leading up to the trip and on the long plane ride. … 

In any case, I just a few days ago discovered another book that may rival it in demanding my attention – The Holy Land for Christian Travelers: An Illustrated Guide to Israel, by John A. Beck. I initially purchased it on Kindle, but quickly saw that I would want a hard copy on the trip, so I have that as well. It does have a lot of illustrations, maps, and diagrams – although not nearly to the degree as the DK guide. As to the text, it seems to be far more of narrative rather than the terse descriptions offered by DK, and with a heavy emphasis on pulling in scriptural references. It is from a general Christian perspective. 

On the other hand, Rev. Charles Samson’s similar Come and See: A Catholic Guide to the Holy Land is explicitly Catholic. I just recently found this latter book, initially on Kindle but I immediately went ahead and ordered a copy which I received yesterday. It’s a bit smaller in format than I anticipated – including the print – very dense but in concept very much like Beck’s work except meticulously referenced and with considerable theological and spiritual discussion – “Issues Raised (what aspects of our faith are relevant to what we experience [at each location]; [and] Points of Reflection (in other words, how this spot might speak to you in your spiritual life, with special sections to aid seminarians in their formation to the priesthood)” (p. xix). It seems to have more illustrations, etc., than Beck, but they seem smaller and “muddier” – and it has very small type as well to fit it all in a mass market paperback size book; nevertheless I anticipate it will be a valuable companion to this pilgrimage and reference for years to come. Actually, I figure my day-pack will be weighted down by all three – plus my Bible, of course.

There is one final area of research I’m engaged in as preparation for this pilgrimage. I hesitate to mention it for a couple of reasons, and I’m not going into a whole lot of detail. It is not directly relevant to the Holy Land at all – but given this pilgrimage is under the auspices of Radio Maria, I feel like I need to be prepared if – when, I’m sure – the subject of the alleged apparitions of Our Lady at Medjugorje come up. Radio Maria was created, after all, in large part with the mission of spreading the news of Medjugorje and the alleged messages being imparted there on basically a daily basis – for over 35 years now. Medjugorje is, however, a controversial subject, and I certainly do not know what to make of it. The Catholic Church herself seems to not know what to make of it! The definitive statements on it made at the diocesan level have been uniformly negative – but in an odd move with regard to this particular area of popular piety the Vatican long ago assumed to itself final judgment, and then has essentially rendered no judgment. A final statement of a commission ordered by Pope Benedict XVI almost a decade ago has now been rumored to be imminent for several years; a year or so ago word leaked that the members had reached no consensus other than that the very earliest apparitions, the first week or so, may be of a supernatural character. It is a very polarizing subject, and one problem facing anyone trying to reach an impartial conclusion is that as far as I can tell not a single one of the many thousands of books about it approaches the question of authenticity with any objectivity. They are either all-in or all-out, telegraphing their position from virtually the first word and considering the opposing position pretty much (some times explicitly) born of the devil. It’s hard to even get a simple account of the history. I know good priests on both sides of the issue – virtually all of whom publicly adopt a “wait and see, let the Church decide” position but who clearly have very strong opinions on the matter when you get them talking.

All that being said, I am currently reading a book that may be as objective as they come – I’m only about a quarter of the way through it at this point, and at the very least the author has not telegraphed so blatantly what his conclusion is. I suspect I know what it’s going to be, but thus far it seems pretty balanced. Framed as a central case in a non-Catholic investigative journalist’s study of how the Church goes about inquiring into claims of mystical phenomena or saintly intercession, Randall Sullivan’s The Miracle Detective is, so far, quite an engaging read. But that is all I want to say about it at this point. (NOTE: I drafted the preceding last night [Sat 21 July], then before heading to bed I read his account of a profound religious experience when he first ascended Mt. Krizevac. Yes, I think I see where this book is going, but I’m going to persevere.)

UPDATE Wed 01 Aug: Well, yes, I finished The Miracle Detective. As I suspected, Sullivan is all-in on Medjugorje ... all-in. It is indeed "engaging," as I assessed it previously, but hardly "objective." I think it's ultimately more enlightening regarding the spiritual struggle Sullivan went through than it is about Medjugorje itself. What makes the former more interesting actually works to the detriment of the latter -- the book is far too impressionistic. Sullivan portrays himself as approaching the question rationally, but he really does not; over and over again with greater and greater frequency he tells us how he feels about a given witness, pretty much basing his assessment of their reliability on his own feeling rather than objectively weighing the facts. It is clear that, whether he believes in Medjugorje or not, he wants to believe -- and that desire to belief undercuts any claim to objectivity. For the purpose I read it, this book is ultimately a tremendous let down.