Dr Simon Smelt on NZ Baptist Union's Distortion of History

Dr Simon Smelt is an economist and historian. Here he responds to Dr Phillip Church's account of the history of Israel/Palestine, as promoted by New Zealand's Baptist Union.

Dr Simon Smelt on NZ Baptist Union's Distortion of History

I am responding to a series of 7 podcasts by Dr Philip Church published by the Baptist Union of NZ, titled “Biblical insights : the Gospel & the Land of the Bible” The podcasts last a total of 4 hours 25 minutes. Today, I’m commenting on history.

Few Kiwis will be familiar with the land’s long history since Biblical times. So is Dr Church a reliable and helpful guide? I’m afraid not. And that’s a thoroughgoing NO, not a “maybe” or “has some good bits” whatever your views on the present situation.

The trouble starts right away in Dr Church’s introduction. He begins with his visit to Jerusalem during the Feast of Tabernacles. No interest to Dr Church who remarks that to this day he has no idea why men were wandering around with plant branches. Not worth a 30 second search with Google to discover that the Feast of Tabernacles - or Booths - is one of the Lord’s feasts given in Leviticus, when the Jews erect frail booths with a few benches for a roof. They reside there for a few days to remind them of their time in the wilderness and dependency on the Lord.

Dr Church also misstates both the name and the purpose off the founders of Christchurch in Jerusalem.

So, not an encouraging start.

Dr Church’s Part 2:

With over 4 hrs of podcasts I was surprised by the little time spent on the history of the land. Part 2 of the podcast is a brave attempt at 4,000 years in 40 minutes. 100 years a minute.

Pre 20th C history is – understandably - just skimmed. What I noticed was areas Church chose to emphasise and areas he chose to omit.

BC: Dr Church emphasizes that the Land was under foreign control for most of the time. No mention that the Jewish Maccabees seize back control from the Greeks in 164BC after the Greek ruler Antiochus Epiphanates desecrates the Jerusalem temple.

The Romans take Jerusalem in 63BC. The rule of the Maccabees is the last period of consistent local control of the land until 1948 and the State of Israel. In both cases the Jews overcame a powerful empire. Britain’s departure in 1948 is very far from the cosy colonial hand over that is sometimes portrayed. Come to that later.

Back to the 1st C. Dr Church briefly mentions the two Jewish revolts against Rome, and the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple. He remarks that the Romans renamed the land Palestine and the Emperor Hadrian pushed the Jews out. After that, Church does not mention the Jews at all until we come to the 20thC.

He lays the impression that the Jews pretty much vanish after their revolts, whilst the name Palestine sticks. Wrong on both counts as I’ll show.

So far, a crude and unhelpful history. Dr Church marginalises the Jews in history (also in Scripture, discussed elsewhere.) Yet, Church is fascinated by the so called “10 lost tribes.” These are the tribes of the N kingdom of Israel which fell to the Assyrians in the late 8thC BC.

The two Jewish revolts against Rome come at huge cost to the Jews. No clear figures but their population is perhaps halved from possibly near 2 million to under 1 million by the mid 2ndC.

Hadrian boots the Jews out of Jerusalem, but not out of the land as whole, though some flee to Damascus and Baghdad. Much of the leadership decamps north to the Galilee where the Romans - like any conquerors – reach arrangements with them.

Over the subsequent period of Roman and Byzantine rule, the population grows to some 2 million, with the Jews probably in the majority in 2 of the 3 provinces. Far from vanishing then.

However, the Jewish population suffers oppression under imperial rule. And - sadly - particularly under the most Christian of the emperors.

Dr Church doesn’t touch on such unpleasantness, but he notes approvingly that from the time of Constantine in the 4th C, the land of the Bible becomes holy to the Christians and that this is further developed by the Crusaders later.

Islam

With the conquest of Jerusalem by Sultan Omar in 637, the new Muslim rulers prove more favourable to the Jews than their predecessors. Jews are allowed to settle in Jerusalem once more. When this Ummayid dynasty loses control of Mecca and Medina – the most holy places for Sunny Islam – they build the Al Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem on the site of the previous Jewish Temple, to establish another place of pilgrimage for Muslims. Over time interest in these under various Muslim dynasties waxes and wanes – sometimes falling into disrepair, sometimes refurbished.

When Saladin takes Jerusalem from the Crusaders in 1189, he – unsurprisingly – emphasizes its religious importance, sponsoring sermons and literature on that theme.

How do the Jews fair in all this? As the initial Ummayid dynasty weakens over time, its treatment of dimmini (non believers) toughens. In 720 Jews are banned from worshipping on Temple Mount. That ban remains in place to this day. When Israel took the Mount in 1967, it handed back control to the Islamic waqf in an attempt to minimise confrontation. It didn’t work.

Back to the first millennium. There are a succession of Muslim dynasties, with invasions coming from North, South and East. Arab rule fades out in the early 9th century and does not return. Muslim rule - Persian, Turkic, Kurdish - continues for most of the next 1,000 years but always the rule of non-Arab conquerors.

Crusaders invade from N, S, E, and then West. The Crusaders take Jerusalem in 1099 and slaughter and enslave the population. The Jews are burnt alive in their synagogue. A harsh introduction to those calling themselves Christians. But then they settle down.

Each new set of invaders brings their own set of armies, camp followers, officials, traders, farmers, and other opportunists in their wake. Making the population increasingly mixed. “Diverse” in the modern jargon.

For example, during Crusader rule, “Franks” – that is West Europeans - become some 25% of the population. Many are farmers who settle where the existing Christian population is concentrated. And over time they meld in

What we see is layer upon layer of settlement by diverse peoples as wars, bandits, famines, plagues, and earthquakes take their toll on existing populations. In the early 18th C Adrian Reland in the Netherlands meticulously gathers huge amounts of data from those returning from the Holy Land, rejecting dubious accounts. He draws up the first accurate topographical maps of the region and publishes a vast gazetteer recording details of even tiny settlements in Palestine. He reports much of the land utterly desolate, with few inhabitants outside semi-ruined towns. The largest Muslim settlement listed is Shchem (Nablus) with 120 people, plus 70 Samaritans. Jerusalem has the largest population of c5000, mostly Jews. Jews often work the land. Tiberius is mostly Jewish (engaged in fishing etc.) and Jews account for half of Gaza’s population, cultivating vineyards, olives and wheat. Other reports confirm Reland.

Again and again, archaeological evidence and written records point to periods of growth followed by disaster and depopulation, right up to the Victorian period. Scientific mapping shows the density of settlement in the mid 19th century far below that of the 16th century.

Amidst all this turmoil, and despite often harsh oppression, the Jews cling on. And cling on to their distinct identity: a people set apart by God: His chosen people in His promised land. Jews from the diaspora continue to visit and continue to settle in the land, even in terrible times. Travellers remark both on that oppression and the Jews’ tenacity.

Following Saladin’s conquest, 300 French and English rabbis set out for the Holy Land in 1212 – a major investment from the diaspora. But by the mid 13th century one traveller reports “very few inhabitants … because the people dwell in continual terror.” In 1267 the famed Jewish sage Nachmanides finds an impoverished Jewish community in the ruined city of Jersualem, with men and women come to weep over the Temple. He founds a synagogue and spends the remainder of his life in the Land. In the 14th century, under Papal bans, many Christian ships bar Jews from travelling toward the Holy Land. But, under pressure in Christendom, Jews see the land of Israel as a present source of comfort and refuge as well as their future hope. As one rabbi states “We have to be here for the sake of our ancestors and our children's children.”

None of this deserves mention by Dr Church.

It is said that Frederick the Great once asked his personal physician, Dr. Zimmermann, "Can you name me a single proof of the existence of God?" Zimmermann replied, "Your Majesty, the Jews!”.

Little peoples vanish once defeated. One alone remains and remains with its ancient scriptures and the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. And longing for its ancient homeland. Not good enough for Dr Church. No witness to God’s faithfulness to Israel. And no mention of Jewish dedication to the ancient Scripture and to the land. For Dr Church: Nothing to see here. Move along.

Indeed, Church is bothered by those who might think that there is anything to see here. Some he thinks are pretty near heretics. For him, the Jews’ presence in the land is an irritation, leading to error in the church. Dr Church favour lies with the 10 lost tribes.

So, not only how odd of God to choose the Jews but how odd of Him to allow the Jews to continue and – confusingly – even regain their homeland, thus appearing to validate Biblical prophecy.

Let’s be frank. The Jews and the State of Israel are an embarrassment. Show the wrong sympathies and one could be ejected from polite conversation. So, just put them aside as irrelevant at best, then one can nicely fit in with current narratives and thinking. Indeed, at the end of his podcasts Church suggests his listeners might go on a demo – he’s a bit too old for it – now that he has - so to speak - dealt with the Jewish problem.

Maybe a tempting offer. But the history behind it is wrong and misleading.

The Palestinians

Before we consider his discussion of the 20th century – and the need for demos: What about Palestine and the Palestinians?

When the Roman Emperor Hadrian renames the country Palestine, it is to punish the Jews, the majority population, for rebelling. Hadrian names their country Palestina after their ancient enemy, the Philistines. Later regimes continue with the name as a convenient label, until the Crusaders who call their conquest the Kingdom of Jerusalem. From that time on, Palestine was not used as the name of any administrative unit at any level – well, apart from 2 months under the Ottoman rulers - until the British arrived in 1917. Dr Church does not mention the 800 year gap.

And the Palestinians themselves?

An inhabitant of Jerusalem, Al-Maqdisi, in the late 10th century complains about the many Jews and Christians in the city. He refers to himself as a ‘Palestinian.’ After that, no report for eight centuries until 1898 when a translation of a Russian document mentions the “Palestinian peasant.” What fills the eight centuries of silence? Aside from scholarly sources using the term Palestina, there are occasional references to Filastin in religious and legal documents. That’s it. Today, these have somehow become evidence of the deep roots of “the concept of Palestine … in the collective consciousness of the indigenous people of Palestine.”

Them back there must think the way we do today.

There is no evidence that either Arab land-owners or the fellahin – the peasants that they exploited - thought of themselves in terms of a Palestinian identity. Such an identity is a European concept. What happens in the late 19th C is the impact of the Europeans who, unlike the Arab world, or Islam, think in terms of nations. European education with its classical, Roman roots, describes the Land as ‘Palestine.’ Western visitors refer to the country of ‘Palestine;’ Christian schools teach the ancient history of Palestine; Zionists set up the Anglo-Palestine Bank; etc. The term is taken up by the locals. With the British Mandate for Palestine, the word is in everybody’s face.

I go into this in more depth in my book.

In the early 20thc there are some references to the “Palestine community” and “Palestinians” among the small Arab middle class as a response to increasing Jewish immigration. But by far the dominant theme among local Arabs until the late 1960s is: pan-Arab nationalism and greater Syrian unity.

Until then, overwhelmingly, Palestine is simply treated as the name of a region. Palestinians are those who live there. Not an ethnicity, race, or identity. For example: In the 1930s and 40s American Jews use the slogan ‘Free Palestine’ to support the Zionist cause against the British. For example: When Jordan controls what is now called the West Bank from 1948 to 1967, Jordan’s parliament proclaims a complete political union and bans use of the term ‘Palestine.’ For example: In 1956, Ahmed Shukairy (representing Syria) tells the UN Security Council “It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria.” In 1964, he becomes first chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization. For example, Zuhair Muhsen, military commander of the PLO, states in 1977 “The Palestinian people does not exist … the existence of a separate Palestinian identity exists only for tactical reasons.” For example, in 2012 the Hamas Minister of the Interior, angry at lack of Egyptian support, says in a TV broadcast “Who are the Palestinians? Half are Egyptian and the other half are Saudi.”

This does not deter Dr Church who declares “Denying the name of Palestine is to deny indigenous people.” Those Arab leaders clearly need a NZ academic to correct their wrong-think.

But, isn’t there a long established and large indigenous Arab population, regardless of what they are called? Again, much more detail in my book. Invasions and depopulations see the population of the land rise and fall throughout the last 2 millennia.

The level of 2 million achieved under the Byzantines is not regained until the 1930s under the British. In the mid 19thC the land is still described as empty, and as losing population amidst the ruins of better times.

One major factor was massive raiding of Palestine’s arable lands by Bedouin from Arabia and from Egypt, - for example a tribal movement of one million from Arabia into Syria in the 17thC. In the 19thC, legal reforms undermine the standing of the fellahin and their agriculture. Archaeologists find villages were abandoned, then reinhabited, abandoned and so on and on in a wretched cycle stretching over centuries.

The 19thC saw successive waves of Muslim immigrants to the region, for example in the wake of an Egyptian occupation in the early 19th C. Then as refugees fleeing European advances against previously Muslim controlled territories.

Under the British Mandate in the 20thC, Arab immigration was officially very small. But the attraction of higher wages in a booming economy, together with rapid growth in the labour force, porous borders, and accounts of immigrant labour dominating the ports and railways and so forth - These give a very different picture. A picture of substantial Arab immigration.

In sum, a battered and highly mixed population, and with substantial non-Jewish immigration well into the 20th C.

In terms of the 20thC, Dr Church’s account becomes odder and odder.

He spends some time on the 1917 Balfour Declaration, the basis for Britain’s Palestine Mandate. He describes Balfour as an MP and a “sort of Christian.” Queried by his interviewer, whether Balfour was a Cabinet Minister, Church responds “Might have been a Minister, I don’t know.” So, though equipped to comment on the Balfour declaration and on Balfour’s faith, Church has not discovered that he was British Foreign Secretary at the time and the Balfour declaration was agreed by Cabinet and thus was government policy.

The Balfour declaration was addressed to Lord Rothschild. Our expert Dr Church anoints him “head of the Zionist Confederation.” Actually, he had no official position. Possibly the letter was addressed to him as the British government lacked a clear address for the Zionists whilst Rothschild, a supporter, had a posh house in London.

When the League of Nations ratifies the Mandate in 1922, it states “Recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.” I guess Dr Church would find that a most grievous error.

Dr Church then offers a weird parallel to the Mandate. He says it is as if NZ was to enable Tongans to resettle in Tasmania. Ponder that one. He’s implying Jews have as much connection to their homeland as Tongans have to Tasmania. And - setting aside NZ’s little known control of Tasmania - Britain took Palestine by conquest from the Turkish Ottoman Empire: one foreign empire succeeding another - as throughout the land’s history.

When it comes to the Mandate period, it gets weirder. Dr Church says that there were few Jews in Palestine until the 1940s, and mostly living in peace with their neighbours, and pre 1917 “few if any.”. Wrong. Beginning in the 1880s, new immigration by Jews escaping persecution added to the ancient Jewish settlements. Rising Jewish immigration leads to rising tensions. In 1929, over half the Jewish settlements are attacked and in Hebron, where the community got snack over 600 years, they are massacred. The Arab uprising of 1936-39 leads to a nasty three way brawl between the British, the Arabs and the Jews. However, most of the victims of the Arab uprising are of Arab on Arab violence as powerful families struggled for dominance.

The growth of Arab resistance to growing Jewish immigration under the Mandate is an important part of the land’s history for the Arabs. Ignored by Dr Church.

In his account, the picture of peace until the 1940s is shattered by Jewish terrorists attacking Arab communities. They seemingly come from nowhere. A sort of ‘Mars Invades’

When Israel declares independence in 1948, the invasion by five Arab armies, along with two irregular armies, is passed over swiftly by Dr Church - a minor detail. For him, the big thing is Palestinians being driven from their homes by the Israelis. The nakhba – the disaster.

It would take a long time to refute all the misconception and misinformation here. Read my book.

But briefly: In 1939, in the light of the Arab uprising With oil and imperial concerns. With war with Germany looming: London dumped the Balfour declaration. Instead, it sought alliance with the Arab powers whilst retaining control. The British ruthlessly prevented further Jewish immigration to Palestine even during the war and in its aftermath. Hence, the three- way fight - alas with atrocities all round.

The 1947 UN partition plan is based on demographics: the Jews get more but worse land which is also militarily indefensible. The Zionists accept, the Arabs reject and form a volunteer army to fight the Jews. Their slogan is “Itbah al Yahoud” (slaughter the Jews). Meantime, Jewish terrorists from the Irgun blow up the British HQ, with 91 deaths. The Zionist leadership end up fighting against the Irgun.

1948 on

With the defeat of the Arab armies, Israel gains more territory than under the UN partition plan. 500,000 or more members of the Arab population flee. At the time, Arab leaders accept most of the blame. The 1950 Arab Commission of Haifa finds that the majority of Arab refugees in 1948 were not expelled and 68% "left without seeing an Israeli soldier”. The Iraqi PM says “we ourselves were the ones who induced them to leave.” A British observer in Gaza records that the Gaza’s express: “No bitterness against the Jews, they speak with the utmost bitterness of the Egyptians and other Arab states.”

That story has changed since.

Dr Church omits to mention that in the wake of the UN partition plan and the defeat of the Arab invasion, the Arab states push out most of their own Jewish population. Two thirds come to Israel, making them the largest group in Israel’s population today.

Dr Church does mention the 2 million non-Jewish Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel. - out of 10m total. Full marks to Dr Church here; they are usually ignored in the media as complicating the story.

Church refers to them as Palestinians, which presumably sounds correct to him. But wrong. As repeated surveys have shown, Arab citizens of Israel mostly identify as Israelis. Indeed In 2024, when asked the “dominant element” in their personal identity, 33.9% state Israeli citizenship, 29.2% religious affiliation and 26.9% their Arab identity. 9% respond Palestinian. More wrong think by the locals.

While the Jewish population in Arab countries is now less than 1% of its 1948 level, the Arab population of Israel has increased more than tenfold. For every 100 Jews in Arab countries in 1948 there is now fewer than one. For every 100 Arabs in Israel in 1948 there are now more than 1,000. A ratio of more than one to one thousand makes clear where discrimination, oppression or any genocide lies.

That is the real background to the present situation. I guess too unbearable for Dr Church to consider.

I’ll conclude there. Elsewhere, I will comment on Dr Church’s treatment of the land promises in the Bible and associated Biblical insights. Sadly, his treatment of Scripture is as “imaginative” and reckless as his treatment of history.

For footnotes and background please see my book, From the River to the Sea: the Land in History and Prophecy.