What do you think?
Rate this book
Bible and Sword: England and Palestine from the Bronze Age to Balfour
From Barbara W. Tuchman, Pulitzer Prize–winning author of The Guns of August, comes history through a wide-angle a fascinating chronicle of Britain’s long relationship with Palestine and the Middle East, from the ancient world to the twentieth century. Historically, the British were drawn to the Holy Land for two major first, to translate the Bible into English and, later, to control the road to India and access to the oil of the Middle East. With the lucidity and vividness that characterize all her work, Barbara W. Tuchman follows these twin spiritual and imperial motives—the Bible and the sword—to their seemingly inevitable endpoint, when Britain conquered Palestine at the conclusion of World War I. At that moment, in a gesture of significance and solemnity, the Balfour Declaration of 1917 established a British-sponsored mandate for a national home for the Jewish people. Throughout this characteristically vivid account, Tuchman demonstrates that the seeds of conflict were planted in the Middle East long before the official founding of the modern state of Israel. Praise for Bible and Sword “Tuchman is a wise and witty writer, a shrewd observer with a lively command of high drama.”—The Philadelphia Inquirer “In her métier as a narrative popular historical writer, Barbara Tuchman is supreme.”—Chicago Sun-TimesFrom the Trade Paperback edition.
368 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1956
295 people are currently reading
2328 people want to read
About the author
Barbara W. Tuchman
53 books2,382 followersBarbara Wertheim Tuchman, historian, won a Pulitzer Prize for
The Guns of August
(1962) and for
Stilwell and the American Experience in China
(1971).
As an author, Tuchman focused on popular production. Her clear, dramatic storytelling covered topics as diverse as the 14th century and World War I and sold millions of copies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara...
As an author, Tuchman focused on popular production. Her clear, dramatic storytelling covered topics as diverse as the 14th century and World War I and sold millions of copies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 145 reviews
July 11, 2010
In the West we like to think that we are somewhat better than the other peoples of the world. At least one of the reasons we give for this, to us at least, self-evident superiority is our Judeo-Christian heritage. This heritage is what we refer to when we need to explain our sense of justice (and it is also often quoted as the actual source of our legal system as well as our systems of government – despite how diverse these are) while also being seen as the sole (soul?) source of our morality. I’ve always found this to be a very strange thing – not least because it is so evidently not the case. One might just as well say that Socrates is father of modern Biology because in one of the dialogues Plato mentions birds. When it comes to religion we are much more interested in seeds than we are in other endeavours, even when those ‘seeds’ weren’t actually the seeds that grew into the plants proliferating around us. But then, why let details get in the way of what has proven a remarkably reassuring story?
The questionable glories of the Judeo-Christian contribution to morality are, ironically enough, no where more disturbingly contradictory than in the behaviour of both Jews and Christians in what some like to refer to as the ‘holy land’. Think I’ve gone too far? Well, you really do need to look up how the Jews treated the locals when they first turned up in the holy land. That Moses guy even complained when his brethren only killed all the males and all the females that were not virgins; when clearly the ‘moral’ thing to do was to kill everything: male, female, child, adult and even their animals and then to also burn their homes. Unfortunately, this has been a bit of a repeated theme in the holy land – right down to the present – by both Jews and Christians. The tragedy that is Gaza today would not be possible without the massive US aid Israel receives - more than any other. Morality is a difficult concept in such circumstances and is probably better spoken about in very general terms, rather than dwelling in specifics.
This book is much more partisan than I have found other of Tuchman’s books. We are told at least three times from various sources during this book that the local Arabs had turned the garden that was Israel into the wasteland that was Palestine before the Jews returned. This is repeatedly presented as fact and never explained. The motivations of those stating such are never explored – the lives of the local Arabs are passed over as being temporary squatters on someone else’s land. No one is expected to pay any attention to their claims nor their lives. In fact, that is the thing that is so surprising about this book – it glories in the return of the wandering Jew, finally able to complete the prayer, ‘Next year in Jerusalem’ – while completely ignoring any claim hundreds of generations of Palestinian Arabs may have to the same stretch of land.
This is a terribly strange book. It presents itself as a history of the holy land between the Bronze Age and the Treaty of Balfour – but actually, it is a history with an exclusively Western focus. Don’t expect to learn anything from this book about the Arabs who lived on this land during the 1900 odd years while the Jews were absent.
I’m really not the right person to review this book. As someone born in Ireland and now living in Australia – I find the whole question of Nationality and Patriotism deeply troubling and (beware of understatement) quite problematic. In fact, whenever YOU use the P word I can only hear the N word. Patriotism, Nationalism – they are all much of a muchness to me while also being among the most frightening of human emotions.
Now, that being said, there is little question that the Jews have been treated unspeakably badly by Christians for a very, very long time. I’ve never quite understood why Christians have chosen to get quite so upset with Jews. This book reminds us that Jesus was a Jew, as were all of his original followers. In fact, it wasn’t really until Paul converted to the Cult of Christ (bringing with him all the passion of an ex-smoker) that the Jews started getting into trouble with the Christians. Again, I’ve never totally understood this, as even if the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus (although, I had always thought crucifixions a Roman, rather than Jewish death), given Jesus had to die to become Christ and thus redeem us of our sins, Jews would seem to have had more to be thanked for than punished over. But then again, such are the contortions of religion which I shall never understand.
One thing this book does make clear is how endlessly ‘pragmatic’ (that is, brutally amoral) people have been over the years in promising the Jews their ancient homeland. Neapolitan had no problem promising Palestine to the Jews, as did numerous British Prime Ministers, but not so much because they felt the Jews had been treated badly, as because they felt the Jews would act in ways favourable to their ambitions in empire building.
I’ve never really liked the idea that because we have been bad to the Jews for a very long time that should mean we should ship them off somewhere a long, long way out of our reach – as if Jews are a bit like chocolate to someone on a diet, you can’t really expect us to not mistreat them if they are right here among us, so the best solution all round is to hide them out of sight from temptation. As an Irishman I also struggle with the idea that centuries of mistreatment of my people by the English automatically entitles me to special treatment. I’m not very keen on the idea of blood rights – as those who claim them tend to need to enforce them over the blood of others.
As I’ve said, this book is a very partisan one and it has elicited a partisan response from me. My dream, and like all dreams it is based on impossibilities, is that one day there will be no nationalities and consequently no need for racism – if I thought there was anything I could bring that day closer, I would do it with pride. But people so love to be part of groups, people so desire to belong (particularly if those groups can be at the expense of other groups), I have little faith in my dream.
The questionable glories of the Judeo-Christian contribution to morality are, ironically enough, no where more disturbingly contradictory than in the behaviour of both Jews and Christians in what some like to refer to as the ‘holy land’. Think I’ve gone too far? Well, you really do need to look up how the Jews treated the locals when they first turned up in the holy land. That Moses guy even complained when his brethren only killed all the males and all the females that were not virgins; when clearly the ‘moral’ thing to do was to kill everything: male, female, child, adult and even their animals and then to also burn their homes. Unfortunately, this has been a bit of a repeated theme in the holy land – right down to the present – by both Jews and Christians. The tragedy that is Gaza today would not be possible without the massive US aid Israel receives - more than any other. Morality is a difficult concept in such circumstances and is probably better spoken about in very general terms, rather than dwelling in specifics.
This book is much more partisan than I have found other of Tuchman’s books. We are told at least three times from various sources during this book that the local Arabs had turned the garden that was Israel into the wasteland that was Palestine before the Jews returned. This is repeatedly presented as fact and never explained. The motivations of those stating such are never explored – the lives of the local Arabs are passed over as being temporary squatters on someone else’s land. No one is expected to pay any attention to their claims nor their lives. In fact, that is the thing that is so surprising about this book – it glories in the return of the wandering Jew, finally able to complete the prayer, ‘Next year in Jerusalem’ – while completely ignoring any claim hundreds of generations of Palestinian Arabs may have to the same stretch of land.
This is a terribly strange book. It presents itself as a history of the holy land between the Bronze Age and the Treaty of Balfour – but actually, it is a history with an exclusively Western focus. Don’t expect to learn anything from this book about the Arabs who lived on this land during the 1900 odd years while the Jews were absent.
I’m really not the right person to review this book. As someone born in Ireland and now living in Australia – I find the whole question of Nationality and Patriotism deeply troubling and (beware of understatement) quite problematic. In fact, whenever YOU use the P word I can only hear the N word. Patriotism, Nationalism – they are all much of a muchness to me while also being among the most frightening of human emotions.
Now, that being said, there is little question that the Jews have been treated unspeakably badly by Christians for a very, very long time. I’ve never quite understood why Christians have chosen to get quite so upset with Jews. This book reminds us that Jesus was a Jew, as were all of his original followers. In fact, it wasn’t really until Paul converted to the Cult of Christ (bringing with him all the passion of an ex-smoker) that the Jews started getting into trouble with the Christians. Again, I’ve never totally understood this, as even if the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus (although, I had always thought crucifixions a Roman, rather than Jewish death), given Jesus had to die to become Christ and thus redeem us of our sins, Jews would seem to have had more to be thanked for than punished over. But then again, such are the contortions of religion which I shall never understand.
One thing this book does make clear is how endlessly ‘pragmatic’ (that is, brutally amoral) people have been over the years in promising the Jews their ancient homeland. Neapolitan had no problem promising Palestine to the Jews, as did numerous British Prime Ministers, but not so much because they felt the Jews had been treated badly, as because they felt the Jews would act in ways favourable to their ambitions in empire building.
I’ve never really liked the idea that because we have been bad to the Jews for a very long time that should mean we should ship them off somewhere a long, long way out of our reach – as if Jews are a bit like chocolate to someone on a diet, you can’t really expect us to not mistreat them if they are right here among us, so the best solution all round is to hide them out of sight from temptation. As an Irishman I also struggle with the idea that centuries of mistreatment of my people by the English automatically entitles me to special treatment. I’m not very keen on the idea of blood rights – as those who claim them tend to need to enforce them over the blood of others.
As I’ve said, this book is a very partisan one and it has elicited a partisan response from me. My dream, and like all dreams it is based on impossibilities, is that one day there will be no nationalities and consequently no need for racism – if I thought there was anything I could bring that day closer, I would do it with pride. But people so love to be part of groups, people so desire to belong (particularly if those groups can be at the expense of other groups), I have little faith in my dream.
May 13, 2013
After finishing The Guns of August, which I thought was a real masterpiece, I was overcome with enthusiasm for Barbara Tuchman (Tuch-mania?) and decided to promptly go through her back catalog. Bible and Sword, her first published work, has an unusual (and ambitious focus). The book examines the relationship between England and the Holy Land over the past 2,000 years, and how that relationship led to the Balfour Declaration, a 1917 statement by Britain that it intended for Palestine (recently wrested from the dying clutches of the Ottoman Empire) to be a national home for the Jewish people. Tuchman’s thesis is basically that two driving influences shaped the relationship between Britain and Palestine, religion and economics (or the “Bible and Sword”), but she has a lot of ground to cover with a subject this vast, and the book has much to say on a variety of different topics.
Religion
It is easy to forget, or at least fail to appreciate, the overwhelming importance of the church in the daily life of Europeans for most of the Middle Ages. For centuries, the Bible was the only book that many people would read (if they could read at all), and they would read it over and over and over and over. Those who couldn’t read would go to great lengths to have it read to them. The end effect of all this was a mystical reverence for Palestine that (according to Tuchman) bored into the British psyche and led to otherwise irrational acts like long (and often deadly) pilgrimages, monotonous travel diaries becoming huge “bestsellers,” and the Crusades. Visitors to the Holy Land, who had read the Bible over and over (and over), often found that they knew the landmarks around Galilee better than, say, Wales.
Ultimately, the importance of the Bible meant that Palestine was considered hallowed ground from an early point in English history. Literal interpreters of the Bible believed that resettling the Jews in the Holy Land would facilitate the Second Coming. But even statesmen who took a less-than literal view of the Bible would often approach the “Palestine question” not from a purely rational perspective, but through the prism of a religious upbringing. Without the Bible, the Balfour Declaration (and ultimately, Israel) might never have happened.
Economics
While religion continued to play a major role in the way the British approached their relationship with Palestine, as time went on economics took on more and more importance. The region was a major trading post throughout the Renaissance, and became a very hot commodity during the Age of Imperialism: the British wanted control to facilitate their connections with India, the Russians wanted access to the Mediterranean, and even Napoleon tried to take it (unsuccessfully). Ultimately, everyone decided the most important thing was that none of the other major European powers had it, and they all let the Turks control it until the Ottoman Empire’s inevitable collapse. Economic interests kept Britain entangled in Palestinian affairs even during periods (like the 18th century) when religious fervor waned, and gave England a major incentive to keep the region under their thumb after World War I, even as a Jewish protectorate instead of a full-on colony.
Jewry
The Jewish perspective throughout all of this wrangling over the centuries was equally fascinating. Unique throughout human history, the Jews somehow maintained a sense of national identity for millennia without an actual nation to call their own. By the time that a Jewish state became a distinct possibility, many Western Jews were actually strongly opposed to it, to the bewilderment of the gentile community. Many of these men and women had become successful in their adopted countries, and were reluctant to overthrow their lives and move to the Palestinian desert. Instead, they thought the best course was to try and rise above the discrimination and occasional abuses they suffered, attempt to assimilate within the Western nations as best they could, and trust that in time they would be fully accepted. It was the Jews of Eastern Europe and Russia, much more impoverished and victimized than their Western kin (at the time), that carried the banner of Zion and enthusiastically supported the dream of a Jewish state. The book also discusses the failed attempt to establish a Jewish state in East Africa, which was completely new to me and fascinating.
Conclusion
Tuchman is as good as they come at making history come alive, and even in her debut the writing is razor-sharp and thoroughly engaging. I also thought that the subject was incredibly interesting. The only complaints I had were that (1) this book covers a lot of territory in under 450 pages, meaning that it doesn’t feel quite as focused as Tuchman’s later works, and (2) the book kind of buries the lead by stopping the narrative in 1917. This second criticism is the big one – in hindsight, the Balfour Declaration was ultimately just a stepping-stone to the creation of a Jewish state. It was admittedly a major stepping stone, but the events of the next 30 years (the decline of imperialism, World War II, and particularly the Holocaust) were to play a much larger role. Stopping the narrative at 1917 feels frustratingly incomplete. But ultimately, this book was very interesting, extremely well-written, and I would recommend it to anyone interested in the formation of Israel as a nation or the historical impact of religion on the British state. 4 stars.
Religion
It is easy to forget, or at least fail to appreciate, the overwhelming importance of the church in the daily life of Europeans for most of the Middle Ages. For centuries, the Bible was the only book that many people would read (if they could read at all), and they would read it over and over and over and over. Those who couldn’t read would go to great lengths to have it read to them. The end effect of all this was a mystical reverence for Palestine that (according to Tuchman) bored into the British psyche and led to otherwise irrational acts like long (and often deadly) pilgrimages, monotonous travel diaries becoming huge “bestsellers,” and the Crusades. Visitors to the Holy Land, who had read the Bible over and over (and over), often found that they knew the landmarks around Galilee better than, say, Wales.
Ultimately, the importance of the Bible meant that Palestine was considered hallowed ground from an early point in English history. Literal interpreters of the Bible believed that resettling the Jews in the Holy Land would facilitate the Second Coming. But even statesmen who took a less-than literal view of the Bible would often approach the “Palestine question” not from a purely rational perspective, but through the prism of a religious upbringing. Without the Bible, the Balfour Declaration (and ultimately, Israel) might never have happened.
Economics
While religion continued to play a major role in the way the British approached their relationship with Palestine, as time went on economics took on more and more importance. The region was a major trading post throughout the Renaissance, and became a very hot commodity during the Age of Imperialism: the British wanted control to facilitate their connections with India, the Russians wanted access to the Mediterranean, and even Napoleon tried to take it (unsuccessfully). Ultimately, everyone decided the most important thing was that none of the other major European powers had it, and they all let the Turks control it until the Ottoman Empire’s inevitable collapse. Economic interests kept Britain entangled in Palestinian affairs even during periods (like the 18th century) when religious fervor waned, and gave England a major incentive to keep the region under their thumb after World War I, even as a Jewish protectorate instead of a full-on colony.
Jewry
The Jewish perspective throughout all of this wrangling over the centuries was equally fascinating. Unique throughout human history, the Jews somehow maintained a sense of national identity for millennia without an actual nation to call their own. By the time that a Jewish state became a distinct possibility, many Western Jews were actually strongly opposed to it, to the bewilderment of the gentile community. Many of these men and women had become successful in their adopted countries, and were reluctant to overthrow their lives and move to the Palestinian desert. Instead, they thought the best course was to try and rise above the discrimination and occasional abuses they suffered, attempt to assimilate within the Western nations as best they could, and trust that in time they would be fully accepted. It was the Jews of Eastern Europe and Russia, much more impoverished and victimized than their Western kin (at the time), that carried the banner of Zion and enthusiastically supported the dream of a Jewish state. The book also discusses the failed attempt to establish a Jewish state in East Africa, which was completely new to me and fascinating.
Conclusion
Tuchman is as good as they come at making history come alive, and even in her debut the writing is razor-sharp and thoroughly engaging. I also thought that the subject was incredibly interesting. The only complaints I had were that (1) this book covers a lot of territory in under 450 pages, meaning that it doesn’t feel quite as focused as Tuchman’s later works, and (2) the book kind of buries the lead by stopping the narrative in 1917. This second criticism is the big one – in hindsight, the Balfour Declaration was ultimately just a stepping-stone to the creation of a Jewish state. It was admittedly a major stepping stone, but the events of the next 30 years (the decline of imperialism, World War II, and particularly the Holocaust) were to play a much larger role. Stopping the narrative at 1917 feels frustratingly incomplete. But ultimately, this book was very interesting, extremely well-written, and I would recommend it to anyone interested in the formation of Israel as a nation or the historical impact of religion on the British state. 4 stars.
May 24, 2020
Disappointing and troubling. Rarely has a text informed me so profoundly about an author’s willingness to bury any pretense at objectivity. Tuchman’s misrepresentation and diminution of Arabs does achieve a sort of backward pedagogical purpose by illuminating the endemic hubris of the West toward Arabs and the extent to which those who know better are willing to go to obscure the historical record. Were it not for my longstanding respect for Tuchman’s work, I would have set this book down for good. It gives me no joy to write this. I discovered my fascination for historical narrative as a sixth-grader, slogging through Tuchman’s A Distant Mirror. Later I came to The Guns of August and The Proud Tower and reveled in the lyricism of her voice and her skill at taking the temperature of bygone eras. The chapter on the Dreyfus Affair in the Proud Tower rivals any single volume on the topic. But with Bible and Sword, her first work, written in only a decade after the Holocaust, there was little motivation, I gather, to do serious research into non-Jewish perspectives on Palestine and the Middle East in general. To the extent that Tuchman’s lack of curiosity about alternative subjectivities represents her generation, the state of the region today is perhaps easier to understand. Terribly sad.
December 10, 2015
Having read and enjoyed a number of books by Tuchman I picked this up from a sale shelf at The Amarynth Bookstore in Evanston. Being her first book, it isn't as polished as her later bestsellers.
Basically, the book covers relations between Britain and Palestine from an English perspective. Although mention is made of possible prehistorical connections, more important are myths the British spun about such connections from remotest antiquity (the first Britons were a Lost Tribe) to the Balfour declaration at the end of WWI.
While a readable survey, I found some of her claims overstated. For instance, she writes that the Jews were "the only people on earth ever to retain national identity without a national territory" (p.224)--a statement which might upset some Kurds, among others.
Other essays by Tuchman make it clear that she was very pro-Israel and neglectful of the other inhabitants of the land now occupied by that state. While apparent herein, this perspective was not, to my eyes, obtrusive.
Basically, the book covers relations between Britain and Palestine from an English perspective. Although mention is made of possible prehistorical connections, more important are myths the British spun about such connections from remotest antiquity (the first Britons were a Lost Tribe) to the Balfour declaration at the end of WWI.
While a readable survey, I found some of her claims overstated. For instance, she writes that the Jews were "the only people on earth ever to retain national identity without a national territory" (p.224)--a statement which might upset some Kurds, among others.
Other essays by Tuchman make it clear that she was very pro-Israel and neglectful of the other inhabitants of the land now occupied by that state. While apparent herein, this perspective was not, to my eyes, obtrusive.
January 20, 2016
This is what you get when a hater writes a book. big fail for Barbara Tuchman. I really dont even understand how could she write books like "guns of august" if she researches her books same way she did here.
I don't understand how a "historian" says that the crusades were against the turks,, or how "portions of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo.." from McMahon–Hussein Correspondence becomes Palestine (all you need is some knowledge in Geography to figure out that this is Lebanon)
I will not talk about the more than 100 times she claims the Jews are the legitimate owners of the land of Palestine,,or about 10s of times she accused the Arabs and Muslims of transferring Palestine into barren land. I see that normal for a "hater" whom her eyes are totally clouded
I don't understand how a "historian" says that the crusades were against the turks,, or how "portions of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo.." from McMahon–Hussein Correspondence becomes Palestine (all you need is some knowledge in Geography to figure out that this is Lebanon)
I will not talk about the more than 100 times she claims the Jews are the legitimate owners of the land of Palestine,,or about 10s of times she accused the Arabs and Muslims of transferring Palestine into barren land. I see that normal for a "hater" whom her eyes are totally clouded
December 24, 2012
Meh. I found it difficult to concentrate on this book, and it was a chore to finish. Some of it was interesting. Some passages hinted at an anti-Arab bias. I'm glad I finished. I hope to move on to more interesting books on the subject.
July 29, 2014
This is Barbara Tuchman's first significant published work, released in 1956. For once my unfortunate combination of slow reading speed and propensity to be distracted from my reading by the pursuit of other avocations (e.g. I'm currently trying to use a computer program to teach myself to play the piano), has worked to my advantage as - at he time I started reading Bible and Sword back in April - conflict between Israel and it's Palestinian (and other Arab) antagonists was on the back burner of media attention as Secretary of State Kerry struggled without success to restart some kind of peace process for his boss, Pres. Obama. However. as I was nearing the end of this fine read, the Israel/Gaza conflict was a white hot topic across the media spectrum as hundreds of Hamas missiles slammed into Israeli territory daily and a ground invasion of Gaza (that finally came to pass) was imminent.
Even for someone already fairly well versed in the historical antecedents of the current conflict (see my reviews of "A Peace To End All Peace" by David Fromkin, "Righteous Victims" by Benny Morris, and "Jerusalem A Love Story" by Simon Sebag Montefiore), Tuchman's focused take on the single nation, England, that can arguably be said to have raised the very notion of Zionism well before the Jewish people themselves had reached a point where they could conceive of actually doing anything to get themselves back to the only true homeland they had ever had (rather than just sit and absorb endless abuse while waiting for G-d to fulfill his promise to send the Messiah to bring them home), laid the intellectual and political foundation for it, encouraged in significant ways the growth of the Zionist vision by encouraging it's early Jewish advocates, injected an open declaration of support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine and gave it the status of an official treaty obligation by making it part of the League of Nations Mandate, but then, succumbed to the demands of "real politíque" to cynically renege on the promises and obligations set forth in the Balfour Declaration by denying further Jewish Immigration into Palestine thus prompting Winston Churchill to say: "This is the breach, this is the violation of the pledge, this is the abandonment of the Balfour Declaration, this is the end of the vision, of the hope, of the dream", ultimately leading to the final shame of an English warship firing on the S.S. Exodus, a private vessel filled with Jewish refugees from the horrors of the Holocaust. All this Tuchman brings to light with what would come to be known as her characteristic command of the primary sources, and a writing style that makes real history as readable and arresting as a novel as she imparts, not just a parade of what events occurred, but the all important motivations - the why - as best as it can be understood from the actual thoughts and deeds of the principals.
This would be a perfect time to read this fine book.
Even for someone already fairly well versed in the historical antecedents of the current conflict (see my reviews of "A Peace To End All Peace" by David Fromkin, "Righteous Victims" by Benny Morris, and "Jerusalem A Love Story" by Simon Sebag Montefiore), Tuchman's focused take on the single nation, England, that can arguably be said to have raised the very notion of Zionism well before the Jewish people themselves had reached a point where they could conceive of actually doing anything to get themselves back to the only true homeland they had ever had (rather than just sit and absorb endless abuse while waiting for G-d to fulfill his promise to send the Messiah to bring them home), laid the intellectual and political foundation for it, encouraged in significant ways the growth of the Zionist vision by encouraging it's early Jewish advocates, injected an open declaration of support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine and gave it the status of an official treaty obligation by making it part of the League of Nations Mandate, but then, succumbed to the demands of "real politíque" to cynically renege on the promises and obligations set forth in the Balfour Declaration by denying further Jewish Immigration into Palestine thus prompting Winston Churchill to say: "This is the breach, this is the violation of the pledge, this is the abandonment of the Balfour Declaration, this is the end of the vision, of the hope, of the dream", ultimately leading to the final shame of an English warship firing on the S.S. Exodus, a private vessel filled with Jewish refugees from the horrors of the Holocaust. All this Tuchman brings to light with what would come to be known as her characteristic command of the primary sources, and a writing style that makes real history as readable and arresting as a novel as she imparts, not just a parade of what events occurred, but the all important motivations - the why - as best as it can be understood from the actual thoughts and deeds of the principals.
This would be a perfect time to read this fine book.
May 29, 2018
It’s difficult to study the last 2,000 years of world history without noticing Israel. Just sayin’. This book covers a good chunk of that time while various people, for various reasons, with wildly different interpretations of biblical prophecy, do everything in their power to force the fulfillment of those prophecies. 19 centuries later, it all worked out. I applaud the effort. That kind of determination deserves an honorable mention.
This is fascinating history of Britain’s relationship with Palestine. Recommended.
This is fascinating history of Britain’s relationship with Palestine. Recommended.
February 5, 2009
The book is a little unfinished for the modern reader as it ends in 1956 and Ms. Tuchman had no way of knowing how the state of Israel would develop. Still the premise and scholarship are both A1. She traces the history of England's connection to Palestine and the Jewish people from mythical pre Roman times right up to the partition of 1947. The twists and turns are fascinating and I recommend this book which is readable even to those who might not go in with a lot of knowledge on the subjects and figures presented.
August 7, 2012
cannot fathom how this author won a pulitzer for general non-fiction. taking comfort that it was only the 2nd year the prize was awarded, but still.
to call this book non-fiction is a giant stretch. nice footnotes. nice references. great story-telling abilities but absolute FAIL as a history book. historical fiction, sure. she writes like she was alive during the bronze age- which would be truly impressive, but isn't the case. do not ever use as a reference book. your professor/peers will laugh you out of the classroom/field.
filed under 'non-ficton' very very reluctantly.
to call this book non-fiction is a giant stretch. nice footnotes. nice references. great story-telling abilities but absolute FAIL as a history book. historical fiction, sure. she writes like she was alive during the bronze age- which would be truly impressive, but isn't the case. do not ever use as a reference book. your professor/peers will laugh you out of the classroom/field.
filed under 'non-ficton' very very reluctantly.
June 26, 2014
Interesting but too one sided for my taste
December 21, 2017
Wonderfully written.
June 1, 2013
I disagree almost entirely with the politics, but setting aside some of Tuchman's more egregiously false assumptions, privileged political presumptions, and bigoted religious biases regarding the issues, this book is still an essential tool for learning about and understanding the complicated history behind the relationship between Britain and Israel.
July 26, 2011
There was the odd bit of interest near the front, but more than half the book (basically the last half+) was really just people making statements etc that was incredibly boring and I didn't really care for.
August 13, 2019
(The English review is placed beneath Russian one)
Книга стала большим разочарованием, особенно после прочтения другой книги автора «Августовские пушки», которая была написана просто и интересно. Но данная книга явилась, лично для меня, полной её противоположностью. Во-первых, книга невероятно скучна. Не цепляет. Ощущение что читаешь какой-то учебник истории с его главной целью – предоставить голые факты. Во-вторых, довольно существенное количество ошибок как грамматических, так и фактических (постоянные комментарии переводчика о том, что автор явно что-то спутала). В-третьих, сама основа книги как таковая. Мне трудно назвать это историей Англии и Палестины. Это скорее история того, как еврейский народ возвращался на территорию Палестины, как сражался за Иерусалим. Англия упоминается скорее как главный оплот евреев, как главный их помощник. Т.е. если и затрагивается история Англии, то только тогда, когда это как-то связанно с еврейским народом. Это не самостоятельная история Англии. Да, автор изредка знакомит нас с определёнными событиями происходившими в Англии, но я не нашёл их достаточно убедительными, чтобы сказать, что это именно история Англии. Скорее это попытка «чтобы было похоже».
За всё то время, что я читал книгу, я два раза думал бросить чтение. Не только по вышеназванным причинам, но и потому, что уж очень много религиозного подмешано. Да, описываемая тема невозможна без ссылок на Библию, Ветхий Завет и пр., но можно же это сделать с тем учётом, что книгу будут читать люди, далёкие от всякой религии. К тому же, это существенно замедляет процесс чтения, т.к. автор добавляет солидную горсть цитат из религиозных текстов, читать которые просто невозможно. Зачем столько? Я уже не говорю про то, что это придаёт книге не научный, а религиозный привкус.
Если говорить о самом сюжете, то он заключается в том, чтобы показать, как история Англия связана с историей Палестины и еврейским народом. Т.е. от крестовых походов до распада Османской империи. По существу, это как раз, если верить автору, Библия и меч. Т.е. на всём протяжении книги мы будем наблюдать, как Англия то мечем, прокладывала себе дорогу до Палестины, мечтая получить важную стратегическую точку (для той же торговли, к примеру). То её мысли (мотивы) были полностью религиозного толка, т.е. ей руководила уже Библия. Так, автор рассказывает о разных общественных группах в Англии, которые считали саму Англию (людей, что проживали в ней) одним из потерянных колен Израилевых, то, что именно Англия должна вернуть долг (Израиль) евреям, то, что именно она должна христианизировать евреев. Читая книгу, постоянно возникало странное ощущение. Например, чуть ли не каждый герой книги (знаменитый англичанин) наизусть знает Ветхий завет, и что для него нет более значимой книги. И это касается англичан! Правда или нет, но книга представляет англичан как самых близких союзников евреев. Насколько это соответствует действительности, я не берусь судить.
Хочу сразу пояснить, что проблема не в истории движения евреев в Палестину. Проблема в неинтересности текста. В противном случаи, мне было бы интересно читать и историю евреев, т.к. главное, чтобы было интересно. Увы, но это не касается данной книги.
The book became a great disappointment, especially after reading another book by the author "The Guns of August", which was written simply and interestingly. But this book was, for me personally, the exact opposite of it. First, the book is incredibly boring. You have the feeling that you are reading a history book with its main purpose - to provide naked facts. Secondly, there are quite a lot of mistakes, both grammatical and factual (constant comments of the translator that the author obviously confused something). Third, the very backbone of the book. It is difficult for me to call it the history of England and Palestine. Rather, it is the story of how the Jewish people returned to the territory of Palestine, how they fought for Jerusalem. England is mentioned more as the main stronghold of the Jews, as their main helper. That is, if the history of England is touched upon, then only when it is somehow connected with the Jewish people. This is not an independent history of England. Yes, the author occasionally introduces us to certain events that took place in England, but I did not find them convincing enough to say that it is the history of England. It's more like an attempt to "make it look like".
During all the time that I've read the book, I thought twice about quitting reading. Not only for the above reasons, but also because so many religious stuff was involved. Yes, the theme is impossible without references to the Bible, the Old Testament, etc., but it can be done with the fact that the book will be read by people who are far from all religions. In addition, it significantly slows down the process of reading, as the author adds a solid handful of quotes from religious texts, which are simply impossible to read. Why so much? I'm not talking about the fact that it gives the book not a scientific, but a religious flavor.
If we talk about the story itself, it is to show how the history of England is connected with the history of Palestine and the Jewish people. That is, from the Crusades to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Essentially, this is exactly the Bible and Sword. That is, throughout the book, we will see how England with its sword was making its way to Palestine, dreaming of getting an important strategic point (for example, for trade). Then its thoughts (motives) were completely religious, i.e. it was already led by the Bible. Thus, the author tells about different social groups in England, which considered England itself (the people who lived in it) as one of the lost tribes of Israel, that England should pay back the debt (Israel) to the Jews, that it should Christianize the Jews. Reading the book, there was always a strange feeling. For example, almost every character in the book (the famous Englishman) knows the Old Testament by heart, and that there is no more important book for him. And this applies to the English! True or false, the book presents the English as the closest allies of the Jews. As far as this is true, I do not judge.
I want to make it clear at once that the problem is not in the history of the Jewish movement in Palestine. The problem is the lack of interest in the text. Otherwise, I would be interested in reading the history of the Jews as well, as long as it is interesting. Alas, but this does not apply to this book.
Книга стала большим разочарованием, особенно после прочтения другой книги автора «Августовские пушки», которая была написана просто и интересно. Но данная книга явилась, лично для меня, полной её противоположностью. Во-первых, книга невероятно скучна. Не цепляет. Ощущение что читаешь какой-то учебник истории с его главной целью – предоставить голые факты. Во-вторых, довольно существенное количество ошибок как грамматических, так и фактических (постоянные комментарии переводчика о том, что автор явно что-то спутала). В-третьих, сама основа книги как таковая. Мне трудно назвать это историей Англии и Палестины. Это скорее история того, как еврейский народ возвращался на территорию Палестины, как сражался за Иерусалим. Англия упоминается скорее как главный оплот евреев, как главный их помощник. Т.е. если и затрагивается история Англии, то только тогда, когда это как-то связанно с еврейским народом. Это не самостоятельная история Англии. Да, автор изредка знакомит нас с определёнными событиями происходившими в Англии, но я не нашёл их достаточно убедительными, чтобы сказать, что это именно история Англии. Скорее это попытка «чтобы было похоже».
За всё то время, что я читал книгу, я два раза думал бросить чтение. Не только по вышеназванным причинам, но и потому, что уж очень много религиозного подмешано. Да, описываемая тема невозможна без ссылок на Библию, Ветхий Завет и пр., но можно же это сделать с тем учётом, что книгу будут читать люди, далёкие от всякой религии. К тому же, это существенно замедляет процесс чтения, т.к. автор добавляет солидную горсть цитат из религиозных текстов, читать которые просто невозможно. Зачем столько? Я уже не говорю про то, что это придаёт книге не научный, а религиозный привкус.
Если говорить о самом сюжете, то он заключается в том, чтобы показать, как история Англия связана с историей Палестины и еврейским народом. Т.е. от крестовых походов до распада Османской империи. По существу, это как раз, если верить автору, Библия и меч. Т.е. на всём протяжении книги мы будем наблюдать, как Англия то мечем, прокладывала себе дорогу до Палестины, мечтая получить важную стратегическую точку (для той же торговли, к примеру). То её мысли (мотивы) были полностью религиозного толка, т.е. ей руководила уже Библия. Так, автор рассказывает о разных общественных группах в Англии, которые считали саму Англию (людей, что проживали в ней) одним из потерянных колен Израилевых, то, что именно Англия должна вернуть долг (Израиль) евреям, то, что именно она должна христианизировать евреев. Читая книгу, постоянно возникало странное ощущение. Например, чуть ли не каждый герой книги (знаменитый англичанин) наизусть знает Ветхий завет, и что для него нет более значимой книги. И это касается англичан! Правда или нет, но книга представляет англичан как самых близких союзников евреев. Насколько это соответствует действительности, я не берусь судить.
Хочу сразу пояснить, что проблема не в истории движения евреев в Палестину. Проблема в неинтересности текста. В противном случаи, мне было бы интересно читать и историю евреев, т.к. главное, чтобы было интересно. Увы, но это не касается данной книги.
The book became a great disappointment, especially after reading another book by the author "The Guns of August", which was written simply and interestingly. But this book was, for me personally, the exact opposite of it. First, the book is incredibly boring. You have the feeling that you are reading a history book with its main purpose - to provide naked facts. Secondly, there are quite a lot of mistakes, both grammatical and factual (constant comments of the translator that the author obviously confused something). Third, the very backbone of the book. It is difficult for me to call it the history of England and Palestine. Rather, it is the story of how the Jewish people returned to the territory of Palestine, how they fought for Jerusalem. England is mentioned more as the main stronghold of the Jews, as their main helper. That is, if the history of England is touched upon, then only when it is somehow connected with the Jewish people. This is not an independent history of England. Yes, the author occasionally introduces us to certain events that took place in England, but I did not find them convincing enough to say that it is the history of England. It's more like an attempt to "make it look like".
During all the time that I've read the book, I thought twice about quitting reading. Not only for the above reasons, but also because so many religious stuff was involved. Yes, the theme is impossible without references to the Bible, the Old Testament, etc., but it can be done with the fact that the book will be read by people who are far from all religions. In addition, it significantly slows down the process of reading, as the author adds a solid handful of quotes from religious texts, which are simply impossible to read. Why so much? I'm not talking about the fact that it gives the book not a scientific, but a religious flavor.
If we talk about the story itself, it is to show how the history of England is connected with the history of Palestine and the Jewish people. That is, from the Crusades to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Essentially, this is exactly the Bible and Sword. That is, throughout the book, we will see how England with its sword was making its way to Palestine, dreaming of getting an important strategic point (for example, for trade). Then its thoughts (motives) were completely religious, i.e. it was already led by the Bible. Thus, the author tells about different social groups in England, which considered England itself (the people who lived in it) as one of the lost tribes of Israel, that England should pay back the debt (Israel) to the Jews, that it should Christianize the Jews. Reading the book, there was always a strange feeling. For example, almost every character in the book (the famous Englishman) knows the Old Testament by heart, and that there is no more important book for him. And this applies to the English! True or false, the book presents the English as the closest allies of the Jews. As far as this is true, I do not judge.
I want to make it clear at once that the problem is not in the history of the Jewish movement in Palestine. The problem is the lack of interest in the text. Otherwise, I would be interested in reading the history of the Jews as well, as long as it is interesting. Alas, but this does not apply to this book.
December 13, 2024
Fascinating in some parts, but pretty dry throughout. I like boring books, but this one was a bit of a slog even for me. It was comprehensive, but maybe too much so. The book was filled with so much new-to-me information, yet I’m having a hard time remembering what I really learned.
December 2, 2017
What can one say, Barbara Tuchman is a great history writer. And this, the book before she broke Huge with The Zimmerman Telegram, is no exception. This is the tortured tale of Britain's relationship with Palestine the Land, Palestine the religious concept, Jews, Arabs, and the Turks from Seljuks to Ottomans. It's not a simple milieu, but of course Tuchman is there to hold one's hand and guide one from idea to idea. She really does go back a long way, so Dark Ages and Medieval themes and history come into play, as does the reformation and counter reformation as the two streams of Christianity become more than four, and politicize. Of course in Parallel, the Porte is unifying an empire, but all the time maintaining contact with a particularly distant power-England. From 1600 on- as the British Empire waxes- that of the Sultan wanes, and we have the proto-colonial/imperial tendrils begin to seek concessions in Greater Syria/Egypt, the two provinces that alternated control over what we now know as Israel/Palestine. The book it at its best though at the later parts where she's able to show the actions/motivations of key players Like Balfour, Lloyd George, Sykes and Chaim Weizman, in the 1917 Gaza/Jaffa Campaign in WWI, the Balfour Declaration, and the creation of the Mandate. She's able to explain why, pre Holocaust, Western Jews were far less Zionist than their Eastern European, Official Pogrom-scarred brethren, and why many other subtle influences effect the flow of this particular history. I will say that the Indigenous Voice of the Palestinian Arabs is Notably Absent, in this book, replaced by far more interest in the thoughts of Iraqi/Jordanian/Saudi rulers, but then that is more a reflection of the times, when the Palestinian ethnic was more subsumed within a Jordanian identity, before the 6 Day War rent it asunder. Junior readers will find this a challenge, but one well worth the struggle. My Military Enthusiast/Gamer/Modeller audience may want to pass it up, although it is a GREAT deep background book to understand underlying Middle Eastern Frictions since 1917.
July 11, 2012
As always, Tuchman's narrative prose is pleasant and her methodology is a bit problematic. However, where usually the strength of her narrative outweighs her other flaws, something about Bible and Sword just doesn't come together correctly. Rather than being a history of Zionism, this book is more of a panoramic history of the British intellectual debate over the idea of of Jewish state in Palestine; which is how you get a massive chapter on the history of the crusades and exactly no chapters on pre-19th century Jewish intellectuals. Furthermore, especially in light of modern history, her focus on the Balfour declaration (and refusal to go into the post-1919 world at all, despite her revision in in the mid 80s) seems arbitrary and not terribly convincing. And while Tuchman has a flair for bringing historical personalities to life (the kind of thing that I find appalling as an historian, yet delightful as a reader) the breadth of her scope precludes doing this to any significant degree. Ultimately, this Tuchman volume failed to hold my interest.
January 22, 2013
As always, Tuchman is simply brilliant. I would give it five stars except that as her first book, it suffers a bit style wise compared to the others. It is as much a history of the Reformation as it is a history of the Jews' struggle to survive in Europe without a homeland of their own. An amazing story about diplomacy, politics and war. Read this first and then Exodus.
April 20, 2013
Drags a little toward the end, with the murkiness of British politics. Overall, a fascinating read.
May 5, 2023
Reading Tuchman’s highly regarded later works, namely The Guns of August and A Distant Mirror, piqued my interest in exploring her earlier catalogue. Published in 1956 at the dawn of Tuchman’s prolific writing career, Bible and Sword attempts nothing less than to outline the entirety of England’s relationship with the Holy Land from the dawn of recorded history up to and including World War 1 and the Balfour Declaration.
While a noble effort, I found Bible and Sword to be middling and not nearly as engaging as her subsequent books for several reasons.
As many other reviews have pointed out, the subtitle “England and Palestine from the Bronze Age to Balfour” can be misleading. Based on this subtitle, I was expecting the book to focus on narratives from both England and Palestine and then to focus on the confluence of those narratives. Instead, most of the book seemed to take an Anglocentric view of events and focused on storylines only insofar as they concerned the English. I felt a rich Palestinian side of events was left out in many cases.
I found particularly concerning the book’s view of British policy towards Arabs during World War 1 and immediately thereafter. To my limited understanding, Skyes-Picot, among other British maneuvers and machinations, were at best negligent and at worse treacherous, yet the book seemed to excuse British foreign policy of most wrongdoing. Imperial schemes are still reverberating in a negative sense throughout the region today and to write them off as well-intentioned efforts or mere mistakes is to absolve the policymakers of potential myopic and maligned motives which have led to more than a century of bloodshed in the region.
Finally, the narrative style of this book was, for whatever reason, not compelling to me. Covering such a large topic and large timeframe made focus on any time period or person for long an impossibility, and details that were added seemed at times pedantic.
Despite all of this, the book gives an interesting insight into the life of English and continental Jews in the common era. I especially enjoyed Tuchman’s treatment of the opinions of international Jewry regarding a potential Jewish state leading up to and including the world war. Also of interest was the discussion of Britain’s offer to establish a Jewish state in East Africa.
All in all, Bible and Sword is a readable, if not particularly remarkable, work of non-fiction.
While a noble effort, I found Bible and Sword to be middling and not nearly as engaging as her subsequent books for several reasons.
As many other reviews have pointed out, the subtitle “England and Palestine from the Bronze Age to Balfour” can be misleading. Based on this subtitle, I was expecting the book to focus on narratives from both England and Palestine and then to focus on the confluence of those narratives. Instead, most of the book seemed to take an Anglocentric view of events and focused on storylines only insofar as they concerned the English. I felt a rich Palestinian side of events was left out in many cases.
I found particularly concerning the book’s view of British policy towards Arabs during World War 1 and immediately thereafter. To my limited understanding, Skyes-Picot, among other British maneuvers and machinations, were at best negligent and at worse treacherous, yet the book seemed to excuse British foreign policy of most wrongdoing. Imperial schemes are still reverberating in a negative sense throughout the region today and to write them off as well-intentioned efforts or mere mistakes is to absolve the policymakers of potential myopic and maligned motives which have led to more than a century of bloodshed in the region.
Finally, the narrative style of this book was, for whatever reason, not compelling to me. Covering such a large topic and large timeframe made focus on any time period or person for long an impossibility, and details that were added seemed at times pedantic.
Despite all of this, the book gives an interesting insight into the life of English and continental Jews in the common era. I especially enjoyed Tuchman’s treatment of the opinions of international Jewry regarding a potential Jewish state leading up to and including the world war. Also of interest was the discussion of Britain’s offer to establish a Jewish state in East Africa.
All in all, Bible and Sword is a readable, if not particularly remarkable, work of non-fiction.
September 3, 2018
This book, a find among the $1 bargains at The Word bookstore on Milton St. became my introduction to the superb popular historical writer, Barbara Tuchman. If I took it home from the store it was because it promised to enlarge my understanding of history connecting these dots together: Britain's fable of Brutus / Gomer pre-Celt ancestors, early pilgrimages to the Holy Land, the Crusades, the Bible in English, the Puritans, Lord Shaftesbury, Benjamin Disraeli, Lord Kitchener, Theodore Herzl, Zionists, and finally culminating in the Balfour declaration and the British mandate in Palestine.
The writer had me right from the preface when she explained why she finished this book at the Balfour declaration (2nd of November 1917) and the British mandate and left out the subsequent turbulent history that had evolved before this book was published in 1956. She states "As regards the fortunes of the Jews and of Israel, I am not detached but emotionally involved. That may be permissible - or unavoidable - to a journalist... but it invalidates the work of a historian. I found this out when, at the request of the original publisher, I tried indeed to carry the narrative through the Mandate to 1948. It turned into polemic."
It turns out that I have access to other Barbara Tuchman e-books and audio books through the Ontario Library Consortium (thanks to Baysville library) and the Bibliotheque et Archives Nationales de Quebec. I currently have three of these on loan. Let's just say that Barbara Tuchman is a historical writer well worth reading.
The writer had me right from the preface when she explained why she finished this book at the Balfour declaration (2nd of November 1917) and the British mandate and left out the subsequent turbulent history that had evolved before this book was published in 1956. She states "As regards the fortunes of the Jews and of Israel, I am not detached but emotionally involved. That may be permissible - or unavoidable - to a journalist... but it invalidates the work of a historian. I found this out when, at the request of the original publisher, I tried indeed to carry the narrative through the Mandate to 1948. It turned into polemic."
It turns out that I have access to other Barbara Tuchman e-books and audio books through the Ontario Library Consortium (thanks to Baysville library) and the Bibliotheque et Archives Nationales de Quebec. I currently have three of these on loan. Let's just say that Barbara Tuchman is a historical writer well worth reading.
February 27, 2022
I listened to the audiobook which is extremely well narrated. I somehow missed the role of Joseph of Arimathea in England's origin story and found it fascinating how the bits of mythology combine. As expected with Tuchman, the book is well-researched and presents nearly 2000 years of history concisely.
November 13, 2023
Fascinating if dense and fast telling of the miracle that is the state of Israel and Great Britain's role in it. Tuchman is our new favorite history writer.
August 1, 2025
Barbara Tuchman always paints a fantastic narrative.
October 11, 2022
Favorite Quote = “For, as Professor Turner has pointed out, “history originated as myth” and becomes a “social memory” to which men can appeal, “knowing it will provide justification for their present actions or convictions.”
August 3, 2019
I read The Guns of August and decided to read the author's other books as well. I found this book by chance and started at once because of Barbara's prose style. This book also served my interest in Arab-Israel conflict and history in general.
This book takes you on a journey. A journey covering all the ingredients which were necessary for the final recipe known as Balfour Declaration. She likes to uncover the roots of the matter from each and every perspective. This was exactly what i wanted. A clear picture from the beginning.
Moreover I was given an assignment for a book review on any book. I chose this book. Here is my review:
INTRODUCTION:
1. This book was first published in 1956. The author is famous for her history books. Her book The Guns of August won a Pulitzer Prize. This book is about the interplay of Bible and Sword i.e. Religion and Military and the role they played in the arrival of British in Palestine and subsequently the Jews. This book traces out the history of Britain to find out exactly how and when the idea of Jewish return to Palestine came into existence. It all started much before the Zionist Movement.
SUMMARY:
2. This book starts with British people trying to find their ancestors. Who came to Britain in the beginning of time and from where did they come here. Myths were circulated about the first man to be from modern day Palestine. Myths became reality and were accepted as truth. On the other hand priests were trying to find how Christianity came here. This was also somehow attributed to a man who came from Palestine. So the attachment with Palestine was fixated on the minds of British people. This attachment was transformed into pilgrimage to Holy Land with the guarantee of salvation and forgiveness. Then came the time of Crusades to aid their brethren from the wrath of Saracens. Lords Shaftesbury came into the picture around 15th century as part of Puritan Movement. He was a literal believer of Bible in which it was written that people of the Land of Israel have to be returned before there can be second advent of Jesus Christ. He was part of the government and pushed this idea forward. Puritan Movement ended but this idea remained. The problem was that Jews themselves did not want to return. They believed only Messiah could make them return. This belief took time and rise of anti-Semitism to change. The idea of Jewish return to Palestine was pushed further and further. It was promoted sometimes for religious reasons and mostly for other reasons. It found its way to the British Parliament as well. Baron Rothschild of France funded different settlement projects. Finally in 1882 the pioneer Jewish settlers were established in Jerusalem. But this was all before Theodore Hertzl who was the father Zionist Movement. He wrote Der Judenstaat (“The Jewish State”) in 1885. After which he started struggling for the return of the Jews. He failed in several times but didn’t back off. Finally he was told that Jews can make an independent state in Africa not in Palestine. He agreed but his supporters didn’t. Hertzl died at the age of 44 before even the Balfour Declaration. After him Weizmann took this movement further. Syria which included Palestine at that time was strategically very important to British. It was a passageway to East. Mediterranean Sea to Red Sea was the main passage. British supported dying Ottoman Empire till the very last. This support was stopped in 1914 when the Caliph decided to be with Germans in the First World War. Weizmann had a meeting with Balfour and the former highly impressed latter. Balfour was now convinced that the time had come to fulfill the words of Bible. Balfour had studied Bible since childhood and was an avid believer of Return of the Jews to the Promised Land. After the First World War, Balfour Declaration gave the Jews their promised land. British tried to disown the Declaration later but it was too late. Britain was not able to carry out the Mandate until 1946 when the issue was put forward to United Nations.
CONCLUSION:
3. Barbara has a unique style of telling history like a story. This style maintains a grip on the reader. She remained unbiased throughout the book telling the things the way they happened from different perspectives. Sometimes just for the fear of not missing something she has provided extra details. I wanted to study the roots of the Arab-Israel conflict, which holds a major place in global geopolitics, and this book served my purpose very well.
This book takes you on a journey. A journey covering all the ingredients which were necessary for the final recipe known as Balfour Declaration. She likes to uncover the roots of the matter from each and every perspective. This was exactly what i wanted. A clear picture from the beginning.
Moreover I was given an assignment for a book review on any book. I chose this book. Here is my review:
INTRODUCTION:
1. This book was first published in 1956. The author is famous for her history books. Her book The Guns of August won a Pulitzer Prize. This book is about the interplay of Bible and Sword i.e. Religion and Military and the role they played in the arrival of British in Palestine and subsequently the Jews. This book traces out the history of Britain to find out exactly how and when the idea of Jewish return to Palestine came into existence. It all started much before the Zionist Movement.
SUMMARY:
2. This book starts with British people trying to find their ancestors. Who came to Britain in the beginning of time and from where did they come here. Myths were circulated about the first man to be from modern day Palestine. Myths became reality and were accepted as truth. On the other hand priests were trying to find how Christianity came here. This was also somehow attributed to a man who came from Palestine. So the attachment with Palestine was fixated on the minds of British people. This attachment was transformed into pilgrimage to Holy Land with the guarantee of salvation and forgiveness. Then came the time of Crusades to aid their brethren from the wrath of Saracens. Lords Shaftesbury came into the picture around 15th century as part of Puritan Movement. He was a literal believer of Bible in which it was written that people of the Land of Israel have to be returned before there can be second advent of Jesus Christ. He was part of the government and pushed this idea forward. Puritan Movement ended but this idea remained. The problem was that Jews themselves did not want to return. They believed only Messiah could make them return. This belief took time and rise of anti-Semitism to change. The idea of Jewish return to Palestine was pushed further and further. It was promoted sometimes for religious reasons and mostly for other reasons. It found its way to the British Parliament as well. Baron Rothschild of France funded different settlement projects. Finally in 1882 the pioneer Jewish settlers were established in Jerusalem. But this was all before Theodore Hertzl who was the father Zionist Movement. He wrote Der Judenstaat (“The Jewish State”) in 1885. After which he started struggling for the return of the Jews. He failed in several times but didn’t back off. Finally he was told that Jews can make an independent state in Africa not in Palestine. He agreed but his supporters didn’t. Hertzl died at the age of 44 before even the Balfour Declaration. After him Weizmann took this movement further. Syria which included Palestine at that time was strategically very important to British. It was a passageway to East. Mediterranean Sea to Red Sea was the main passage. British supported dying Ottoman Empire till the very last. This support was stopped in 1914 when the Caliph decided to be with Germans in the First World War. Weizmann had a meeting with Balfour and the former highly impressed latter. Balfour was now convinced that the time had come to fulfill the words of Bible. Balfour had studied Bible since childhood and was an avid believer of Return of the Jews to the Promised Land. After the First World War, Balfour Declaration gave the Jews their promised land. British tried to disown the Declaration later but it was too late. Britain was not able to carry out the Mandate until 1946 when the issue was put forward to United Nations.
CONCLUSION:
3. Barbara has a unique style of telling history like a story. This style maintains a grip on the reader. She remained unbiased throughout the book telling the things the way they happened from different perspectives. Sometimes just for the fear of not missing something she has provided extra details. I wanted to study the roots of the Arab-Israel conflict, which holds a major place in global geopolitics, and this book served my purpose very well.
April 21, 2021
This was my second attempt at Tuchman. I guess her much celebrated style is just not for me. I find it haphazard and confusing.
March 4, 2020
Barbara Tuchman added a prologue to the anniversary edition of Bible and Sword: England and Palestine from the Bronze Age to Balfour, her 1956 book on England’s relationship with Jerusalem and the Jewish people. In between her original publication and the reprint, Israel had formed an independent state, and Tuchman considered adding commentary regarding the happenings. Yet she concluded that it is not the role of a historian to provide real-time commentary on political events, despite her familiarity and interest in the subject. I appreciate Tuchman’s discretion, but the effect is a large hole in the story—the missing finale. I would have preferred that Tuchman entrust the task of complementing her book with an update filling in the decades that followed the conclusion of her book. That said, I still enjoyed better understanding some of the foundational reasons for England’s original connections to Jerusalem.
Tuchman opened her book by claiming that the ancestor search is a trait common to mankind. Britain has a legacy for searching out its creator in the spiritual sense and the traditional accounts of who first settled Britain. Brutus, grandson of the Trojan Aeneas, and Gomer, grandson of Noah, served as the mythical fathers of Britain. During the reformation and the writing of the Venerable Bede, Gomer usurped the tradition of treating Brutus as the progenitor. Regardless of Greek, Roman, or Hebrew tradition, an emigrant from the cradle of civilization serves this function, and the British later claimed it as their birthright. Be it Phoenician sailors—highly regarded in the Old Testament—or the connection to Noah, the English delighted in its antiquity.
Much like the British search for their national origin, Tuchman identified Joseph of Arimathea as the spiritual ancestor of Christianity in England and the actual ancestor of the legendary King Arthur. Other countries claimed characters: Rome chose Peter, Spain had James, and France had Phillip. And so Great Britain identified Joseph as its original Christian apostle. This is fable more so than historical record, but it is one agreed upon at the Council of Basel in the 1400s.
The historical record of pilgrims traveling from Britain to Palestine as early as the 4th Century. They walked to Edinburgh and made their way Jerusalem. Saint Jerome even complained about the excessive numbers of pilgrims in his writing. During these pilgrimages, Muslim countries occupied Jerusalem and then attributed holy status with the building of the Mosque of Omar.
After her summary of the crusades and English efforts to occupy Jerusalem, Tuchman moved to King Henry VIII’s proclamation in 1539 that every church in England must have a Bible available for all to read. The Great Bible relied largely on William Tyndale’s translation. Between the Great Bible and the King James Bible, the English people soon had a deep understanding of the Hebraic history.
A second story that shaped English access to the Bible was William Tyndale’s translation of the Bible into English while living in Germany. Despite the illegality, Tyndale helped smuggle the books into England.
The Levant Company formed in 1592 after a merger between the Venice Company and the Turkey Company to facilitate trade with the Ottoman Empire. Queen Elizabeth approved the charter, and it led to broader exposure to the holy lands, which were occupied by Turkey. The Levant Company gave way to the East India Company, which further grew the trade routes and thus exposure to Palestine for a broader range of English citizens.
In 1649, Johanna and Ebenezer Cartwright, an English mother and her son, were two Baptists living in Amsterdam. They submitted a petition to Lord Thomas Fairfax seeking repeal of Jewish banishment from England. The idea was that once Jews had been scattered to all lands, then Christian prophesies could begin being fulfilled. The end goal was to hasten the return of Jesus. There was much debate on whether to recall Jews. One argument in favor of recalling the Jewish race was increased trade and prosperity coupled with the prospect of conversion to Christianity. Some argued against their recall by noting how often God chastised the race for disobedience coupled with their crucifixion of Jesus. Parliament finally agreed to Jewish re-entry but with many prohibitive restrictions.
For all their faults, Puritans introduced republicanism. Their emphasis on freedom of worship—independent of a pope or king—had far-reaching effects.
Napoleon Bonaparte was the first to propose a restoration of the ancient nation of Israel. Bonaparte had no religious belief and even declared himself a Mohammedan when he landed in Egypt. But he sought the wealth and power that would come with dominion over the entire Middle East. Jewish support would help with this pursuit of France’s goal for dominion. But with Napoleon’s objective in sight, his army was fenced off by Admiral Sidney Smith, who defeated France at Jaffa (ancient Joppa), which sent Napoleon and a decimated French army back to their home. Said Bonaparte of Smith, “That man made me miss my destiny.”
France’s attack pulled England more strongly into the Middle East and left the country asking who should control the road to India. Mehmed IV was the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire from 1648 to 1687, and he ruled vast lands. Mehmed’s efforts to grow his empire led to an agreement with Russia, which England could not tolerate due to the risk of losing trade access. This tug-of-war wrangling with England and Russia occurred as the Ottoman Empire was crumbling. As such, Turkey sought Jewish resettlement in hopes that the influx of wealth would prop of the failing empire.
The Bible and Sword grew more interesting once Tuchman started on Benjamin Disraeli. Disraeli focused on trumpeting Israel’s heritage rather than its future. According to Tuchman, Disraeli abandoned his Jewish faith and adopted Christianity for political expediency with no meaningful religious fervor. What Disraeli emphasized was empire, and Israel played a role in this pursuit.
The Palestine Exploration Fund (PEF) was a British society founded in 1865 to survey Jerusalem and the surrounding region for Jewish resettlement. It was during this exploration that the historical records of Israel’s former greatness became known. It also discovered that the land had once been fertile until Turkish occupation when Bedouin shepherds replaced crop cultivation.
England’s purchase of the Suez Canal ushered in an era of tremendous colonial expansion. Though Palestine remained technically under Turkish rule, England’s control was clear. England became an empire to protect and expand trade routes. All was done under the belief of manifest destiny—God’s will that England prevails.
By the late 1800s, Jewish societies acquired thousands of acres of land near Jaffa. They were primitive communities due to poor planting soil. This early effort led to the Zionist movement and an influx into Palestine. Leaders in the Zionist movement believed that they could come to a financial arrangement with Turkey to settle land.
England was the first country to interact with the Jews as a political entity by making an offer of land for colonization. The land was not particularly hospitable, but the action was nevertheless significant. Joseph chamberlain saw this action as an opportunity to develop unoccupied English territories.
The Balfour Declaration was in some ways an effort to justify the conduct of annexing Palestine. If Great Britain had simply claimed Turkey’s former land, then there was little moral backing to do so. But restoring the land to the Zionists gave Great Britain a moral backing in its own mind and the world in support of the strategic benefit of possessing the land. Tuchman maintained that the British could not act unless they believed there was a moral duty to do so.
One point that is unmentioned during discussions on Israel and Palestine is that the land represents less than 1% of the land divided between Arab nations after the great wars. Yet the land represents the entirety of statehood for the Jewish nation. This context does not alleviate the deep-rooted fighting over the land, but it does add a perspective I hadn’t considered prior to Tuchman’s book.
Prior to Bible and Sword, I read Guns of August, Proud Tower, and Distant Mirror. I found all three engrossing. Bible and Sword was a bit slower in pace and not quite as engaging. Still, Tuchman pulls together a breadth and depth of stories that combine for a history worth knowing. I rank Bible and Sword well below my three previous reads, but that has more to do with the great heights Tuchman achieved in the other books more so than a harsh critique of Bible and Sword. As such, I would give this endorsement to a narrower audience—specifically those who have a particular interest in the subject. The other Tuchman books I’ve read I would recommend to anyone, irrespective of historical interest, but this book is unlikely to receive casual interest from readers.
Tuchman opened her book by claiming that the ancestor search is a trait common to mankind. Britain has a legacy for searching out its creator in the spiritual sense and the traditional accounts of who first settled Britain. Brutus, grandson of the Trojan Aeneas, and Gomer, grandson of Noah, served as the mythical fathers of Britain. During the reformation and the writing of the Venerable Bede, Gomer usurped the tradition of treating Brutus as the progenitor. Regardless of Greek, Roman, or Hebrew tradition, an emigrant from the cradle of civilization serves this function, and the British later claimed it as their birthright. Be it Phoenician sailors—highly regarded in the Old Testament—or the connection to Noah, the English delighted in its antiquity.
Much like the British search for their national origin, Tuchman identified Joseph of Arimathea as the spiritual ancestor of Christianity in England and the actual ancestor of the legendary King Arthur. Other countries claimed characters: Rome chose Peter, Spain had James, and France had Phillip. And so Great Britain identified Joseph as its original Christian apostle. This is fable more so than historical record, but it is one agreed upon at the Council of Basel in the 1400s.
The historical record of pilgrims traveling from Britain to Palestine as early as the 4th Century. They walked to Edinburgh and made their way Jerusalem. Saint Jerome even complained about the excessive numbers of pilgrims in his writing. During these pilgrimages, Muslim countries occupied Jerusalem and then attributed holy status with the building of the Mosque of Omar.
After her summary of the crusades and English efforts to occupy Jerusalem, Tuchman moved to King Henry VIII’s proclamation in 1539 that every church in England must have a Bible available for all to read. The Great Bible relied largely on William Tyndale’s translation. Between the Great Bible and the King James Bible, the English people soon had a deep understanding of the Hebraic history.
A second story that shaped English access to the Bible was William Tyndale’s translation of the Bible into English while living in Germany. Despite the illegality, Tyndale helped smuggle the books into England.
The Levant Company formed in 1592 after a merger between the Venice Company and the Turkey Company to facilitate trade with the Ottoman Empire. Queen Elizabeth approved the charter, and it led to broader exposure to the holy lands, which were occupied by Turkey. The Levant Company gave way to the East India Company, which further grew the trade routes and thus exposure to Palestine for a broader range of English citizens.
In 1649, Johanna and Ebenezer Cartwright, an English mother and her son, were two Baptists living in Amsterdam. They submitted a petition to Lord Thomas Fairfax seeking repeal of Jewish banishment from England. The idea was that once Jews had been scattered to all lands, then Christian prophesies could begin being fulfilled. The end goal was to hasten the return of Jesus. There was much debate on whether to recall Jews. One argument in favor of recalling the Jewish race was increased trade and prosperity coupled with the prospect of conversion to Christianity. Some argued against their recall by noting how often God chastised the race for disobedience coupled with their crucifixion of Jesus. Parliament finally agreed to Jewish re-entry but with many prohibitive restrictions.
For all their faults, Puritans introduced republicanism. Their emphasis on freedom of worship—independent of a pope or king—had far-reaching effects.
Napoleon Bonaparte was the first to propose a restoration of the ancient nation of Israel. Bonaparte had no religious belief and even declared himself a Mohammedan when he landed in Egypt. But he sought the wealth and power that would come with dominion over the entire Middle East. Jewish support would help with this pursuit of France’s goal for dominion. But with Napoleon’s objective in sight, his army was fenced off by Admiral Sidney Smith, who defeated France at Jaffa (ancient Joppa), which sent Napoleon and a decimated French army back to their home. Said Bonaparte of Smith, “That man made me miss my destiny.”
France’s attack pulled England more strongly into the Middle East and left the country asking who should control the road to India. Mehmed IV was the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire from 1648 to 1687, and he ruled vast lands. Mehmed’s efforts to grow his empire led to an agreement with Russia, which England could not tolerate due to the risk of losing trade access. This tug-of-war wrangling with England and Russia occurred as the Ottoman Empire was crumbling. As such, Turkey sought Jewish resettlement in hopes that the influx of wealth would prop of the failing empire.
The Bible and Sword grew more interesting once Tuchman started on Benjamin Disraeli. Disraeli focused on trumpeting Israel’s heritage rather than its future. According to Tuchman, Disraeli abandoned his Jewish faith and adopted Christianity for political expediency with no meaningful religious fervor. What Disraeli emphasized was empire, and Israel played a role in this pursuit.
The Palestine Exploration Fund (PEF) was a British society founded in 1865 to survey Jerusalem and the surrounding region for Jewish resettlement. It was during this exploration that the historical records of Israel’s former greatness became known. It also discovered that the land had once been fertile until Turkish occupation when Bedouin shepherds replaced crop cultivation.
England’s purchase of the Suez Canal ushered in an era of tremendous colonial expansion. Though Palestine remained technically under Turkish rule, England’s control was clear. England became an empire to protect and expand trade routes. All was done under the belief of manifest destiny—God’s will that England prevails.
By the late 1800s, Jewish societies acquired thousands of acres of land near Jaffa. They were primitive communities due to poor planting soil. This early effort led to the Zionist movement and an influx into Palestine. Leaders in the Zionist movement believed that they could come to a financial arrangement with Turkey to settle land.
England was the first country to interact with the Jews as a political entity by making an offer of land for colonization. The land was not particularly hospitable, but the action was nevertheless significant. Joseph chamberlain saw this action as an opportunity to develop unoccupied English territories.
The Balfour Declaration was in some ways an effort to justify the conduct of annexing Palestine. If Great Britain had simply claimed Turkey’s former land, then there was little moral backing to do so. But restoring the land to the Zionists gave Great Britain a moral backing in its own mind and the world in support of the strategic benefit of possessing the land. Tuchman maintained that the British could not act unless they believed there was a moral duty to do so.
One point that is unmentioned during discussions on Israel and Palestine is that the land represents less than 1% of the land divided between Arab nations after the great wars. Yet the land represents the entirety of statehood for the Jewish nation. This context does not alleviate the deep-rooted fighting over the land, but it does add a perspective I hadn’t considered prior to Tuchman’s book.
Prior to Bible and Sword, I read Guns of August, Proud Tower, and Distant Mirror. I found all three engrossing. Bible and Sword was a bit slower in pace and not quite as engaging. Still, Tuchman pulls together a breadth and depth of stories that combine for a history worth knowing. I rank Bible and Sword well below my three previous reads, but that has more to do with the great heights Tuchman achieved in the other books more so than a harsh critique of Bible and Sword. As such, I would give this endorsement to a narrower audience—specifically those who have a particular interest in the subject. The other Tuchman books I’ve read I would recommend to anyone, irrespective of historical interest, but this book is unlikely to receive casual interest from readers.
December 9, 2012
First, an enormous amount of history was covered this book. It effectively starts with the rumor of Joseph of Aramethia's supposed evangelism in England in the 1st century and how this legend helps to bind England to Palestine. It continues all the way up to the Balfour Declaration, which was former prime minister's Lord Arthur Balfour's letter to Baron Walter Rothschild, who was a leader of the British Jewish community. This book was originally written in 1953 and therefore misses out on much of the Arab-Israeli wars.
I found the content to be voluminous and certainly appreciated an in-depth view of what has transpired between Britain and Palestine over such a large period of time. However, I would have liked to have heard more about what was happening in Palestine between the original Hebrew exit and the Crusades and then again, between the end of the final crusade and the British mandate.
Unfortunately, this book largely misses the exodus, the fall of the Roman empire in Palestine, the Byzantine empire, Mohommad's conquest of Jerusalem, the Ummayads, the rise of the Mamluks and the Ottomans.
The other aspect that was somewhat troubling started in the introduction where Ms. Tuchman explains how after researching this topic she comes down unequivocably on the side of the Jews in this conflict. This is not a great way to start a supposed unbiased view on a topic so filled with controversy, even in the 1950s. This view was apparent throughout as she constantly referred to the Jews as the rightful owners of biblical Canaan, which stretched from the Sinai Penninsula through the Euphrates River. She also looked at all Arabs throughout the Levant and Iraq as 1 homogenous people and comparing the inheritance of the Jews to the inheritance of all of the Arabs.
I would definately recommend this book as a comprehensive view of the relationship between Britain and the Jews to establish the the nation of Israel, with these caveats in mind.
I found the content to be voluminous and certainly appreciated an in-depth view of what has transpired between Britain and Palestine over such a large period of time. However, I would have liked to have heard more about what was happening in Palestine between the original Hebrew exit and the Crusades and then again, between the end of the final crusade and the British mandate.
Unfortunately, this book largely misses the exodus, the fall of the Roman empire in Palestine, the Byzantine empire, Mohommad's conquest of Jerusalem, the Ummayads, the rise of the Mamluks and the Ottomans.
The other aspect that was somewhat troubling started in the introduction where Ms. Tuchman explains how after researching this topic she comes down unequivocably on the side of the Jews in this conflict. This is not a great way to start a supposed unbiased view on a topic so filled with controversy, even in the 1950s. This view was apparent throughout as she constantly referred to the Jews as the rightful owners of biblical Canaan, which stretched from the Sinai Penninsula through the Euphrates River. She also looked at all Arabs throughout the Levant and Iraq as 1 homogenous people and comparing the inheritance of the Jews to the inheritance of all of the Arabs.
I would definately recommend this book as a comprehensive view of the relationship between Britain and the Jews to establish the the nation of Israel, with these caveats in mind.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 145 reviews