A review of PBS’s “From Jesus to Christ: The First Christians”

“And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.”

– “The Gospel According to St. John,” Chapter 6, Verse 35 (as translated by the King James Version of the Bible)

The first episode covers the early life of Jesus, acknowledging that he was a real person

I had fairly low expectations going into this film. This film was made by PBS Frontline, a journalistic arm of PBS. Since Will Lyman is the exclusive narrator for PBS Frontline, he was the one chosen to narrate this film. But there actually isn’t much narration, good or bad, to speak of in this film. It’s mostly a discussion among scholars, with the narration used for little more than transitions from one interview clip to the next. They also cut to footage from the Holy Land – which is beautifully photographed here, incidentally. The scholars interviewed here are nice enough people, and manage to avoid being confrontational in their comments. Some of the scholars are Jews or Christians, but most of them are a little skeptical about Christianity – and, in many cases, about “religion” more generally. They paint the Gospel accounts as being a little “contradictory,” relying on some fairly careless readings of the text to do so. They also read too much into certain information, like how Jesus asked to be baptized by John the Baptist. In this example, they interpret this to mean that Jesus was a “follower” of John, and considered the Baptist to be “superior” to Himself. I’m not sure how they managed to read these things into the text, but so goes the argument. It seems to be rather slipshod scholarship, actually, which is unsupported by the text. I’m all right with getting these people on the record, and hearing from them in this film. And, in fairness, some of their arguments are mainstream – although some of them are a little more “creative.” But these people come across as a little too confident in their conclusions. Furthermore, they seem to imply that their opinions are backed by “scholarly consensus,” when this film is actually relying on just a handful of scholars, and giving them great weight.

A review of “Protestant Christianity” (audiobook)

In 1517, Martin Luther wrote the “Ninety-Five Theses,” a written attack on the Catholic Church. Luther may or may not have pinned this document onto the door of All Saints’ Church. Regardless, this is often dated as the beginning of the “Protestant Reformation.” You could argue that there were other proto-Protestant groups before that. However, this audiobook basically begins in the sixteenth century. That is, it begins at the traditional date of the Protestant Reformation in 1517. It then gives a brief overview of some of the major branches of Protestant Christianity. Incidentally, the name “Protestant” comes from past protests against the Catholic Church. Today, relations between Catholics and Protestants tend to be somewhat better than they were in previous centuries. That is, they no longer tend to be violent.

Forgotten battlegrounds of the World Wars: Asia and the Pacific

Warning: This blog post contains some disturbing pictures. One of these, in particular, is very graphic, and may merit special caution.

We are often told that World War II began in Europe, with the 1939 (Nazi) invasion of Poland. And, in truth, there is a good argument to be made for this date. But some would date it earlier, to the Japanese invasion of China in 1937. Some would date it even earlier than that, to the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931. You could make an argument for any of these three dates being correct, so I will not attempt to settle this controversy here. But either way, there is much about the war in the East that is unknown to the general public. Whenever and however it became a part of World War II, it is clear that this massive conflict began long before Pearl Harbor. This post will dive into a few of the forgotten aspects of the war in the East, and discuss its roots in local colonization by both Western and local Asian powers.

Vietnamese soldier, 1889 – during the French conquest of Vietnam

Background on prior European (and Japanese) colonization of Asia

For example, the Japanese had colonized Iwo Jima as early as the sixteenth century. And there was actually a corporation from the Netherlands called the “Dutch East India Company.” This private company had invaded what is today Indonesia as early as 1603. But the region later fell under the control of the Netherlands government back in Holland in 1800, creating the province of the “Dutch East Indies.” And the British East India Company had gained control of India, in the 1757 Battle of Plassey. India may be the most populous overseas territory that any empire has ever possessed. In the 1820s, the British Empire later gained control of Malaya, which then included Singapore. The British also fought their first war in Burma in the 1820s, partly to maintain their control of nearby India. The British also fought the First Opium War with China from 1839 to 1842. The second British war in Burma came in the mid-1850s, with the great “Indian Mutiny” coming in the late 1850s. Control over India then passed from the British East India Company to the British Crown, thus beginning the era of the “British Raj” in India. From 1850 to 1864, Britain and France were also involved in China’s Taiping Rebellion. And from 1856 to 1860, Britain and France fought the Second Opium War against China. In the late 1860s, there was a civil war in Japan, sometimes called the Boshin War. In 1879, the Empire of Japan annexed the Ryukyu Islands, which included the island of Okinawa. In 1885, there was a third British war in Burma, which saw Burma annexed into British India – with sporadic resistance there for decades afterward. In 1886, though, the British returned to separating the provinces of Burma and India from each other. Back in 1858, the French had begun their infamous conquest of what is today Vietnam. In 1887, the process was completed, and the province of “French Indochina” was born – although resistance there continued into the twentieth century, long after World War II. In 1893, the French also had a brief war with Siam (later renamed to Thailand). At the end of that war, Siam thus ceded some land to French Indochina. In 1894, the Japanese fought their first war with China (with an early invasion of Manchuria), today called the “First Sino-Japanese War.” This was partly about who would control nearby Korea. At the end of the war, the Japanese then began to rule the island of Taiwan in 1895. Between 1899 and 1901, China experienced the Boxer Rebellion. The Russians also invaded Manchuria in 1900. There was an alliance between Britain and Japan starting in 1902. But the Japanese soon attacked the nearby Russians, and beat them in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905. The Japanese then made Korea into a Japanese protectorate in 1905, and formally started to colonize Korea for themselves in 1910. Japanese rule of Korea and Taiwan would then remain unchallenged for decades afterward.

Japanese infantry during the occupation of Seoul – Korea, 1904

The complicated legacy of Martin Van Buren

Martin Van Buren was part of the “Jacksonian Era,” named after the controversial Andrew Jackson. Nonetheless, historians usually begin the era back in 1824 – when Andrew Jackson was defeated by John Quincy Adams. Jackson would later win his rematch with Adams, and was then elected to his two terms … as our first Democratic president. These terms are well-remembered, and most Americans know Andrew Jackson’s name. But most people do not know the name of his immediate successor, who served in three major positions in Andrew Jackson’s administration. That person was Martin Van Buren. Despite being born in Revolutionary-era New York, Van Buren owned at least one slave, because slavery was then legal in the District of Columbia – where he worked as a politician. But Van Buren would walk a tightrope with regards to slavery, which would be important later on in his career. He is also remembered for his handling of the Panic of 1837, and for the costly Second Seminole War.

Martin Van Buren

Why is Zachary Taylor now considered a “forgettable” president?

By 1849, General Zachary Taylor had spent more than four decades in the United States Army. He had become one of the heroes of the Mexican-American War. But, when Zachary Taylor first ran for president, he had never held a political office in his life. Taylor’s political beliefs were vague and largely unknown, making one wonder why the Whig political party decided to choose him as their candidate. But, in 1840, the war with Mexico had just added some massive territories to the American Union, and our national debate over slavery was now increasing in intensity. That is, would these new states be admitted to the Union as “free states” or slave states? And how would this question be decided? When Zachary Taylor first entered the White House in 1849, the seeds of a future civil war were being sown. The prelude to the Civil War arguably began in this year that Zachary Taylor was inaugurated: 1849. The fateful cannon shots at Fort Sumter were then still twelve years in the future, but the nation was now on a fateful collision course … with itself.

Zachary Taylor

Franklin Pierce: One of our most pro-slavery presidents

In the earliest decades of the United States, all successful political parties tried their best to sidestep the controversial issue of slavery. But it became increasingly hard to do this as time went on, because the nation was expanding westward. Thus, people then had to debate about whether slavery would be expanding westward as well. Franklin Pierce continued the westward expansion through the Gadsden Purchase, but slavery rapidly became the biggest issue of his presidency. He hated the abolitionist movement, and the abolitionist movement likewise hated him in return. In 1820, the Congress had enacted the controversial “Missouri Compromise.” This compromise had admitted Missouri as a slave state, while simultaneously admitting Maine as a “free state” (among other policies). But, in 1854, several aspects of this compromise were effectively repealed, when Franklin Pierce signed the Kansas-Nebraska Act into law. He also created controversy by enforcing the prior Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. The country was on a fateful collision course with itself, and the drums of a future civil war began to 

beat with ever greater intensity.

Franklin Pierce

USA prisoners of war: From the American Revolution to the Civil War

Warning: This blog post contains some disturbing pictures. One of these in particular is very graphic, and may merit special caution.

I grew up on prisoner-of-war movies – like “Stalag 17,” “The Great Escape,” and “The Bridge on the River Kwai.” They are particularly popular when depicting World War II, or certain other wars of the twentieth century. But relatively little has been said about American prisoners of war in prior conflicts. For example, little has been said about POWs in the American Revolution and the Civil War. Thus, I wanted to fill in some of the gaps here, and talk about our “POWs” (or “Prisoners Of War”) in some of these other periods. I should note that most of these periods were before the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Conventions. Thus, modern rules and laws about the treatment of POWs did not yet apply in some of these periods. The stories of captured Americans, and those that we captured for ourselves, will tell us much about who we were as a people – and who we are today.