I was just curious as to how they (I don't know who they are) decided whether a book was canon or not.

This is a homework question but I tried to ask it in a way that could be interesting for everyone. The title question is not my assignment.

I'm writing a short essay in which I have to discuss two text relating to the attempts to establish a Jewish state in Israel/Palestine (By the way, what's the politically correct term when refering only to the land?)

I've choosen one text: The Iron Wall by Jabotinsky, in which he esposes his view that it would be impossible to establish a Jewish state without an external force to prevent Arab interference, and I was hoping to contrast his ideas with those of David Ben-Gurion. Wikipedia mentions a volume he wrote We and Our Neighbors which I was hoping would be relavent but I can't seem to find it anywhere.

If anyone had suggestions for relevant texts by Ben Gurion or any author which I'd be very greatful.

The 1890s through 1950s span for this is admittedly a bit messy, but it does encompass when these authors were largely at their most active. It seems to have been comparatively rare during the height of the Victorian era, and also seems to have dropped off considerably as we approach the "modern" age. To get some idea of what I mean, consider this non-exhaustive list:

• A.C. Benson
• E.F. Benson
• R.H. Benson (these three are admittedly brothers)
• A.C. Bradley
• E.M.W. Tillyard
• A.E.W. Mason
• C.R.M.F. Cruttwell
• C.S. Forester
• C.S. Lewis
• G.K. Chesterton
• J.R.R. Tolkien
• D.H. Lawrence
• T.E. Lawrence
• I.A. Richards
• F.R. Leavis
• A.J.P. Taylor
• E.H. Carr
• E.P. Thompson
• G.M. Trevelyan
• F.R. Scott
• E.B. White
• R.F.C. Fuller
• B.K. Sandwell
• W.K. Wimsatt
• W.R. Titterton
• A.E. Housman
• C.E. Montague
• T.S. Eliot
• F.S. Flint
• T.E. Hulme
• H.H. Asquith
• H.G. Wells
• H.P. Lovecraft
• A.P. Herbert
• H.M. Tomlinson
• H.H. Munro (though he more commonly published as "Saki")
• T.H. White
• E.M. Forster

I can think of a very few earlier cases of this -- C.P. Scott, T.H. Huxley, W.S. Gilbert, for example.

I am fully prepared to discover that this is a problem on my end caused by an over-familiarity with people active during this time period and a more hazy engagement with the ones before and after, but there does seem to be something of a trend here. If there is, what might have caused it?

How interested were Iranians in this foreign concept of Aryan, a term that members of the Indo-Iranian cultures had on and off used to describe themselves?

I'm no historian, just a dude who's interested in ancient religions. I know very little about Zoroastrianism, and would like to learn more. I'm picking up a couple books from my public library today but I was wondering if y'all had any advice/knew a good place to start

I take a Holocaust and Genocide class, with the second semester being devoted entirely to the Holocaust. While beginning to teach us about the history of the Jewish people, my teacher said that the New Testament was written by the Romams in an attempt to relieve themselves of guilt for the death of Christ, and place it all on the Jews. He went on to say that the New Testament also attempts to strip Jesus of any sign of Judaism. While I'm hardly well versed in the Bible, this doesn't sit right with what I know (or think I know) of it. Is what he has said accurate? Edit: Thanks so much for the answers so far. I don't want to make him sound like a terrible teacher or a nut, I have a lot of respect for him, but I was just very curious about some of the things he said. He said all this in connection with a documentary we are watching, the name of which I'll try to find out and share. Thanks again!

I've been doing some research recently and it seems quite apparent that the relationship between Israel and the USA wasn't as solid as it is today in the first couple of decades of Israel's existence. It seems that Truman's administration (if not Truman himself) and Eisenhower (Suez Crisis etc.) were far more sympathetic with the Arab cause than any recent President and particularly Lyndon Johnson. Is it fair to say that the relationship as we know it today has only really been this way since the war in 1967 or am I missing something?

While I was studying the protest movement against the partition of Bengal in 1905 I became inquisitive (as an Indian) about the reactions it generated in Britain. Thus I am looking for news articles (preferably editorials) in the British Press on the Independence movement in India. Please tell me about sites where I can access such clippings.

One more thing I want to know of the several newspapers in England which were sympathetic to the demands made by the Indian Leaders and which were of the Imperialist school of thought?????(Just to ease my search)

Thanks In Advance....

Edit: Must be Free

I'm referring here mainly to the fallout of his Italian campaign, but I'd also be interested to know how far they were able to use the financial resources offered by the previously Vandal provinces of North Africa.

Surely a country can still fight without it's capital?

I read recently that this year there was going to be a vote for Scottish Independence. I read a little about it and the people of Scotland seem keen to break away from the rest of the United Kingdom. I was wondering what the opinion of people (both English and Scottish) thought of the Union at the time? I had always thought they were old enemies and Scotland had been conquered by the English.

Thanks!

They suffered about 100,000 military losses and suffered tremendously through the Bengal famine so how important was the British Indian Army during WW2? Would it have been possible for the Indians to have refused to join the war effort?

In many European cities guilds used to control most of the secondary sector during the medieval age, effectively preventing competition between craftsmen.

Was there anything comparable in the time before that? Specifically institutions that fixed market prices of goods, limited production output of businesses and controlled who would be allowed to work in a certain sector.

If not, how was business organized in the time? Was every free man allowed to buy, produce and sell anything he wanted within a city?

It seems counterintuitive. Thanks.

First time in this subreddit, so I hope this question is not out of context here. Sorry if it is, and maybe you could help me to find the right /r/ to ask about this. The thing is that I've read somewhere or maybe watched in some documentary about the indigenous people being unable to see the Columbus ships arriving because of some visual / cultural effect, something like their brains not processing the info about that absolutely unknown reality for them. So I have basically two questions: do you happen to know the source of this? And is it somehow a trustworthy idea? Thanks you historians!

From the little I’ve read, her writings came from a philosopher POV, and she later became a nun.

Also, any of Pierre Abélard’s writings are attributed to her?