perhaps of interest

[cnorman18]

--

I have no opinion on Israel.

What you're saying is you don't speak for any Jewish views but your own, right?

So how is it fair that I'm supposed to accept that there's a distinction between the Jewish views but in your OP you're lumping all the entire Christian church into one group knowing full well there's at least as many if not many more sects of Christians but you make no such distinction there? At least make a distinction between both.

It's like your saying that all Jews ain't this way, but all Christians are that way, i.e. "us liberal Jews don't have anything to do with Israel (your example, not mine), it's those Orthodox Jews" but say Christians can't be saying that in regards to the events you listed in your OP, even though the two situations are remarkably similar.

I hope that makes more sense to you.

It does, and I see your point; and what it tells me is that I'm not making myself clear.

Let me throw out a few statements and see if it helps:

My beef with today's Christians is not that these events took place; no one living today can be held responsible for them.

My complaint is that the attitudes and doctrines that enabled and legitimized those events are still being taught, and that the role of those teachings in the tragedies of the past has never been acknowledged.

That is not true of all Christian denominations; it is, however, unquestionably true of the Christians on the other forum to whom my remarks were addressed.

I know of nothing analogous in any branch of Judaism, including the Orthodox.

I do not wish to separate myself, or liberal Judaism, from the Orthodox in any way, except in the matter of Biblical interpretation; and that only because I am unfamiliar with their teachings. I have no particular reason to believe that they are objectionable; I do not know.

I do not believe that the Orthodox are responsible for the actions of Israel any more than are liberal Jews.

I do not regard Israeli actions to be a religious issue.

I do not regard the actions of Israel, by and large, to be objectionable anyway. Israel is certainly not perfect, and has been responsible for misdeeds, crimes, and occasionally even atrocities; but no more so than any other nation, and less than most. Its human rights record is not perfect, but is light-years ahead of its neighbors'.

In any case, none of this is relevant to a discussion of Judaism any more than American misdeeds and atrocities are relevant to a discussion of Christianity (I believe that there is a higher percentage of Christians in America than of Jews in israel; I shall look it up, and if I'm wrong I shall report it).

No doubt there are other objections to my remarks that I have not dealt with here; please point them out, and I shall try to do so.

As some have perhaps noticed, I am perfectly willing to concede a point or even admit when I discover that I am entirely wrong (e.g., in my thread on "Slavery in the Bible"). I am no less willing to do so here.

All that said, I stand by my primary point; that Judaism ought not be judged by the actions or teachings of other religions, but only by its own; and that it is illegitimate to attribute beliefs to Jews that they do not hold.

I am glad, at least, that we seem to have left the matter of making assumptions about Jewish beliefs from a superficial reading of the OT behind. That, by my assessment, is progress.

My thanks to everyone for their responses, and my apologies for my own failure to communicate my thoughts effectively.

 

[cnorman18]

--

cnorman18, The points being made here by others are in general valid points. Even what I said can be applied to the Jewish community or any subset of it. As a matter of principle you should be on guard for dangerous attitudes within your own community, the same as you are with others. I personally accept no responsibility for the past, or credit in ending it. Those responsibilities are something that must be judged from my own actions in my time here. You are safe here no matter who is at the door.

Thank you, and you are correct. Jews have seen violent and evil groups and individuals arise within our ranks--Meir Kahane and the JDL come to mind, as well as the execrable Baruch Goldstein. On a less violent note, Yehuda Berg and the Kabbalah Center are the only nominally Jewish con artists with mass-market appeal that I know of, analogous to the various Prosperity Gospel "ministers" and phony healers that seem to be thick on the ground on "Jesus TV." we generally disavow and denounce them at their first appearance, but every now and then one will attract a large following (Sabbatai Zevi).

This truly is our "Golden Age." Jews have been safer and more successful here than anywhere, ever.

But we watch the Christian right more carefully than even atheists do. Security can change to insecurity overnight. Ask an American Muslim.

 

[Kopji]

I'm sure it's my own fault, but your thinking here is absolutely opaque to me.

I am troubled by unfair criticism. That is all.

For the rest--

?

I did take some time to go back read all the posts from the beginning.

There is something in the skeptical attitude that wants to pick up things, touch, smell, heft, and generally look at them from many angles and senses - probe with questions that have many dimensions. I did not see anything 'weird' going on here beyond that.

The Christian forum responses that prompted this thread are likely a response to a perception of you proselytizing. You are a convert to Judaism now, and something that unfortunately goes along with that is you are perceived as a threat.

I struggle with religious claims about which one is 'true' or 'false' because I think it is presumptuous to think that religion offers choices that can be determined by examining evidence - they can't and don't. On that matter I stand close to what Yoink expressed.

Does one religion offer something prettier than another? Now that could be true.

 

[Yoink]

The implication for me, today as when I first read it, is that it is the Jews' fault (those Jews who don't become Christian) Jesus was crucified, for they did not accept him as their king, or messiah.

Anyway, that's just the Gospel of Matthew, which I only referenced because it's the first one I read. The Gospel of John is far worse (or 'better', for anti-semites).

I can't agree with this reading. The passage doesn't make any distinction between "believing" Jews and "nonbelieving" Jews--it imputes the guilt to Jews, period. Nor does it say "oh, and if you want a way out of the guilt, believe in Christ as the Messiah, and you're scot free." Actually, one of the more moving things about the gospel accounts of Christ's passion is that his closest followers significantly fail to cover themselves in glory. I've often thought the more unforgiving, hellfire and brimstone Christians could benefit from meditating a little more on Peter's denial of Christ. I assume they don't think he's burning in a lake of fire--but if he could be forgiven for that....!

Anyway, my point is that Matthew is a Jew, writing to Jews and trying to convince them that JC is their guy, the Jewish Messiah. He's writing in a religious tradition steeped in collective self-blame (the Jews may be God's chosen people, but the Old Testament contains a quite extraordinary number of execrations hurled collectively at the Jewish people--a stubborn, stiffnecked people etc. etc.). I think it is clear that the point is "we are all guilty" but that JC offers us all a path to salvation.

 

[Yoink]

In traditional Jewish teaching, the Oral Torah--which was, and is, a system of interpretation and an understanding of the Torah without which it is a closed book--was given at Sinai, at the same time as the Torah itself. It was given directly to Moses by God, with the admonition that it was never to be written, but passed down from one generation the the next by oral instruction only.

Of course, few scholars would accept that story today; but like it or not, there does seem to have been an oral tradition alongside the Torah, that was forbidden to write down, from the very beginning.

Yes, I'll go along, like you, with the "non-few" scholars--thanks. (By the way--sorry for skipping out on the discussion--I had to be away from the computer for a couple of days).

Christian scholars? Their opinions are irrelevant to this discussion.

Where did I specify their beliefs, cnorman? No--I was specifically thinking of Jewish scholars I have read trying to come up with explanations for the more shockingly amoral stories in the Bible (like the bears sent to eat the children mocking Elisha).

Except that in the modern understanding of the Torah, those passages were written after the fact about events that never happened.

Well, the one line dismissal of your argument would be: "the modern understanding?" Since when was my point about the modern understanding? Of course, you already conceded my point when I first raised the Biblical account of the genocide of the Canaanites when you said that people have been relieved to discover from the archaeology that it probably never happened. Why would there be "relief" if the "tradition" was so clear that the genocide was purely a metaphor?

I assume you are talking about Deuteronomy 7:1-26, which begins "When the LORD your God brings you to the land that you are about to enter and possess, and He dislodges many nations before you--the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites..." Which, along with passages in Deuteronomy 13 and 20, contains the command for a war of extermination (I include the quotation to make sure we're literally on the same page; the chapter and verse numbering sometimes differs between Christian and Jewish Bibles).

Yes, they're good places to start. Of course, genocide is hardly confined to the treatment of the Canaanites in the Jewish Bible, is it? You wouldn't have wanted to be one of the "children of Ammon" in David's time, would you:

[29] And David gathered all the people together, and went to Rabbah, and fought against it, and took it.
[30] And he took their king's crown from off his head, the weight whereof was a talent of gold with the precious stones: and it was set on David's head. And he brought forth the spoil of the city in great abundance.
[31] And he brought forth the people that were therein, and put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and made them pass through the brickkiln: and thus did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon. So David and all the people returned unto Jerusalem. (2 Samuel 12)

Of course, you wouldn't want to be an Amalekite, either:

[3] Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
[4] And Saul gathered the people together, and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand footmen, and ten thousand men of Judah.
[5] And Saul came to a city of Amalek, and laid wait in the valley.
[6] And Saul said unto the Kenites, Go, depart, get you down from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them: for ye shewed kindness to all the children of Israel, when they came up out of Egypt. So the Kenites departed from among the Amalekites.
[7] And Saul smote the Amalekites from Havilah until thou comest to Shur, that is over against Egypt.
[8] And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword.
[9] But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them: but every thing that was vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly. (1 Samuel 15)

Now, did anything like this happen? Who knows? I hardly need convincing that the Bible is a poor historical document. Is it quite clear that the people who wrote this condoned in principle genocidal destruction of non-Jewish tribes. Well, yes. This is not a passage fraught with moral angst.

Here are the marginal notes from the Jewish Study Bible, p. 382-383, on that passage:

"[v.] 1: A number of factors combine to imply that this list [of nations] is primarily an after-the-fact literary compilation rather than an historical portrayal. The identity, sequence, and number of the peoples included in the 'table of nations' vary considerably (Gen. 15.19-21; Exod. 3.8, 17 [etc.]).... The Jebusites, the pre-Israelite inhabitants of Jerusalem, retained control of the city until it was conquered by David several centuries after the period in which the conquest is set (2 Sam. 5.6-7). The latter narrative implies that this law was never implemented....
2: This requirement for destruction is anomalous in several ways. Earlier sources contemplate only the expulsion of these groups (Exod. 23.27-33; cf. 34.11). The definition and requirements of the 'ban' vary considerably throughout the Bible: total destruction of people and property (here; 13.15-17; 20.16-17; 1 Sam. 15.3); sparing of property (2.34-35; 3.6-7); sparing of women, children and property (20.10-14). Finally, other narratives, which seem far more realistic, speak of the failure to carry out the conquest except in very limited areas and the use of conquered populations for labor (Josh. chs 15-17; Judg. ch 1; 3.1-6).

These factors suggest that the law of the ban is an anachronistic literary formulation. It first arose centuries after the settlement; it was never implemented because there was no population extant against whom it could be implemented. Its polemic was directed at internal issues in 6th century Judah. Often the authors of Deuteronomy use the term 'Canaanite' rhetorically to stigmatize older forms of Israelite religion that they no longer accept.... The law addresses apostasy as opposed to ethnicity; it is directed against apostate Israelites in 8.20; 13.15-17."

Archaeological studies seem to bear this out. It appears that the "conquest of Canaan" simply never occurred, but that there was a gradual migration of Israelite tribes into the area, where they lived alongside the native inhabitants in peace.

So there it is. If one takes an archaeologically and historically critical approach, it never happened. If one takes the approach of modern Jewish Biblical scholarship, it never happened. And if one takes the approach of traditional Jewish teaching, it never happened.

The language here of "imply," "seem," "suggest" and so forth, hardly confirms your earlier suggestion that the tradition has been clear and unequivocal from time immemorial. Again, that the Bible makes a mountain of genocide out of every molehill of a successful battle by the Israelites is something that seems entirely predictable. The point is that the book's idea of a happy and glorious tale that demonstrates God's special love and care for the Jewish people is a tale of genocide.

The only way one can take the genocidal "war of conquest" passages seriously as reflecting either actual historical events or Jewish beliefs and practices is if one rips those passages from both their historical and Biblical contexts and forces them to stand on their own, in much the same manner as is done by fundamentalist Christian apologists and commentators for a very great many Biblical passages indeed.

Are you really, seriously, suggesting that when these passages were written down people read of the killing of every man, woman, and child of the Amalekites and said "well, of course, all we mean by that is that after a round of earnest negotiation we mutually agreed that they would allow us to use certain parts of their grazing lands" or some such? Even if one admitted such an absurd hypothesis, one would still have a book that uses metaphors of genocide to commemorate and celebrate negotiated settlement--so it would still be a book that celebrates (and endorses) genocidal killing.

Since these passages did not exist at the time of the settlement of Canaan, it makes very little sense to accuse the Hebrews of that time of genocidal impulses on their evidence.

But it makes perfect sense to suggest that those who wrote the passages were celebrating genocide as an ideal.

Put another way: Since these stories were written down long after the fact for purposes of an internal debate about Jewish religious practices, and never had any relevance to actual historical events, it seems inappropriate to use them to prove something about Jewish attitudes toward genocide and mass murder among people who lived centuries before.

Well, now you're really stretching. Are you seriously suggesting that these passages have solely to do with "internal debate about Jewish religious practices" simply on the basis of the fact that "Canaanite" occasionally gets used metaphorically to apply to "bad Jews"? Wouldn't that be rather like someone saying "there's no such thing as antisemitism" because some Christian bigot calls another Christian a "Jew" when he's being parsimonious.

Since these writings were never used to justify such acts,

That is saying more than you know and more than the archaeological record could ever demonstrate

and since such acts never occurred at all,

Again, that is more than you know and more than the archaeological record could ever demonstrate. No such acts ever occurred? Come on--that's a very, very long stretch from "the all-encompassing genocidal destruction of the Canaanites described in some biblical passages doesn't seem to be confirmed by current archeology" which is about all you can say with any real confidence. That doesn't mean that there weren't some--or indeed many--instances of genocidal acts against particular towns and villages, does it? Somehow I find it hard to believe that the very specific accounts of all the men, women and children being killed (except, sometimes, for the women of childbearing age) were simple fantasies. I think they describe actual military tactics--probably fairly common in the warfare practiced both by and against the Jewish people in that period

how much sense does it make to ignore history, tradition, Biblical scholarship, archaeology, and religious understanding and teaching in order to use them in support of a polemical point?

How much sense does it make to seize upon one aspect of the archaeological evidence ("it didn't happen exactly as the Bible describes it") and ignore the implications of the repeated insistence in the Biblical text that genocidal erasure is the proper and glorious way to deal with Israel's enemies?

Can you, at the very least, admit that the Jewish understanding of these tales of brutality is legitimate, humane, and non-supportive of genocide--and always has been?

As to what the common Jewish understanding is now I very explicitly and at length insisted that it is "humane and non-supportive of genocide" (I'm not sure what "legitimate" means in this context). That is always has been strikes me as unknowable but profoundly implausible. A people who were morally shocked by the idea of genocide simply could not have produced the Biblical text that we have (you know, the one whose heroes continually enact genocide, the one in which God gets really, really angry with leaders who are too lazy to commit genocide, the one in which God commands his chosen leaders to commit genocide, etc. etc. etc.).

Or would you prefer to cling to the Southern Baptist "the-Bible-is-inerrant-and-literally-true" position because that is the only one that supports your argument?

No, I really don't need this position to support my argument, as I've demonstrated.

Jews do not believe that that approach to reading the Bible is either legitimate or intelligent. Do you?

Again, you're wandering into "no true Jew" territory. I would be surprised if there are no Jews who believe in Biblical inerrancy. Still, it is clearly not the mainstream of Jewish belief. And no, I don't think Biblical inerrancy is either "legitimate or intelligent." Remember, I don't believe in any God at all, so therefore I'm quite certain that the Bible is the flawed work of people. I'm also quite certain, from internal evidence, that it is the flawed work of people who thought that their God really, really wanted them to commit acts of genocidal destruction against their enemies. The fact that they didn't manage to achieve this on the scale that they boast of having done doesn't really change that central fact, does it?

 

[cnorman18]

--

The "Christ-killer" business is inarguably there in the NT, though it is mitigated elsewhere. That is not as big a problem today as it was in previous generations, especially since almost every major Christian denomination, including the Roman Catholic and Lutheran churches, has renounced assigning guilt for Jesus's death to the Jews of today and even to ALL the Jews of his own day (the Orthodox churches remain an unfortunate exception). That doctrine is today cited only by hardened antisemites, of which there are fortunately relatively few in the Western world. (Antisemitism is endemic in the Islamic world, but the Christ-killer myth is of course of relatively little importance there.)

The greater problem among Christians of today is the teaching that Judaism is no longer a viable faith now that Jesus has come. It is commonly held that the Jews have been replaced in "God's plan" by Christians, and that Judaism itself is today obsolete and without value. Thus, even if they are not responsible for the death of Jesus, Jews of the present day who do not immediately renounce their religion and accept Jesus as Messiah, Savior and Lord are obstinate rebels against God and are working against His "plan of salvation." Jerry Falwell, who in spite of the fury directed at him in recent years was not all that extreme as evangelicals go, even said that "God does not hear the prayer of a Jew." The potential of this teaching for encouraging hatred and even violence is obvious, and has been proven over and over.

This teaching has NOT been renounced by the Christian churches.

For anyone interested enough to wade through its considerable length, there is no better source on the history and consequences of Christian teachings about Judaism than James P. Carroll's Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews; A History. Though it primarily addresses Roman Catholics (the author is a former priest), much of the discussion applies equally to the Protestant denominations.

Another fine source for material on this teaching and its impact specifically on the Holocaust is Franklin H. Littell's fine (and MUCH shorter) book, The Crucifixion of the Jews: The Failure of Christians to Understand the Jewish Experience. The latter book was a major inspiration for my own paper written for my Moral Theology class in seminary some 30 years ago, long before I contemplated converting to Judaism.

 

[Yoink]

The "Christ-killer" business is inarguably there in the NT, though it is mitigated elsewhere. That is not as big a problem today as it was in previous generations, especially since almost every major Christian denomination, including the Roman Catholic and Lutheran churches, has renounced assigning guilt for Jesus's death to the Jews of today and even to ALL the Jews of his own day (the Orthodox churches remain an unfortunate exception). That doctrine is today cited only by hardened antisemites, of which there are fortunately relatively few in the Western world. (Antisemitism is endemic in the Islamic world, but the Christ-killer myth is of course of relatively little importance there.)

The greater problem among Christians of today is the teaching that Judaism is no longer a viable faith now that Jesus has come. It is commonly held that the Jews have been replaced in "God's plan" by Christians, and that Judaism itself is today obsolete and without value. Thus, even if they are not responsible for the death of Jesus, Jews of the present day who do not immediately renounce their religion and accept Jesus as Messiah, Savior and Lord are obstinate rebels against God and are working against His "plan of salvation." Jerry Falwell, who in spite of the fury directed at him in recent years was not all that extreme as evangelicals go, even said that "God does not hear the prayer of a Jew." The potential of this teaching for encouraging hatred and even violence is obvious, and has been proven over and over.

This teaching has NOT been renounced by the Christian churches.

But how could they renounce this? You seem to be saying that it's all very well for people to be Christians as long as they accept that what they believe is a fiction that doesn't really matter. If you're a Christian then you believe that Christ died for the sins of ALL MANKIND and that the road to salvation is through Christ. Now, you might be a nice, non-judgmental Christian and not think people who refuse the Gospel deserve to be killed, but it's pretty hard to read the New Testament and not think that they're headed for a pretty miserable afterlife. You are therefore morally obligated (if you actually believe what you claim to believe) to spread the message and get as many people hooked on Christ as possible, for the good of their eternal souls.

Now, you and I may both know that this is an oogidy-boogidy fairytale and that neither Jew, nor Muslim, nor Hindu will suffer in the least from continuing in their own beliefs (or wising up and becoming atheists), but if you genuinely believe in the free exercise of religion and think that Christians should have the right to exercise theirs then how could they responsibly exercise it without seeking the conversion of everybody else?

I will say that this illogicality is not peculiar to you--it is rooted in the foundations of the contemporary praxis of "freedom of religion." That doesn't make it any the less absurd, however. It's considered absolutely o.k. for any Christian to stand up in front of their congregation and say "Christ is the sole path to salvation!" But you are immediately beyond the pale if you spell out the specific implications of that general claim ("Jews will need to convert if they wish to be saved"--for example). It's o.k. for any imam to say "The Koran is the inerrant word of God"--but quite unacceptable for him to go on to say "so, clearly, all Christians must convert to Islam if they wish to attain paradise." Similarly, it's quite o.k. for a Rabbi to say "the Moshiach is yet to come" but fighting words for him to say (the obvious and inevitable logical corollary) "Christian are the deluded followers of a false prophet."

None of it makes the remotest sense unless everyone secretly agrees that none of the truth-claims of their religions mean anything at all. That is every religious person is meant to be saying "it is true for me" without making any claim that it might be true for someone else. That seems to me to involve a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "true."

 

[cnorman18]

--

Yes, I'll go along, like you, with the "non-few" scholars--thanks. (By the way--sorry for skipping out on the discussion--I had to be away from the computer for a couple of days).

No problem. In fact, it gave me time to step back from the debate a bit and realize that I have been arguing, to a large degree, nonsense. See below.

Where did I specify their beliefs, cnorman? No--I was specifically thinking of Jewish scholars I have read trying to come up with explanations for the more shockingly amoral stories in the Bible (like the bears sent to eat the children mocking Elisha).

That particular tale strikes me as being a cautionary one to frighten children into respecting their elders that somehow found its way into the text; but see below on your other examples.

Well, the one line dismissal of your argument would be: "the modern understanding?" Since when was my point about the modern understanding? Of course, you already conceded my point when I first raised the Biblical account of the genocide of the Canaanites when you said that people have been relieved to discover from the archaeology that it probably never happened. Why would there be "relief" if the "tradition" was so clear that the genocide was purely a metaphor?

Point taken, and a good one it is.

Yes, they're good places to start. Of course, genocide is hardly confined to the treatment of the Canaanites in the Jewish Bible, is it?

No, it isn't. Which, together with my reflections about my position as stated thus far, motivated the remarks below.

Now, did anything like this happen? Who knows? I hardly need convincing that the Bible is a poor historical document. Is it quite clear that the people who wrote this condoned in principle genocidal destruction of non-Jewish tribes. Well, yes. This is not a passage fraught with moral angst....

The language here of "imply," "seem," "suggest" and so forth, hardly confirms your earlier suggestion that the tradition has been clear and unequivocal from time immemorial. Again, that the Bible makes a mountain of genocide out of every molehill of a successful battle by the Israelites is something that seems entirely predictable. The point is that the book's idea of a happy and glorious tale that demonstrates God's special love and care for the Jewish people is a tale of genocide.

Well, it's hardly accurate to characterize the Bible as you did in your last sentence above; the tale is hardly "happy and glorious." Even a superficial reading will show that it is mostly a tale of The Hebrew people continually screwing up and being warned and punished because of it. The Jews are rarely presented as heroes, and their leaders even more rarely. Whatever else the Bible may be, it isn't a book of our-guys-are-the-greatest cheerleading--which, I have now realized, is pretty much what I have been attempting to do here.

That said, your general observation is correct. Again, see below.

But it makes perfect sense to suggest that those who wrote the passages were celebrating genocide as an ideal.

Okay, here's where I chow down on the Crow du Jour:

It is abundantly clear and obvious, and should have been (to me) from the outset, that somebody, at some point, must have thought that genocide was a good idea, or these (many) passages would not read as they do. The fact that these passages, and the others you cited, have been considered a problem (and not "celebrated) for Jewish scholars since the first century of the common era at the latest does not erase the plain fact of their original meaning and apparent intent.

The Jewish people are not now, and never have been, perfect or anything like it. The Bible itself makes that rather abundantly clear. When I realized that my argument here has been tantamount to making that claim, the reevaluation of it was not a matter of choice, but of intellectual honesty, which is a value I place higher than any, even my belief in God.

You were right to say that at some point the Jews must have thought genocide was not just excusable, but praiseworthy--so much so that it was presented as a command from God. Whether or not it was ever actually carried out is, as you (rather charitably, I think) pointed out, is another matter; but I must concede that even if it was not, it could have been.

Well, now you're really stretching. Are you seriously suggesting that these passages have solely to do with "internal debate about Jewish religious practices" simply on the basis of the fact that "Canaanite" occasionally gets used metaphorically to apply to "bad Jews"?

That's not the only reason given; and in the case of these particular passages, yes, I think it quite likely. "Here's what God did to the Canaanites, and if you keep behaving like they did, God will do the same to you." Political polemic in the ancient world was even less restrained than it is today. If these passages had been written before the fact, I think it more likely that they might have referred to real events. However, all that said, the implicit approval of genocide on principle is still present.

....That doesn't mean that there weren't some--or indeed many--instances of genocidal acts against particular towns and villages, does it? Somehow I find it hard to believe that the very specific accounts of all the men, women and children being killed (except, sometimes, for the women of childbearing age) were simple fantasies. I think they describe actual military tactics--probably fairly common in the warfare practiced both by and against the Jewish people in that period.

I think you're probably right about that. In the beginning, the Hebrews were just one violent, primitive and nomadic tribe among many; and one's mores and morals, not to mention one's ways of fighting, tend to be pretty heavily influenced by the neighborhood in which one grew up, so to speak.

How much sense does it make to seize upon one aspect of the archaeological evidence ("it didn't happen exactly as the Bible describes it") and ignore the implications of the repeated insistence in the Biblical text that genocidal erasure is the proper and glorious way to deal with Israel's enemies?

Not much, except to hold out the rather thin hope that it was honored more in theory than in practice. It seems at least probable that it did not occur with the frequency depicted in the Bible, and that is a good thing.

As to what the common Jewish understanding is now I very explicitly and at length insisted that it is "humane and non-supportive of genocide" (I'm not sure what "legitimate" means in this context). That is always has been strikes me as unknowable but profoundly implausible. A people who were morally shocked by the idea of genocide simply could not have produced the Biblical text that we have (you know, the one whose heroes continually enact genocide, the one in which God gets really, really angry with leaders who are too lazy to commit genocide, the one in which God commands his chosen leaders to commit genocide, etc. etc. etc.).

You are quite right, as I hope I have made clear.

Again, you're wandering into "no true Jew" territory. I would be surprised if there are no Jews who believe in Biblical inerrancy.

There probably are, which is why I don't speak for the Orthodox point of view; such a view seems more likely there, since for most Orthodox Jews, change and develoment of their religious practices stopped around 1810. I don't know that that is also the case with their Biblical scholarship, as far as finding new insights is concerned, but I suspect that that is the case.

I do know some Jews who lean toward the Torah-was-dictated-personally-by-God camp, but none of them could be mistaken for scholars; and I know of no Jew who insists that the Bible is literally and historically true. Jewish "Creationists," for example, are virtually nonexistent to my knowledge. As I've said before, Jews tend to value science (and frequently pursue it as a profession) rather than resist it.

Still, it is clearly not the mainstream of Jewish belief. And no, I don't think Biblical inerrancy is either "legitimate or intelligent." Remember, I don't believe in any God at all, so therefore I'm quite certain that the Bible is the flawed work of people.

As am I, and as are most Jews, in my opinion; we believe that God had something to do with it, but that role remains undefined and a subject for debate within the community. There aren't a lot of educated Jews familiar with their own religion (many are not) who still believe that Moses was basically a living Dictaphone, though.

I'm also quite certain, from internal evidence, that it is the flawed work of people who thought that their God really, really wanted them to commit acts of genocidal destruction against their enemies. The fact that they didn't manage to achieve this on the scale that they boast of having done doesn't really change that central fact, does it?

No. It doesn't. Once again, I offer my thanks for participating in my "continuing education."

It's a remarkable gift, really. Elsewhere I would be paying in the neighborhood of $125 a credit hour for this course.

And probably pulling a "C", if that.

 

[Yoink]

No problem. In fact, it gave me time to step back from the debate a bit and realize that I have been arguing, to a large degree, nonsense. See below.



That particular tale strikes me as being a cautionary one to frighten children into respecting their elders that somehow found its way into the text; but see below on your other examples.



Point taken, and a good one it is.



No, it isn't. Which, together with my reflections about my position as stated thus far, motivated the remarks below.



Well, it's hardly accurate to characterize the Bible as you did in your last sentence above; the tale is hardly "happy and glorious." Even a superficial reading will show that it is mostly a tale of The Hebrew people continually screwing up and being warned and punished because of it. The Jews are rarely presented as heroes, and their leaders even more rarely. Whatever else the Bible may be, it isn't a book of our-guys-are-the-greatest cheerleading--which, I have now realized, is pretty much what I have been attempting to do here.

That said, your general observation is correct. Again, see below.



Okay, here's where I chow down on the Crow du Jour:

It is abundantly clear and obvious, and should have been (to me) from the outset, that somebody, at some point, must have thought that genocide was a good idea, or these (many) passages would not read as they do. The fact that these passages, and the others you cited, have been considered a problem (and not "celebrated) for Jewish scholars since the first century of the common era at the latest does not erase the plain fact of their original meaning and apparent intent.

The Jewish people are not now, and never have been, perfect or anything like it. The Bible itself makes that rather abundantly clear. When I realized that my argument here has been tantamount to making that claim, the reevaluation of it was not a matter of choice, but of intellectual honesty, which is a value I place higher than any, even my belief in God.

You were right to say that at some point the Jews must have thought genocide was not just excusable, but praiseworthy--so much so that it was presented as a command from God. Whether or not it was ever actually carried out is, as you (rather charitably, I think) pointed out, is another matter; but I must concede that even if it was not, it could have been.



That's not the only reason given; and in the case of these particular passages, yes, I think it quite likely. "Here's what God did to the Canaanites, and if you keep behaving like they did, God will do the same to you." Political polemic in the ancient world was even less restrained than it is today. If these passages had been written before the fact, I think it more likely that they might have referred to real events. However, all that said, the implicit approval of genocide on principle is still present.



I think you're probably right about that. In the beginning, the Hebrews were just one violent, primitive and nomadic tribe among many; and one's mores and morals, not to mention one's ways of fighting, tend to be pretty heavily influenced by the neighborhood in which one grew up, so to speak.



Not much, except to hold out the rather thin hope that it was honored more in theory than in practice. It seems at least probable that it did not occur with the frequency depicted in the Bible, and that is a good thing.



You are quite right, as I hope I have made clear.



There probably are, which is why I don't speak for the Orthodox point of view; such a view seems more likely there, since for most Orthodox Jews, change and develoment of their religious practices stopped around 1810. I don't know that that is also the case with their Biblical scholarship, as far as finding new insights is concerned, but I suspect that that is the case.

I do know some Jews who lean toward the Torah-was-dictated-personally-by-God camp, but none of them could be mistaken for scholars; and I know of no Jew who insists that the Bible is literally and historically true. Jewish "Creationists," for example, are virtually nonexistent to my knowledge. As I've said before, Jews tend to value science (and frequently pursue it as a profession) rather than resist it.



As am I, and as are most Jews, in my opinion; we believe that God had something to do with it, but that role remains undefined and a subject for debate within the community. There aren't a lot of educated Jews familiar with their own religion (many are not) who still believe that Moses was basically a living Dictaphone, though.



No. It doesn't. Once again, I offer my thanks for participating in my "continuing education."

It's a remarkable gift, really. Elsewhere I would be paying in the neighborhood of $125 a credit hour for this course.

And probably pulling a "C", if that.

Cnorman18, you're a scholar and a gentleman. You almost never see this on one of these kinds of discussion sites--people usually just dig in their heels and keep defending their position (or subtly changing them) until they're blue in the face. It's been a pleasure debating with you.

 

[cnorman18]

--

Cnorman18, you're a scholar and a gentleman. You almost never see this on one of these kinds of discussion sites--people usually just dig in their heels and keep defending their position (or subtly changing them) until they're blue in the face.

Yeah, I've noticed that. I'm perfectly capable of digging in my heels and turning blue when I think that I'm right, but when I decide that I'm wrong, I take a positive pleasure in admitting it and freaking my opponents right out. Besides, as I've said before, it's more important to learn the truth than to win an argument. (And even if you somehow manage to "win" when you know you're wrong, what have you "won" anyway?)

It's been a pleasure debating with you.

Likewise, of course.

On your last: In brief, I think Judaism in relation to Christianity is a special case, since the latter grew out of the former; and some Christian scholars (and, I correct myself, even some churches--notably the Roman Catholic) have declared that Judaism is an alternate path to salvation and that Jews need not become Christians to enter Heaven--which is nice to hear, even if we weren't worried about that to begin with. The salient point is that Christians can admit that God hasn't decided to dump us, so it's not okay for them to dump on us.

Also, whatever other religions may do, Jews don't consign anybody to Hell (not even atheists). We don't even say that Jesus was a "false prophet"; if he was God's way of teaching some good stuff to the Gentiles, we're okay with that. We just don't think he was talking to us.

Realistically, I don't suppose it's likely that other religions will ever adopt Mark Twain's advice that "Everybody should just leave everybody else the hell alone," but I'm still for it. It's the Jewish way...

 

[Yoink]

On your last: In brief, I think Judaism in relation to Christianity is a special case, since the latter grew out of the former; and some Christian scholars (and, I correct myself, even some churches--notably the Roman Catholic) have declared that Judaism is an alternate path to salvation and that Jews need not become Christians to enter Heaven--which is nice to hear, even if we weren't worried about that to begin with. The salient point is that Christians can admit that God hasn't decided to dump us, so it's not okay for them to dump on us.

Yes--on the other hand I don't think it makes a lot of sense. I think it's on much the same level as the Mormon revisions of the Book of Mormon--I'm glad (at a social/political level) that they happen (fewer people preaching hate has to be a good thing), but they seem to me to falsify the very premises on which any of the church's beliefs are based.

In the Christian case, it's guilt over the Shoah that makes them do this. That's all well and good (they've got lots to be guilty about), but it's mistaking an institutional guilt with a doctrinal truth.

Also, whatever other religions may do, Jews don't consign anybody to Hell (not even atheists).

That's true (well, again--true of some Jews; I've known Jews who argue strongly for a punitive afterlife and claim that all "true" Jews believe in it). But anyway, it's a point for those of you who do see things that way!

We don't even say that Jesus was a "false prophet"; if he was God's way of teaching some good stuff to the Gentiles, we're okay with that.

We just don't think he was talking to us.

O.K. , but that's just weaseling. I mean Mark Twain was "God's way of teaching some good stuff to the Gentiles" too, but that's a long way from calling him a prophet. If you don't believe Jesus was the son of God then you believe that that's a false claim to make about him. So you also believe that the basic underpinnings of Christianity are false. (Hey, that's cool--I agree with you!).

We just don't think he was talking to us.Realistically, I don't suppose it's likely that other religions will ever adopt Mark Twain's advice that "Everybody should just leave everybody else the hell alone," but I'm still for it. It's the Jewish way...[/quote]

Well, sure. But that also means abandoning your religious teachings (if they are universalist--like those of the Christians and the Muslims).

 

[cnorman18]

--

Yes--on the other hand I don't think it makes a lot of sense. I think it's on much the same level as the Mormon revisions of the Book of Mormon--I'm glad (at a social/political level) that they happen (fewer people preaching hate has to be a good thing), but they seem to me to falsify the very premises on which any of the church's beliefs are based.

Mormons, feh. Don't tell anybody, but I'm going off the reservation for a minute (Jews aren't supposed to call any religion false). Joseph Smith was the L. Ron Hubbard of his day: he knew he was making up all that crap, so I suppose his spiritual heirs can change it anytime they want.

Okay, back on the reservation now: I suppose God can even use one man's psychosis or arrogance to speak some sort of spiritual truth or other. The Mormons I know seem to be pretty good folks.

In the Christian case, it's guilt over the Shoah that makes them do this. That's all well and good (they've got lots to be guilty about), but it's mistaking an institutional guilt with a doctrinal truth.

Maybe. Maybe it's also a matter of reevaluating the rightness of the traditional position, and looking anew at the Scriptures; we both use the same Bible, in part, and it does indicate that the first Covenant was eternal. Even Paul in Romans 11 (or 12, I forget which) can be read that way. In any case, it's for sure a matter of interpretation and not a bald, unequivocal statement of the Bible.

Maybe it's both; an enormous historical event can motivate institutional change.

Whatever. I'm not going to argue that they shouldn't change their attitude.

That's true (well, again--true of some Jews; I've known Jews who argue strongly for a punitive afterlife and claim that all "true" Jews believe in it). But anyway, it's a point for those of you who do see things that way!

You can tell them for me that they can believe what they like, but they have no warrant to toss out Jews who disagree. Judaism has no Creed that lists all the stuff we have to believe. The closest we ever got was Maimonides's 13 Principles of Faith, and they're not binding--every single one of them has been disputed--and though it does say there is reward and retribution after death, there's nothing in there about eternal fire. If that were representative of the only God available, I'd be an atheist, thanks.

Or do an L. Ron and make up my own God.

O.K. , but that's just weaseling. I mean Mark Twain was "God's way of teaching some good stuff to the Gentiles" too, but that's a long way from calling him a prophet.

You misunderstand; we don't say Jesus was a false prophet; but then we don't say he was a prophet at all.

"Nice fella; too thin, but never mind. Follow him if you want. No business of ours. Care for a bagel?"

If you don't believe Jesus was the son of God then you believe that that's a false claim to make about him. So you also believe that the basic underpinnings of Christianity are false. (Hey, that's cool--I agree with you!).

C. S. Lewis once remarked that insofar as another religion disagreed with his own, he was compelled to say that he thought it false; but that saying it was entirely false was quite another matter.

"We just don't think he was talking to us....Realistically, I don't suppose it's likely that other religions will ever adopt Mark Twain's advice that "Everybody should just leave everybody else the hell alone," but I'm still for it. It's the Jewish way..."

Well, sure. But that also means abandoning your religious teachings (if they are universalist--like those of the Christians and the Muslims).

So be it. Hey, I changed my mind.

Seriously, it's a principle of Judaism that is you come to understand that the Torah teaches something that you know beyond doubt to be wrong, then you either change your understanding of the Torah or you ignore it in that instance. I know that that's not a tenet of anyone else's religion, but it surely should be.

Take the present discussion: We decided at least two millenia back that subjecting unbelievers to genocide was a bad thing, even if the Torah said otherwise. Not to put too fine a point on it, but Muslims ought to make the same decision about the Koran vis-a-vis "Infidels," and that decision is long overdue. If Allah is any relation to Yahweh, he is not pleased with the pace of their development.