ŷ������

The Christian Old Testament is based on the Hebrew .
Jan has averred that these are just "Christian Stories".
Derek wants to know how Jan arrives at this conclusion, and I myself will post further responses to Jan on the matter here.
The discussion was starting to weigh down the Blind Assassin discussion, so has been moved here instead.

...I clearly missed the original discussion, but the Christian "Old Testament" IS the Hebrew TaNaKh. "Old Testament" is just the Christian name for it. We are hampered in our study of it today by the fact that what we call "biblical Hebrew" was a dead language, limited solely to religious literature, for nearly two millennia (which is why when Modern Hebrew was created it had to be rebuilt from the ground up using the basic structures of Arabic & words from other languages), so there are a lot of ancient Hebrew words of which even the most rigorous scholars can only guess at the meaning (not that most of us will admit it). But...yeah, calling the OT mere "Christian Stories" is rather like calling the works of Xenophon "German stories" just because they have been studied by Germans and translated into German.

I'm willing to answer any questions, since I'm a professor of religious studies and ancient history specializing in both the ancient Mediterranean and the periods in which Christianity emerged and Rabbinic Judaism became its own post-Temple entity.

Hi Ian! I know you know most of my positions about... well, you know that I am fairly liberal, so.. but let me try to fill you in a bit - I'll reproduce the most salient points of the discussion.

Well, basically I unintentionally released the cat amongst the pigeons by making a remark about how a certain group of people in a book we were discussing reminded me of the "purity" mindset: Traveller wrote:
[...]
I couldn't help feeling that the People of Desolation/Joy reminded me of the ancient Hebrews out on one of their genocidal purges. :P I wonder if that's the intention?

============
Magdelanye wrote: "huh?
the ancient Hebrews were usually on the receiving end of the genocidal purges. To me they are more like Christian missionaries, with the rough edges intact.
"
Oh goodie, you're here. :)
I was talking about this kind of thing from the Old Testament:

1 Samuel 15:3 ��
"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'"
and
Numbers 31:17 ��
So kill all the Midianite boys and every Midianite woman who has gone to bed with a man.

and

Numbers 21:3 (King James Version (KJV))
3 And the Lord hearkened to the voice of Israel, and delivered up the Canaanites; and they utterly destroyed them and their cities: and he called the name of the place Hormah.

and Genesis 34
25 And it came to pass on the third day, when they were sore, that two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah's brethren, took each man his sword, and came upon the city boldly, and slew all the males.

26 And they slew Hamor and Shechem his son with the edge of the sword, and took Dinah out of Shechem's house, and went out.

27 The sons of Jacob came upon the slain, and spoiled the city, because they had defiled their sister.

28 They took their sheep, and their oxen, and their asses, and that which was in the city, and that which was in the field,

29 And all their wealth, and all their little ones, and their wives took they captive, and spoiled even all that was in the house.

and

Exodus 32:27-29King James Version (KJV)

27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.

28 And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.

and so forth and so forth.
========

Then Jan said: Traveler, I would like you to be more careful about all this "OT" and "ancient Jews" stuff. You are going to think it is true, because you've been indoctrinated in it and you will select out what will support your views. I'm saying it's not that it's "the truth," but that it's your story (one that's shifted and changed over the past 100 years, in fact). You might just as well begin talking about Islam's being a religion of violence, or (more in past years) about certain races being people of violence. And they can assemble plenty of "evidence," too.

I'm not asking you to be "politically correct." Actually your views would represent political correctness; in other words, they represent your politics. Say what you want; just say it's your story and you're sticking to it!

Was in a Protestant church last Sun., and heard a Christian prof of OT theology confront this issue. He didn't mention Jews at all; just mentioned mainline Christians' habit of dissing the OT, talking about an "OT God," "OT justice," etc. And how this was false. How all these issues of judgment/mercy etc are continuous up through the NT.

I guess you're going to say you don't like any religion, Trav, if I remember correctly. That doesn't change my comment, though. The stuff in any people's scripture is a story. You can't find out so easy what they really did or what really happened--unless you yourself are a fundamentalist, which you're not.

I'd just as soon not argue about all this here, but just sayin'.


Basically Derek's stance was: Actually, nobody said "Jews", because we weren't talking about Jews. The Jews were the people who returned from Babylon—the Israelites minus the ten lost tribes.

Mainline Christians "diss" the Old Testament with good reason. My very mainline Christian education taught me that the doctrinal basis of Christianity is entirely in the New Testament.

...then everything went well again for a while, until this point:

Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "Traveller wrote: "Oh, and Derek - granted, the Jews were often on the receiving end too,"

That wasn't me... I'm 100% in agreement that the genocides of the Bible are on the Israelites' part. ..."

============
...and Jan replied:
??? Are you joking, Derek? I thought we were through with that "us" and "them."
==========

Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "Not joking at all. The early parts of the Old Testament are a litany of ethnic cleansings by the Israelites."

Reply by Jan:
It is a story, not history. Historically, there was war. In that time in the ancient near east, there was a lot of chest pounding by various tribes, claiming they had "destroyed the seed" of the other tribe, and so forth. But we cannot tell what happened from what is written in scripture. We can say the Israelites sometimes prevailed, but we cannot say they wiped out everybody. The last redactors of the Hebrew bible were the priests, and that was the idealization they wrote in as to what should happen, but still we cannot tell what part of what is written down has elements of history, and what part is cheer-leading. For example the Tel Dan stele: the 1st part of this rendition.
I don't know if this is a particularly good rendition; it's just the first reasonable explanation I came across for this commonly known example. In a direct contradiction of a part of the Hebrew bible in which it's written the Israelites won and wiped out the seed, this other king(s?) is claiming his side won and "wiped out the seed (or house)" of David.

So for those who "choose to believe" this in such fundamentalist terms, we know about them than about what they are pointing to. Why is it so important to you to believe this? How is it different than white people who propped up their self esteem by the belief they were "better than" others?

In case you would like to say the new tradition brought a change in no longer following the old warlike ways, that would be a hard sell. It requires telling a story that makes the ongoing warlike ways "not you," and that's the hard sell part.

Better to start looking at the person in the mirror and not at "them."
==================
Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "It's NOT important to me to believe that—I "believe" very little of the Old Testament, and not much more of the new (I'm fairly confident in the Epistles). What's important is that that is what was written. "
=========
Jan: What we have here is a "moralization gap:" [...]

I think you're evading, but, OK, have it your own way, story. The bible is after all a big Rorschach blot, and you see something ugly in (that part of) it. There's a name for that. (Not what you're thinking.)

I already talked with Traveller, and this time I'm talking with you, Derek.

The tale within a tale is fiction.
==========
Traveller wrote: "I wanted to comment on something completely different here, but I see there is air to be cleared first.

Jan, please tell me something: If I had said that the Lizard men remind me of the Greek Gods who occupied Mount Olympus, would you have had a similar reaction as to the remark made that referred to books that make up part of the Judaic scriptures? ..."

Jan:
Oh, here's my comeuppance: I must stand and talk... But I am kidding. Thank you for asking.

First of all, I consider the air to have been considerably cleared. That's up to me. I can either stuff it, or I can speak. If the former, then that means I won't be interacting, since it's not possible to both speak, and not speak about something that's important. (So, some could be thinking, "Oh, darn! We missed out on not having to bother!")

I'll try to address your concern, although in somewhat simplified and condensed form--not the full treatment.

Let's say that when Jews were emancipated and allowed into society (in those European countries in which they were), which was around the time of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Napoleon, I think of them having agreed never to question the Western, i.e., Christianity-based story, on pain of disloyalty, so whenever the issue arose they would just have to suck it up. But, unfortunately, that story periodically flares up on a grass-roots level when politically beneficial for some (which has been most of the time, except for an interlude which just happens to have encompassed most of my lifetime but is ending or has ended).

I decided that speaking up was important.

It's like the guy I think I cited in my The Meursault Investigation review: stuff happens whether one is silent or speaks, and I decided on the latter. There is another writer who said the only worthwhile things to speak (write) about are the things that "can't" be spoken.

A key point is that the stories about the OT and Judaism and so forth that are prevalent in our culture and incline people to see it as violent, immature, and -ha!- unperfected, are not Jewish stories. They are Christian stories about Judaism, Israelites, OT etc., seen only through that lens, so that it looks solid, real, and immutable. And unquestionable. It seems ludicrous to bring it up, like questioning the sky is blue.

As I may have said before, much of the Christian story and foundations of conventional Western culture is "over-against" "Judaism"--that is, a story about Judaism for the purpose of making "ordinary" people feel better about themselves in comparison. (Thus, not different at bottom from white people feeling solid by looking down on people of color, or Europeans looking down on "native" populations as in past generations, etc.etc.)

Now, as to Greek gods: even today's Greeks wouldn't feel bad about negative comparison to Greek gods, much less I, nor (so I understand) do today's Egyptians or Arabs feel bad when "Pharaoh" is portrayed as the bad guy, because there is not that over-against dynamic. That is an ancient civilization which they are not seen as. It is the continued dynamic of degradation that is poisonous when it exists. With Greek gods or Pharaoh it doesn't.

On hearing this you may feel incredulity or feel unfairly accused etc., and it's not my purpose to go around making people uncomfortable, but when it comes up I'll still try to express as best I can. And I don't think the air can be cleared by shoring up the typical barriers against discussion. Maybe it can even be a source of learning from the other and can bring something new into the world. I hope so, Traveller. I have a book review coming up in not too long in which I'll be looking as some of these issues again, as I have in quite a few others.

============

Then things start to get a bit sticky:

Jan:
I had an interlude that I used to read back through all the comments relating the in-power group of the story-within-a-story to the ancient Hebrews and my objections.

Traveller said (back on Thread 2): "...Also, no text is the same thing for different people, because we all come to it from different contexts and backgrounds. :)"

I said (above, #55), "... The bible is after all a big Rorschach blot...."

In other words,

(One of those quotes you'll see in slightly different formats. It's variously attributed.)

With me so far?

That's my point.

You've made my point with about everything you've said, Trav and Derek.

The rest is commentary about my thinking what you're saying is problematical and immoral with implications beyond literary discussion, while you think it's perfectly justified and right on target.

Will check back later in the week, and who knows, maybe I can reply in verse or something. My preferred meter is...damn, I forget it every time...oh, yeah: anapestic tetrameter.
==========
I took exception to the so-called "immorality" of my utterances:
Traveller:
Jan, it feels to me as if you are making ad hominem accusations without backing up your claims.
[...]
If you want to call me immoral, please back those accusations up with well-argumented proof? I take exception to it.
================
Derek:
And I still want to know how you can call those Old Testament writings "Christian stories." They manifestly are not.
===========
Jan:
You are in error. Talk to scholars and experts on your tradition. What you say has been tried, at least twice that I know of, and it just couldn't be done.
===================
Traveller:
Are you saying the Tanakh was some kind of Christian set-up? <_<
I'm not sure how that's possible since most of it was set centuries before the birth of Christ... why does current-day Judaism also still follow it then, and why do the Muslims accept the Torah?

Sadly we are derailing this specific discussion - I am going to create a Politics and Religion thread where we can continue with this.

Obviously more was said, but I tried to grab the gist of it. To be quite honest, I don't exactly know exactly what Jan is trying to say.

It sounds like she is trying to say that the OT is the result of Christian tampering and that it's not true to the original, but Derek and I both know about the fact that a lot was lost in translation and a lot of it is uncertain due to the ancient texts being hard to interpret.

We are not trying to say that the OT is "true" - I was mainly referring to the : "destroy every man woman and child, and their cattle and every living thing in their city" trope being repeated in the book we were discussing, as well as the idea of "purity". The city that was to be destroyed needed, apparently, to be utterly destroyed because it was "tainted".

My original remark was purely in relation to this. If Derek and I had been fundamentalist Christians, I would have understood Jan's arguments, but things being as it is, I have no idea what position she is arguing from, and what position she is arguing against. Does she want me to condone ethnic cleansing now? Because that is basically what I was condemning... the idea of "cleansing" via total destruction. Not the ancients who did it, not the Christians vs Muslims who went at it during the Crusades, and the Christians who did it during all of their imperialist exploits, and none of the various fascist nationalists who had indulged in it since then and in the spaces inbetween. Not the nations who indulged in it - because hey, there are few nations who had never in known history indulged in it to some extent or another - but it is the PRACTICE that I condemn.

Uh, the "Jews" pre-date the Babylonian exile. It originated as a term for people of the Kingdom of Judah (aka: the Southern Kingdom), and was later applied to the returned Exiles because those were the ones taken to Babylon -- the Kingdom of Israel/Ephraim (aka: the Northern Kingdom) having been wiped out well beforehand by the Assyrians. This was why the Achaemenid Empire dubbed the resettled territory which the Exiles inhabited "Yehud," and the Romans eventually called it "Judaea."

And it sounds like Jan doesn't know what she's talking about. It's the same text, in various states of translation admittedly, but the only difference is exegesis. Even the Septuagint was translated and used by Greek-speaking Jews before Christians started using it. We have a copy of nearly every single TaNaKhic text in Hebrew/Aramaic from the Qumran scrolls, and they match pretty much perfectly with the Masoretic Text -- which is what most Jews have used for ages now and what Christians today read (in translation).

And yes, the judgments against the Canaanites are as a result of their having descended into what we today would call "paganism" and other practices considered "wrong." That's explicitly stated throughout the Torah. That's the point of the narrative -- if they hadn't sinned, then the land wouldn't have been given to the Israelites. And if you read the TaNaKh as a holistic text, it presages the eventual judgments against the Northern & Southern Kingdoms (and the post-Exile communities as well). The text as a whole is usually read as saying "God judged the Canaanites for their sins and used us as the instrument of his vengeance; now he is judging us for committing the same sins, and he is using the Goyim as his instruments against us." One of the overarching themes of the Torah and the rest of the TaNaKh is the consequences of the Israelites' refusal to obey such instructions -- eg: "Completely eradicate the Canaanites! If you don't, you'll adopt their religious and cultural practices and I will have to wipe you out too!" "Meh...We'll get around to it." [Decades Later] "Hey, those Canaanites are still around because we didn't wipe them out! Let's adopt some of their religious and cultural practices!" "Well, you can't say I didn't warn you..."

Another similar command/disobedience/consequence dynamic which seems to be a consistent theme in a holistic reading is that of Kingship. The Sinai Covenant involved the Israelites promising to accept their god as their king; no kingship is permitted, just tribal councils, priests, prophets and periodic emergency leaders. They are warned of the horrible things a human king can do. But in Samuel they insist upon having a human king, and even after the consequences are rehearsed to them again, they keep insisting, so they are granted a human kingship...and what follows is a list of kings who invariably demonstrate the weakness of human leaders (since even the best ones usually screw up BIG TIME) and very nearly cause the Israelites to be eradicated repeatedly.

A holistic reading, it should be noted, does not require that one assume it was all written at once or by the same author -- only that the authors of subsequent texts in the tradition were responding to the earlier ones -- perhaps continuing themes they noticed or believed they noticed in the earlier texts.

In any event, the purpose of the commands should not be seen as simply a matter of ethnic cleansing -- there's more to them. It's not just a matter of "We're better, so we get the land!" It's a matter of "This is what happens to peoples who fail to listen to God, and it can happen to us too." Within the text the commands are presented as something which will happen to the "cleansers" as well if they fail to honor the Covenant. This is, in part, the reasoning behind the creation of the Qumran Community, the Pharisees, the Talmud, etc. -- fear that failure to abide by the Covenant will result in God permitting or causing the wholesale destruction of the People because they wound up doing exactly what their "pagan" predecessors did. The idea that one should not see oneself as superior or protected simply because one was used as an instrument of judgment. Read in context (even simply the context of the Torah), the commands to wipe out the Canaanites are as much a warning to the Israelites as a judgment against the Canaanites.

I'm not saying you're wrong to condemn the practice divorced from all context, just that within the text there's a lot more involved than simply "Kill the others and take their land."

[Name Redacted] wrote: "In any event, the purpose of the commands should not be seen as simply a matter of ethnic cleansing -- there's more to them. It's not just a matter of "We're better, so we get the land!" It's a matter of "This is what happens to peoples who fail to listen to God, and it can happen to us too." ..."

Sure, I do understand it as you laid it out there, but once again it comes down to each person having their own interpretation of terms. As you know, I do not personally believe in Jehova or Allah as an entity outside of human creation, and therefore what Allah or Jehova says, (or what we think he may have said) is what the prophets who "report" them say.

But besides that, since "ethnic" includes "cultural" and cultural includes religion, killing a peoples for their customs and religion for me falls within the scope of ethnic cleansing and cultural cleansing or cultural genocide. The idea of race has become so problematic and fuzzy - I mean, modern scholars don't even want to give the concept of "race" credence anymore, that I personally prefer to, as you rightly pointed out, to see "ethnicity" as a cultural group who identify together ITO language, customs and culture, (and -usually- religion too, though not always), instead of seeing ethnic cleansing = racial cleansing.

But in any case, the discussion became very much sidetracked from the original remark, which had focused on the rather bizarre idea that what you term "customs and religion = sin" can actually even be transferred via a horse and a goat and a camel, like paint that rubs off...

[Name Redacted] wrote: "Uh, the "Jews" pre-date the Babylonian exile. It originated as a term for people of the Kingdom of Judah (aka: the Southern Kingdom), "

Actually, I think that was me. I knew there was an Assyrian and a Babylonian invasion, but forget what happened when.

Traveller wrote: "I personally prefer to, as you rightly pointed out, to see "ethnicity" as a cultural group who identify together ITO language, customs and culture, (and -usually- religion too, though not always)"

Do you have an example of an "ethnicity" that contains multiple religions? Religion always seems the primary divisor to me (e.g. Serbs & Croats, who anybody outside the region would tend to think were one ethnic group), and I have a hard time imagining some group that considers themselves of one ethnicity with different religions (Canada's as multicultural as it gets, but the key is "multi"—we don't think of ourselves as a single cultural unit).

Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "And I still want to know how you can call those Old Testament writings "Christian stories." They manifestly are not."

I wrote, "You are in error. Talk to scholars and experts on your tradition. What you say has been tried, at least twice that I know of, and it just couldn't be done."

and then Derek wrote, "No, don't just tell me I'm "in error" (you might as well just call me an anti-semitic liar). Tell me why those books, included in the foundational literature for Judaism, are "Christian" stories. In the other thread..."

The themes are not separated into the Hebrew and Christian scriptures. They are interwoven. You can't get the "Jewish" themes out of the NT. There is a continuity of themes, not discontinuity. To come to the latter conclusion requires seeing Judaism through a biased eye. (At the dawn of Christianity, the only scripture was the OT. The early church needed it. Christianity couldn't exist without it.) I'm saying the ugliness and negativity you're seeing is in the eye of the beholder.

Things can look very different viewed from the inside vs. looking at them from the outside.

I'm not saying the Tanakh is without problems. No scriptures are that--without problems, that is. The problems we're having come with the polarization: exporting the evil all over to one side. That is a questionable method of self-cleaning.

I said that practice is morally questionable. I didn't call anyone immoral. I also know that you don't know when you are doing that. You don't see it. We can't see ourselves and tend to point at others. And those in power try and enforce it.

[Name Redacted] wrote: "...I clearly missed the original discussion, but the Christian "Old Testament" IS the Hebrew TaNaKh. "Old Testament" is just the Christian name for it. We are hampered in our study of it today by t..."

Hello, Name Redacted. I see from Traveller's response that she knows you as Ian.

Your credentials are good. You and Traveller are apparently well known to each other. I, on the other hand, don't remember coming across you in any thread during my four years on this site. Once before, on another subject, I embarked on an uneven playing field. I would like to think your presence and your expertise would even this one out, but, credentials or no, that's not an automatic. I spent a little while looking for some of your reviews but didn't find any. I think if I read a few, I'd get a feel. Would you direct me to some of them? I'd be willing to give you a few as well, or you can choose them yourself.

Jan wrote: "The themes are not separated into the Hebrew and Christian scriptures. They are interwoven. You can't get the "Jewish" themes out of the NT. There is a continuity of themes, not discontinuity. "

But that's not what you said. You said they were "Christian stories". When I said they were not, you said I was "in error". Ad hominem, and wrong!

And NO, I wasn't seeing ugliness in the OT. We were talking about fictional people in a declared work of fiction, and comparing them to another people described in what may or may not be a work of fiction—and in a totally relevant way, because the characters on the receiving end of the genocide in the novel were explicitly identified as being based on the Hittites (though, we don't know whether they're the biblical Hittites or the historical Anatolian ones). The only "morally questionable" activity going on here is imputation of maleficent intent for merely referencing actions that were written down in a book and passed off as history.

Jan wrote: "The problems we're having come with the polarization: exporting the evil all over to one side. "

The problems who are having? If you want to discuss the "evils" perpetrated by various Christian sects against Jews, Muslims, or even other Christians, I have a whole lot longer list than we've come up with so far. And just as Jewish scholars recorded the events of the Old Testament, we have plenty of Christian scholars recording their own misdeeds as commanded by God (Thomas More comes immediately to mind).

If I'm guilty of "exporting the evil all over to one side" it would certainly weigh against Christianity. If nothing else, Christianity's evils are better recorded. But that never came up, because that's not the context of the novel we were discussing. I'm sure we can find a place to add that discussion to our group read of Foucault's Pendulum, though.

Nope. I wasn't saying they were Christian stories. You were denying they're Christian stories. But--if they are all part of the Christian scriptures, can you really pick and choose which ones are Christian?

As I think I've already written there is a trend or tendency within Christianity to blame Jews and see them and Judaism as evil. And, in ancient Israel, similarly, there was a tendency to outsource evil onto the Canaanites. Even long after the Canaanites were assimilated, there was a tendency to conflate evil with Canaanite ways. In Western society ongoing there is a tendency to conflate evil with Judaism, since the Christian tradition has been so dominant within the culture (even if people consider themselves post-Christian or whatever). So, looking with those eyes, one can easily look out on that story-within-a-story and see what has been built into one by the culture. (When it all started, the early church had no power to inflict anything on Jews. But, later, they did.) That's what I drew attention to.

Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "Traveller wrote: "I personally prefer to, as you rightly pointed out, to see "ethnicity" as a cultural group who identify together ITO language, customs and culture, (and -usually- religion too, th..."

Arabs. Romans. Greeks.

Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "Do you have an example of an "ethnicity" that contains multiple religions? Religion always seems the primary divisor to me (e.g. Serbs & Croats, who anybody outside the region would tend to think were one ethnic group), and I have a hard time imagining some group that considers themselves of one ethnicity with different religions ..."

I do, but it's a rather ironic one. Welll...- it also depends on how strictly you define "religion". Do you see Protestant Christianity and Catholisicm as the same religion for example, - because strictly speaking, if Judaism, Islam and Christianity are deemed separate religions, then so should protestantism and Catholicism, since they all cherry-picked their prophets and scriptures and saints and whatnot. But I am sure that Name Redacted will help out here and give the "official line" on that. For that matter, I wonder if Ian's own background, being LDS, right? is seen as a separate religion? I think so...

In any case, I have, in the last few years, been trying to expand my cultural horizons and have been reading translated works from various cultures. A few months ago I read an anthology of short stories that treated with the African Diaspora. Two of the stories complained of French anti-black racism. I got that, but then one said it was actually entrenched in law, which made me read it up, and it was actually the opposite.

Turns out the French government had been trying to combat racism for years (obviously not with entire success since the Right has been growing there). But, guess what - the official line is that French ethnicity and French identity is based on language and customs and not on religion or skin color.

...soooo... if you act like one and speak like one, you are one. The guideline does not stipulate, as far as I know, how much religion forms part of "customs" so I don't know if you can be considered ethnically a Frenchperson if you go to synagogue or temple instead of to church or cathedral, but I am pretty sure that they've been trying to include Jews in their definition because after WW2 there has been heavy legal and "official" sanctions against anti-semitism. Gee, they're almost stricter against Nazism than the Germans are. On the other hand, the French do seem to feel that Muslim customs are not French, so... ¯\_(��)_/¯ that's quite a complicated one...

...but I did find another interesting one, this time in controversial South Africa. They seem to have decided to divide their ethnicities into: white, black, 'colored', Indian and "other Asian", meaning Chinese-type ethnicities, though it appears they have now decided that Chinese etc. and Japanese are also "white". <_<.
Of course each of these broad groups have subdivisions, and like with many Indian peoples who are 'racially' exactly the same, "Indians" can be either Hindu or Muslim. (Seen as different ethnicities? I guess it depends where...)

But interestingly, apparently the most ancestrally complex group in South Africa, is also a group seen as homogenous: people called "Cape coloreds" who are either Christian or Muslim, but are seen as a homogenous group despite this...argh, taking so long with this I see Name Redacted has in the meantime replied very succintly.

But anyway, other examples are many places in East Asia, where you have Shinto, Confucianism, Taoism, and elements of Mahayana Buddhism; as well as new religious movements such as I-Kuan Tao (Yiguandao), Chen Tao, Cao Đài, Hòa Hảo, Chondogyo, and Jeung San Do, in various mixes.

South America also has various interesting mixes. In any case, and since Name Redacted has just mentioned some too, you see why I hesitated on fully and unequivocally including religion...

Jan wrote: "The themes are not separated into the Hebrew and Christian scriptures. They are interwoven. You can't get the 'Jewish' themes out of the NT. There is a continuity of themes, not discontinuity. To come to the latter conclusion requires seeing Judaism through a biased eye. (At the dawn of Christianity, the only scripture was the OT. The early church needed it. Christianity couldn't exist without it.)"

Yep. This.

And it sounds like I misunderstood the intent of your defense of them as "Christian stories." You are absolutely right in that respect -- trying to excise TaNaKhic narratives & scriptures from Christianity is extremely difficult, if not impossible. Old attempts were made (*cough*Marcionism*cough*), but never had any real traction or lasting impact. That's really where the exegesis comes in. The fact of the matter is that Second Temple Judaism has about as much in common with Rabbinic Judaism as it does with Christianity: both are religious movements which began in the Second Temple period and rose to prominence in the post-Temple world.

As for the "evils of Christianity," we might not want to start down that road. Especially since most of the "evils" people start listing tend to be ahistorical, anachronistic, out of context, and/or just plain fictional. There are valid complaints to be made, but separating them from the myths, the slanders, the political acts mis-characterized as religious, etc. takes AGES. Just separating fact from fiction in that regard would take more time than I really have right now, especially since people can become very committed to their head-canon histories. Heck, if you believe what was written about Christians between the 2nd and 6th centuries C.E., they were a cult of incestuous, orgiastic cannibal baby-killing wizards who worshipped the golden donkey-headed barbarian Jewish god and his dead Egyptian wizard son. And that's just ONE of the popular accusations.

[Name Redacted] wrote: "Jan wrote: "The themes are not separated into the Hebrew and Christian scriptures. They are interwoven. You can't get the 'Jewish' themes out of the NT. There is a continuity of themes, not discont..."

But the point in fact remains: The prophets from the scriptures pre-Christ preached an eye for an eye, preached the "purity" myth, which led to an aversion to acculturation and towards genocidal tendencies, whereas Christ preached, in contrast, "compassion above all".

You said it yourself, Ian, and I quote from your post 6:
"And yes, the judgments against the Canaanites are as a result of their having descended into what we today would call "paganism" and other practices considered "wrong." That's explicitly stated throughout the Torah. That's the point of the narrative -- if they hadn't sinned, then the land wouldn't have been given to the Israelites. And if you read the TaNaKh as a holistic text, it presages the eventual judgments against the Northern & Southern Kingdoms (and the post-Exile communities as well). The text as a whole is usually read as saying "God judged the Canaanites for their sins and used us as the instrument of his vengeance; now he is judging us for committing the same sins, and he is using the Goyim as his instruments against us." One of the overarching themes of the Torah and the rest of the TaNaKh is the consequences of the Israelites' refusal to obey such instructions -- eg: "Completely eradicate the Canaanites! If you don't, you'll adopt their religious and cultural practices and I will have to wipe you out too!" "Meh...We'll get around to it." [Decades Later] "Hey, those Canaanites are still around because we didn't wipe them out! Let's adopt some of their religious and cultural practices!" "Well, you can't say I didn't warn you..."

So, basically, the Judaic god (as is the Muslim god), is a "jealous" and vengeful god. As you yourself demonstrated, sadly it comes across as a pretty much intolerant god/religion.

The only reason why I would to some extent align myself with Christianity, is because I find in myself a strong resonance with the teachings of Christ.

The father-figure with a stick that you find in the Hebrew scriptures BC, not so much...

Oh, here's a fun example of modern mythmaking (keeping in mind that to us scholars of antiquity, anything after the Medieval period is "modern").

The history of the Inquisition (as most Americans know it, anyway) is almost entirely the product of English & German Protestant anti-Catholic propaganda. The Inquistion was actually started to prevent witch & heretic burnings/beheadings/etc., since it was believed (fairly accurately in most cases) that the laity were murdering innocents accused of being witches/heretics/etc. out of fear, greed or misplaced zeal. Under Roman Catholic & Orthodox canon laws, "witchcraft" wasn't even punishable by death, merely a monetary fine -- this was derived from the fundamental belief that "magic" didn't exist and that at no point in the NT was anyone who practiced magic killed by Jesus or the Apostles. This was essentially the official stance of Christianity since the Council of Elvira ca. 305/306 C.E., reiterated in both the 7th and 14th centuries C.E. Heck, PAGAN ROMAN law was FAAAAAAAAR harsher to people who were perceived as practicing "magic" and/or foreign religions (just check out Paulus' "Sententiae" or the very first laws of the Roman republic). Even the Spanish Inquisition was a state-run, secularized entity divorced from the actual Inquistion (which itself was largely ineffectual due to laypeople's refusal to cooperate). The same goes for the attacks on Jews -- the official stance of all major Churches (the Roman Catholic, the various Orthodox denominations, etc.) had been that the Jews HAD to be protected and left alone because the OT & NT were interpreted as indicating that the Jews would be around during Christ's Second Coming, and that they would convert at that time.

I mention all of this also to indicate that trying to condemn "Christianity" for the crimes of some Christians, or even some branches of Christianity, is rather like trying to condemn all Caucasians for the crimes of the Third Reich.

(Also, because it's late and I've been lecturing today so there's a lot of information still bubbling up in my head)

I've been trying to read up a bit about the Phoenicians and the Caananites, but so far have not come across practices that would have been considered "wrong". Help me out a bit on that? What were they doing wrong?

Traveller wrote: "[Name Redacted] wrote: "Jan wrote: "The themes are not separated into the Hebrew and Christian scriptures. They are interwoven. You can't get the 'Jewish' themes out of the NT. There is a continuit..."

No...Okay, there's too much to respond to. But here's a point. Again, this gets to the problem of trying to read one thing into a text which says otherwise. There are actually several post-Torah verses (primarily but not entirely in the Neviim) in which the "eye-for-an-eye" thing is repudiated.

I'm actually writing a book on the Antique/Late Antique Mediterranean "pagan" approaches to foreign religion, and by comparison even the Torah was tolerant in its stances. To be "other" was generally to be dead in Greece and Rome. The Persian religion of the Achaemenid Empire might be the most tolerant from that epoch, but... even then we only really have evidence from outsiders who had been conquered, not from insiders.

In any case, for me personally it's a question of what prophets or spiritual leaders were saying, its not so much who they are that's important to me, but what they were saying. :)
Likewise you have Muslim teachers who say 'bad' things and some who say 'good' things, and you get Hindu teachings that seem 'good' and others that seem 'bad' (depending on the interpreters' paradigm, of course)... i mean, i can even find things in Buddhism that i personally don't like, since i don't like the extreme of detachedness- etc.

..so for me I don't really care exactly who it was that said things like: "Only in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes." (Deuteronomy 20:16 )
I was commenting on the idea of the completeness of the destruction, which was similar to what we were reading at the time.
So it was the 'idea' that I was commenting on, and not who exactly said it.

I hear what you're saying about one has to read texts holistically and you shouldn't quote out of context, and I agree.

...but in this specific case, I was merely comparing one text with another, and I got reprimanded for doing that, which eventually developed into a huge side-track.

Not that that is a bad thing, because now I get to pick your brain about ancient cultures, and I'll take that any day! XD

Hmm, okay, I have found a place that says the Phoenicians sometimes indulged in child sacrifice, but it was not widespread. They were part of the Canaanites.

I'm having a harder time to try and find any references to Hittite child sacrifice?
*Note to Ian: We'd specifically like to research the Hittites, since the pagan culture mentioned in the book we were reading, was apparently based on the ancient Hittites.

[Name Redacted] wrote: "I'm actually writing a book on the Antique/Late Antique Mediterranean "pagan" approaches to foreign religion, and by comparison even the Torah was tolerant in its stances. To be "other" was generally to be dead in Greece and Rome. The Persian religion of the Achaemenid Empire might be the most tolerant from that epoch, but... even then we only really have evidence from outsiders who had been conquered, not from insiders. ."

[Name Redacted] wrote: "Oh, here's a fun example of modern mythmaking (keeping in mind that to us scholars of antiquity, anything after the Medieval period is "modern").

The history of the Inquisition (as most Americans ..."

Point taken, and it sounds very interesting!
I think you're always gonna find degrees of demonisation of opposing groups. I bet the Canaanites thought the Hebrews/Jews were just as evil! :P

Jan wrote: "Nope. I wasn't saying they were Christian stories. You were denying they're Christian stories. But--if they are all part of the Christian scriptures, can you really pick and choose which ones are Christian? "

Now you're just deliberately misrepresenting what you said. You said "They are Christian stories about Judaism" (emphasis entirely yours). They are NOT. They are Jewish stories about Judaism. You may, if you wish, claim that Christianity has adopted them, but now you're on ground where my own theology is pretty solid, even if four decades out of date.

In the Episcopalian tradition in which I was raised, and believed by most of the non-fundamentalist sects, the Gospels specifically release Christians from the strictures of the Old Testament. The heart of Christianity is . Christians (I find it funny that, though I haven't identified as a Christian for almost 40 years, I originally wrote "we") absolutely may "pick and choose" what parts of the Old Testament to believe, and thus what parts to consider "Christian".

[Name Redacted] wrote: "Arabs. Romans. Greeks. "

Hmmm. Not what I would consider "ethnicities". Arabs, these days, are largely intolerant of other religions (even, or especially, when both religions are considered "Islam"), and where there are religious differences (e.g., Iraq between Sunni and Shia, and Lebanon between various Muslim sects and Christians), they seem eager to distinguish themselves. At the height of the Islamic expansion, when religious tolerance was high, many of the Islamic powers weren't Arabs (e.g. Turks, Moors and Moghuls).

Early Rome might have been like that (but then, as I understand it, their religion was more like "all gods are God"), but by the time of the Empire there were Romans and there were people with Roman citizenship, who were no more considered ethnic Romans than the subjects of the British Empire were considered British.

And Greeks? Well, I don't know much about them, but I never learned about "Greeks" in school. I learned about Athenians and Spartans and Macedonians. And knowing Macedonians and Bulgarians, I'd say nothing much has changed in that part of the world.

Traveller wrote: "I do, but it's a rather ironic one. Welll...- it also depends on how strictly you define "religion". Do you see Protestant Christianity and Catholisicm as the same religion for example"

I think you make my point. In North America, we routinely talk about WASPs (not a term I ever heard as a kid in England, but then, I hardly knew anybody who wasn't a WASP). Even among white Anglo-Saxons with the nominally same religion, we differentiate.

Traveller wrote: " since the pagan culture mentioned in the book we were reading, was apparently based on the ancient Hittites."

Well, supposedly based on the Hittites. We don't know whether the character who said that actually knew what he was talking about :-) I'd guess that there must at least have been some professor, pre-1935, who had theorized that.

Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "[Name Redacted] wrote: "Arabs. Romans. Greeks. "

Hmmm. Not what I would consider "ethnicities". Arabs, these days, are largely intolerant of other religions (even, or especially, when both religi..."

I suppose it depends on your definition of "ethnicity." But the standard one is: "any social group that shares a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, etc." And really, there are far, far, far more different cultural and religious groups under the "Arab" umbrella than the general "Muslim" and "Christian" categories indicate. And just because someone was a Roman citizen, that didn't mean they weren't regarded as "other" -- to be a citizen just gave you political rights, it did nothing to your ethnic identity as perceived from the "real" Romans. And "Hellenes" is the term used most commonly to refer to the larger category of people we now refer to as "Greeks."

Well, that was entirely my point. I don't recall a period where "Greek" was ever a religiously diverse ethnicity (OK, it's not my field of study, by a long shot, but I am reasonably well educated). It seems always to have been a region filled with separate ethnic groups, divided by either racial or religious characteristics.

But I guess my feeling is that even where outsiders would see "an" ethnic group, they seem invariably to self-identify as separate when they have different religions. And, yes, I am very familiar with the fact that there are a lot more religious groups within Arabs than Christian/Muslim, but it doesn't seem to matter where you draw the lines: the lines are real.

When it comes to human groups, there seem to be an infinite possibility of lines to draw, with a huge variety of possible intersections.

I suppose the only way that you can really draw any line, is to make your definition correspond as precisely as possible to the group you are trying to identify, all the time being cognizant of the fact that many of these terms tend to be vague and shifting depending on which perspective you are working from, and in which context you are looking at it.

Hmm, and even when one looks at genocides, they're not all committed for necessarily similar reasons either.

Sometimes the group to be 'cleansed' is seen as a scapegoat, sometimes as an oppressor, sometimes, I guess, as a threat, and sometimes the killers are just being pretty self-righteous? :P

I have solved the mystery of why Derek keeps insisting that I claim that stories in the Hebrew scriptures are Christian stories. Since I didn't say that, I had been wondering where he's coming from.

Here's what I said: Traditional Christian stories (or narratives) as to what Judaism is don't align well with actual Judaism. In other words, what Christians traditionally consider to be Judaism is a construct of their own devising that meets their own needs.

Of course, that's not the case (or is less the case) for many of today's scholars and theologians with Christian backgrounds. Many pastors and priests know better, too. You can still read it in books or hear it at times from the pulpit, though, and it's endemic among ordinary people.

Also, post-Christians who don't like religion or Christianity will sometimes run down the Hebrew scriptures as a way of attacking Christianity and religion in general. I think that's been happening off and on since the Enlightenment. Upon reading the first little bit of Gibbons' Decline and Fall, I thought that could be what was going on.

It's occurred to me in the past that people of whatever religious persuasion who denigrate the religious traditions of others are doing the work of atheists for them.

Any religious scripture can be denigrated simply by cherry picking the problematic texts, since all scriptures have them. That, however, doesn't prove anything about the religion under attack but instead reflects back on the one or on those who are doing the denigrating.

Now let me mention a particular way of blaming another tradition or other outsiders for what one doesn't like about one's own tradition, since I think there's evidence of its going on in this and the prior discussion. One simply says that whatever they like was present at the origin (or conversely what they dislike was absent at the origin), and that the subsequent change is due to the outside corruption. If, for example, one's tradition used to like imperialism but now doesn't, just claim the origin was perfect in this regard and has been subsequently corrupted. Or if one's tradition used to value class distinctions but now deplores them, then they must have gotten into the tradition through corruption by "others." If the tradition used to disallow meditative practices but now wants them, then the perfect original practitioners must have meditated--prior to interference by the corrosive outsiders, that is.

I learned about this from Karen L. King. She's a Christian, and the tradition she's examining is Christianity.

One wonders why the tradition can't just say they want to quit whatever (or add whatever), but heaven forbid! That would be new, and everything must be said to go back to the perfect original state of things, with everything now liked said to have been there at the beginning, and everything now disapproved of said to have been absent at the beginning. This technique works for anything, as times change and values evolve. And it's very convincing. The problems come with the blaming.


Here are some other things I didn't do or say in this or the prior thread: I didn't call anyone immoral. I didn't make ad hominem attacks. And I didn't seek to delineate the evils of Christianity, either, Name Redacted/Ian. I am not interested in those activities. You won't find it in my reviews or writings, and if I find something is too negative, I revise it. Also I haven't called anyone a liar, much less an antisemitic liar. I'm talking about specific issues, not casting essentialist aspersions.

I thought those accusations may have been straw-man attacks: easier to refute than what I'm saying. And easier to build up a head of righteous indignation.

I criticized some particular speech: cherry picking the Christian OT to cast aspersions on the ancient Hebrews.

Somebody else questioned Traveller on her assertions. She cited a bunch of texts to show her assertions were "correct." That's when I came into the picture.

The problem is not that Traveller (and whoever else) was reminded of the ancient Hebrews, but the narrative into which she weaves her observations, its lack of context, and, really, what you would expect from an outsider looking in. I heard no cries against getting into "the evil of the Judaic tradition," Name Redacted/Ian.

It is as though I were a person of color criticizing an instance of racist language, with some of you here supporting your right to talk that way: that it's perfectly accurate, supported by writings and traditions, etc.--putting together your case.

Just to show how different the same books can be, depending on how they're being used, here's a prayer from modern-day Jewish liturgy:

For I have given you good instruction; do not abandon My Torah.

It is a tree of life for those who hold fast to it, and all its supporters are hkappy.
Its ways are ways of pleasantness and all its paths are peace....

(As Name Redacted/Ian must know, not everyone considers the Tanakh and the OT to be the same book despite the overlap in content because they're slightly different, put into a different order, and [often] used for different purposes.)

If what has gone before remains the pattern, what I've written here will be misconstrued in the most dramatic ways, and I'll be called some more names. I recognize that Name Redacted/Ian credited some of my points, but I'm not sure even those were accepted in any meaningful way in the ongoing discussion. So I'm not intending to continue here with such expenditures of energy without much expectation of positive returns. I've heard that the best remedy for bad religious talk is good talk, so have tried to reply to accusations with better words, but this discussion is too much of a free-for-all, a bull session with people going on their intuitions and mainly looking to justify and bolster their previously held beliefs. So barring my mind's being changed,I'm expecting that I'll cut my losses and quit this discussion at this point.

Jan, let's analyse this whole thing rationally. Firstly, if you had bothered to read any of my reviews or comments here on ŷ������, you would know that I am fairly well-read on history in general and the origins of the bible. Not an expert, but passingly well. You would also know that I despise bigotry.

So, I made the following comment that fit in with the book we were discussing:I couldn't help feeling that the People of Desolation/Joy reminded me of the ancient Hebrews out on one of their genocidal purges. :P I wonder if that's the intention? , since the civilization about to be destroyed, was apparently based on the ancient Hittites.
Personally, I think it was a fair question to ask, bearing in mind that the author dropped several comments regarding religion.

ONE more person commented on that, I replied with some quoted bible verses, and we moved on. No mud was slung at anybody. (Comment 8 on thread 2).
Derek made one more very fair comment: The People of Desolation/Joy could easily be based on Alex's [name used for need of a name only. Actual person may or may not be Alex...] understanding of history. The Hebrews did, after all, come into conflict with the Hittites (though maybe not the same Hittites Alex claims to be basing his story on).
I feel that that comment was fair. No mud was slung there either.

Then Jan entered the discussion. Now please note that up to this point, we were all impersonally and unemotionally commenting, we were all still happy and friendly.

Then Jan says:
"Traveler, I would like you to be more careful about all this "OT" and "ancient Jews" stuff. You are going to think it is true, because you've been indoctrinated in it and you will select out what will support your views. I'm saying it's not that it's "the truth," but that it's your story (one that's shifted and changed over the past 100 years, in fact). You might just as well begin talking about Islam's being a religion of violence, or (more in past years) about certain races being people of violence. And they can assemble plenty of "evidence," too.

I'm not asking you to be "politically correct." Actually your views would represent political correctness; in other words, they represent your politics. Say what you want; just say it's your story and you're sticking to it! "

Does anybody find that a patronizing thing to say to someone? Does that comment make a HUGE amount of assumptions about the person it is addressed to?

Jan, in your profile you say that up until 8 or 9 years ago, you read primarily fiction. I was questioning religion, religions, and the various status quos years before that already... I am not sure what exactly it is you think that I have been indoctrinated in, but I am quite sure you do not know the half of what I had examined and contemplated on in my spiritual journey, and I think to simply make such wild assumptions about people to be wildly presumptuous.

That was what I thought and still think of the comment at the time. But, since I like to be fair and play nice, I replied to you in a friendly manner, and I didn't take offense. I even conceded your points if they were to be taken generally. Even Derek was nice to you and agreed with you.

Then we talked about a lot of other things again, and then Magdelanye mentioned the Hittites and said: Magdelanye wrote: " Not just the people who died or were assimilated but the lost cultures that dies with them. ..."
..and I replied:
Yes, that is the part that I really find disturbing, actually. Other peoples like the Romans or the Egyptians would be happy to just conquer and subjugate a people, but what the OT Jews seem to have had in common with the People of Desolation/Joy, is an obsession with purity, and the concept of something being tainted just by proximity...

...and then we left the subject again and spoke about a bunch of other things, and somewhere just as a short remark amongst other remarks, Derek had said:

"Traveller wrote: "Oh, and Derek - granted, the Jews were often on the receiving end too,"

That wasn't me... I'm 100% in agreement that the genocides of the Bible are on the Israelites' part. "

A fair discussion followed that, but here is the point where I think emotions started to spike:

Jan wrote: (addressing Derek)
What we have here is a "moralization gap:" I'm saying you've done something to me, and you're saying you've done nothing worth caring about and btw get over it. We are each seeing the situation in our own interests. If the situation was reversed, I might be the one denying while you wanted to be heard.

I think you're evading, but, OK, have it your own way, story. The bible is after all a big Rorschach blot, and you see something ugly in (that part of) it. There's a name for that. (Not what you're thinking.)

I already talked with Traveller, and this time I'm talking with you, Derek.

The tale within a tale is fiction.

See, in that remark, things are becoming personal. What is it that Derek has done to you, Jan? Your manner certainly seems very accusatory, but you never said exactly what it is that you are accusing Derek -of-.

What I see before you made that remark, is myself and Derek trying to tell you that we are not concerning ourselves with the veracity of the OT writings there, but simply the tropes that had unavoidably become part of Western culture, much as stories about the Greek and Norse gods became part of our culture, whether those stories were actually true or not. Can you not see the difference? Whether a person believes the Bible to be true or not, it has a monumental place in the forming of our modern culture, and the 'stories' from the bible are at least as well-known as the stories from Greek mythology and popular folk-tales like Cinderella or Snow White. So for purposes of our discussion - being a pondering about the intertextuality of Atwood's novel, it does not matter a whit whether the Bible is true or not - the point was about whether ATWOOD was making an oblique reference to the OT there.

I can see that how the Jews are portrayed is very important to you, and I can only surmise that you are Jewish yourself, but can't you see that if you take what happened thousands of years ago this seriously - it's just unnecessary. It's like every German having to flagellate themselves every day because of what the Nazi's did... or every Roman Italian for what the Romans did, or Frenchman and Englishman for their slaving practices a few centuries ago, or Scandinavians for their raping and pillaging raids, and hey, I would be flagellating myself on quite a few counts there, but I refuse to take responsibility for what OTHER people did, because I don't believe in the concept of taintedness.(Or: "Sins of the fathers...")

It seems to me as if you seem to feel very sensitive towards potential ant-semitism, but I have known Derek for a very long time now,(- he and I have written pages and pages of arguments against one another by now) and I feel pretty sure that he is not anti-semitic. I can also assure you that I am not anti-semetic, and I can also assure you that finding out what the Nazi's did had traumatized me from an early age already, so.

I'm not sure what stronger assurances we can give you, but you have to realize that people are going to take exception or become baffled at your attacks when you start making things personal, without specifying why.

If you came straight out and said exactly why you personally feel upset, then we'd be able to reply in a more appropriate manner. We are not nasty or cruel people. I think we've just been feeling a bit baffled about what it is you're trying to tell us, because you seem to be dancing around the issue of what exactly it is that you are accusing myself and Derek of, and why you feel a need to make it so personal.

As for where you made the comment about "Christian stories" it was here:
/topic/show/...

Jan wrote:
"A key point is that the stories about the OT and Judaism and so forth that are prevalent in our culture and incline people to see it as violent, immature, and -ha!- unperfected, are not Jewish stories. They are Christian stories about Judaism, Israelites, OT etc., seen only through that lens, so that it looks solid, real, and immutable. And unquestionable. It seems ludicrous to bring it up, like questioning the sky is blue.

(Emphasis mine)

I think we do understand the point, if the point is that what is to be found in the Christian versions of the OT as translated into various languages, had not been reproduced exactly the way it had originally been written down. Derek had even made a comment on it, and since we had discussed things of that nature in the Foucault's Pendulum group discussion, I think all members of the group who had been there knows we know this.

I accept that you are new to the group and that it might therefore be easy to misinterpret people's intentions, but how about you just take it easy and not just jump to assumptions and conclusions? :) We are really not such bad people. ;) Nitpickerish at times perhaps, but not malevolent.

Jan wrote: "I have solved the mystery of why Derek keeps insisting that I claim that stories in the Hebrew scriptures are Christian stories. Since I didn't say that, I had been wondering where he's coming from."

Now that's just a flat out lie. You did say that, and we all KNOW that you said that.

Jan wrote: " So barring my mind's being changed,I'm expecting that I'll cut my losses and quit this discussion at this point. "

How beautifully passive-aggressive. Trying to have the last word. That never works on the Internet.

Let's endeavor to play nice against all odds. I think we just managed to hit on a nerve with Jan there. Let's give her some grace? I can see how each person is escalating the other one, and I am trying my very best not to grab the bait that has been thrown in my own direction.

Maybe we should all try and cool down a bit for the sake of the rest of the members.

We are talking over a gulf. You all (in the American southern sense--not everybody, but Traveller, Derek, and Ian) think you're hearing me, but you aren't. In that connection, I've come across this article you may find applicable. You get the abstract by opening this link , and then you can click on the 40-page pdf, if you like. This is the kind of article (and/or book) I find helpful. I don't care about the tradition the author comes from, as long as he/she's oriented factually (as opposed to so immersed in his story he thinks it's actual historical reality or something).

The purpose of the article is not to determine which view is right. That will be influenced by what you bring with you. The purpose is to demonstrate there are two different sets of presuppositions.

Understanding the technical terms eisegesis and exegesis is useful.

I also think a pause for reflection before replying could be useful. Of course you don't have to. I only came to that conclusion because I don't have a bunch of people here backing me up. In other words, if you are in the position of relative power there's less need for care. We didn't personally choose our position with regard to power, so it's not like I can say my way of pausing to reflect is better.

I think this is about everything else I could contribute on this thread. Thanks for the discussion.

Traveller wrote: "Let's endeavor to play nice against all odds. I think we just managed to hit on a nerve with Jan there. Let's give her some grace? I can see how each person is escalating the other one, and I am t..."

I appreciate the grace, and I look forward to a time when the raising of this issue could itself be viewed in a better light.

Jan wrote: "I appreciate the grace, and I look forward to a time when the raising of this issue could itself be viewed in a better light. .."

I think your "talking over a gulf" assessment was correct; -at least where I am concerned. I even downloaded the PDF on the page you pointed to.

I have no idea what you are trying to say in the sense of why you are saying that to myself, Ian and Derek. Yes, we know/knew already the content of what you are saying, but I don't think I "get" the specific point you are trying to make in this particular context.

Ian already told you that he is a specialist in this regard; in the period in which Christianity was formed, and therefore I don't think you'll be teaching him much that he didn't already know.

I can't speak for Derek, but years ago I used to be very interested in the origins of both Judaism and Christianity and had done a lot of reading (probably read some chaff along with the grain, but I do have a general idea).

You seem to be a spokesman/apologist for Judaism. I will not speak for anyone else, but I myself am definitely not open for conversion.

I thought long and hard and read many books and attended many churches and quasi-churches and interesting sorts of gatherings on my path to where I am now, (and I have had many Jewish friends in various degrees of observance and from varying Judaic schools of thought), and honestly, it would take a few thick books to explain to you why you're simply barking up the wrong tree if that is your aim.

If I were forced upon pain of the death of my children to join a religion here on earth, it definitely will not be Judaism or Islam. We could waste a lot of time going back and forth over that, but.... ¯\_(��)_/¯ sorry!

I wish you all the best and may peace be upon your soul. :)

On the other hand, if it is a scholarly discussion that you seek, in objective, academic language devoid of personal pronouns, and devoid of intentions to persuade, then I would be much more interested in such a discussion. :)

Traveller wrote: "...I think your "talking over a gulf" assessment was corr..."

I appreciate your attitude of greater seeking and openness in the above, Traveller, particularly in reading the long pdf; I was going to suggest that the 1st 15 pages would do, as later he gets into example after example, but glad you took a look.

Your content, though, is a different matter. Re conversion: yes, during 2nd Temple times (Jesus' time, plus or minus a century on either side), Jews did proselytize (and, yes, by then they were Jews), it became a punishable offense after the Jewish wars or, anyway, after Christianity came into power, and after centuries we seem to have lost our taste for it; except for a few hyperreligious denominations, Jews don't even proselytize other Jews. Your scholar friend would explain that, too, so be not afraid! :)

As to the other term you used, apologetic, everybody knows it means "defense" not "apology," but in practice not all defense is apologetic, or, if it were, the same definition would apply to all you've been writing on this issue. Apologetic writings are those that defend by whitewashing. If you look among my book reviews at those of a religious or theological nature, you'll notice that number of stars doesn't depend on the tradition of the author, so perhaps you can take that as one indicator.

And also I'm very sensitive about treating others in ways I myself am protesting.

So, that's "conversion" and "apologetics."

There is something I had wanted you to stop, or at least to think about, as you know, but perhaps I can address that better in the context of future reviews.

Jan, please note that I used the phrase "seem to be" along with spokesman/apologist, and I leave the question open as to whether spokesman or apologist. That is not quite the same as saying: "you are an apologist."

I put out the fact that I would not be open to "conversion" to emphasize that although I am quite open to persuasion when it comes to academic facts, I am much less open to changing my belief system.

But, Jan, why not then come out with it right from the start and say that you belong to the Jewish faith, and then we would all have known exactly where we stand.

If you do belong to the Jewish faith,(note that I am not saying that you do, I am positing "if" you do - because you have still not confirmed exactly what your personal stance is, and you therefore cause me to dance around on eggs) then the doxistic gulf between myself and yourself is so immeasurable that we could never hope to fully agree on the subject of religion. That is not to say that I do not have very good friends who are Jewish, and that is not to say that we cannot talk about our beliefs. :)

...and then if (and note that I say "if" due to lack of confirmation) this is the case, I am quite prepared to respect you and your faith, but I also expect you to do the same for me and my faith.

As you know from previous discussions that we had on GR, I myself am a skeptic agnostic. (Note: I am not an atheist; atheists are completely different; - atheists tend to be defined as those who positively believe that there is definitely no god at all.) If anything, I am probably closer to being a skeptic Unitarian.

...and that is one of the reasons why I asked you to leave the personal aspect out of it - let us not attack one another personally for what the other believes; let's rather try and converse in a friendly, respectful, objective manner, and if we cannot stick to that, then we should rather not converse about religion at all, because I want this group to be a positive space of neutral discovery, I don't want negativity to build here.

PS. ...and people of all faiths are welcome here, as long as we all stick to the main rule which is mutual respect.

I want to add something here: disapproving of behavior is not the same thing as disapproving of a person. You can disapprove of your child's behavior, but still love that child. Do I personally dislike the purity doctrine? Yes, I do, and I can give many reasons for this, but it will have to wait until I have more time. Tell you what - come late November and I will write an essay on it and put it up in my personal "writing" section.

This does not mean that I am attacking Jews and Arabs and Europeans and Americans as nations or as people; it is a particular way of thinking that I am arguing against. Ideology, much the same as "taintedness" according to the purity doctrine, is not something that is inherent in an ethnic group; you are not born with it - it is something that is acquired during a person's life.

Jan wrote: "There is something I had wanted you to stop, or at least to think about, as you know, but perhaps I can address that better in the context of future reviews. "

I must admit that I feel that you telling me to stop uttering my own beliefs comes down to censorship; I wonder how you would feel if I asked you to stop talking about what you believe? I hope, in fact, that I have done the opposite, since I have invited you to explain yourself more fully, and to clarify exactly what your own point of view is.

...but without making assumptions about specific persons in particular. You are welcome to attack my point of view with a cool, calm rational argument. Please tell me, in clear, neutral, non-blaming terms why you think something that I am doing or saying is unacceptable to you, and I promise I will carefully consider your argument and explain why I do or do not agree with it. I might in fact agree with you, and we'd both end up happy. :)

I hope that we can at least come to agreement that there is space in this world for all of our views; even if and when they do clash. I can perhaps tell you why I personally disagree with the Christian or Jewish or Muslim faiths, and that is one thing, but telling you to stop expressing what you believe in, is quite a different matter isn't it?

Traveller wrote: "...I want to add something here: disapproving of behavior is not the same thing as disapproving of a person...."

Yes, yes, and yes. You have totally overlooked that in my original criticism. I never called you immoral. If you read back you will see that is the case.

I don't think you are going to gain traction in requesting one particular group of people to declare their membership in that group, Traveller.

Nor does segregating the thought of others with whom you disagree into a separate thread for their alleged harmfulness endear you to those others.

Nor can your words asking people to be calm and rational carry much weight when you are excoriating them in terms you would explode over if done to you (in fact for much less). One needs to look at oneself, not only at others.


I tried the group. I thought more about the book.
And I learned about some perspectives in other parts of the world. But the moderation style isn't my cup of tea.

Oi, and there we go blaming again... this time I will say nothing. :)

Traveller wrote: "...I feel that you telling me to stop uttering my own beliefs comes down to censorship; I wonder how you would feel if I asked you to stop talking about what you believe? I hope, in fact, that I have done the opposite, since I have invite..."

Of course you have the right of free speech, Traveller. I learn more, though, from the interactions where the speech is modulated by thoughtfulness, care, friendship, kindness, and treating others the way one is wanting for oneself.

We each credit our own sensitivity and vulnerability, but instead of recognizing the same in others, we authorize ourselves to take preemptive measures. To love the other as ourself would mean recognizing others as human beings with feelings like our own. Could this be a requisite step for the further evolution I mentioned in the other thread?


Perhaps you might have some thoughts on why the topic I originally brought up is such a sensitive one--above and beyond all the imperfections of the way you think I did bring it up.

Jan, please let me firstly explain to you why I had "diverted" the topic to a separate thread. A bit of background: We had another group before this one, but that group was a bit too much bound to author and genre and so we decided to make a new group with wider, more neutral "aims".

However, we had a very nice formula in that group: we would have a group discussion leader, usually someone who had read the book before, if we could find one, and then we would go for in-depth discussions.

Not sure how much group participation you have done, but it can become tricky because everybody reads at a different pace and a close reading can become very difficult to co-ordinate under such circumstances.

So what we do, is we create various threads on different stages of the book, which we leave open indefinitely - so that those who want to forge ahead can forge ahead, and those who fall behind, can still be part of the discussion. We have had people still visit and comment on the threads for months after "official" activity in the discussion had ended.

By the same token, you are quite welcome to still post in any of the discussion threads, they have not closed.

But I sensed this would be a long side-discussion, and if you scroll up in this thread, you will see that prediction came true; and I moved the discussion aside out of deference to those who were still reading and wanted to discuss - yes, I know the tea discussion ran totally wild - myself to blame there, I apologize - if I wanted to be consistent, I should have moved the tea discussion aside as well.
But truth be told, I had not anticipated we would all become so vociferous about tea...

You are too fast for me, Traveller! No way I can keep up.

Jan wrote: "Apologetic writings are those that defend by whitewashing. "

Not true at all. An apologist is merely one who defends something controversial or commonly criticized. Whitewashing is unnecessary and rarely, ime, present in those who are called "apologists".

What a fascinating conversation! I haven't read The Blind Assassin in 20 years so can't speak to that. I also started skimming towards the end of this thread since it was more personal and didn't interest me.

But there were a couple of things that I had to address, because I am fascinated by religion, especially the start of the church where it seemed they ignored the actual teachings of Jesus to gain power, and also it's based on Paul and IMO he was nuts.

To be clear, I was raised Jewish, went to Hebrew school and then rejected it all. But I am still a MOT, ie member of the tribe which is ethnic to me. I say this in response to Traveller and the discussion raised about ethnicity. Most of the Jews I know who no longer believe are still MOT. Just FYI

One of the reasons I reject the OT is indeed that God is kind of an asshole! Because Pharoah was arrogant innocent first born sons were killed? And Job? Jacob must kill Isaac to prove his faith? Yes a power hungry and vengeful God.

However the way I view it is this is the god that was necessary at the time, to cast down a moral code. Nothing like that existed. Only after that could a God of love come along. (Interesting how autocorrect is deciding where to capitalize the g of God, I haven't done any!)

So to continue with the bible, or OT, it was the first attempt, at least in that area, at law, how to be good, a set of morals. At that time an eye for an eye didn't mean what it does today, vengeance and retaliation. It actually was the first let the punishment meet the crime instead of killing someone for stealing a loaf of bread. It was actually the notion of judiciary fairness.

If you follow God, ie the law, you will flourish. Therefore the people who don't follow God the law are bad and should be smited! But remember the bible was written by several people, there are even 2 versions of Genesis. Oh wait I guess my upbringing is coming out, when I say bible I mean OT. Whoever wrote the bible was political. After the break up of Judea there were a few factions trying to get the power, and the priests were fierce. They even had Moses' brother reflected as a priest who was more important than Moses!

So I think of the OT as a fragmented story written by authors who had different agendas. One of the writers is speculated to be female, which I found fascinating.

Well I've run out of steam, gonna stop rambling now.

Lori (Hellian) wrote: "At that time an eye for an eye didn't mean what it does today, vengeance and retaliation. It actually was the first let the punishment meet the crime"

I'd never thought of it that way. I'm glad you rambled for that alone - though the rest was interesting as well.

Yes, indeed, I must admit I had looked at the half-empty glass instead of the half-full glass WRT the eye for an eye. Many of the punishments were still harsh though, for example public stoning for homosexuality or adultery.

But yeah, much better if you weren't killed just for stealing a loaf of bread, for example.

I think most people in our modern age are aware (pardon me if I'm wrong) that the Old and New Testaments of the Christian bible were both written by various people and that the books which were included in the Catholic bible were cherry-picked at the Council of Nicea, of which some of the books were thrown out by the Lutheran and Calvinist reformers later on.

I do admit that I don't know all that much about ancient Jewish traditional culture at grass-roots level though. I know a bit of how various groups live these days, through contact with my Jewish friends, but one never knows if things you read reflect common practice or if they're just extreme examples.