#actual scholars of ancient judaism also

[borntolurk]

METATRON: or an explanation about why his inclusion in the S2 and S3 narrative is fascinating and weird, actually

Originally, this was going to be a stupid, unlikely, and mildly cynical theory about what I think is going to happen in S3 and how it might compare to my third least favorite TV show finale.

But while I was writing it I went down a Metatron rabbit hole and honestly? It's pretty crazy. Like, really crazy.

Part 1: Metatron

So who is Metatron, anyway?

(This gets a bit detailed but I promise it pays off!)

I think a lot of people, because Metatron is in the book (which is a Book of Revelation parody), assume that he was also a figure in the New Testament- or barring that, in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible. But he wasn't! In fact, Metatron isn't in Christian scripture or early literature at all.

Metatron is really a (very nearly, he's also mentioned in Islamic texts) Jewish figure. The exact origins are a bit fuzzy to me, as while I'm a scholar of Jewish history this isn't my era (it also gets pretty mystical and my worst grades were on mysticism-related papers), but essentially you're not seeing the name until a century or two after the Common Era at the very least. In antiquity, the name is largely found in the 3rd Book of Enoch (and later other Merkabot/Hekhalot literature) and in the Talmud.

The 3rd Book of Enoch is a work whose origins date back to anywhere from the 1st to the 5th century CE and it continues the themes of the 1st and 2nd books which discuss Enoch, the seventh generation from Adam in the Book of Genesis. In Genesis, Enoch is noted as having been taken by God rather than dying, and the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Book of Enoch expands on this idea of Enoch being a massively powerful figure in Heaven (keeper of treasures, God's right hand figure, leader of the archangels, etc)- and even potentially being a lesser/dual version of God. In the 3rd book in particular, the word Metatron is used to describe him.

For those who are aware of Jewish theology, it might have occurred to you that the idea of there being a duality of God in any way is a pretty fraught one; Enoch is largely non-canonical in Judaism*, but it was still cited reasonably frequently by Jews in the early Common Era. In the next few centuries, we start to see more mentions of Metatron (at this point, not explicitly identified with Enoch) in Jewish literature, and this becomes a pretty big deal.

We then have three Talmudic mentions of Metatron, and one of them (Avodah Zarah 3b) is relatively minor, but does suggest, importantly, that God deputizes Metatron to do tasks that God would otherwise do. The other two are more interesting here. In Sanhedrin 38b, we see a debate between Rav (Rabbi) Idit and a heretic, who suggests that perhaps Metatron, which Rav Idit has mentioned as a representative of God, should be worshipped on par with God; Rav Idit makes clear that this is not correct.

The most interesting, though, is the story in Chagiga 15a, which tells the story of Rabbi Elisha ben Abuyah, otherwise known as Acher (the Other, signifying that he is a heretic). The story of Acher is a quite famous one, but here it's told with a particular twist that didn't make it into the versions that I learned in Jewish day school- the involvement of Metatron and its influence on the precise nature of Acher's heresy.

Rabbi Elisha ben Abuyah was a 1st century rabbi and teacher who was one of the leaders of his generation who is described as having been one of the four rabbis who entered the "Pardes," or orchard- and he cut down the saplings, becoming a heretic. This is usually interpreted to mean that he was exposed to deep, fundamental understandings of God which caused him to turn away. In this particular version of the story, what he saw was a vision of Heaven in which Metatron was sitting in God's presence. To Elisha ben Abuyah, this was a massive affront to God- surely one should stand in God's presence! This led him to believe that maybe there were two powers in Heaven, and thus led him down the road to heresy and the epithet Acher.

The story continues that as a result, Metatron was beaten with fiery rods to make a statement that he was not parallel to God, contrary to what Acher believed. Metatron was also asked why he hadn't stood up when Acher arrived, to avoid the conclusion. The answer is that the Metatron had permission to sit in order to "write the merits of Israel."

And, because of this heresy by Acher, Metatron is given permission to erase Acher's good deeds. There is a voice from Heaven saying that all sinners may return- except for Acher. This leads to Acher's purposeful slide into heresy more broadly (his first stop is literally to a sex worker, something that would be unacceptable for a rabbi, to PROVE that he's now gone bad).

(Also worth noting- in the Jerusalem Talmud, an entirely different reason is given for Acher's heresy- not that he believed in dualism but that he was angry about unfair human suffering.)

The story of Acher is interesting, in this context, for two reasons:

it's another indication that Jewish tradition is going to absolutely reject any possibility of duality and

it gives a clear indication of what Metatron's power is

So... we know all that. Now what? (You may already have some inkling.)

Part 2: Cosmic Megatron

I've called this section by this name because everything I'm going to say should be foregrounded by my belief that most of this is likely coincidence.

Metatron is a character in the original book of Good Omens, and as far as I can tell is there to fill two functions- to have a heavenly representative and thus avoid having to write dialogue for God, and so that they can have a joke where Pepper confuses him with the Cosmic Megatron, apparently a toy made of plastic, which features laser cannon and can turn into a helicopter.

(He's also called the Metatron- I'm not 100% sure why.)

We know from what Neil Gaiman has been saying that he and Terry Pratchett wrote the book in a pretty casual way. Obviously, the book is written with a certain amount of knowledge about the Bible and Judeo-Christian** religion, which from things that Gaiman has said I think he attributes to their being two bright, well-read men who were educated in a Christian-majority country but which I'm sure also included a decent amount of research- hence the bit in the beginning with different calculations for the year of creation. (Gaiman is of course Jewish but I don't get the impression that he had any formal Jewish education, though I could be wrong.) But it seems to be written largely as satire of some pretty well known Christian concepts, for the most part, though nicely detailed.

That's why my assumption is that Metatron must have been included as an offhand joke, by one of them who had heard of him as a spokesman figure in some other context. Because despite the fact that the Book of Enoch is known within Christianity, that's largely the 1st Book of Enoch, not the 3rd, which is the one where the name Metatron is identified with Enoch. If there are any scholars of Christianity reading this, please correct me if I'm wrong, but- I don't think that Metatron would be a familiar angelic/heavenly figure to the average person given a cursory de facto Christian thinking in purely Christian terms. Therefore, presumably the name was one that either Pratchett or Gaiman had heard in another context and that one of them (possibly Pratchett, as he was apparently the one who mostly wrote the kids) thought would make for an entertaining joke about plastic toys that turn into other plastic toys.

We then know that in a hotel room, after they wrote Good Omens, Pratchett and Gaiman plotted out a potential sequel, tentatively titled 668: Neighbor of the Beast. We know that this was going to feature more of Heaven's side, as Gaiman said in the run up to the expanded S1 (which of course featured the new-to-us characters of Gabriel, Uriel and Michael) that the angel characters were already part of the plan for the sequel. We also know, of course, that S2 is meant as a transition to S3, which is the actual plot to the sequel book.

Obviously, we don't quite know yet what that plot is going to be- but presumably, at some point in it Aziraphale was going to go up to Heaven. But presumably Gabriel, who we can now be quite confident was written out of S3, would have been part of that story in the book! The fact that we AREN'T getting Gabriel in a S3 that's based on a sequel idea that specifically included Gabriel (or so we're told) means that that role must be filled by someone.

It seems very likely that

what would have been Gabriel's role is being filled by Metatron and

Metatron wasn't necessarily supposed to be in the sequel, and thus (in theory) S3, at all.

Now Point 2 is only a guess, and it's entirely possible that it's wrong. But I wonder (and this is a totally separate theory, in some ways) whether the role that Metatron played in S2 is one that would have been played by Gabriel if Jon Hamm had wanted to stay. The casting of Sir Derek Jacobi in S1 was not one that implied to me that this was a character who they had plans for- it was a one-scene role in a show with a decent number of minor cameos for well known actors. His return this season was honestly a pretty big shock to me- and seems to be setting him up as a significant figure in the upcoming season. (Which, incidentally, seems like one that can be pretty easily acted in voiceover/green screen, making it a good role for an actor who may not want a full six episode season of a show.)

So- whether we accept my above hypothesis as true or not- why Metatron?

Part 3: Cosmic Metatron

So mostly these are questions. I obviously don't know the answers any more than anyone else does. I could even be wrong about some of my basic assumptions as far as the timeline.

But regardless, I think that the use of Metatron will be incredibly interesting this season for a few reasons.

First of all, let's discuss the Book of Life. It is, unlike Metatron, actually in the Bible- both Hebrew Bible and Old/New Testament. (In fact, the Book of Life is mentioned in the Book of Revelation- the main source material for the book/S1!) In Judaism, the Book of Life is actually something that is still part of Jewish tradition to this day. On Rosh HaShana, the first day of the year, our prayer for a new year is so that our names can be put in the Book of Life due to our good deeds.

We already know, from Part 1, that Metatron is God's scribe, who writes down people's good deeds- and while the story of Metatron and Acher above is never directly connected to the idea of the Book of Life, the thematic similarities are undeniable and it seems pretty clear that they're talking about the same idea. So we have a potential connection between Metatron as a potential character in Good Omens with the Book of Life as a potential concept in Good Omens- along with the fact that a person can be erased from the Book of Life with eternal ramifications.

It seems pretty clear that, whatever reason Pratchett and Gaiman may have had for including Metatron in the book, he now has a pretty solid reason for being here in the show, based on what we already know.

Also relevant is the status of Metatron. In the 3rd Book of Enoch, we know that he is God's right hand, head of all the archangels, and even is given a title that connotes him as a "lesser God." Which is, as noted, pretty theologically wild for Judaism, and a big reason why Metatron and Enoch don't get a lot of play in contemporary Jewish theology (besides for mysticism). We also know that it's the idea that there can be TWO powers behind the throne that led Acher to be eternally condemned as a heretic.

Someone posted a VERY interesting meta here- I can't find it right this moment- which suggested that God is no longer really around in the world, and that the Job minisode- the final time in the show's chronology when we hear God's voice as anything but narrator- Heaven is bathed in golden light, whereas afterward it has a more sterile and empty white light. I find that to be an fascinating idea- that Metatron is actually serving in some kind of parallel-God role in God's absence.

I'm not going to pretend to know WHY this is. There are lots of interesting potential plot angles- you could have Metatron deposing God, you could have God purposefully withdrawing from humanity/the bureaucracy of religion (maybe something similar to in Pratchett's Monstrous Regiment, which would actually make quite a bit of sense if this was part of the unwritten sequel as he could have recycled the idea), you could have some kind of a power struggle, etc. But it does seem clear- we have Metatron as what is essentially a Godlike figure, with enough power to completely depose Gabriel, shut down the other angels, and elevate Aziraphale (if that's indeed what he does- he is at least able to convince Aziraphale that he has that power, which is something).

We have a Metatron strong enough for someone to, potentially, question whether maybe HE'S the one exercising Godly power. And potentially face the worst of consequences for those questions, consequences that we know Metatron is able to deal out. Consequences which were already threatened in S2.

Now that would certainly fit in VERY well with the kinds of plots we might expect from a Good Omens 3...

It also could lead to a fascinating dynamic if they give Metatron an origin story of being Enoch. Having the big cheese in Heaven be someone who used to be human? That's a fantastic concept, just like how S2 centered a character for whom so much can be explained by the fact that he's a demon who was once an angel.

Basically, I think there is the potential for some interesting stuff here.

Caveat

None of this answers a separate question that I have- why bring in a Jewish angelic figure for a story as intensely Christian as the Second Coming? I have a feeling that the answer is going to be "because it's fun"- regardless of how Metatron is used. That said, if there ends up being a narrative where there's Metatron representing the vengeful God of the Old Testament and Jesus as a nice dude who represents something more forgiving then... Idunno, I'm not gonna be super thrilled.

And also- I'll put it out here now- I didn't love S2. Among other things, I think it was pretty simplistic and I don't think that it developed its ideas to their full potential. I don't know that I trust S3 to be as interested in these details to have ANY of this show up in the plot. It could totally be that Metatron is only there because he's in the book, and the Book of Life is only there because it's in the Book of Revelation. Obviously, I don't know.

But I do think that, whatever Gaiman does write if the show gets renewed, there's a lot of material here for him to work from, if he wants to.

*with the exception of among Ethiopian Jews- in fact, the only extant complete version of the 3rd Book of Enoch is in the Ethiopian religious language Ge'ez

**this is a terrible term and I use it only under protest

[bijoumikhawal]

Lady Wisdom, Chokhmah. Inspired by her description in Proverbs, a brief discussion in the Hebrew Priestess, and the song Crossroads by Taya Ma

Proverbs 3:13-18; Happy is the man that findeth Wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding/For the merchandise of it is better than the merchandise of silver, and the gain thereof than fine gold./She is more precious than rubies: and all the things thou canst desire are not to be compared unto her./Length of days is in her right hand; and in her left hand riches and honour/Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace/She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her: and happy is every one that retaineth her.

Proverbs 8:1-3; Will not wisdom call out, and understanding give forth its voice?/At the top of the heights upon the road; at the crossroads she stands./Beside the gates, at the entrance of the roof, at the entrance of the portals she cries

Proverbs 8:22-23; The Lord acquired me at the beginning of His way, before His works of old./From the distant past I was enthroned, from the beginning, of those that preceded the earth.

Proverbs 9:1-5; Wisdom has built her house; she has hewn her seven pillars/She has prepared her meat; she has mingled her wine; she has even set her table./She has sent her maidens, she calls on the wings of the heights of the city,/Whoever is simple, let him turn in here. To the one devoid of sense, she says to him,/Come, partake of my bread and drink of the wine I have mingled.

I interpreted the pillars as trees because a similar thing happens elsewhere in scripture, and there's mention of the fruits/produce of Wisdom, as well as Chokhmah being identified with the Tree of Life

The snake is here because of its connection to the Tree of Knowledge, which obviously goes alongside Wisdom. The Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge are also mentioned in relation and contrast to each other in Genesis

All the trees (olive, sycamore-fig, pomegranate, quince, carob, almond, date palm) are important in Judaism and bear edible produce. Some scholars believe mentions often translated as "apple" are actually quinces, and quinces enjoy decent popularity in Jewish cuisines. Sycamore-figs aren't common in the US, but they are mentioned in scripture and have been a tree of life in Ancient Egypt and modern Egyptian folklore.

[officeshelpdesk]

As someone who's a massive Jewish history nerd this fucking tweet drives me insane

Like yes there is a historical oppression of Jews but the way this paints this history is woefully inaccurate and clearly made by someone who has no understanding of it.

Let's go through these groups one by one

1.) The ancient Hebrews were Canaanites. There is no archeological evidence that captivity in Egypt actually happened. Instead, the story of Exodus should be looked at as a cultural myth about this idea of God being on the side of the ancient Israelites even when they're faced with insurmountable odds.

2.) It's widely argued among scholars if the Philistines actually were out to destroy the ancient kingdoms. There are two minds, one that describes that Samuel is an actual recording of historical battles; and one that argues that the Philistines were simply a nearby culture that could easily be made into some great villain.

3.) The Kingdom of Judah was a client state of the Assyrians, and despite skirmishes and rebellion, its population and power actually increased under the empire. Now if you want to point to Sennacherib specifically go for it, but the Assyrians also didn't fucking like him, and to portray the Assyrians as a group of people always out to destroy the Judeans is woefully without nuance.

4.) We will call this one fair

5.) ???? What does this mean. Not the ancient Greeks trying to destroy the Jewish people, sure we do have Antiochus trying to ban a bunch of practices, but what do we mean by the ancient Greeks being gone? I mean obviously right ancient Greek culture no longer exists in a way that matters. But, modern day Greece and modern day Israel are about as far removed from their ancient cultures as each other. If we're to say that the ancient Greeks were destroyed and lost to history, then so were the ancient Israelites. What are we arguing here?

6.) Fair!

7.) Fair!

8.) Mostly fair, I guess. Though you can of course make the argument that many Nazis actually did survive and lived on to rejoin politics and join NATO and stuff, but yeah the Nazi party did get bodied

Now before we get into the 8th one there is one other problem with this. And that is that this list is backed up by Zionist myth. The idea here is that Israel, the modern state, means Judaism, and Judaism means Israel. In order to back that up, we need to not only combine the two, but create an idea of Jewish history equalling Israel being this strong warrior state. So we're not gonna mention pogroms and persecutions in states that are Israel's modern allies, like the British. There are many places that have historically been deeply antisemitic, but that can't be brought up in this summary of history because it doesn't fit some narrative that allows Israel to be completely justified in wiping out Palestine

9.) Come on now, like seriously come on now. I find it deeply disrespectful to boil down millennia of Jewish perseverance into justification for a genocide.

But that's the problem! Is Zionists don't actually know history! They don't actually really care about any of these oppressions! They care about invading their neighbors and spreading power! The "baby's first Jewish history" they carry around and read from is just a means to that end!

[a-queer-seminarian]

Walter Brueggemann's Chosen? Reading the Bible amid the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (2015)

I've been searching for biblical scholarship on disconnecting biblical Israel from the modern nation of Israel. It felt necessary to read Brueggemann's take, as he is one of the best-known Hebrew Bible scholars of our time. So for those interested, here are my thoughts! (Btw, I've posted this same piece on Medium if you prefer reading it there.)

My review in one sentence:

I did find this book helpful in articulating the distinctions between biblical Israel and modern Israel, as well as how both modern Israel and Christian Zionists have co-opted the biblical narrative to serve their own agendas;

however, I strongly disagree with Brueggemann's staunch support of modern Israel, which he maintains as he acknowledges that its military is vastly overpowered and that its treatment of Palestinians is unconscionable.

Summing up my summary:

If you want to know the key points Brueggemann makes without reading through the rest of this post, here they are:

How biblical Israel and modern Israel are not the same:

While biblical Israel was a theocracy relying on theological claims, modern Israel relies on military might and power politics (as well as support from Western powers like the United States).

Deuteronomy and the prophets emphasize that while God gave the Israelites the "promised land" unconditionally, their retaining of that land is conditional on whether they obey Torah. Modern Israel's violence against Palestine is absolutely not obedient to Torah, which emphasizes protection of "the other."

Other key points:

Trying to apply scripture to any modern issue is complex and risky, because scripture is an ancient collection of differing viewpoints; our own personal biases will color which biblical voices we uplift to further our own agendas.

Even so, taking all of scripture together, God's reach is clearly towards "the Other" — towards the most vulnerable of society — and our interpretation should reflect that. Ultimately, none of us should be able to morph biblical symbols or themes into an uncompromising ideology to justify our violence or bigotry.

Zionist Jews more or less hold that Judaism = Israel / the "promised" land. Other Jews emphasize that they are "people of the book" (Torah), which means that Judaism can be practiced anywhere!

Meanwhile, Christian Zionists co-opt Jewish Zionism to serve their own agenda to Catalyze The Eschaton lol (i.e. how to make the Second Coming of Christ happen; learn more about this at christianzionism.org). Christians also appropriate the biblical concept of Jews being God's chosen people for our own uses, which is supersessionist.

My full summary, key quotes, and longer review are below the readmore. Alternatively, read or share this piece as a Medium article.

I'm going to write about the stuff I actually found helpful in this book first, and then end with more critique of Brueggemann's personal politics. After all, I read this book for help with the biblical scholarship side of things, not for opinions about a "solution" to this issue, and the book did deliver on what I came to it for. Even so, awareness of the author's personal views is important in noticing where his scholarship leans towards that bias (as I believe Brueggemann would agree).

Book Summary:

Introduction: 

Brueggemann notes that "much has changed" since he wrote a previous book on this topic (The Land, 1977): since then, Israel has become an immense military power, has escalated its occupation of the West Bank, and continues to be "indifferent" to Palestinians' well-being.

Thus this new book aims to clarify that “...peace will come only with the legitimation of the political reality of both Israelis and Palestinians.”

Book thesis: a warning to and hope for Christians:

“It will not do for Christian readers of the Bible to reduce the Bible to an ideological prop for the state of Israel, as though support for Israel were a final outcome of biblical testimony.”

“It is my hope that the Christian community in the United States will cease to appeal to the Bible as a direct support for the state of Israel and will have the courage to deal with the political realities without being cowed by accusations of anti-Semitism.”

Chapter 1: Reading the Bible in the Midst of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Chapter’s aim: determine how to read the Bible responsibly in the face of this conflict — can the Bible guide us at all here? Trying to apply scripture to any contemporary issue is risky, because the Bible’s multiple voices allows us to draw the conclusions we want to.

Modern Israel claims that God gave ancient Israel the “promised” land unconditionally, so that it remains promised to Jews today.

They’re drawing from the ancestral narratives of Genesis 

But other biblical voices hold a different point of view: Deuteronomy and the prophets understand the land as given unconditionally but held conditionally — if the people break their end of the bargain, they can (and eventually do!) lose the land.

Among the biblical authors reckoning with Judah’s fall, there are exclusionists and inclusionists

Ezra the exclusionist: “Ezra referred to the community as ‘the holy seed’ (9:2). That phrase intends a biological identity…” Ezra had foreign wives expelled in order to guarantee “the purity of the land and of Israelite society”; modern Israel favors this reading, uses it to argue for “one people in one land”

Post-exilic inclusionists pave the way for expressions of Judaism that welcome the other:

Jonah is sent to show God’s mercy to Nineveh, a major oppressor of Israel; Ruth the Moabite is part of David's line; Isaiah 56:1-8 radically welcomes foreigners & eunuchs [my personal fave passage in all of scripture btw]

So any arguments using one of these two voices tend to fail because the other one is also present in the text

However, throughout scripture God’s reach tends to be towards the other. Thus any view that excludes the other should be met with skepticism – more likely to be about our own fears and hopes “that serve self-protection and end in destruction”

“The Israeli-Palestinian conflict cannot be resolved until the human rights of the other are recognized and guaranteed. These human rights are demanded by sociopolitical reality. They are, moreover, the bottom line of Judaism that has not been preempted by Zionist ideology.”

Desmond Tutu: “...the liberation of Palestine will liberate Israel, too.”

Chapter 2: God’s Chosen People: Claim and Problem

The Hebrew Bible makes no sense if we ignore its claim that Israel is God’s chosen people — a claim which carries on into Judaism today. The chapter explores whether this chosenness is revocable and if not, who carries it today. Ultimately, it concludes that any “chosen” group must “choose beyond their chosenness” to end the violence.

At least 3 traditions in scripture imply that Israel is God's chosen, all without explaining why God chooses Israel — it's beyond explaining, doesn't need to be explained

Ancestral tradition of Abraham — God promises “to be God to you and to your children after you” (Gen. 17:7). “The drama of the book of Genesis, in each generation, is whether God will grant an heir who can carry the promise and live as God’s covenant partner.”

Exodus tradition — here God declares that “Israel is my firstborn son” (Exod. 4:22). Firstborn son = role of “special privilege and entitlement but also one of responsibility.”

Sinai tradition — “Israel is given opportunity to be God’s ‘treasured possession out of all peoples’ (Exod. 19:5).”

“In these traditions, however, the specific language of “chosen” is not exactly used. It remained for Deuteronomy, which represents perhaps a later tradition, to utilize the most direct and unambiguous rhetoric for Israel’s status as God’s chosen people: 

“For you are a people holy to the Lord your God; the Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on earth to be his people, his treasured possession” (Deut. 7:6).

Deuteronomy gives a reason for this chosenness: it’s not because Israel is more numerous or righteous, but because God “set his heart” on Israel and “loved” Israel (7:7–8; 10:15). 

The exilic texts also reaffirm that Israel remains God’s chosen — beautiful in the face of all the seeming rejection of being humiliated and displaced.

But there are two big questions that problematize the chosenness that the biblical authors take for granted:

1. Is this chosenness conditional? Most biblical texts seem to assume it is unconditional and permanent; but places like Exodus 19:5 and parts of the prophets name a conditional if — that the people’s covenantal chosenness depends on their obedience to the Torah.

2. Has this theological claim morphed into an ideological claim that functions as self-justification? — particularly in the context of the modern state of Israel, but also…

Christians have appropriated the concept of being “God’s chosen”

The United States has too — we are the “city set on a hill” according to the first Puritan governor; we are God’s emancipated, coming from the “wilderness” of Europe to the “promised land” of the New World. And now we are Moses to the “benighted peoples” of the world, butting in with our military to “save” them.

Even liberation theology takes the concept of chosenness and applies it to the poor. “Jon Levenson, a noted Jewish interpreter, has protested against the notion of the poor as God’s chosen people, as though to usurp the claim from the Jews to that status.”

Another issue: what about the unchosen?

Genesis’ ancestral tradition is aware of other peoples, makes a place for them “as those who are blessed by the life of Israel”

Paul takes this “good news” that God’s promise reaches beyond Israel to argue for the “admission of Gentiles”

Prophets also explore this issue — through Amos 9:7 and 3:2 we find that Israel is “chosen for obedience but without monopoly of God’s saving deeds, especially when presumed upon.”

Ultimately, those who are “chosen” — be they Israel, USA, or church — must “choose beyond their chosenness” or expect present violence to yield to a future of endless violence.

Chapter 3: Holy Land?

Digging deeper into the biblical theme of land in the light of all that’s happening in Palestine. Even though it’s only a “small ingredient” in the current conflict, it is one that needs to be explored. Within Judaism, Zionists equate Judaism and the land, while other Jews focus on being "people of the book" (Torah), meaning that Judaism can be practiced anywhere!

Reiterates how “the land is given to Israel unconditionally, but it is held by Israel conditionally."

Adds that one thing that leads to disobedience, which then leads to land loss, is “the temptation to self-sufficiency” (drawing from Deut. 6:18)

Another interesting point is that the Torah, “the most authoritative textual tradition in the Hebrew Bible, ends before Israel enters the land (see Deut. 34:4). That is, Israel’s original or earliest tradition is not about having the land; it is about anticipating the land.”

Turns out that the prophets’ “if” is correct; the land is losable, as Israel and Judah do fall, with many Judeans deported

And yet — “The story does not end with land loss, displacement, and grief. Most stunningly, in this season of deeply felt abandonment there wells up a bold and vigorous reassertion of the land promise.”

The prophets argue that God will “reperform the land promise” 

One key question: how central and indispensable are the land and land promise for Judaism’s existence?

The Zionist movement argues Judaism = the land (disregarding the Deuteronomic if)

But in the 5th century BCE as Judaism was developing, different Jews had differing opinions; some exiles were not “smitten with” returning to the land.

“One compelling alternative to land theology is the recognition that Judaism consists most elementally in interpretation of and obedience to the Torah in its requirements of justice and holiness. Such intense adherence to the Torah can be done anywhere at all.”

[PS: if you're interested in an anti-Zionist Jewish view from the early 1900s, check out this article on the General Jewish Labour Bund]

Second key question: Is today’s Israel the biblical Israel?

No. While biblical Israel was a theocracy relying on theological claims, modern Israel relies on military might and power politics.

Furthermore, any appeal to theology for self-justification holds no weight among Israel’s “adversaries”; it’s just not compelling to anyone outside Zionism.

Chapter 4: Zionism and Israel

Opens with discussion of “Zion” as the poetic name for Jerusalem, has poetic force

The restoration of Zion is a primary theme in places like Second Isaiah

Delves into the history of Jewish Zionism, from the nineteenth century, through the Balfour Declaration, into 1948. [JVP has an article that delves into this history more thoroughly.]

By 1967, this ideology had “hardened” into something completely uncompromising, wanting Palestinians to just go away.

Differences between Jewish and Christian Zionism, and different branches under each umbrella

It seems like Brueggemann would call himself a Christian Zionist, of the kind that resists weird End Times versions of it, but wholeheartedly supports Israel even while insisting on critique of its violence…

His problem with Zionism isn’t that we shouldn’t have an ethnostate or whatever, but that Zion has been morphed from a biblical “symbol” into an uncompromising ideology, and thus Israel uses Zionism to claim itself beyond critique.

Brueggemann's closing statement: “...it is characteristically the ongoing work of responsible faith to make such a critique of any ideology that co-opts faith for a one-dimensional cause that is taken to be above criticism. Indeed, ancient prophetic assessments of the Jerusalem establishment were just such a critique against a belief system that had reduced faith to a self-serving ideology. Because every uncompromising ideology reduces faith to an idolatry, such critical work in faith continues to be important.”

___

Key Quotes

For even more excerpts from the book, visit this Google Doc.

On the complexity of biblical interpretation/application

“We may draw these conclusions about reading the Bible.

It is important in any case to recognize that the Bible refuses to speak in a single voice. It argues with itself, and we must avoid simplistic, reductionist readings of any ilk.

Any “straight-line” reading from ancient text to contemporary issues is sure to be suspect in its oversimplification. Such a reading disregards the huge impact of historical distance between the text and our current context.

Such a straight-line reading that ignores historical distance is most likely to be propelled by an ideology, that is, by a deeply held conviction that is immune to critical thought and is unswayed by argument, by reason, or by the facts on the ground. That is, it disregards complexities in the process of interpretation. A one-dimensional, uncritical appropriation of the ancient land promises for the state of Israel is exactly such a conviction that is immune to critical thought, reason, or facts on the ground. ...

...Tribalism, often in Christian practice expressed as sectarianism, tends to absolutize its claims to the exclusion of all else. The tribe or sect characteristically imagines that it has a final formulation, a final interpretation. Absolutist readings of the Bible lead to violent actions against one’s opponent…"

On the Land

“The dispute between Palestinians and Israelis is elementally about land and secondarily about security and human rights. ...while the state of Israel continues to 'negotiate' with the Palestinians, the dominant Zionist appeal to land promises continues to hold intransigently to the exclusionary claim that all the land belongs to Israel and the unacceptable other must be excluded, either by law or by coercive violence.” (ch. 1)

“As we ponder the grand sweep of this vision that runs from Abraham to King Cyrus of Persia, two questions arise: First, how central and indispensable are the land and the land promise for Judaism’s existence?  The contemporary Zionist movement would have us believe that Judaism is equated with the land and, consequently, with support for the state of Israel as the present embodiment of the land of promise. ...That approach, however, amounts to a particular interpretive trajectory that is not required by the tradition, and it disregards the Deuteronomic if: that the land is held conditionally. This interpretive position, like every interpretive position, requires a careful reading of carefully selected texts.  More crucial is the recognition that while the land tradition is of immense importance for the textual tradition, Judaism as it took form in the fifth century BCE was in fact not uniform and represented a variety of interpretive possibilities. Specifically, there were many Jews in exile who were not smitten with the land of Judah and who did not feel compelled by faith to return to the land. One compelling alternative to land theology is the recognition that Judaism consists most elementally in interpretation of and obedience to the Torah in its requirements of justice and holiness. Such intense adherence to the Torah can be done anywhere at all. Thus, land theology is, at least in some traditions of Judaism, relativized by the recognition that Judaism is a “religion of the book” (the Torah) and consists in the practice and interpretation of texts. Robert Alter has noted that Judaism is primarily a “culture of interpretation” that refuses absolutizing any conclusions from the text; we may assume that this includes absolutizing conclusions about the land…” (ch. 3)

Distinctions between Modern Israel & Biblical Israel

“...there is a huge difference between the ancient Israel of the biblical text and the contemporary state of Israel. While defenders of the state of Israel insist upon the identity of the two, many more-critical observers see that there is a defining difference between a covenant people and a state that relies on military power without reference to covenantal restraints.” (Q&A)

"...[T]he state of Israel can, like any nation-state, make its legitimate political claims and insist upon legitimate security. But appeal to the ancient faith traditions about land promise in order to justify its claims carries little conviction except for those who innocently and uncritically accept the authority of that ancient story. At most, appeal to the land tradition can “energize the base,” that is, evoke support from adherents to the ancient promise. Such an appeal, however, carries little if any force for any who are outsiders to that narrative. It is no claim to be used in negotiations because it is grounded in theological claims to which Israel’s adversaries will give no weight. ...The appeal to the biblical promise must simply be set alongside very old claims made by the Palestinians." (ch. 3)

On Chosenness — what about the "unchosen"?

“The matter of other peoples who are not chosen is a very important element in any talk about the chosen people. In the tradition of the ancestors in Genesis, there is clearly an awareness of the other peoples and an effort to make a place for them as those who are blessed by the life of Israel. ... One can, moreover, see at the edge of the Old Testament an inclusion of other peoples in the sphere of God’s attentiveness, an inclusion that intends to mitigate any exclusionary claim by Israel. In Amos 9:7, in which the prophet intends to critique sharply the pride of Israel, he makes a claim that God enacts exoduses for other peoples as well as for Israel:

Are you not like the Ethiopians to me, O people of Israel? says the Lord. Did I not bring Israel up from the land of Egypt, and the Philistines from Caphtor  and the Arameans from Kir?

In the later lines of this poem, the prophet names ancient Israel’s two most immediate enemies, the Philistines and the Arameans, as recipients of God’s deliverance. The text does not go so far as to name them as chosen of God, but the claim may be implied. Of course, it is this same Amos who says in his polemic against Israel:

You only have I known [chosen] of all the families of the earth; Therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.” (3:2)

In this verse, the prophet acknowledges the singular chosenness of Israel, but it is that chosenness that evokes harsh divine judgment. The evident tension between Amos 9:7 and 3:2 indicates the edginess of the claim of chosenness, thus chosen for obedience but without monopoly of God’s saving deeds, especially when presumed upon. (ch. 2)

Making Room for the Other

“Welcome to the other appears to be a romantic dream in the world of real politics, and certainly current Israeli policy would find such openness to the Palestinians to be absurd. But if welcome to the other is considered romanticism, so ultimate exclusion of the other is a suicidal policy, because the other will not go away and cannot simply be wished away or forced away. As a result, the question of the other becomes the interpretive key to how to read the Bible. The other can be perceived, as in Zionist perspective, as a huge threat to the security of the state and the well-being of the holy seed. Conversely, the other can be perceived as a neighbor with whom to work at shalom.” (ch. 1)

Brueggemann's Suggestion for How Christians Should Respond to the so-called "Israeli-Palestinian Conflict"

“In the end, Israelis and Palestinians are finally neighbors and have long been neighbors. When ideology coupled with unrivaled power is preferred to sharing the neighborhood, the chance for neighborliness is forfeited. Christians must pay attention to the possibility for neighborliness and must refuse protection and support for neighborhood bullies. Christians must support political efforts to strengthen the hand of the “middle body” of political opinion among Israelis and Palestinians to overcome the dominance of extremists on both sides who seem to want war and victory rather than peace and justice. Christians must call for new thinking in the U.S. government and do some new thinking that no longer assumes the old judgments about the vulnerability of Israel.  Prophetic faith is characteristically contemporary in its anticipation of the purpose of God; it insists on truth-telling that is attentive to bodily suffering, and it refuses ideological pretenses. It will tell the truth in the face of distortions that come with ideological passion and unrestrained power. When truthfulness about human suffering is honored, new possibilities of a just kind can and do emerge. Thus, being able to differentiate between old mantras and urgent truthfulness is a beginning point for faithful engagement in the real world.” (Q&A)

“God’s Holy Mountain” by Oscar (Asher) Frohlich

___

Returning to My Disagreements with Brueggemann’s Politics

In the introduction to Chosen? (2015), Brueggemann alludes to his previous book on this topic, The Land (1977). He admits that that book needs revising, as it didn’t contend with Palestinians’ suffering under Israeli occupation. Yet he is quick to emphasize right off the bat (and in pretty much every chapter) that he continues to support the state of Israel wholeheartedly, considering its continued existence necessary for the security of Jews worldwide:

“Mindful of the long history of Christian anti-Semitism and the deep fissure of the Shoah [e.g. Holocaust], we have surely been right to give thanks for the founding of the state of Israel and the securing of a Jewish homeland. But the issues have altered dramatically as the state of Israel has developed into a major military power that continues administrative-military control of the Palestinian territories.” (Acknowledgements)

For alternative perspectives, I recommend anti-Zionist Jewish perspectives like here, and here, and here, and here. In short, shipping all Jews off to a settler colony is not the solution to bigotry and violence against Jews; instead, every culture actually dealing with its antisemitism is. 

(Then there are the glaring facts that Israel is racist about which Jews it prioritizes; has a long history of mistreating Shoah survivors; and discriminates against Jews who show support for Palestine. If an ethnostate is truly the only way to keep all Jews safe, Irael is majorly failing that assignment.)

But back to the book: Brueggemann takes for granted that modern Israel is the correct response to the problem of worldwide antisemitism — in essence, to what he calls the “continuing vulnerability of Jews.” Still, he sees that Israel’s military has “long since moved past the vulnerability of the beginning of a fragile state” (Q&A).

So keep the state, but reduce its military; that’s Brueggemann’s solution in a nutshell — at least insofar as he states it in this book. To be fair, this text’s goal isn’t to formulate an airtight “solution” to the violence against Palestine. Still, what solution Brueggemann does suggest in Chosen? can be summed up in this bit from the Q&A at the end:

“There is, in my judgment, no realistic hope for any two-state solution. For all of the pretense and obfuscation of Israel, it never intends to allow a viable Palestinian state, so two-state negotiations simply buy more time for the development and expansion of the state of Israel. 

It may be that the solution will be found in a one-state solution that insists upon well-protected human rights for Palestinians while the Israeli occupation is fully recognized. A settlement will require an even-handed engagement by the Great Powers (including the United States) as well as acts of greater courage and political will by the immediate parties to the conflict.”

Again, I know it’s not his goal to come up with a perfect solution, but I have so many questions about this version of a one-state solution. For one thing, will Palestinians be made full citizens of Israel in order to ensure their rights are protected? Or will they permanently be second-class (non-)citizens / trapped in this limbo of not being allowed to exist as their own recognized state? What about their right to self-representation? Furthermore, must Israel remain an ethnostate in order to be this supposed safe-haven for all Jews?

My last comment on Brueggemann’s perspective is that, if he does understand that Israel is the oppressor of the Palestinians, he still — at least as of the writing of this book in 2015 — has work to do in un-internalizing a mindset that pretends the two sides are equally responsible for this “conflict.” Indeed, the use of the term “Israeli-Palestinian Conflict” in the book’s very title highlights this issue — this term implies equal footing between the two sides, rather than making it clear that Israel is the aggressor and any violence that Palestinians respond with is resistance to that aggression, apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and yes, even genocide. 

Along with the book’s title, other comments throughout the text imply equal footing between Israel and Palestine. Here are two examples, both from chapter 1:

“…Israeli Zionists want Palestinians to go away. Conversely many Arabs wish Israel would go away. But they will not.”

Palestinians’ and Israelis’ fear of the other, said to be grounded in the Bible, has been transposed into a military apparatus that is aimed at the elimination of the other…”

Both of these comments fail to emphasize the different sources of these wishes and fears for Israelis versus Palestinians. For Israel, the wish that Palestinians would “go away” is a desire to take the land from —  to literally seize and dwell in the homes — Palestinians. Meanwhile, any Palestinians who wish Israelis would just “go away” are wishing to be left alone in their own homes that they built, the agricultural lands they have long tended.

Same with their respective “fear of the other”: Israel spins propaganda to represent Palestinians as hateful and antisemitic, a threat to Israeli’s peace, taking incidents of resistance out of context to do so; Palestinians’ fear of Israelis is based in real and recurring incidents of ethnic cleansing, imprisonment and torture, and daily deprivations and insults.

To speak of the desires and fears of both sides as if they are equivalent, without carefully emphasizing the power dynamic between oppressor/oppressed, colonizer/colonized, is negligent and dangerous. It does nothing to “take seriously” “the brutalizing, uncompromising policy of Israel toward the Palestinian people and their political future” (Q&A) as Brueggemann purports as his aim.

This article, “The Myth of the Cycle of Violence,” discusses the problems with treating Israeli and Palestinian violence equally.

Wrapping up

I am very curious to know whether and how Brueggemann’s perspective between the time of this book’s publication in 2015 and today. How did he respond to the explosion of violence in 2021? To October 7, 2023, and Israel’s ongoing bombardment of Gaza? Does he continue to believe that the state of Israel is necessary for Jewish well-being worldwide? I only did a cursory search; if anyone has any information on Brueggemann’s views today, please do share.

Or if you have thoughts of Brueggemann's take, share that too!

Finally, if anyone has suggestions for more texts I should read as I explore the relationship between scripture and modern Israel’s ongoing occupation of Palestine, let me know!

Stay tuned for more summaries and reviews. In the meantime, one source I recommend but won’t be reviewing is Rabbi Danya Ruttenberg’s recent newsletter post “Debunking the conquest narrative.”

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

It’s quite incredible how many people suddenly come out slamming Israel. They claim to want to support Palestine but it’s just the “woke” “socially acceptable way” of expressing the age old hatred of Jews. They claim that the Israelis are occupying and should leave but my question is where should they go? Nobody else wants them. Where do they find a home?

Remember when Antifa thugs were declaring people to be "Nazis" so they could punch them? The same people are either remarkably silent, or worse, actively defending or even encouraging, terrorist violence against Jews and Israel. Literally taking the side of the Nazis.

Don't forget, there are still people who think the 9/11 attacks were completely justified.

This Babylon Bee post is parody, of course, but the reason it works is that it's so realistic.

[ Link: The Babylon Bee ]

What we've also seen is the mask really drop from the "right side of history." People who gave the anodyne Motte defence of "decolonization" have really come out swinging with the violent Bailey.

They're actively saying "this is what we meant."

https://www.thefp.com/p/this-is-what-decolonization-looks

Meanwhile, the ersatz activists of Hollywood and Silicon Valley are eerily quiet. The people who turned the Ukrainian flag into their avatars, those who worry about misgendering and triggering and safe spaces, those who insist words are violence (those for whom violence is apparently not violence)—they’re busy ignoring all this. We should listen closely to these latter-day Bolsheviks and their many enablers. They are being honest. They are saying exactly what they believe and what they want to see happen.

As I've said time and time again: believe them when they tell you what they're up to. Stop moderating it because it sounds awful, and you assume they must really mean something less appalling. If you're genuinely unsure, press them to be specific.

There are two things you can take away from this horror.

It's never "just about" something benign. If it sounds awful, it is. The people saying this are either lying or ignorant. This is akin to apologetics over Islamic doctrine framed as "you're taking it out of context" or "translation problems"; if it sounds like it's advocating violence, it is. Once you talk to an Islamic scholar, they will unapologetically and unashamedly tell you that it's exactly what it means. Same thing.

The people who want to scold you for your lack of adherence to elite luxury beliefs - neo-pronouns, "privilege," accuse of you of being a "Nazi" for having completely mainstream, liberal values, say slogans like "words are violence," "wE'rE LiTeRaLLy dYiNg," call everything "harm" and "danger" - are hypocrites who endorse actual violence, actual antisemitism, actual genocide. You've been duped by manipulative language. You need never feel ashamed or guilty again.

Pay attention who screamed at you that you were a "racist" for thinking The Little Mermaid was pretty shit, overly long, didn't make any sense when they rewrote it with intersectional feminist themes, the actors expressionless, the CGI amateur... who are now studiously saying nothing about those calling for actual genocide. They've shown who they are, they're morally confused, and their righteousness card has been revoked.

If anyone hasn't already peaked by now, I legitimately don't know what else it will take.

As far as answers, I legit don't know. Both claim entitlement based on their ancient superstitions. Both claim to be justified by their gods. Islam is rampantly and inherently antisemitic, so I don't see much long-term ability to co-exist. It doesn't matter that Israel existed before Palestine, and Judaism before Islam, Palestine isn't going to give up, so I suspect Israel would have to. But then, Islam is never satisfied, as it's a supremacist ideology. You can't negotiate with it, you can't reason with it, and you can't capitulate to it or it will simply escalate its demands; if we've learned nothing else from the betrayal of Salman Rushdie, it's that. So Palestine conquering the area would just embolden other Islamic regimes, as well as terrorist organizations like ISIS and Boko Haram which claim the same entitlement.

EDIT: Or all-out war, I guess.

[transgenderer]

zoroastrians are like the coelacanths of religions. if u think about it

hmm, kind of? not really. its actually not that old

There is little scholarly consensus on when he lived.[5] Some scholars, using linguistic and socio-cultural evidence, suggest a dating to somewhere in the second millennium BC. Other scholars date him to the 7th and 6th centuries BC as a near-contemporary of Cyrus the Great and Darius the Great.[6][7][8][9][10][11] Zoroastrianism eventually became the official state religion of ancient Iran—particularly during the era of the Achaemenid Empire—and its distant subdivisions from around the 6th century BC until the 7th century AD

about as old as temple judaism, or hinduism, and i dont think theres actually much reason to believe it hasnt changed about as much as any other old religious tradition. afaict religious practices of early zoroastrianism are kind of poorly documented (people dont agree on whether the great fires were even real). it seems like 1000+ years of persecution has influenced the religion a lot. (also, consider how we dont generally think of folk religions as very old, but like, the world is covered in folk religions that were never fully overwritten by later additions)

[autumngracy]

The biggest step to me renouncing Christianity was when I chose to read the bible straight through during a Christian youth retreat I went to (I don't remember if it was literally a bible camp or not but it wasn't actually required that you read the bible so it would be kind of funny if it actually was)

Anyway I got through the Old Testament at least, and some ways through the New Testament, but I just couldn't bring myself to finish it lmao. I was like 12 or something and had been a Methodist "since birth".

However, I had already been questioning since I was like 4 years old, when it occurred to me one day in church whilst coloring in a Jesus themed coloring book page (which they handed out to the littlest kids to keep them quiet during service) that it was honestly kind of ridiculous that people were basing the entirety of their life and world views off the implications of something that *allegedly* occured in an extremely limited geographical area on the other side of the planet two thousand years ago in a completely different nation to a completely foreign culture with which we (Christians, especially Western ones) share little to nothing with today.

Just kind of sat the in the pew having a moment of revelation like, "Huh. This seems kind of, uh. questionably relevant to our current existence, never mind how absurd it sounds it you start spouting off about genuinely believing in things like talking snakes, stuff being created out of thin air, humans getting made out of other people's rib bones, etc.

Like, as I grew older (and consumed many National Geographic documentaries about ancient history, other religions and cultures, etc.) I really started to get bothered by the fact that if you brought up the most unrealistic sounding elements of the religion to believers they would get really defensive, and at the end of the day resort to arguments like "well maybe *that* bit was a metaphor/exaggerated, but all the CORE tenants of my beliefs are rational at the very least because they are moral.

And I was kind of like. If the only parts of this you can genuinely get behind are the moral justifications of the theoretical *acting upon* of those beliefs, well ... why isn't this just a philosophical system, then, more like Pre-sectarian Buddhism? If you believe so strongly in these particular moral tenants, do you really need a whole magical backstory to motivate you (usually through fear if we're being honest) to act upon them?

And once I realized most people (unless they were religious scholars or officials) weren't willing to discuss or deconstruct such matters of their faith, it became clearer and clearer that this entire cultural path was not something I felt comfortable continuing down. Because from the earliest ages I would be asking *why* we did certain things (like any cultural things, not just specifically religious ones), and either the adults would tell me they didn't know, or get mad at me for even asking.

People that get mad at you for asking questions about a rule, custom, or belief (yes, even if it's an annoying amount of questions) shouldn't be trusted imo. That's one of the biggest things hat drew me away from Christianity, and coincidentally also one of the biggest things I liked about Judaism—that questioning everything is encouraged, and considered a vital part of engagement!

Truly love the number of people I've met that have been like "Well I went to a Catholic school as a kid, which is to say I'm not Catholic" like damn Catholic schools really out here doing the exact opposite of missionary work.

[dfroza]

there is only One path of truth to life in the eternal

(through Son Light)

all others are counterfeit.

when A Spirit-prepared Bride as the Body of the Lord runs away in (A secret elopement) the world will fall (for a short time) into Islamic control as the dominant religion which is the path of the Quran to dominate the world. but such control is anti-Christ and will be overthrown with the return to earth (to Jerusalem) of our heavenly King Yeshua

this is the reason of the “central” focus upon Israel and Israel’s enemies. no matter what people think about it, it is actually a spiritual world war.

people view these as Abrahamic faiths through his sons Isaac and Ishmael (with Judaism through Isaac and Islam through Ishmael), although the promise through whom salvation of the world would come was given to Isaac who represents the pure sacrifice of the Messiah (salvation has come through the Jews by the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) born in Bethlehem of the the virgin Mary in the Davidic line of Judah as God in the flesh as a Man (and A new Adam who redeems the human race from the sin and death sentence sparked by an evil lie that Adam and Eve wouldn’t spiritually and eventually physically die if they rebelled against God’s Word)

And indeed spiritual death (a separation of the eternal spirit from God’s Light) and physical death began on earth as its curse, and we must be reborn in heart & spirit by coming to “believe…” in the Son and confessing Him (Yeshua the Messiah, Jesus the Christ) as eternal Lord and King

war against the Jewish people has been focused upon a war against our Creator by evil forces that hate God and who reject Him as True Lord and King

but those who do believe who are not Jewish by natural bloodline actually become spiritually Jewish in their reborn nature (inside, Anew)

As children (daughters & sons) of Light who belong to our heavenly Father as opposed to the fallen god of this world, the father of lies who has deceived many cultures and nations throughout the course of time, bringing in religion and traditions of men that are counterfeit to True faith.

there’s a call to people from all backgrounds to worship the True God and Father (in Spirit) by leaving idolatry to embrace (to see) Light

in True illumination.

A message about the nature of truth by John Parsons:

The Hebrew idea of "truth" (i.e., emet: אֱמֶת) is richer than accurate factual description, since it also contains moral implications: what is true is also right, good, reliable (honest), beautiful, and sacred. The Hebrew word itself comes from a verb (aman) that means to "confirm" or establish. The noun emunah (i.e, אֱמוּנָה, "faithfulness" or "trustworthiness") comes from this same root, as does the familiar word "amen," which expresses the will to live by what is ratified, since truth that is not lived is not truth. Indeed speaking the truth (dibbur emet) is considered foundational to moral life, as it says: "Speak the truth (דַּבְּרוּ אֱמֶת) to one another; render true and perfect justice in your gates" (Zech. 8:16). Yeshua repeatedly said, "Amen, Amen I say to you...." throughout his ministry to stress the reliability and certainty of God's truth (Matt. 5:18, 26, etc.). Indeed, He is called "the Amen, the faithful and true witness" (Rev. 3:14).

The ancient Greek word translated "truth" is aletheia (ἀλήθεια), a compound formed from an alpha prefix (α-) meaning "not," and lethei (λήθη), meaning "forgetfulness." Greek scholars say the word lethei itself derives from the verb lanthano (λανθάνω), which means "to be hidden," so the general idea is that a-letheia (i.e., truth) is non-concealment, non-hiddenness, or (put positively) revelation or disclosure. Thus the word of Yeshua - His message, logos (λόγος), revelation, and presence - is both "unforgettable" and "irrepressible." Yeshua is the Unforgettable One that is manifest as the express Word of God (דְּבַר הָאֱלהִים). He is the Light of the world (אוֹר הָעוֹלָם) who imparts the "light of life" (John 8:12). Though God's message can be suppressed by evil and darkened thinking, the truth is regarded as self-evident and full of intuitive validation (see Rom. 1:18-21).

Note that the LXX (i.e., the ancient Greek translation of the Torah and OT otherwise known as the “Septuagint”) dates from the time of the philosopher Plato, though of course the Hebrew text dates back to the time of Moses (13th century BC) and even earlier. About 300 BC, "Theophrastus," a student of Aristotle, wrote of the Jews that 'being philosophers by race, they converse with each other about the Divine." Abraham, who dates from about 2,000 BC, was the first avowed monotheist who openly repudiated the polytheism and idolatry of ancient Ugaritic culture (Abraham long predates the rise of Hinduism and the animistic hymns of the Vedas and their priestly commentary found in the Upanishads by a thousand years). Similarly, both King David and his son Solomon (10th century BC) wrote "existential" works of philosophy, predating the modern world by nearly 3,000 years...

Regarding Jacob’s famous dream, the sages ask: “When is the man lower on the ladder higher than the man who is higher on the ladder? When the lower one is climbing up and other higher one is descending down..." Or as Kierkegaard put it, the way is “how.” How you focus determines the direction you are taking. So where is your focus? Are you looking to God for help, for strength, and the ability to draw close to him, or are you looking to your own strength, direction, and will?

[ Hebrew for Christians ]

Psalm 119:160 reading:

https://hebrew4christians.com/Blessings/Blessing_Cards/psalm119-160-jjp.mp3

Hebrew page:

https://hebrew4christians.com/Blessings/Blessing_Cards/psalm119-160-lesson.pdf

11.21.23 • Facebook

­

[monikeroboogie]

what are apocryphal books of the bible, not what they are but the names of the different books, all of them, not just the Catholic ones but those first

Searching for: list of apocryphal books of the bible

Generating answers for you…

The apocryphal books of the Bible are a collection of ancient writings that are not part of the canonical scriptures of Judaism and Christianity. They include books that were written by or attributed to biblical figures, such as prophets, apostles, or other characters, but were not accepted as authoritative by the Jewish or Christian communities. Some of these books are considered sacred by some branches of Christianity, such as the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox churches, while others are rejected or ignored by most Christians. The term “apocrypha” means “hidden” or “secret” in Greek, and it implies that these books contain hidden or esoteric knowledge that is not revealed in the canonical books.

There is no definitive list of the apocryphal books of the Bible, as different traditions and scholars have different criteria and opinions on what constitutes an apocryphal book. However, some of the most common and well-known apocryphal books are:

The Apocrypha of the Old Testament: These are books that are included in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, but not in the Hebrew Masoretic Text. They are also called the Deuterocanonical Books by the Catholic and Orthodox churches, which regard them as part of the canon of the Old Testament. They include:

1 and 2 Esdras: Two books that contain visions and prophecies attributed to Ezra, a Jewish scribe and priest who lived in the 5th century BC.

Tobit: A book that tells the story of Tobit, a righteous Israelite who suffers misfortunes and is healed by the angel Raphael with the help of his son Tobias.

Judith: A book that narrates how Judith, a beautiful and pious widow, saves her people from the Assyrian army by seducing and beheading their general Holofernes.

Additions to Esther: Additional chapters that supplement the book of Esther with more details about the plot against the Jews, the intervention of Mordecai and Esther, and their prayers and decrees.

The Wisdom of Solomon: A book that presents a series of discourses on wisdom, virtue, justice, and immortality, attributed to King Solomon.

The Wisdom of Sirach: A book that contains ethical teachings and proverbs from Jesus son of Sirach, a Jewish sage who lived in the 2nd century BC.

Baruch: A book that consists of a letter and a poem attributed to Baruch, the secretary and companion of Jeremiah the prophet.

Additions to Daniel: Additional chapters that expand on the book of Daniel with more stories and visions. They include:

The Song of the Three Holy Children: A hymn of praise sung by Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the fiery furnace.

Susanna: A story about how Daniel saves Susanna, a virtuous woman who is falsely accused of adultery by two elders.

Bel and the Dragon: Two stories that show how Daniel exposes the fraudulence of two idols worshiped by the Babylonians: Bel (a statue) and a dragon (a living creature).

The Prayer of Manasseh: A penitential prayer attributed to Manasseh, a wicked king of Judah who repented after being taken captive by the Assyrians.

1 and 2 Maccabees: Two books that recount the history of the Maccabean revolt against the Seleucid Empire in the 2nd century BC.

The Apocrypha of the New Testament: These are books that claim to provide information or teachings about Jesus Christ or his apostles that are not found in the four canonical Gospels or other New Testament writings. They are also called Pseudepigrapha by scholars, which means “falsely inscribed” or “falsely attributed”, because they usually bear the names of apostles or other prominent figures who did not actually write them. They include:

The Gospel of Thomas: A collection of sayings attributed to Jesus Christ, some of which are similar to those found in the canonical Gospels, while others are more cryptic or gnostic.

The Gospel of Peter: A narrative account of the passion, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ, which differs from and contradicts some details in the canonical Gospels.

The Gospel of Judas: A dialogue between Jesus Christ and Judas Iscariot, in which Jesus reveals to Judas some secrets about his identity and mission, and instructs him to betray him as part of his plan.

The Gospel of Mary: A dialogue between Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene, in which Jesus teaches her about spiritual matters and entrusts her with his message to his disciples.

The Acts of Peter: A book that describes some miracles and deeds performed by Peter after Jesus’ ascension, as well as his martyrdom in Rome.

The Acts of Paul: A book that narrates some adventures and travels of Paul the apostle, as well as his preaching, imprisonment, and death.

The Acts of John: A book that recounts some episodes and teachings of John the apostle, as well as his exile to Patmos and his visions of the heavenly realm.

The Acts of Andrew: A book that tells some stories and legends about Andrew the apostle, such as his missionary journeys, his miracles, and his crucifixion.

The Acts of Thomas: A book that relates some events and miracles of Thomas the apostle, who is said to have traveled to India and converted many people there.

The Apocalypse of Peter: A book that contains a vision of heaven and hell shown to Peter by Jesus Christ, in which he sees the rewards and punishments of various types of people.

The Apocalypse of Paul: A book that contains a vision of heaven and hell experienced by Paul the apostle, in which he sees the glory and torment of various souls.

The Apocalypse of John: A book that contains a vision of the end times and the final judgment revealed to John the apostle by an angel, in which he sees the signs, plagues, beasts, and events that will precede the second coming of Christ.

These are some of the most famous and influential apocryphal books of the Bible, but there are many more that exist or are known from references or fragments. Some of them are considered valuable sources of historical or theological information, while others are regarded as spurious or heretical. They reflect the diversity and complexity of the early Christian movement, as well as the challenges and controversies that it faced. They also show how different communities and traditions interpreted and transmitted the message of Jesus Christ in different ways.

[is-the-snake-video-cute]

Do snakes have any significance in Judaism, or Jewish artwork? Asking because I like learning about other people's religions

Very cool question! The answer, like most things in Judaism, really depends on who you ask. But I still have some fun Biblical Judaism snake facts to share!!

- A little bit of cool etymology: there are actually four separate and distinct biblical Hebrew words used to refer to snakes! The main one is נחש (nechash, with the ch in the middle a guttural sound, more similar to an h sound than a k sound), but there's also תנין (tannin, which probably meant a large or dangerous reptile, not just snakes), and פּטן (peten, which meant venomous snakes specifically), but the next one is most interesting...

- AND quick edit, yes, I know in modern Hebrew tannin means crocodile! I also speak Hebrew fluently and it is the main language I speak at home. One of my side passions is biblical Hebrew language and interpretation, and a common interpretation of the use of the word tannin in biblical Hebrew is that it was used to refer to many different reptiles, especially crocodiles and large snakes. It's likely the word's usage has simply evolved over time.

- the last biblical Hebrew word for snake is סרף (saraph), which is also a word used to describe some angels! The word is used for snakes with a "fiery" bite, because the Hebrew word for venom is the same for the word for fire. That doesn't mean that snakes are considered angels in Judaism, it just means the writers of those passages wanted to compare angels to the fiery bite of venomous snakes!

- When I intake new rescue snakes, before I give them names, I usually just label their files with "nechash." Just. Y'know. Snake. I've had people ask me why so many of my snakes have the same name and I have to explain that, well, they don't, Hebrew is just the language I speak at home. I just think that's funny, and it makes me imagine someone having like 100 snakes and every single one of them named Snake.

- Unlike in Christianity, most Jewish scholars don't believe that the snake in the garden of Eden story was the literal devil (Judaism doesn't even have a literal devil), just a regular ol snake causing problems. Of course, I don't really believe the garden of Eden story was ever meant to be taken literally, but I think that's still just very fun! It makes sense, too, that a snake would have been used - at the time the biblical stories were being compiled and written down, snakes would have been a logical symbol for idol worship and the dangers of the wilderness.

- Nowadays, in Jewish mysticism, snakes have a surprisingly positive connotation and are associated with healing. The ancient rabbis wrote in the Talmud that having dreams about snakes is a sign of good luck (as long as you don't kill it)!

[tanadrin]

if you would be so kind, I'm doing a strange little survey. can you give me roughly one sentence opinions on each of the following things:

the holy trinity

ijtihad

the market

nightcore

swimming (as in, the sport)

singapore

the indie game dev scene

the orang pendek

the tv show "the x files"

gnosticism

fortran

4chan

recreational contraband

if you don't have strong opinions on any of them, feel free to hazard a guess but please don't skip any.

uhhh sure.

the result of an effort to impose univocality on disparate texts, and to understand how Jesus could invoke the authority and power of God in those texts, although one that was unnecessary--first century judaism already had a framework for that, the idea of a name-bearing agent, which was itself the result of a renegotiation of texts that had been amended to flatten the polytheistic divine hierarchy of ancient northwest semitic peoples into one that was more monotheistic in structure. the christian version seems strictly inferior: while you can construct a statement like "jesus is not the holy spirit, who is not god the father, but all three are god" in natural language, that doesn't mean it's not a contradiction. you can construct lots of nonsense statements as well-formed structures in natural language, without them being meaningful. the trinity is also not supported by any biblical texts. but christianity itself has a problem with trying to cast as the jewish messiah someone who clearly doesn't fit the bill; all in all i would say this particular philosophical incoherence is only one of many philosophical incoherences in traditional chalcedonian doctrine.

seems strictly better than taqlid if you have to pick one or the other, but based on my very, very limited knowledge of Islamic jurisprudence, as a standalone principle it does not seem very useful. if the assumptions you start from when performing any kind of reasoning are unsound, you will struggle to reach sound conclusions; this is as true of the law as anything else. it certainly isn't going to save you from the problem of being overly deferential to high-status authorities, and from skimming the Wikipedia article it looks like this is what the whole "closure of the gates" controversy is about--just like the principle of deference to earlier scholars of the law in Judaism, religious traditions that emphasize continuity with the past will tend to be bogged down by the fact that a lot of crappy conclusions made their way into the canon for political reasons, and also sometimes people in the past were actually just terrible.

contra the lassez-faire viewpoint, states create markets. they don't arise naturally. the state of nature for human systems of value exchange seem to be various kinds of gift economy with extremely limited scalability. proabably there will never be a coherent theory of value in market economies that doesn't account for the role states have in creating value by levying taxes in some form, whether in kind or as money or as corvee labor. markets are a useful tool to accomplish certain tasks, but they're certainly not optimal for all things, or intrinsically good or holy or w/e as some libertarians seem to think. a properly redistributive market economy, while not Real Socialism™, would be close enough that the handful of marxists fuming about it would be unable to get anyone to care.

never listened to it, but i support weird extremely online niche creative genres.

humans be liking water

a friend of mine worked in singapore for six months. apparently the equatorial belt is surprisingly overcast a lot of the time, which makes sense given how much it rains there, though in my head it's very sunny. also the sun sets super quickly. i hate hot, humid weather, so i suspect i wouldn't like living near the equator very much. also, i think it's funny how historically culturally and economically contiguous regions have these deep rifts created in them by colonialism. like, indonesia and malaysia could conceivably have become one country after independence from the dutch and british respectively, but the postcolonial elites of those countries certainly didn't want to compromise and share power with another group of postcolonial elites, so they ended up on very different trajectories; and i wonder if in 200 years we'll have a situation like austria and germany where actual distinct cultural and national identities have started to develop, or if eventually the cultural similarities will overwhelm the differences and promote closer cooperation. given the expansionist and authoritarian bent of indonesia's government in much of the post-independence period, it's hard to imagine, but indonesia + malaysia + singapore + philippines is a huge chunk of the world's population--indonesia alone has a population about that of the United States!--and i can't help but think strong regional collaboration, in such a historically important part of the world, could really create a ton of prosperity and give those countries outsized influence on the global stage.

has produced some real gems. like most fields of human creative endeavor, you get a lot of dross, but all the mechanical and narrative innovation in games these days seems to come from this quarter. hard to make a living in, though--the returns on independent creative enterprises are pretty low these days, regardless of sector.

had to google this. seems like it could pretty easily be an unknown or misidentified primate? also seems pretty mundane by cryptozoological standards. like if you told me there was an unknown primate living in the jungles of sumatra and borneo, i would go "yeah, sure, seems plausible."

absolute classic of 90s culture. i think there's some explication to be done of the different ways conspiracy culture and ideas were received in the 90s vs now, drawing on the X-Files, the original Deus Ex, transitional fossils like John Titor, and modern conspiracy theories like Q Anon and resurgent Flat Earthers. They were always right-wing and allied with christian nationalism, but i think that was only partly understood in the 90s; 9/11 was a major inflection point in that it gave the Bush years their most salient features and laid the groundwork for the politics of the 2010s onward. in some ways pre-9/11 conspiracy media anticipated those shifts; in others, it fundamentally misunderstood its source material. i think it's all very interesting.

it's hard to disentangle historical heresies from the bullshit opponents of those heresies made up about them, but what we call gnosticism is plainly a Christian movement and a strongly anti-Jewish one, reflecting one early version of a current of anti-Jewishness that is perennial within various forms of Christianity across the last two millennia. but it also has interesting resonances with mystical religious movements from far-flung parts of the world, because Humans Be Enjoying Mystery Cults, and which i think are an attempt to spackle over some of the holes in early christian soteriology.

i wish i knew fortran and cobol so i could say i knew some fortran and cobol, but let's be realistic, i will never seriously study either fortran or cobol. you can't make good RTS games with them.

a major cultural hinge of the 2000s internet, and anthropologically, socially, culturally, and politically compelling, despite or because of its anthropological, social, cultural, and political pathologies.

i don't know what this means. drugs? pirated dvds? tap shoes in that town from footloose where dancing is illegal? strongly "pro" in all cases, though.

[ausetkmt]

'Black people are actually Jew[s]': The historical origins of Kanye West’s inflammatory comments - Jewish Telegraphic Agency

In 1892, an Oklahoma preacher born into slavery received a series of divine revelations that compelled him to launch a new church and, with it, a new religious movement in the United States: Black Israelism, better known as the Black Hebrew Israelite movement.

More than a century later, the movement’s central tenet — that African Americans are the genealogical descendants of the ancient Israelites — has repeatedly found its way into popular culture through the expressions of non-Jewish African-American entertainers and athletes such as Kendrick Lamar, Kodak Black, Nick Cannon and DeSean Jackson. In some cases, these figures have also trafficked in antisemitic tropes about Jewish mendacity and manipulation.

Last week, Ye, the artist formerly known as Kanye West, invoked Hebrew Israelite doctrine when he described a friend as “a Jew just like all so called black people” in an Instagram post. (The friend, fashion designer Jean Touitou, was born in Tunisia to Jewish parents; he is not Black.) A couple of days later, Instagram locked Ye’s account after he posted a text exchange with Sean “Diddy” Combs in which he suggested Combs was controlled by Jews. So Ye, who identifies as a Christian, turned to Twitter to announce to his 31 million followers that he would soon go “death con 3” on the Jews, adding, “The funny thing is I actually can’t be Anti Semitic because black people are actually Jew…” Twitter removed the tweet for violating its rules.

RELATED: Kanye West’s vow to ‘go death con 3’ on Jews and his antisemitism controversy, explained

Much of the outcry over Ye’s posts centered on his use of the phrase “death con 3” and a reference to a shadowy Jewish “agenda.” But some also flagged his pronouncements about Black people being the real Jews as offensive, especially to actual Black Jews.

On Tuesday, Vice published portions of an interview Ye gave to Tucker Carlson that were edited out of the broadcast. In them, Ye repeats his claim, though in a more convoluted way: “When I say Jew, I mean the 12 lost tribes of Judah, the blood of Christ, who the people known as the race Black really are.” (The tribe of Judah was one of the 12 tribes of Israel.)

Where did this claim come from, and is it inherently antisemitic? As someone who has reported extensively on the African Hebrew Israelite community in Israel and the context from which it developed, I can offer some essential background.

In the late 19th century, two former slaves turned preachers — Bishop William Saunders Crowdy of Oklahoma and Bishop William Christian of Arkansas — received the same message from God: the Biblical Israelites were Black and African Americans are the true children of Israel. The message was revolutionary, as it subverted earlier theories about the fate of the “lost tribes” of Israel. (Anglo-Israelism, for example, posited that British people descended from the Israelites.) This idea also served to counter a prevailing and racist notion that Black people belonged to an inferior race of people.

“The idea that African slavery in the Americas was not a mark of shame but instead a mark of distinction as God’s chosen people appealed to some African Americans, who appreciated the way the doctrine gave them pride and dignity in the context of Jim Crow segregation that sought to subordinate and humiliate them at every turn,” historian Jacob Dorman writes in “Chosen People: The Rise of American Black Israelite Religions.”

Crowdy and Christian traveled widely, preaching a form of what scholar James Landing, in his book “Black Judaism: Story of an American Movement, called “Judaic Christianity.” Both prophets were influenced by the Pentecostal Holiness movement and Freemasonry, and they emphasized strict adherence to the Ten Commandments and abstention from alcohol. In an attempt to foster racial harmony, they required white and Black worshippers to ceremonially wash each other’s feet. Such unorthodox teachings often got Crowdy and Christian into trouble; Crowdy was said to have been jailed 22 times while touring the Southwest.

Owing to their strong identification with the ancient Israelites, Crowdy and his followers adopted many Hebraic practices, including Sabbath observance on Saturday rather than on Sunday, Passover celebration and the use of Hebrew. Due to their limited contact with mainstream Jews, they performed rituals based on their own interpretation of the bible, resulting in distinct ceremonies. On Passover, for example, they smeared blood on their doors as the ancient Israelites did to spare the lives of their first-born sons from the angel of death.

Eventually, in Chicago, Crowdy earned the nickname “Black Elijah,” and his followers were referred to as “Black Jews.” Crowdy incorporated the Church of God and Saints of Christ in Kansas in 1896; the church still operates today in the United States and Jamaica.

In the decades following Crowdy’s 1908 death, a succession of Black spiritual leaders took up his project. Many used the honorific “rabbi” and introduced their own doctrinal innovations.

Black Hebrew Israelites demonstrate outside the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., Nov. 13, 2018. The movement is comprised of different groups of African Americans who believe they are descendants of ancient Israelites. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Among them were Rabbi Arnold Josiah Ford, a Barbadian musician who founded a synagogue in Harlem before moving to Ethiopia in 1930; Rabbi Wentworth Arthur Matthew, who was ordained by Ford and founded the Commandment Keepers congregation in 1919 (significantly, Matthew saw white Jews as being instrumental in helping Black people “return” to Judaism); Eber ben Yomin (aka Abba Bivens), who broke from the Commandment Keepers to start his own camp, known as One West, in the 1960s; Ben Ammi Ben Israel, the spiritual leader of the African Hebrew Israelites of Jerusalem, an Israel-based community with roots in Chicago; and Rabbi Capers Funnye, the current chief rabbi of the International Israelite Board of Rabbis who is an integral part of Chicago’s broader Jewish community.

While all of these communities fall under the Hebrew Israelite umbrella, their beliefs and attitudes toward Jews and Israel are far from homogenous.

For example, some groups consider Latin Americans and Native Americans to be descendants of the 12 tribes of Israel in addition to Black people, while others do not. Some worship Jesus as the (Black) messiah, while others consider him to be a divinely inspired prophet. Meanwhile, the more radical Hebrew Israelite groups, many of them offshoots of Abba Bivens’ One West, transformed the notion that Blacks enjoyed special status granted by God into one about Black superiority over other races. Members of such groups, notably the Israelite Church of God in Jesus Christ, often preach on street corners using disparaging language about whites, Jews and LGBTQ people.

Perhaps the only shared belief across the communities is the one about Israelite ancestry.

After the 2019 attack on a kosher grocery store in Jersey City by gunmen who attended a One West-offshoot church in Harlem, the term “Black Hebrew Israelites” seemingly became synonymous with violent Black antisemitism. Indeed, a segment of the movement, primarily connected to Bivens and One West, is considered a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, an anti-hate watchdog. But as a whole, the Hebrew Israelite spiritual movement is peaceful, according to a recent report published by George Washington University’s Program on Extremism, which notes that “the predominant threat today is from individuals loosely affiliated with or inspired by the movement rather than by groups, organizations, or institutions.”

There is debate about whether it is antisemitic simply to posit that African Americans represent the true children of Israel, implying as it does that non-Black Jews are lying or unaware of their real identity and history.

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe they, too, come from Israelite tribes, but they do not regularly face accusations of cultural (or historical) appropriation or antisemitism. Further complicating the matter is the fact that virulently antisemitic figures such as Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan have coopted Hebrew Israelite teachings to denigrate the Jewish people.

Bruce Haynes, author of “The Soul of Judaism: Jews of African Descent in America,” is among those who find the Hebrew Israelite belief less antisemitic than ahistorical. “I’m not sure I’d call it antisemitism,” Haynes told the Associated Press in 2020 after Nick Cannon made inflammatory remarks on a podcast, including that Black people are “the true Hebrews” and therefore cannot be antisemitic — an idea that Ye echoed in his recent tweet.

“It’s not a good reading of history, but I wouldn’t call it antisemitism,” Haynes added. “On the other hand, some of those groups that call Jews impostors certainly cross the line.”

Thus, an idea introduced in the late 19th century by preachers seeking to promote African American uplift and racial justice became, over time, a rhetorical weapon used against Jews by Black people who are distrustful of them. Whether one finds the idea hateful or silly, it certainly rubs many Jews the wrong way. “JEWS ARE THE REAL JEWS,” tweeted author and educator Ben M. Freeman.

[portugalisinsa]

HEY, “VAMPIRES ARE ANTISEMITIC REPRESENTATIONS” SCHOLARS, I AM CALLING YOU OUT. I AM CALLING YOU THE FUCK OUT.

People keep going “Oh Dracula is an antisemitic caricature” and i keep going WHERE. WHAT IN THE TEXT IS MAKING YOU SAY “THAT MAN IS JEWISH. So i finally break down and go “fuck it, i’m checking google scholar” and wanna ask what’s the evidence that the texts bring up for Dracula being a vampire?

He’s got a big nose, he’s Eastern European, and drinks blood.

MOTHERFUCKER, THAT DOESN’T PROVE THAT DRACULA IS SUPPOSED TO BE A THINLY-VEILED REPRESENTATION OF JEWISH PEOPLE!!!! THAT JUST MEANS THAT YOU SEE SOMEONE WHO HAS A BIG NOSE, AN ACCENT, AND DRINKS BLOOD AND THINK “AH, CLEARLY THAT’S A JEWISH PERSON”!!!!!!!

oh you think i’m paraphrasing? You think i’m making this sound worse than it is?

HEY, YOU STUPID FUCK, DO YOU KNOW THAT THIS IS UNBELIEVABLY OFFENSIVE ACTUALLY?!?!?! DO YOU KNOW THAT?!?!?!?!

Okay, folks, let me learn you two things. The first one is a logical fallacy known as circular logic. “X is the best artist because their paintings are the best; their paintings are the best because they’re the best artist” is an example of circular logic. The second thing is a logical fallacy known as “affirming the consequent”. If I say “The lightbulb is broken, so the kitchen is dark. The living room is dark, therefore the lightbulb in the living room must be broken”, i’m affirming the consequent.

Now, if you want to prove that Dracula is an antisemitic representation, you first have to prove that Dracula is connected to Jewishness. If you prove that Dracula is connected to Jewishness, then Dracula drinking blood is blood libel.

What these fucking articles keep doing, however, is “Dracula is antisemitic representation because he’s drinking blood, which is an example of blood libel because he’s an antisemitic representation” which nO! NO, FOR FUCK’S SAKE!!!!

(also the fact that the article I just shared decided that sucking blood wasn’t the most obvious blood libel but a representation of greed for money? Immaculate. Unbelievable. I could fucking die now.)

“But hey, Dracula is a vampire, and vampires are antisem-” NO!!!! FOLKLORE ISN’T JUST ONE THING!!!!!! IT ISN’T JUST ONE THING, YOU FUCK!!!!!

This is for you, Jeffrey Weinstock, you absolute cock– YOU DIDN’T PROVE THAT VAMPIRES WERE CONNECTED TO JEWISH PEOPLE! YOU JUST PROVED THAT JEWISH PEOPLE WERE CONNECTED TO BLOOD AND THEN DECIDED TO GO, LIKE A FUCKING HACK FRAUD, “AND OF COURSE VAMPIRES DRINK BLOOD SO-”

WELL NEWSFLASH, VAMPIRES ARE ANCIENT THINGS THAT DO MANY THINGS!!!!! SOME OF THEM DON’T EVEN DRINK BLOOD!!!!! SOME ARE ACTUALLY BASICALLY WITCHES!!!!!!!!!! SOME OF THEM ARE JUST PEOPLE WHOSE SOUL DIDN’T GO IN THE AFTERLIFE AFTER DEATH AND JUST STAYED IN THE BODY OF THE DEAD!!!!! HOW IS THAT CONNECTED TO JUDAISM?!?! THE MODERN VAMPIRE COMES FROM POLIDORI’S VAMPYRE, AND IT’S VERY LIKELY THAT WAS JUST A GIANT TAKE THAT TO LORD BYRON!!!!!!

FOLKLORISTIC THINGS ARE A GENERAL “OTHER”, NOT A ONE SIZE FITS ALL “OTHER”! AHHHHHHHHHH

[keshetchai]

Genuine answer:

There are decades of Jewish feminists considering, retelling, reframing, and reclaiming Lilith and her story. There's an entire Jewish Women's magazine called Lilith, even. The complexities of the Jewish woman's struggle with the very misogynistic characterization of Lilith as Adam's first wife are real, and have of course, been explored.

I have a favorite Jewish feminist version of Lilith's story, actually! It's by far my favorite interpretation which wrestles with "misogynistic story" and "kills babies," and "mother of monsters," AND says "how was this framed? Can we frame it differently without dismissing all the facts? What about her agency?"

In short, it's an excellent feminist midrashic take on Lilith, her infamy, and a slight reimagining. But it doesn't make Lilith into a Goddess or someone to be Worshiped. It just makes her complicated.

On the whole, the vast majority of people doing this still aren't worshipping or "working with," Lilith. There might be some Jews who do, but this would be a teeny tiny minority, because...well, why? God doesn't have a gender or sex, so why insist on making a random "goddess" to balance out gender or something?

What's the point? If you want to say Goddess instead of God in English, like...just do that? You don't need Lilith for it. If you want to use the feminine Hebrew words instead of masculine terms, then just do that.

Also slight-ish correction on the issue of women's ordination, if you're interested/curious!:

I believe that is essentially more of a Christian line of reasoning for women's ordination.

The Hebrew Bible itself doesn't really involve a whole lot of ordination — you're either born a Kohen (Priest) or you aren't. A woman born to a priestly family is a Kohenet, but typically doesn't bear the same responsibilities of the priesthood and for the most part, they still don't.

There's a very very small subset of modern day feminist Kohenet women, but iirc they're using this as a title one can earn, and not all actually women from priestly lineages.

There are no Rabbis in the Hebrew Bible, because the Rabbis are essentially the students of the Pharisees (many of whom were Kohanim (priestly lineage) all of whom were scholars of Jewish law) after the fall of the second temple.

The Mishnah portion of the Talmud essentially tracks this lineage from priests and scholars of Torah who were Pharisees to the people known as Rabbis. And yes, they were almost entirely men. There *are* some very learned women in the Talmud, women whose expertise or Torah knowledge are consulted or praised, even one who helps teach in a beit midrash (school) I believe, and I think you can make an argument from that for female rabbis being "ordained," as it were.

But also there have always been women considered to be prophets within Judaism and the Hebrew Bible, which does help.

The issue of women in spiritual leadership positions is actually much older than most people think! We actually have some records of various important community titles used by Jewish women via their epitaphs in the ancient Roman Empire. They weren't rabbi or rabbanit, (and not all of them are simply "Kohenet,"), but they did indicate importance or respect within the religious community, and some of them even seemed to have other freedoms as Jewish women that their pagan counterparts typically did not.

Then you get a few women that pop up after this time period every so often who are exceptional Torah scholars and probably teachers. At least one ran her father's beit midrash. With enough knowledge or students they sometimes get called rabbi out of respect.

Side note:

Ordination (smichah, also spelled semichah or semikhah) as a concept probably also wasn't always as formalized as you might picture ordination into say, being a Catholic Priest, either. The smichah process was sometimes just one Rabbi conferring authority to their student who was deemed ready (with enough learning) or three rabbis conferring said authority to rule in matters of Jewish law onto someone. The process formalized more and more over time (in the sense of like, now some rabbinical programs are x number of years of university and confer a degree at the end as part of the ordination).

This is part of why I feel like when communities called women in history their Rabbi, I could them as female rabbis, even if formalized degree program ordination of a women didn't happen until shortly before the Holocaust.

Is it ok to convert to Judaism so I can work with Lilith without breaking closed practice rules? Ive been told only jews can work with her. I don't believe in the Jewish god but I believe in Her and feel a connection.

For starters, I don’t know a ton about Lilith, aside from yes, only Jews can work with her. I’m also no expert on conversion, as I’m not a convert nor have I been heavily involved in someone else’s conversion. For this reason, I’d like other Jews who see this, especially converts, to add in their thoughts on the matter. My answer is going to be relatively vague considering the question at hand

That said, I would be very wary of someone converting specifically for Lilith, especially if they don’t believe in any tenets of Judaism. You don’t believe in our god, not all converts do. But there’s so much more to Judaism that conversion requires beyond that belief. My question for you, anon, is what other reasons do you have for converting? If it’s only for Lilith, you don’t actually want to be Jewish. You just want access to a closed practice. Ask yourself: am I ready to join a new culture and ethnicity? Am I ready to face antisemitism? Am I ready to analyze the antisemitic thoughts and beliefs I already have and uphold? Am I ready to support a new community? Am I interested in adopting other beliefs and practices of Judaism?

Talking to a rabbi will likely give you even more questions you need to ask before you can know if conversion is right for you. As I said, I know relatively little about conversion, and I know nothing about you, anon. If you feel serious about converting already, tell a rabbi exactly what you’ve sent me, and ask to have a more in-depth discussion on your interest in converting. After getting to know you more, they’ll likely have a better answer on whether converting because of Lilith is appropriate or not

At the end of the day, I cannot tell you whether conversion is right for you. What I can say is that it’s a serious decision that takes a lot of time and hard work. Converting to Judaism is not something a rabbi will let you do unless they’re certain you are ready for all that entails

@ folks in the notes, if you intend to respond to anon’s message, please be kind and assume they’re asking in good faith <3

[basicsofislam]

PROPHET MUHAMMAD (PBUH)’s BIOGRAPHY : The Damascus Trip and Priest Bahira.Part1

Then it was time to leave, both uncle and nephew took their leave and joined the moving caravan. It was a long and tiring journey. Sometimes they would stop to rest and see to their needs and then continue towards Damascus. When they arrived near the town of Basra, between Jerusalem and Damascus, they had a stopover once again to rest.

Just as the caravan had started to relax, they saw a man approach them from afar in great excitement. The man had a disheveled look and seemed to have abandoned ties with the world. Thus, the people in the caravan thought he could not possibly have anything to do with them and they continued to rest. But then the man reached one of them and said: “Priest Bahira in that yonder monastery is inviting you to dinner.”

Only then did the people in the caravan realize that the man indeed had them in mind, but they did not know anything about the reason for this invitation.

Bahira was a priest who had given up on the world and he was spending what was left of his life worshipping his Lord in a monastery. He was a good Christian scholar. In fact, he used to follow Judaism and then later he had chosen Christianity; but he had not stopped there and had searched deep into religion and he was one of the greatest scholars of his time.

In the church where he was, there was an ancient book that would pass from the hands of one priest to another. He was one of the few priests who could actually read and understand it. He had given up worldly life and was living the life of a holy man in the church. He had no use for those who came to trade; he had no possessions or wealth. But as it happened, his eyes had caught sight through the cloisters. It was clear that the diversion of his gaze outside was also part of what was meant to be. As per usual, a caravan was approaching town. But this caravan stood out amongst the previous ones; for a cloud was following the caravan and was protecting them from the scorching sun. He had an epiphany. Cloud… Shadows… End of time… The Last Messenger… Ahmad… The ancient book… All these struck like lightening in his mind and it increased his interest in the caravan. Was destiny coming to him on its two feet? What if that was the case! Then it made no sense to wait around where he was. The old man, who had closed his windows to the outer world, was rejuvenated and he started doing things he had not done in years. There was the happiness of having found something that had been lost to him in his eyes. Was what he now saw, coming towards him; Paraclete, who was to appear in between the ParanMountains?

The clouds had gathered around a particular point in the caravan and were protecting the person underneath it from the sun. When the caravan stopped for a break, and the person in question had retired under a tree to rest, the cloud would follow him and settle upon that tree to shade him. Even the branches of the tree had come to life, and they had come closer together to stop the sun from filtering through in order to protect the person from the effects of the heat. In order to find out whether what he was seeing had any connection with what he had read and what he knew, he had to come closer and so Bahira approached their caravan and called out to them: “O people of Quraysh! I have prepared dinner for you today and I want you all, young and old, slave and free, to attend it.”

The people in the caravan were very surprised! For they had passed through this town many times before but they had never seen a priest at the monastery, let alone Priest Bahira take any interest in them. One of them came to the fore and said: “I swear by Allah, O Bahira, there is some strangeness about you today; you never did such things before.”

“You tell the truth,” answered Bahira and continued: “It is just as you say; there is some strangeness today. But you are guests. I have had the desire to extend my hospitality to you. Come all together around this table and eat from it.”

Of course such a sincere invitation could not be rejected. They had walked for weeks, and they had longed for such an invitation. Those who had completed their business in the caravan thus set out for the church.

In the meantime, the volunteers of the church had set into action and they were preparing a grand dinner for the caravan. Everyone had come; however the scene that he had wanted to attract to the church was still by the side of the caravan. He had not yet seen the face he had longed for among his guests. He was about to burst with curiosity, and not able to resist any longer, he asked: “O you people of Quraysh! Is there anyone among the people of the caravan who did not come with you to dinner and stayed with the caravan? Is there anyone who did not come?”

“There is no one who should have accepted your invitation but remained behind, except for a little boy. He was the youngest among us by age and we left him behind to look after our wares,” they added.

“Do not do so!” Bahira said and added: “Call him as well; let him join you in this dinner.”

Even though he was a little boy he was meant to come as well, and so the Pride of Humankind was invited as well. One of them had come running back to where the caravan was and invited the one that all eyes had been looking for. He was coming. As he stood up and walked towards the church, the cloud that was protecting him also set into motion and it too was coming to the place of the gathering. Now it was as it should be. Bahira’s conviction grew stronger, and he was very excited thinking that he might be able to get answers to questions that had been troubling him for some time. When The Pride of Humanity arrived near Bahira with his shining, beautiful face, the priest had been cleared of all doubt, and could now see the truth. His eyes were locked on to Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him. He looked at him for a long while. Then, an air of happiness got hold of him. There was no doubt that this was no one but Ahmad whose good tidings had already been given in ancient books.

[wisdomrays]

Prophet Muhammad's His Knowledge of the Past

History is an important branch of knowledge. Unlike most sciences, it mostly depends on historical documents or artifacts. Although we can acquire some knowledge of the past, it is often very difficult to know the underlying facts, intentions, and motives, for accurate knowledge depends on reliable documents. But reliable documents are rare, for personal inclinations, interests, prejudices, and other motives distort what actually happened. For example, if the Qur'an had not been revealed, we would not have true knowledge of the Israelite Prophets, especially Prophet Jesus, and the original beliefs of Christianity and Judaism. We have only the translations of the Old and New Testaments, in which so many changes have been made that we can derive hardly any historical truth from them.

• Prophet Muhammad, upon him be peace and blessings, related many facts about past peoples and events. Much of this information is in the Qur'an, which informs us of past civilizations (e.g., 'Ad, Thamud, Iram, Sodom and Gomorra, and ancient Egypt) and peoples (e.g., those of Noah, Abraham, and Shu'ayb). It also provides a general historical outline of the Jewish people from the beginning to the time to Jesus, particularly in the times of Prophets Moses, David, and Solomon, upon them be peace. Much of this information was revealed while the Prophet was in Makka and had no contact with either Christians or Jews. When he emigrated to Madina, Jewish and Christian scholars questioned him on many topics and could not refute his answers.

• Some of this historical information is found in Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih al-Muslim, Sunan al-Tirmidhi, and other books of Traditions. The Qur'an and the books have retained their original, uncorrupted texts, and none of their information has ever been contradicted; rather, much of it has been affirmed, and we can expect further affirmations in the future. This is an absolute, undeniable proof of Muhammad's Prophethood.

• Prophet Muhammad, upon him be peace and blessings, analyzed the causes and results of these bygone civilizations and peoples. His historical accounts presented laws of history and broad psychological, social, and economic principles concerning human individual and collective life. In addition, these masterpieces of literary style and eloquence have never been equaled.