The fact that nearly all civilizations from that time period have been lost to history and assimilation while the Hebrews have managed to survive until modern times is a cause for celebration, in my opinion.
If only other barbaric cultures used terrorism to stave off cultural assimilation. Does this mean you support the Taliban and al-Qaeda, doing their part to preserve fundamentalist Islam in the face of Western hegemonic assimilation?
Oh, and the idea that the Hebrews were ever intolerant of rival cultures is blatantly incorrect. Religions yes, cultures no.
That is an oversimplification; you are confusing tolerance with syncretism. The late-antique Hebrews were indeed heavily influenced by Greek philosophy (which is why, for example apocalyptic texts in this period have “7 heaves” as described by Aristotle). Similarly, the early Hebrews were heavily influenced by Mesopotamian cosmology. This is why, for example, the Hebrew flood story is nearly identical to the flood story in the earlier epic of Atrahasis.
But the fact that a religion internalizes nascent worldviews into its own mythology should not be confused with tolerance.
As I mentioned before, I don’t have an answer to your point about codified genocide (though I can say unequivocally that it is not “exalted”).
And you would be wrong. Read the book of Joshua and tell me it’s not exalted. Repeatedly.
However, it is a moot issue because the nations the Hebrews were commanded to destroy no longer exist.
Genocide is moot if it is successful? Really?
Is it not possible to condemn the heinous actions of admittedly less-civilized times but embrace the morally acceptable parts that apply to modern life?
Absolutely. This is why you should treat the Bible the same way you treat any other ancient text, instead of the sacred foundation of your worldview. I mean, I think much of the Iliad is barbaric, but there are also morally worthy parts in it as well. I have no problem treating the Bible the same way as the Iliad and I wish more people did.
Can you provide a source for your claim on the “mythology” of the Oral Law?
You’re asking me to prove a negative, since I’m disputing your positive assertions. Allow me to restate your claim.
You are claiming that a collection of texts from various periods in Jewish history, now known as the Hebrew Bible—most or all of which, by the way, were based on earlier, oral traditions—cannot be correctly interpreted unless you read it in the context of a later tradition that emerged as the Talmud. This is obviously not true, for the same reason we don’t interpret the New Testament through the lens of later Christian works like Dante.
You are asserting that the Talmud’s tradition—which you identify as “oral law”—has accompanied the Hebrew Bible—which you identify as “written law”—from the beginning of the Bible’s observance. First of all, there is absolutely no evidence of this; we actually know a great deal about early Hebrew religious practices. Secondly you are presenting a false dichotomy between “oral” and “written” and misidentifying both.
What you call the Oral Law is better defined as rabbinic tradition, which didn’t really exist until late antiquity as far as we can tell, is very different in nature from the traditions of earlier periods of Judaism (e.g. under the Persians, during Babylonian captivity, under Assyrian conquest, and in their own kingdom, with their own priesthood). You see shades of the early rabbinic tradition in the New Testament, and some have argued that Jesus was an example of an early “rabbi” or “teacher.”
The rabbinic tradition and Talmud is certainly very important in the history of Judaism. However, it is not nearly as ancient as you are asserting. And more importantly, it is not a primary source. It is a secondary interpretative veneer that has over the years taken on a life and a mythology of its own. And while this veneer is important, it is not a necessary or even good or honest interpretation of the Hebrew Bible. The rabbis of late antiquity and onwards were not anymore knowledgeable about the Hebrew Bible than modern scholars are, and were probably much less, especially when it came to the cultural and historical context of the Biblical texts; they did not possess magic intuition that allowed them to see things in the text that we cannot see today.
When I said that the Torah makes no sense without the Talmud, I was referring to the internal logic of the document.
You are presuming there is a consistent internal logic to the text. There is not; the Torah and the rest of the Hebrew Bible are redacted from a number of sources, often contradictory. And any interpretative structure that seeks to “patch the holes” by offering after-the-fact “explanations” is intellectually dishonest.
The Torah commands to keep the Sabbath, but does not explain what this entails.
Yes it does. It explicitly forbids “work” and gives instructive examples. It says you cannot light fires, and when a man gathers sticks on the Sabbath he is put to death. See Exodus 21:8, 31:15, 34:21 and 35:1.
In addition, “Shabbat” days had a precedent in Mesopotamian culture. The cult of Sin, the Babylonian moon god, had “Shabatu” days, roughly every week, that were considered astrologically potent or unlucky (having to do with the phases of the moon). It was understood that you weren’t supposed to do work on these days. (In addition, Mt. Sinai was named after the god Sin, and early pictures of the Hebrew god Yahweh resemble a bull deity, similar to Sin—so the Hebrews obviously drew from the earlier Sin cult).
The Torah commands a man to bind a sign on this arm and between his eyes, without mentioning phylacteries.
I’m not sure which law you’re referring to here.
The teachings of the Oral Law must have accompanied the Written Law from the very beginning for observance of the religion to be possible.
Claiming over and over again that the Bible only makes sense through the Talmud is just proof by repeated assertion. It is a view rejected completely by academics who study the Hebrew Bible.
Does it not give you any pause that the only people who believe the Talmud is necessary to understand the Bible are religious Jews who have a vested interest? Does this not sound exactly like how Christians believe that the Old Testament makes no sense without the New Testament?
The Hebrews are one of only four civilizations to survive until modern times from that historical period,
In what sense did they survive? Judaism today bears little resemblance whatsoever to the religion of our ancestors. Even the most religious Jews today have much more in common with modern Christians than they do with ancient Jews living in the time of the Bible’s composition. In the same way, you can say the Aztecs “survive” today, by evolving their religion and absorbing themselves into nascent Christendom.
Also, as I implied above, I could care less about whether or not cultures and ideas survive. Many ideas persist for no reason while causing great harm to individuals. If you base your beliefs on which ones are the most “hardy” then perhaps you should take up astrology and animism, both of which are much older and much more widespread than Yahweh-worship, and slightly less stupid and barbaric.
They gave the world the ideas of prayer, church, charity, universal education, international trade, communism, capitalism and more.
This is ridiculous and I’m pretty sure you know it’s overstatement to the point of untruth.
You can rant and rave about the few despicable things that occurred in the ancient history of the Jews,
The things I’m “ranting and raving” about constitute a majority of the Jewish holy text.
or you could look at the multitude of positive contributions they’ve made to the world since then and continue to do.
The fact that Isaac Newton invented modern science and made possible the modern age, wondrous things for sure, doesn’t mean we should all become Oneness Christians or start believing in alchemy.
And you can’t help but wonder how such a tiny population of people (0.2% of the world population) managed to not only survive but also have such a significant influence on the world. They must be doing something right.
Again, you are confusing “survivability of ideas and cultures” with “morality.” You know what’s another hardy, ancient belief? That females should have their genitals mutilated. I guess they must be doing something right. Or not. The fact that something is ancient in no way means it’s morally good.
What the Jews have historically done right and emphasized—education, social activism—has absolutely nothing to do with the Hebrew Bible. Which is why most Jews are functionally atheists who self-identify as Jewish almost entirely because they like matzo ball soup and don’t want to offend their grandparents.
For my part, I would never want to identify with a religion that codifies slavery, rape, and genocide. Period.
Composing members:
0
Composing members:
0
