prophets gave little support as a rule to levitical law?

Date: Fri Feb 21 2003 - 18:37:50 EST

  • Next message: George Murphy: "Re: prophets gave little support as a rule to levitical law?"

    In a message dated 2/21/03 1:12:35 PM Eastern Standard Time,

    > To the extent that Jews continue to live as a minority - & often a
    > threatened minority - it's understandable that there are attempts to
    > maintain the type of policy
    > established under Ezra &

    Frank Salter, evolutionary anthhropologist at the Max Plank Insitute in
    Germany uses the Blalock model (I=RM) to demonstrate that organized Jewry is
    the most powerful ethnic group in the United States today. Your argument is
    hardly current and hardly applicable in this context. We are still the most
    compassionate country in the world.  The reference I gave you urged genetic
    segregation and was distributed in local Pathmark supermarket, not in the
    Pale of Settlement. This is not a reaction to persecution. This is their

    > exile.  Simply read the
    > Book of Ruth which virtually rubs the reader's nose in the fact that the
    > heoine is "the Moabitess" & concludes with the statement that she is the
    > great-grandmother of David.

    You are asking me to consider with equal weight a reference in ruth "One of
    the proto-canonical writings of the Old Testament" to refute a fact in
    genesis, a fact for which I provided pre-exilic and post-exilic support.

    Compare  ruth:
    In the series of the sacred writings of the Old Testament, the short Book of
    Ruth occupies two different principal places. The Septuagint, the Vulgate,
    and the English Versions give it immediately after the Book of Judges. The
    Hebrew Bible, on the contrary, reckons it among the Hagiographa or third
    chief part of the Old Testament. Note the Hebrew BIble does not even consider
    ruth as highly as the Septuagint, the vulgate or the English Version.

    To the first book of the torah: genesis
    "Torah" is applied to the books containing the teaching of the Mosaic
    revelation and the Law, that is, the Pentateuch. In Jewish theology Torah
    signifies, first, the totality of Jewish doctrine, whether taken as a basis
    for religious knowledge and conduct, or as a basis for study.

    >    Of course earlier there are concerns about marriage outside the immediate
    > family or tribe.  That isn't peculiar to the Jewish tradition.  But in the
    > Bible these concerns are not absolutized & they aren't always given
    > religious significance.  Note that nobody seems to care that Joseph marries
    > an Egyptian & that therefore the tribes of Ephraim & Manasseh are,

    Joseph does not marry any Egyptian. He marries the daughter of the chief
    priest of On, the highest dignitary in the Egyptian religion save the Pharoah.

    You - & many Orthodox Jews - are simply
    > retrojecting later concerns into the pre-exilic period.  Perhaps there are
    > good reasons for Jews to try to maintain such a position on intermarriage
    > today, but that's another matter.

    In the 18th century there was a hasidic renewal in eastern europe among
    orthodox Jewry. In the messianic Idea in Judaism Gershem Scholem calls it the
    greatest spiritual renewal of all time. It is hasidic orhtodox jewish
    communities that refuse to leave the occupied territories of Palestine and
    are at the very epicenter of the crisis in the Middle East for their
    insitence on the rebuilding of the temple. Ariel sharon appeased them with
    his visit to the temple mount that sparked the current intifada. Our
    president told sharon to withdaw. he refused. hardly helpless, persecuted
    people. Incidentally, orthodox Jews don't consider reformed or conservative
    Jews (only extant since the enlightenment) real Jews.

    I respectfully suggest you are stretching your argument.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Feb 21 2003 - 18:38:06 EST