The subject of the Star of David comes up from time to time in anti-Zionist discourse. It recently popped up here where it appears in two controversial images of flags bearing that symbol.

There are at least two things to know about this subject: First, the Israeli flag is the Zionist flag. According to the World Zionist Organization: "The form and colors of the Israeli flag as we know it today was officially established as the flag of the Zionist Movement in the 18th Zionist Congress in 1933 (though it was introduced into the movement in the late 1800's). Six months after the declaration of the State, this flag was adopted as the national flag."

The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs concurs:

At the ceremony of the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, the dais was decorated with a picture of Theodor Herzl, flanked on either side by the flag of the World Zionist Organization. This flag, adopted by the first Zionist Congress in Basle in 1897, had become accepted by Jewish communities throughout the world as the emblem of Zionism ...

[The] decision to adopt the Zionist flag to be the flag of the State of Israel reflects its power as a symbol of the spirit of the Zionist movement.

The second thing to know is that the symbol at the center of the Zionist/Israeli flag—a hexagram referred to as the Star of David a.k.a. the Magen David/Shield of David—is not an ancient symbol of Judaism.

As noted in the "Magen David" entry in the Encyclopaedia Judaica, the hexagram was used "as early as the Bronze Age ... in many civilizations and in regions as far apart as Mesopotamia and Britain." The symbol also "appears in early Byzantine and many medieval European churches ... Probably in imitation of church usage – and certainly not as a specifically Jewish symbol – the hexagram is found on some synagogues from the later Middle Ages ..."

So, how did the hexagram become associated with Jews and Judaism? According to the Encyclopaedia Judaica: "The prime motive behind the wide diffusion of the sign in the 19th century was the desire to imitate Christianity."

Again, The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs concurs:

... the Star of David was never a uniquely Jewish symbol. The standard name for the geometric shape is a hexagram or six-pointed star, composed of two interlocking equilateral triangles. In a classic article, Gershom Sholem shed light on the history of the "Star of David" and its connection with Judaism ...

According to Sholem, the motive for the widespread use of the Star of David was a wish to imitate Christianity. During the Emancipation, Jews needed a symbol of Judaism parallel to the cross, the universal symbol of Christianity. In particular, they wanted something to adorn the walls of the modern Jewish house of worship that would be symbolic like the cross. This is why the Star of David became prominent in the nineteenth century and why it was later used on ritual objects and in synagogues and eventually reached Poland and Russia. The pursuit of imitation, in Sholem's opinion, led to the dissemination of an emblem that was not really Jewish and conveyed no Jewish message.

In The JPS Guide to Jewish Traditions (Jewish Publication Society, 2004), author Ronald L. Eisenberg writes (pp. 575-576):

During the Middle Ages, hexagrams appeared frequently on seals and in churches but rarely in synagogues or on Jewish ritual objects. Indeed, from antiquity until after the Renaissance the menorah ... rather than the hexagram was the primary symbol of Judaism ...

In Vienna ... [in 1656] a marker was set up to demarcate the boundary between the city and the Jewish ghetto. A cross identified the Christian section and a six-pointed star indicated the Jewish area. This was the first time that the Magen David was used as a religious-cultural symbol of the Jewish community.

History cannot tell us what a symbol means to living people now but it can illuminate the path to that meaning. The connection between the Star of David and Judaism is relatively new. It emerges as a counterpoint to Christianity and is inextricably intertwined with and tainted by the rise of Zionism, the ideology of Jewish apartheid in Palestine.

See also: Moshe Ronen. "Magen David: From mystical talisman to Zionist symbol." Ynetnews.com. May 3, 2009.

Labels: Christianity, Judaism, Zionism

Late last month, Henry Herskovitz of Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends extended an invitation to the Rev. James C. Rhodenhiser of St. Clare of Assisi Episcopal Church to meet with him and other critics of JWPF's vigil. The specific occasion for the offer was the visit to Ann Arbor of Dan McGown and Paul Eisen of Deir Yassin Remembered. After the invite and an explanation Herskovitz wrote, "We would certainly be willing to listen to what you and other invitees have to say." Below, via Herskovitz, is Rhodenhiser's response in toto and unedited except for the addition of one hyperlink.

Henry, can't get the mayor or Ken early Saturday a.m. To hear why scapegoating is a good idea. apologizing would be the way to get Jewish community attention and door to actual dialogue, not posters advocating overthrow of Israel or blaming Zionism for Nazism. Peace is always the result of mutuality not hostility. Ken and I are willing to put up an Israeli flag at our places if you wanted to give Beth Israel a break those weekends, we could make up a schedule together. God bless, james

Reading this, one wonders if Rhodenhiser is really so ill-informed or ill-educated that he actually believes there is any scapegoating going on. Merriam-Webster defines a scapegoat as "a person who is unfairly blamed for something that others have done". However, Beth Israel Congregation (BIC) has never been blamed "unfairly" nor for what "others have done".

BIC is fairly subject to protest for their own public support for the Jewish state that was created by force by a minority population in someone else's homeland. BIC is fairly subject to protest for indoctrinating children into militant Zionism. BIC is fairly subject to protest for its cheer-leading when Israel goes to war. BIC is fairly subject to protest for its toleration of its senior rabbi's apologetics of torture.

Rhodenhiser writes about opening (?) the "door to actual dialogue". He would do well to read read "When Dialogue is NOT our Hope" by Joseph Phelps in the Mennonite journal, Conciliation Quarterly. Here's part of what Phelps writes:

We cannot dialogue when: ...

When an issue of justice is involved.

This is the most complex reason for halting dialogue. Some conflicts are more than a difference of perspectives. As Martin Luther King reminded us, sometimes there are reasons "why we can't wait." People of God cannot be content to engage in dialogue with perpetrators of evil and injustice. We must be hesitant and cautious to place such strong labels on an individual or group, but sometimes we must.

There are times when action must take precedence over talk, when conflict should be pursued in place of a false peace. This is what Jeremiah (6:14) accused the prophets of Jerusalem of doing: "They have treated the wound of my people carelessly, saying, 'Peace, Peace,' when there is no peace." A dialogue between Rosa Parks and the Montgomery bus company which tried to force her to give up her seat in the 1950s was not in order ... Clearly, the time for talking had passed. An act of resistance, a shifting of sentiment, and a redefinition of power was necessary before honest dialogue could resume.

Jesus reminded us that there would be issues worth (non-violently) fighting over: "Do you suppose that I am here to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather dissension" (Luke 12:51). His stance for justice and true holiness put Him in constant conflict with those who preferred the status quo. The conflict exposed the need for radical change. To have quelled the conflict through dialogue would have been to neglect the work for which He was sent ...

Yes, a talking shop would be much easier and more comfortable than actually taking a decade-long public, prophetic stand but JWPF is not a dialogue group; it is a peace and justice action group. Here is its position:

Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends will end the vigils if Beth Israel satisfies our three previously stated requests or if equivalent goals are achieved through negotiations with Beth Israel: committing to work for the equal rights for the Palestinian citizens of Israel; committing to work for the end of the occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem; and committing to work for the right of Palestinians to return to the homes from which they were forcibly removed in what was to become Israel.

The above words were written by a JWPF founder, the late Sol Metz (they are erroneously and mysteriously attributed to someone else on the MLive web site). No dialogue with BIC is necessary or warranted. Just as the Montgomery bus company ended its support for segregation, BIC can ends its support for Jewish supremacism in Palestine. However, I suspect the folks at BIC are far more devoted to their racist cause than the owners of the bus company ever were.

I've never met the Rev. Rhodenhiser. I know of him only through the little that I've read by him and about him. Based on that small sample though he strikes me as the kind of cleric the Rev. William Sloane Coffin had in mind when he said: "I think the bright flames of Christianity are now down to smoldering embers, if not ashes, of feeling comfortable. The church is pretty much down to therapy and management. There's really little prophetic fire ... we have mediocre politicians, and the clergy is pretty mediocre also."

I can easily imagine a long ago version of Rhodenhiser scolding the prophet Jeremiah as he stood "in the gate of the LORD'S house" and rebuked Israel (Jeremiah 7). I can see him chastising Amos for telling Beth Israel in the Lord's name: "I hate, I despise your festivals, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies" because the Israelites had turned "justice to wormwood" and brought "righteousness to the ground." Look, there's James Rhodenhiser denouncing Isaiah to the city officials for telling Israel they are a "sinful nation, [a] people laden with iniquity" whose "hands are full of blood".

And, hey, isn't that the Rev. Rhodenhiser admonishing Jesus of Nazareth, wagging his finger and telling him "Peace is always the result of mutuality not hostility" after, all in one episode, Jesus: Drove the money-changers from the Temple; provoked the elders and chief priests to anger with his defiance and teachings; called the scribes and Pharisees hypocrites, blind fools, snakes, and vipers; and condemned the Holy City saying "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it!"? Jesus wasn't much for Rhodenhiser-style dialogue, it would seem, and Rhodenhiser isn't much for Jesus or Coffin-style prophetic fire.

Labels: Beth Israel, Christianity, Henry Herskovitz, Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends, William Sloane Coffin

Below is the text of an opinion piece by Michelle J. Kinnucan on last November's Morikawa Conference. It was submitted and accepted for publication in the Ann Arbor News before the conference. But the opinion page editor later contacted Michelle and told her it wouldn't be published except as a 250-word letter. That was unworkable and it was distributed to some of the conferees as a leaflet. Click here to download the leaflet.

On "Taking Sides" and the 2008 Morikawa Conference

by Michelle J. Kinnucan

The thematic question of this year's Morikawa Conference is: "In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, how can Jews, Christians, and Muslims make religion part of the solution, instead of part of the problem?"

Just weeks after September 11, 2001, one of this year's three keynote speakers, Rabbi Marc Gopin, wrote an article entitled, "This War Is About Religion, And Cannot Be Won Without It." The main religion to which Rabbi Gopin refers is Islam and in the article he writes, "The time has come for a war for the soul of Islam."

While I disagree with Rabbi Gopin's diagnosis and prescription (as the late Edward Said observed in 1995, "the best response to terrorism is justice"), I share his assumption that religions are fair game for criticism even by outsiders, such as Gopin is to Islam. Jews, Christians, and Muslims can be "part of the solution" by bringing their universalistic justice traditions to bear upon the conflict. To do this, though, everyone will have to abandon particularistic notions of justice and make all of the narratives and supporting ideologies subject to forthright but fair criticism.

This will require Christians to courageously reject what Jewish theologian Marc H. Ellis calls an "ecumenical deal" requiring "eternal repentance for Christian anti-Jewishness unencumbered by any substantive criticism of Israel." Ellis adds, "Substantive criticism of Israel means, at least from the Jewish side, the reemergence of Christian anti-Jewishness."

Under the terms of the deal, Ellis says, "the main energy of ecumenical gatherings is spent on diverting the question that hovers over all discussions of Jews and Christians: the oppression of the Palestinian people by Jewish Israelis with the support, by commission or omission, of Jewish and Christian partners in the ecumenical dialogue." It is this situation that the late the Rev. Dr. Michael Prior had in mind when he lamented how "thoroughly Zionized Judaism infects the so-called Jewish-Christian dialogue."As Dr. Rosemary Radford Ruether states:

... [Western] Christians evade knowing and hence having to speak about [Palestinians] in order not to be denounced as anti-Semitic by those Jews with whom they wish to cultivate 'ecumenical relations.'

Christian repentance for the Holocaust and anti-Semitism have been effectively distorted into a silencing of Western Christians in regard to Palestinian human and civil rights, a view carefully nurtured and reinforced by the Jewish establishment, especially in North America. Any effort to break through this wall of self-censorship of Western Christians in regard to injustice to Palestinians ... encounters built-in walls of ignorance and self-censorship among Christians.

This year's Morikawa Conference could mark the beginning of a break with this sad history. But in promotional materials it is stressed: "This Conference is about religion and enhancing the human condition. It is not about taking sides." This signals, before the Conference has even begun, a profound betrayal of justice, one of the most vital principles of the best of our faith traditions. Justice requires us to takes sides.

In 1993, in its "Declaration Toward a Global Ethic," the Parliament of the World's Religions affirmed: "that a common set of core values is found in the teachings of the [world's] religions, and that these form the basis of a global ethic." It declared, "No person should ever be considered or treated as a second-class citizen, or be exploited in any way whatsoever. ... We must put behind us all forms of domination or abuse."

Mainstream American Judaism is committed to supporting Israel, the "Jewish state." Israel is built upon past and ongoing domination, abuse, and violence facilitated by decisive American financial, diplomatic, and military support. The Rev. Naim Ateek, the Palestinian founder of the Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center, eloquently describes the resulting situation on the ground in his 2001 Easter message:

Here in Palestine Jesus is again walking the Via Dolorosa. Jesus is the powerless Palestinian humiliated at a checkpoint, the woman trying to get through to the hospital for treatment, the young man whose dignity is trampled, the young student who cannot get to the university to study, the unemployed father who needs to find bread to feed his family; the list is tragically getting longer, and Jesus is there in their midst suffering with them. He is with them when their homes are shelled by tanks and helicopter gunships. He is with them in their towns and villages, in their pains and sorrows.

In this season of Lent, it seems to many of us that Jesus is on the cross again with thousands of crucified Palestinians around him. It only takes people of insight to see the hundreds of thousands of crosses throughout the land, Palestinian men, women, and children being crucified. Palestine has become one huge Golgotha. The Israeli government crucifixion system is operating daily. Palestine has become the place of the skull.

To look at it less metaphorically, in 2008 alone, according to the Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem, Israelis have, thus far, killed 434 Palestinians, 86 of whom were minors. The respective figures for Israelis killed by Palestinians are 30 and 4.

Just as people of conscience and faith opposed militarized, state-identified religion in the service of South African apartheid and today oppose it in the service of the US "War on Terror," they must also today oppose such religion in the service of Israel and Zionism. As the "Declaration Toward a Global Ethic" concludes: "Let no one be deceived: There is no survival for humanity without global peace! ... Let no one be deceived: There is no global peace without global justice!"

Contra the call of the Morikawa Conference, both faithfulness and justice demand that we do "take sides." As the Rev. Allan Boesak, a Black South African anti-apartheid activist, wrote in 1977: "Neutrality, as you know, is the most abominable demonstration of partiality because it means choosing the side of power and injustice without assuming responsibility for them." As Elie Wiesel, put it in his 1986 Nobel Prize acceptance speech: "We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere."

Christians and other people of faith and conscience would do well to consider the example of this year's University of Michigan Wallenberg Endowment honoree. Archbishop Desmond Tutu came to prominence as a result of his active opposition to South African apartheid but the disappearance of that racist state has not silenced him. On April 13, 2002, he told a Boston audience:

... the Israeli government is placed on a pedestal, and to criticize it is to be immediately dubbed anti-Semitic, as if the Palestinians were not Semitic. ...

People are scared in this country to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful–very powerful. Well, so what? This is God's world. For goodness sake, this is God's world! We live in a moral universe. The apartheid government was very powerful, but today it no longer exists. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Milosovic, and Idi Amin were all powerful, but in the end they bit the dust.

This is, indeed, God's world and as the Psalmist reminds us "The Lord works vindication and justice for all who are oppressed." Fortified by Tutu's inspiring words and example let us go forth confidently "to say wrong is wrong," to challenge Zionism—Christian and Jewish, and to do our part to work for justice and to toss Israeli apartheid onto the dust heap of history. The Morikawa Conference is as good a place as any to start.

About the author: Michelle J. Kinnucan is a member of St. Andrew's Episcopal Church in Ann Arbor and she can be contacted [via http://michellejkinnucan.myopenid.com/]. Her writing has previously appeared in CommonDreams.org, Critical Moment, Palestine Chronicle, Arab American News, and elsewhere. Her 2004 investigative report on the Global Intelligence Working Group was featured in Censored 2005: The Top 25 Censored Stories (Seven Stories Pr., 2004) and she contributed a chapter to Finding the Force of the Star Wars Franchise (Peter Lang, 2006).

Labels: Christianity, critical thinking, Islam, Jesus, Judaism, Palestine, Zionism

The Amman Call

issued at WCC International Peace Conference "Churches together for Peace and Justice in the Middle East"

Amman, Jordan, 18-20 June 2007

Amman imperatives:

1. Almost sixty years have passed since the Christian churches first spoke with one voice about Arab-Israeli peace. For the last forty years the Christian churches have called for an end to the Israeli occupation of Palestine. In the very place where Jesus Christ walked upon the earth, walls now separate families and the children of God - Christian, Muslim and Jew -- are imprisoned in a deepening cycle of violence, humiliation and despair. The Palestinian Christians from Gaza to Jerusalem and to Nazareth, have called out to their brothers and sisters in Christ with this urgent plea: "Enough is enough. No more words without deeds. It is time for action."

2. We welcome the timely and prophetic statement of the Heads of Churches in Jerusalem. We affirm that "the Churches are part of the conflict, because the Churches cannot remain silent while there is still suffering. The role of the Churches is to heal and to bring all sides to reconciliation." Our belief in God reminds us "that all God's children of all religions and political parties are to be respected." We assure the Churches of Palestine and Israel of our prayers, collaboration and resources.

3. Thus, in Amman, Jordan 18-20 June 2007, days that have witnessed a deepening of the crisis in the occupied Palestinian territories,and also includes the United Nations World Refugee Day, we representatives of Christian churches and church-related organizations from every corner of the earth, affirm the decision of the Central Committee of the World Council of Churches and launch the "Palestine Israel Ecumenical Forum" as an instrument to "catalyze and co-ordinate new and existing church advocacy for peace, aimed at ending the illegal occupation in accordance with UN resolutions, and demonstrate its commitment to inter-religious action for peace and justice that serves all the peoples of the region."

4. This action has been taken in response to three fundamental imperatives that call us to action:

• The ethical and theological imperative for a Just Peace

• The ecumenical imperative for unity in action

• The Gospel imperative for costly solidarity

5. The premises of this action are the following:

5.1. That UN resolutions are the basis for peace and the Geneva conventions are applicable to the rights and responsibilities of the affected people.

5.2. That Palestinians have the right of self-determination and the right of return.

5.3. That a two-state solution must be viable politically, geographically economically and socially.

5.4 That Jerusalem must be an open, accessible, inclusive and shared city for the two peoples and three religions.

5.5 That both Palestine and Israel have legitimate security needs.

5.6. That the Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories are illegal, and constitute an obstacle to peace.

5.7. That the "Separation Barrier" constructed by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territories is a grave breach of international law and must be removed from the occupied territory.

5.8. That there is no military solution for this conflict. Violence in all its forms cannot be justified whether perpetrated by Israelis or Palestinians.

5.9. That comprehensive regional peace is indivisible from a just peace in Israel and Palestine.

5.10. That the life and witness of local churches is at the center of worldwide church advocacy for a just peace.

6. We understand the mandate of the Palestine Israel Ecumenical Forum to be a space where we will develop comprehensive strategic approaches to the two processes of peace making and peace building. An inclusive core group convened urgently by the WCC should be mandated to facilitate this and also ensure improved coordination between all actors. The core group will be informed by the reports of the working groups of the Amman conference, and that its composition and mechanism be designed and announced by the WCC.

7. Peace building will include the following:

7.1. Furthering theological and biblical perspectives and Christian education resources around those issues central to the conflict.

7.2. Developing strategies that will support the processes of justice and reconciliation, including inter-religious dialogue and cooperation.

7.3. Strengthening the churches' responses to the occupation.

7.4. Recognizing, encouraging and cooperating with all efforts of Israeli and Palestinian civil society that are in accord with the vision and goals of the PIEF.

8. Peace making will include the following:

8.1. Defining and promoting measures, including economic ones, that could help end the occupation and enhance sustainable growth and development.

8.2. Strengthening existing efforts and identifying new models of church solidarity in action. Supporting local churches and church related organizations not only to survive and continue their powerful ministries, including educational, health, cultural and social services, but also to thrive and be witnesses of hope.

8.3. Developing a long-term advocacy strategy in order to mobilize all of our constituencies and influence change.

Amman challenges:

9. We have heard the voices of the Christian churches of Palestine and Israel challenging and saying to us:

9.1. Act with us to liberate all peoples of this land from the logic of hatred, mutual rejection and death, so that they see in the other the face and dignity of God.

9.2. Pray with us in our efforts to resist evil in all of its guises.

9.3. Raise your voices along with ours as we speak "truth to power" and name with courage the injustices we see and experience. The illegal occupation has stolen two generations of lives in this tortured place, and threatens the next with hopelessness and rage.

9.4. Risk the curses and abuse that will be aimed at you and stand in solidarity with us and with our Palestinian brothers and sisters of all faiths as we defiantly reject the possibility that occupation will continue.

9.5. Help us to tear down walls and build and rebuild bridges among all peoples in the region. Extremism on all sides produces chaos. It threatens to divide us and to destroy bridges among peoples that would lead to reconciliation and peace.

9.6. Add your hope to ours in the knowledge that evil and despair have been overcome through the death of our Lord on the Cross and through His Resurrection.

9.7. Insist with us that all dispossessed peoples, all refugees, have the right to return.

9.8. Partner with us as we seek peace and pursue it. Peace is possible. Christians and Muslims and Jews have, can and will understand one another and live together as neighbors.

10. And we representatives of Christian churches and church-related organizations from every corner of the earth, we respond:

11. Yes, we will. Together we will act and pray and speak and work and risk reputations and lives to build with you bridges for an enduring peace among the peoples of this tortured and beautiful place –Palestine and Israel– to end these decades of injustice, humiliation and insecurity, to end the decades of living as refugees and under occupation. We will work with you to seek peace and pursue it. We have allowed too much time to pass. Time has not served the cause of peace but has served the cause of extremism. This is our urgent cause that cannot wait.

Labels: anti-Zionism, Christianity, Israel

by Michelle J. Kinnucan

The Rev. Dr. Naim Ateek, a Palestinian and founder of the Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center in al-Quds/Jerusalem, gave the keynote address on Friday, September 26, 2008, at the Friends of Sabeel conference in the Detroit suburb of Troy. Ateek, the former Anglican Canon of St. George's Cathedral in al-Quds/Jerusalem spoke on the topic of "confronting the church's apathy."

He began with a discussion of the problem of Christians who talk about peace in the Middle East but will not talk about the issues of injustice, particularly in Palestine, that drive the conflicts in the region. Ateek wondered aloud if these Christians have Bibles that are missing the numerous passages where God demands justice.

During the course of his introductory remarks, Ateek also noted that Hamas and Sabeel came into being in Palestine at roughly the same time in response to the First Intifada. While taking pains to distance himself from Hamas on the issue of violence, the Rev. Dr. Ateek characterized Hamas as an Islamic "liberation theology movement," drawing applause from some in the crowd of about 250.

Ateek then shifted to a discussion of three obstacles to peace in Palestine. He identified them as Israel's inability to control Jewish settlers in the West Bank, the weakness of the Palestinian political leadership, and the US government's unwillingness to exert pressure on Israel or to allow other countries, such as the EU countries, to do so.

Following this, Ateek spoke about reasons why the Christian church had historically largely failed to fulfill the Biblical mandates of justice regarding Palestine. He noted that non-Palestinians occupied many of the denominational religious leadership positions in Palestine in 1948, and for decades thereafter. These leaders were mostly Europeans with little knowledge or appreciation of the historic Christian presence in the Holy Land or the situation of the Palestinian people.

Ateek spoke about later denominational statements in support of justice and Palestinians but lamented that these ideas had largely failed to filter down to local churches or translate into action. He attributed this, in part, to shortcomings on the part of clergy whom, he said, are not preaching the way they should and not teaching what is going on in Palestine. Another part of the problem, according to Ateek, is concern about offending Jews or being accused of 'anti-Semitism.' He urged Christians to overcome these issues and to "challenge and confront" Jewish supporters of Israel.

After this, he quoted from the 2007 Amman Call, issued at the World Council of Churches "Churches together for Peace and Justice in the Middle East" conference. The Call reads, in part: "The Palestinian Christians from Gaza to Jerusalem and to Nazareth, have called out to their brothers and sisters in Christ with this urgent plea: 'Enough is enough. No more words without deeds. It is time for action.' "

Following on this, Ateek stressed the importance of having the courage to "name evil" and called upon the mostly Christian lay people and clergy present to "stand in solidarity with us." He also declared that "all" of the 4-7 million Palestinian refugees "have the right to return" to Palestine.

In his closing remarks he told that crowd that it was "time [for North American Christians] to take a stand" against Israeli injustice. Elaborating upon his remarks earlier in the evening in support of "morally responsible investment as it happened in South Africa," Ateek said he supported "divestments, boycotts, anything that is nonviolent" as means to exert pressure on Israel to end the injustice and bring about peace.

Labels: anti-Zionism, Christianity, Naim Ateek, Palestine, resistance

At the end of my post, "We killed Jesus, we'll kill you too!", I wrote about an Ha'aretz article entitled "What happened to Jesus' haftarah?" by Hananel Mack, lecturer in the Naftal-Yaffe Department of Talmud at Bar-Ilan University. Mack writes about how Jewish hostility toward Jesus and Christianity has affected haftarah, the "custom of reading a chapter from the Prophets section of the Bible in public in the synagogue." The haftarah, according to Mack, is "an integral part of the Jewish liturgy on Sabbaths and holidays ..."

Mack claims, "The heads of Jewish communities, who had some familiarity with Christian faith and literature, preferred to refrain from reading the same chapter Jesus read in the synagogue in Nazareth ..." and "Generally speaking, Jews excluded from the haftarot those verses on which Christians based the principles of their religious faith."

What I did not know when I wrote the earlier post, and what Mack does not mention, is that the entire book of Daniel is excluded from the haftarah. The facile explanation for this is that Jews do not consider Daniel part of the Nevi'im/Prophets. How did this come to be? Here's what the Jewish Study Bible (1999 ed.; p, 1642) says:

Daniel was evidently considered a prophet at Qumran and elsewhere in early Judaism [sic] (Josephus, Antiquities 10.266-68 [see 10.10.4-7]), but because prefigurations of Christ and Christian resurrection were seen in Daniel by the early church, the rabbinic tradition hesitated to embrace the visions of Daniel. The Rabbis denied that Daniel was predicting events after the Maccabean revolt, and especially not the end of time, and assigned him a role as a seer, not a prophet (b. Meg. 3a, b. Sanh. 94a) [emphasis added].

Although not mentioned in the Jewish Study Bible, Daniel was also classified as a prophetic book in the Septuagint (abbr. LXX), an important ancient (3rd cent. BC) Koine Greek-language translation of the Old Testament. The significance of Daniel to the church is underscored by a passage from Four Strange Books of the Bible by the Jewish scholar Elias Bickerman (New York: Schocken, 1967). On page 128, he writes:

Of all messianic prophecies, the most important was the testimony of Daniel. Daniel, as Josephus says, "not only prophesied of future events, but also determined the time of their fulfillment." In the Gospels, Jesus applies to himself the words of Daniel that the Son of Man shall come in the clouds of heaven. Daniel, says Augustine in the City of God, even defined the exact date of the coming and suffering of Christ. Jerome said that none of the prophets spoke so clearly concerning Christ: Daniel sets forth the very time at which Jesus would come and announces beforehand the clearest signs of events to come. Thirteen centuries later, Isaac Newton stated that to disbelieve Daniel's predictions "is to reject the Christian religion. For this religion is founded upon his prophecy concerning the Messiah."

The "Son of Man" is indeed a key phrase. It comes from Daniel 7:13 (KJV) and is rendered υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου in the LXX. It appears 82 times in the Gospels and Acts (KJV) together. Daniel 12 is also notable but, make no mistake, the entire book is important in Christian theology.

To sum up, Mack has identified several prophetic texts (see table below) removed by "the Rabbis" from the Jewish liturgy because of their Christological implications. But "the Rabbis" also demoted an entire book of the Bible--Daniel--to prevent Jewish lay people from drawing the prophetic lines to Jesus the Messiah.

Passage Excluded from the Haftarah Readings	Corresponding New Testament Text
Isaiah 7:14. Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman* is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel. *As Mack points out, "The term 'virgin' is translated as such in the Septuagint and that is how Christians explicate the verse to this very day." The NRSV, quoted here, uses the Masoretic text.	Matthew 1:22,23. All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: "Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel," which means, "God is with us."
Isaiah 42:1-4. Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my spirit upon him; he will bring forth justice to the nations. He will not cry or lift up his voice, or make it heard in the street; a bruised reed he will not break, and a dimly burning wick he will not quench; he will faithfully bring forth justice. He will not grow faint or be crushed until he has established justice in the earth; and the coastlands wait for his teaching.	Matthew 12:18-21. "Here is my servant, whom I have chosen, my beloved, with whom my soul is well pleased. I will put my Spirit upon him, and he will proclaim justice to the Gentiles. He will not wrangle or cry aloud, nor will anyone hear his voice in the streets. He will not break a bruised reed or quench a smoldering wick until he brings justice to victory. And in his name the Gentiles will hope."
Isaiah 52:13. See, my servant shall prosper; he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high.	Same as above.
Isaiah 61:1. The spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, because the LORD has anointed me; he has sent me to bring good news to the oppressed, to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and release to the prisoners;	Luke 4:16-19. When [Jesus] came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, he went to the synagogue on the sabbath day, as was his custom. He stood up to read, and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."
Jeremiah 31:30-33. But all shall die for their own sins; the teeth of everyone who eats sour grapes shall be set on edge. The days are surely coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt--a covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, says the LORD. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.	*Luke 22:20. And [Jesus] did the same with the cup after supper, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. Hebrews 8:6-10. But Jesus has now obtained a more excellent ministry, and to that degree he is the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted through better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no need to look for a second one. God finds fault with them when he says: "The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; not like the covenant that I made with their ancestors, on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; for they did not continue in my covenant, and so I had no concern for them, says the Lord. This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws in their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. *Mack does not provide any corresponding New Testament verses. See text above table.
Hosea 11:1. When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.	Matthew 2:14,15. Then Joseph got up, took the child and his mother by night, and went to Egypt, and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet, "Out of Egypt I have called my son."
Micah 5:2. But you, O Bethlehem of Ephrathah, who are one of the little clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to rule in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days.	Matthew 2:3-6. When King Herod heard this, he was frightened, and all Jerusalem with him; and calling together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Messiah was to be born. They told him, "In Bethlehem of Judea; for so it has been written by the prophet: 'And you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who is to shepherd my people Israel.'" John 7:41, 42. Others said, "This is the Messiah." But some asked, "Surely the Messiah does not come from Galilee, does he? Has not the scripture said that the Messiah is descended from David and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David lived?"
Zechariah 9:9. Rejoice greatly, O daughter Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter Jerusalem! Lo, your king comes to you; triumphant and victorious is he, humble and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.	Matthew 21:3-6. If anyone says anything to you, just say this, 'The Lord needs them.' And he will send them immediately. " This took place to fulfill what had been spoken through the prophet, saying, "Tell the daughter of Zion, Look, your king is coming to you, humble, and mounted on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a donkey." The disciples went and did as Jesus had directed them; John 12:14,15. Jesus found a young donkey and sat on it; as it is written: "Do not be afraid, daughter of Zion. Look, your king is coming, sitting on a donkey's colt!"
*Zechariah 11:12,13. I then said to them, "If it seems right to you, give me my wages; but if not, keep them." So they weighed out as my wages thirty shekels of silver. Then the LORD said to me, "Throw it into the treasury"-- this lordly price at which I was valued by them. So I took the thirty shekels of silver and threw them into the treasury in the house of the LORD. *Mack's article cites Zech. 12:13 but this is clearly a typographical error.	Matthew 26:14,15. Then one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests and said, "What will you give me if I betray him to you?" They paid him thirty pieces of silver. Mark 14:10,11. Then Judas Iscariot, who was one of the twelve, went to the chief priests in order to betray him to them. When they heard it, they were greatly pleased, and promised to give him money. So he began to look for an opportunity to betray him.
Malachi 3:1. See, I am sending my messenger to prepare the way before me, and the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple. The messenger of the covenant in whom you delight--indeed, he is coming, says the LORD of hosts.	Matthew 11:10. This is the one about whom it is written, 'See, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.' Mark 2:2. So many gathered around that there was no longer room for them, not even in front of the door; and he was speaking the word to them. Luke 7:27. This is the one about whom it is written, 'See, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.' John 3:28. You yourselves are my witnesses that I [John] said, 'I am not the Messiah, but I have been sent ahead of him.'
All text is from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible via The Unbound Bible

Revised: 1/11/2008

Labels: Christianity, Jesus, Judaism, Talmud

The Jewish Daily Forward has two articles in its recent edition that highlight the ongoing Judaization/Zionization of Christianity. The first is "Mohels Give Non-Jewish Babies a Slice of Tradition." A mohel is a Jew who performs Jewish ritual male genital mutilation a.k.a. circumcision, usually on eight-day-old babies. Here are some excerpts (in italics) from the article:

When his son was born, Reverend Louis DeCaro Jr. was dismayed to learn that none of the doctors on call at Manhattan’s Allen Pavilion hospital had time to perform the circumcision. At a loss, the DeCaros turned for advice to their Manhattan pediatrician, Andrew Mutnick, who offered a simple solution: Hire a Jewish ritual circumciser, known as a mohel. ...

PM: How about leaving your child's genitals alone as a "simple solution"?

Mutnick put the family in touch with Cantor Philip Sherman, an Orthodox mohel working in the tri-state area. Sherman says he has performed more than 18,000 circumcisions in his 30-year career. There were no piles of bagels and lox waiting in the next room, no family members on hand to celebrate, but the DeCaros developed an admiration for the ancient tradition informing Sherman’s work.

"When [a circumcision] is done by a mohel, you appreciate the gravity, the beauty of the religious connotations," DeCaro said in an interview with the Forward.

PM: Hey, Rev, did the mohel use his mouth to suck your baby's bleeding penis after he cut it? That's an Orthodox tradition, too; it's called metzitzah b’peh. After all, you might as well get the whole works for your $700.

PM: What's that you say? You don't believe me and I'm just an anti-Semite spreading vicious lies. Well, in the US, the practice became better known outside the Jewish community in 2004 after Pediatrics published electronically (received for publication Nov. 20, 2003) a case study of eight baby boys infected by the ritual with herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1). Four of the infected infants in the case study had "recurrent episodes of genital HSV infection" and one "developed HSV encephalitis with neurologic sequelae", that is, his brain became inflamed and was damaged. According to a 2003 article in an Israeli medical journal, "Other infectious diseases transmitted during ritual circumcision (and metsitsah) are syphilis and tuberculosis." At least three infants are believed to have been infected with herpes by a New York-area mohel, Rabbi Yitzchok Fischer, who refused to be tested for the virus by public health officials. According to the Forward, one of the babies died from the infection in October 2004. The Forward has written several articles on the New York area infections and despite the known risk mohalim are still putting their mouths on the bleeding penises of babies and sucking--it's a sacred practice donchaknow?

Manhattan pediatrician Susan Levitsky makes a point of recommending non-Jewish patients to mohels. Levitsky said she’s been passing out Sherman’s number more often these days, because concerns over hospital-bred infections are rising. "Why would you want to be around an environment with germs?" she asked.

PM: Hey, Doc, if you're concerned about infection, wouldn't it be safer still to not cut the baby in the first place? And keep the mohel's mouth away, too.

That’s precisely the question posed at www.holisticcircumcision.com, a site that Sherman set up for non-Jewish parents. On it, he describes a "quicker, gentler, and more humane" circumcision carried out without the use of "drugs, injections or creams" (he suggests sugar water or wine) in an environment that’s "spiritual and meaningful" instead of "clinical and cold."

PM: How about keeping your barbaric ritual away from vulnerable, unconsenting babies? There is nothing gentle or humane about excising tissue from one of the most sensitive areas of the human body for primitive ritualistic reasons.

Certain families have been won over by this nonritual gospel, despite the added cost.

While fees for hospital circumcisions are absorbed by the family’s health insurance, mohels charge between $700 and $750 for circumcisions performed in the New York area.

PM: The procedure should be illegal when used on people who cannot meaningfully give their consent and should not be paid for by insurance. I guess they consider it insurance against the crisis of being born with a normal penis--"Whoops, that foreskin will have to go, good thing we had insurance."

PM: Hey, Reverend DeCaro, if, as I suspect, you are a Christian then you might want to crack open a Bible--you could have spared your child the pain and trauma. According to the Paul:

Was anyone at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing; but obeying the commandments of God is everything.

-I Cor. 7:18,19

For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything; the only thing that counts is faith working through love. ...

It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh that try to compel you to be circumcised—only that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. Even the circumcised do not themselves obey the law, but they want you to be circumcised so that they may boast about your flesh. May I never boast of anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. For neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is anything; but a new creation is everything!

-Galatians 5, 6; emphasis added

The second article is "Jewish Agency Gives Boardroom Clout to Ally of Evangelicals." Lots of interesting bits in this piece:

About a decade ago, the head of the Jewish Agency for Israel refused to be photographed taking a check from Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein, founder and president of the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews. This past week, the agency accepted a hefty donation from the evangelical-backed organization and offered Eckstein a seat on two of its most powerful committees.

Eckstein’s organization and the Jewish Agency, which helped found the State of Israel, announced that IFCJ would donate $45 million to the agency over the next three years, almost all of it raised from evangelical Christians in North America. ...

"For the first time, Christians, who are mainly my constituency, will have a seat at the table," Eckstein told the Forward.

PM: Yes, in the person of one Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein, Christians who have lost their way and betrayed the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles "will have a seat at the table" of violence and racism but that, unfortunately, probably feels pretty normal for a lot of them.

The moves underscore the astonishing speed with which IFCJ and the evangelical movement in general have grown in stature as supporters of Israel. Even 10 years ago, Eckstein was shunned not only by Jewish Agency head Avraham Burg but also by many American donors.

Some Jewish leaders remain uneasy about allying themselves with evangelicals. But the support, both political and financial, seems to have proved irresistible.

... Traditionally, UJC and Keren Hayesod have supported the Jewish Agency, but support from both has been stagnant. The 2008 budget of the Jewish Agency shows a contribution of $138 million from UJC, down from $140 million the year before, and $44 million from Keren Hayesod, up slightly from $42 million the previous year. ...

With a decline in funding allocations to Israel from American Jews, and studies showing declining emotional attachment as well, donations and political support from evangelical Christians have become essential to Israel.

“I think we accept, with reservations, the political involvement of the evangelical community on behalf of Israel,” said Jewish Agency board member Richard Wexler, chairman of the United Israel Appeal. “It would be rather cynical, having accepted the political help, to reject the financial assistance which has become more and more vital given the reduction in allocations and financial distributions from the federation system in America.”

PM: One wonders what, if anything, Wexler would actually consider to be cynical.

Addendum: Judging from e-mail I've gotten, some of my readers are careless and/or lazy. So, for those special people I'm going to put references and quotes from two of the embedded links in the post here just for them.

First article: Benjamin Gesundheit, MD et al. "Neonatal Genital Herpes Simplex Virus Type 1 Infection After Jewish Ritual Circumcision: Modern Medicine and Religious Tradition." Pediatrics Vol. 114 No. 2 August 2004, pp. e259-e263.

The authors write in the methods section:

There is no official registry in the United States or in Israel to document the incidence of medical complications after ritual circumcision. The percentage of metzitzah performed by oral versus instrumental suction could not be evaluated statistically.

In the abstract, they conclude:

Ritual Jewish circumcision that includes metzitzah with direct oral–genital contact carries a serious risk for transmission of HSV from mohels to neonates, which can be complicated by protracted or severe infection. Oral metzitzah after ritual circumcision may be hazardous to the neonate. (emphasis added)

Second article: Rotem Distel MD et al. "Primary Genital Herpes Simplex Infection Associated with Jewish Ritual Circumcision." Israel Medical Association Journal 2003; 5:893-894.

Several cases of transmission of infectious diseases during ritual circumcision have been documented. ... Other infectious diseases transmitted during ritual circumcision (and metsitsah) are syphilis and tuberculosis ... In conclusion, metsitsah performed as part of Jewish ritual circumcision involves orogenital contact and is thus associated with a risk of pathogen transmission between mohel and neonate. This is a real epidemiologic problem considering the thousands of circumcisions performed with metsitsah." (emphasis added)

See also:

• "Gems from 'Jewish Medical Law' "
• "Jesus the Israelite"
• "Yes, A Blog Post About Circumcision"
• "Ralph & the Rabbi: a thinner Reed?" by Bill Berkowitz on MediaTransparency.org
• "Circumcision and HIV" on circumstitions.com
• "Doctors Opposing Circumcision HIV Statement" on doctorsopposingcircumcision.org
• "Mutilated Humanity" by Ashley Montagu (né Israel Ehrenberg) on nocirc.org
• "Mayor Balances Hasidic Ritual Against Fears for Babies' Health" NY Times (1/6/2006)

Last revision: 1/8/2008

Labels: Christianity, halacha, Judaism, medicine, Zionism

Although I've referenced the August 2006 document below in the past, I see that I never provided the text--an omission I now correct.

Statement by the Patriarch and Local Heads of Churches In Jerusalem

'Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God.' (Matthew 5:9)

Christian Zionism is a modern theological and political movement that embraces the most extreme ideological positions of Zionism, thereby becoming detrimental to a just peace within Palestine and Israel. The Christian Zionist programme provides a worldview where the Gospel is identified with the ideology of empire, colonialism and militarism. In its extreme form, it laces an emphasis on apocalyptic events leading to the end of history rather than living Christ's love and justice today.

We categorically reject Christian Zionist doctrines as false teaching that corrupts the biblical message of love, justice and reconciliation.

We further reject the contemporary alliance of Christian Zionist leaders and organisations with elements in the governments of Israel and the United States that are presently imposing their unilateral pre-emptive borders and domination over Palestine. This inevitably leads to unending cycles of violence that undermine the security of all peoples of the Middle East and the rest of the world.

We reject the teachings of Christian Zionism that facilitate and support these policies as they advance racial exclusivity and perpetual war rather than the gospel of universal love, redemption and reconciliation taught by Jesus Christ. Rather than condemn the world to the doom of Armageddon we call upon everyone to liberate themselves from the ideologies of militarism and occupation. Instead, let them pursue the healing of the nations!

We call upon Christians in Churches on every continent to pray for the Palestinian and Israeli people, both of whom are suffering as victims of occupation and militarism. These discriminative actions are turning Palestine into impoverished ghettos surrounded by exclusive Israeli settlements. The establishment of the illegal settlements and the construction of the Separation Wall on confiscated Palestinian land undermines the viability of a Palestinian state as well as peace and security in the entire region.

We call upon all Churches that remain silent, to break their silence and speak for reconciliation with justice in the Holy Land.

Therefore, we commit ourselves to the following principles as an alternative way:

We affirm that all people are created in the image of God. In turn they are called to honour the dignity of every human being and to respect their inalienable rights.

We affirm that Israelis and Palestinians are capable of living together within peace, justice and security.

We affirm that Palestinians are one people, both Muslim and Christian. We reject all attempts to subvert and fragment their unity.

We call upon all people to reject the narrow world view of Christian Zionism and other ideologies that privilege one people at the expense of others.

We are committed to non-violent resistance as the most effective means to end the illegal occupation in order to attain a just and lasting peace.

With urgency we warn that Christian Zionism and its alliances are justifying colonisation, apartheid and empire-building.

God demands that justice be done. No enduring peace, security or reconciliation is possible without the foundation of justice. The demands of justice will not disappear. The struggle for justice must be pursued diligently and persistently but non-violently.

'What does the Lord require of you, to act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.' (Micah 6:8)

This is where we take our stand. We stand for justice. We can do no other. Justice alone guarantees a peace that will lead to reconciliation with a life of security and prosperity for all the peoples of our Land. By standing on the side of justice, we open ourselves to the work of peace - and working for peace makes us children of God.

'God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.' (2 Cor 5:19)

His Beattitude Patriarch Michel Sabbah
Latin Patriarchate, Jerusalem

Archbishop Swerios Malki Mourad,
Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate, Jerusalem

Bishop Riah Abu El-Assal,
Episcopal Church of Jerusalem and the Middle East

Bishop Munib Younan,
Evangelical Lutheran Church in Jordan and the Holy Land

Labels: anti-Zionism, Christianity, Zionism

Let’s face it: Many, if not most, American Jews grow up scarred by Christianity, mistrustful of it, and actively taught to fear, scorn and otherwise shun it. Some of this is a reasonable response to missionary activity, and to the need of a persecuted minority to survive. But it’s made us neurotic. As Israel Zangwill is reported to have said, “two thousand years of Christian love have made us very nervous.” [emphasis added]

Source: "How I Finally Learned To Stop Worrying and Love (Okay, Like) Christmas" by Jay Michaelson in the Jewish Daily Forward (Dec 19, 2007).

Labels: Christianity, identity, Judaism

I have written several posts dealing with the relationship of Jesus and Judaism, most notably "We killed Jesus, we'll kill you too!" and Jesus and the Last Supper as Passover Seder. To put matters succinctly, Jesus was neither a Jew nor a Christian as Judaism and Christianity simply did not exist in his life time. Which brings me to the point of this post.

Last July, the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus published "Jesus the Israelite Was Neither a 'Jew' Nor a 'Christian': On Correcting Misleading Nomenclature" by John H. Elliott of the University of San Francisco. I recommend this scholarly article to readers interested in the subject. Mistaken and anachronistic notions about Jesus and Jews are bad religion that fuels harmful movements like Christian Zionism, which in turn has had a dangerous geopolitical impact on the Middle East.

Elliott's article and the subject in general have stimulated some interesting discussion in the blogosphere, see the links below to posts on The Busybody blog (the most recent post is at bottom).

• The Symbolic Jesus
• Jew or Judean?
• Jesus Was Neither Jewish Nor Christian
  
• Phil Harland Puts Things to Rest: The "Judean" is Here to Stay

Labels: Christianity, Jesus, Judaism, Zionism

About two years ago, I was asked by two Jewish friends about Christian or messianic Jews. Below are a few excerpts from "Messianic Jews Find Fertile Ground in the Bible Belt" in a recent edition of the Jewish Daily Forward.

"There really is a debate, and a very lively one, within the messianic world about the fundamental nature of messianic Judaism," said Richard Nichol, who has led Congregation Ruach Israel in Needham, Mass., for a quarter-century and is a board member of Hashivenu ("Return Us"), a group founded around the year 2000 to promote greater "Jewishness" in the messianic movement.

...

Although exact numbers are hard to come by, one Philadelphia-based umbrella group, the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America, estimates that there is currently a total of roughly 300 self-described Jewish messianic congregations in the United States, with upward of 30,000 adherents. According to religious leaders contacted by the Forward, the Atlanta area has six messianic congregations, up from one a decade ago, while Tampa, Fla., which had none 12 years ago, now has three.

It is a trend alarming to Jewish communal leaders.

"There is a pragmatic, serious interest in that part of Christianity that continues to believe in proselytizing to promote messianic Judaism," said Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League. "So they've come up with this gimmick: If you can establish that you can be both [Christian and Jewish], then why not accept Jesus and be Jewish?"

"You can’t be both," Foxman added. "That's nonsense."

Rabbi Bentzion Kravitz, founder of a counter-missionary group called Jews for Judaism, said that in his experience, the messianic movement includes many Jews who are sincere, but leaders and Christian organizations that have a missionary agenda nonetheless support it.

...

Whatever the politics over the future direction of messianic Judaism may be, movement leaders say that the American South is particularly fertile ground for expansion. "In the Bible belt, you have many Christians who love Israel, so we attract more gentiles [to our services], plus there are a lot more intermarried couples down here than there would be in the Northeast," said Derek Leman, religious leader of Atlanta’s Tikvat David Messianic Synagogue. ...

Rabbi Kravitz remarks seems like a non sequitur, why wouldn't "leaders and Christian organizations" support a movement that includes many "sincere" Jews? As for the "Christians who love Israel," Christian Zionism is a heretical doctrine. See also "The Jerusalem Declaration on Christian Zionism."

Labels: Christianity, Judaism, Zionism

... Having had to go to what was called "Hebrew School" in preparation for my bar-mitzvah, I became exposed early on to the Old Testament, which I consider my introduction to the nature and history of fascism.

It's all there in black and white, the raping and pillaging, kidnapping of women and children, murder of innocents, disregard for the humanity of others, and, of course, the misappropriation of their land. And all in God's name. After all, the Hebrews were "the Chosen People," as every fascist group believes they are. But we jews, so enamored of writing things down, managed to document the whole thing, setting a precedent for those who came after us. And therein lies a tale, perpetuated in the mythic tradition collectively known as "Abrahamic," more commonly referred to as Judaism, Christianity and Islam, the "People of the Book." And it should be noted at this point that fundamentalism is a subset of fascism - it usually manifests as religious fundamentalism, but if you know any old time Stalinists, Maoists, any Zionists, or any doctrinaire Islamists for that matter, you've experienced ideological fundamentalism.

--"Discourse on Buddhism and Politics, with a focus on Fascism
(including the Zionist variation)" by Roger Tucker

Labels: Christianity, fascism, Judaism, Zionism

Apropos Judaism's Culture of Death, last night I happened upon the furor created last February by 64-year-old professor and department head Ariel Toaff of Bar-Ilan University, an Orthodox Jewish institution in Israel. Toaff "is among Israel's and the world's senior researchers in medieval Jewish communities and the Italian Jewish community" and the son of the retired chief rabbi of Italy. Right: "A woodcut showing Jews performing a ritual to extract a Christian child's blood. These prints were popular in Germany and the Netherlands in the 15th Century." Source: Jerusalem Post. Here are few excerpts from articles about the author and his controversial book:

An Israeli historian of Italian origin has revived "blood libel" in an historical study set to hit Italian bookstores on Thursday. Ariel Toaff ... claims that there is some historic truth in the accusation that for centuries provided incentives for pogroms against Jews throughout Europe. Toaff's tome, Bloody Passovers: The Jews of Europe and Ritual Murders, received high praise from another Italian Jewish historian, Sergio Luzzatto, in an article in the Corriere della Serra daily entitled "Those Bloody Passovers." Luzzatto describes Toaff's work as a "magnificent book of history...Toaff holds that from 1100 to about 1500...several crucifixions of Christian children really happened, bringing about retaliations against entire Jewish communities - punitive massacres of men, women, children. Neither in Trent in 1475 nor in other areas of Europe in the late Middle Ages were Jews always innocent victims." "A minority of fundamentalist Ashkenazis...carried out human sacrifices," Luzzatto continued.

-"Historian gives credence to blood libel" by Lisa Palmieri-Billig in the Jerusalem Post. Feb. 7, 2007.

According to a new book by history professor Ariel Toaff, medieval Jews not only sacrificed Christian children, they also used their blood as an ingredient in baking matzo (unleavened bread). In Bloody Passovers: The Jews of Europe and Ritual Murders, Toaff, son of Rabbi Elio Toaff, describes "the mutilation and crucification of a two-year-old boy to recreate Christ's execution at Pesach" near the northern Italian city of Trento.

-"Did Jews Drink Blood?" by Emil Steiner in the Washington Post. Feb. 8, 2007.

In the book, Prof Toaff alleges the ritual killing was carried out by members of a fundamentalist group in reaction to the persecution of Jews. The book describes the mutilation and crucifixion of a two-year-old boy to recreate Christ’s execution at Pesach ... The festival marks the fleeing of the Jews from Egypt and Prof Toaff says Christian blood was used for "magic and therapeutic practices". In some cases the blood was mixed with dough to make azzimo, unleavened bread, eaten at Pesach. He says the acts took place in around the city of Trento in modern northern Italy, between the 11th and 14th centuries. ... Italy’s senior rabbis, including Elio Toaff, issued a joint statement condemning the book. ... Prof Toaff, who teaches mediaeval and Renaissance history at Bar Ilan University in Jerusalem, said the reaction was a "disgrace" as they had not read the book, which has yet to be published. He emphasised the practice was confined to "a small group of fundamentalists."

-"Professor outrages Jews with book claim" by Andrew M. Rosemarine in the Telegraph (UK). Feb. 9, 2007.

In an interview with Haaretz from Rome, Professor Ariel Toaff said he stood behind the contention of his book, "Pasque di Sangue," just published in Italy, that there is a factual basis for some of the medieval blood libels against the Jews. ... "I tried to show that the Jewish world at that time was also violent, among other things because it had been hurt by Christian violence," the Bar-Ilan history professor said. Of course I do not claim that Judaism condones murder. But within Ashkenazi Judaism there were extremist groups that could have committed such an act and justified it," he said. Toaff said he reached his conclusions after coming across testimony from the trial for the murder of a Christian child, Simon of Trento, in 1475, which in the past was believed to have been falsified. "I found there were statements and parts of the testimony that were not part of the Christian culture of the judges, and they could not have been invented or added by them. They were components appearing in prayers known from the [Jewish] prayer book. "Over many dozens of pages I proved the centrality of blood on Passover," Toaff said. "Based on many sermons, I concluded that blood was used, especially by Ashkenazi Jews, and that there was a belief in the special curative powers of children's blood. It turns out that among the remedies of Ashkenazi Jews were powders made of blood."

-"Bar-Ilan prof. defiant on blood libel book 'even if crucified' " by Ofri Ilani in Ha'aretz. Feb. 12, 2007.

A week after its publication, Ariel Toaff has withdrawn his Pasque di sangue (in English: Bloody Passovers: The Jews of Europe and Ritual Murders) from circulation. Hopefully this will elegantly end an unfortunate episode. The book’s thesis is unambiguous: Jews crucified Christian children and used their blood ritually.

-"Blood Libel: Ariel Toaff's Perplexing Book" by Kenneth Stow in History News Network. Feb. 19, 2007.

[Members of the Israeli Knesset (MKs)] on Monday demanded that the state examine ways in which it could prosecute Professor Ariel Toaff ... Speaking at a discussion of the book and its ramifications held at the Knesset Education Committee, MK Marina Solodkin (Kadima) said the [sic] thought "there are valid reasons to prosecute the author of the book," and called to "put him to trial over historical truth and the Jewish people's reputation." MK Arieh Eldad (National Union), who initiated the discussion, said that Toaff "has made himself an accomplice to modern blood libels." Eldad added that the state must ensure that for such publications, "the punishment will exceed the benefit." Most of the discussion's participants used the meeting to attack the "new historians" who criticize Israel policy throughout its existence ? [sic] this despite the fact that Toaff does not address Israel's policy at all in his book.

-"MKs demand the author of blood libel book be prosecuted" by Ofri Ilani and Adi Schwartz in Ha'aretz. Feb. 26, 2007.

The second to the last excerpt is the only one written by a trained historian (according to his bio, Stow is Professor Emeritus of Jewish History at the University of Haifa) and it is curious for two reasons. First, scholars usually at least pay lip service to academic freedom and having the book withdrawn from publication hardly seems consistent with that and, yet, Stow is unabashedly pleased with the decision. Second, in his critique of Toaff's book, Stow writes:

The reader is equally to accept as true the tale of a Christian boy allegedly murdered by Jews in 415, although the sole teller is the Church historian, Socrates, no more reliable than his counterpart who wrote that during the Persian conquest of Jerusalem in 611 C.E., the Jews murdered 50,000 Christians.

This is, apparently, a reference to the account of the 10th century Egyptian Christian historian, Eutychius, of a massacre that actually took place in 614. But, surely, Stow must know that Eutychius' account is very credible. His colleague Elliott Horowitz, Professor of Jewish History at Bar-Ilan University, discusses the historiography of the massacre at length in his book, Reckless Rites: Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence (pp. 228-247). Horowitz notes that the massacre of Christian children, women, and men by Jews was documented in several 7th century sources. Also, referring to three non-Jewish, 19th century historians, Horowitz writes: "Both in citing that number [90,000 dead], the highest offered by any Byzantine chronicler, and in speaking openly of Jewish vengeance against the Christians of Jerusalem, they were matched by two of the greatest Jewish scholars of the nineteenth centuray, Saloman Munk and Heinrich Graetz ..." So, how can Stow not know that accounts of the murder of tens of thousands (the lowest death toll cited by Horowitz is 30,000 by Michael Avi-Yonah) of Christians by Jews in Jerusalem during the Perisan conquest are completely credible?

Perhaps, Stow is hoping that his readers have simply been conditioned to unthinkingly reject any suggestion of Jews killing non-Jews as patently untrue and, worse, "anti-Semitic." Certainly, that is the underlying tone of much of the criticism of Toaff. I've never seen Toaff's book and, now, probably never will, so, I make no claims about his scholarship or his conclusions but it's hard not to wonder if the real issue is not about historical truth but about protecting received notions of Jewish innocence and victimhood. Bar-Ilan University's statement seems telling in this regard:

Following a preliminary investigation into the circumstances surrounding the publication of Prof. Ariel Toaff's book in Italy, Bar-Ilan University is expressing great anger and extreme displeasure at Prof. Ariel Toaff, for his lack of sensitivity in publishing his book about blood libels in Italy. His choice of a private publishing firm in Italy, the book's provocative title and the interpretations given by the media to its contents, have offended the sensitivities of Jews around the world and harmed the delicate fabric of relations between Jews and Christians. Bar-Ilan University strongly condemns and repudiates what is seemingly implied by Toaff's book and by reports in the media concerning its contents, as if there is a basis for the blood libels that led to the murder of millions of innocent Jews. Bar-Ilan University's executive leadership and academic faculty have consistently condemned any attempt to justify the terrible blood libels against the Jews. Prof. Toaff should have demonstrated greater sensitivity and caution in his handling of the book and its publication, in a manner that would have prevented the distorted and offensive reports and interpretations.

The university's web site provides no evidence of any substantive scholarly critique in the "preliminary investigation" or elsewhere. I have created the table below for another way to consider the sequence of events.

Toaff on the Possibility of Jewish Ritual Murder of Christians
The Statement	The Reaction	The Recantation
On his first day in Rome, Prof. Toaff was quoted as saying that some ritual murders "might have taken place."	Ariel Toaff ... feels as if he had been excommunicated. A rabbinical press release was issued against the contents of his book even before anyone had read it ... Toaff feels like he had been pushed into a corner. None of his old friends have called him at his Rome hotel during the entire week of his stay here. He has been dismissed as editor of the Zohar historical review, and is concerned he might lose his university position in Israel as well. According to Bar-Ilan spokesman Shmuel Algrabali, the university "expresses its strongest reservations" over media reports claiming the book states that the notorious "blood libels" against Jews might have basis in fact. "Bar-Ilan University has condemned and will continue to condemn any attempt to justify the awful blood libels against Jews," the spokesman said. ... He has been prevented from seeing or even contacting his father, Elio Toaff, Rome's former chief rabbi ...	Speaking to the Post, Toaff replies with a defiant "No" to the question of whether he believes Jewish communities could have committed ritual murder.
All passages in this table are quoted from " 'Jews never committed ritual murders' " by Lisa Palmieri-Billig in the Jerusalem Post. Feb. 11, 2007.

• For a brief and slanted discussion of academic freedom issues in Israel see last part of "And if it's not good for the Jews?" by Lily Galili in Ha'aretz. Feb. 27, 2007.
• For a collection of articles on the controversy see Professor Ariel Toaff withdraws his book " Bloody Passovers: The Jews of Europe and Ritual Murders" at the Medievalnews blog.
• The ADL got in on the action on Feb. 8th—"Professor's Claim Of Truth To 'Blood Libel' Plays Into Hands Of Anti-Semites."

Labels: Christianity, free speech, history, Jewish violence, Judaism, Passover

Last night, I was told by a Jewish friend that at a church service she attended (she's a musician, not a Christian) the congregation was told by clergy that the Last Supper was a Passover seder. This error is apparently not all that uncommon. For instance, in the thoroughly tendentious—if not anti-Christian—Constantine's Sword, James Carroll describes a "Passover Seder," which included some of his Jewish friends, he hosted in the early 1970s when he was a Roman Catholic chaplain at Boston University: "When I lifted the matzo, I cited [Jesus'] act at the Last Supper, his Seder" (pp. 49-50; emphasis in original). It is quite understandable how a casual reader of the Gospels might mistake it for a seder.

In reality, in the Last Supper and the events commemorated during Holy Week, Jesus preempted the Passover.¹ Jesus' role as the final, perfect paschal Lamb of God (John 1:29, 36; I Cor. 5:7) is the most obvious and powerful example of this but for present purposes I will focus on the Last Supper-seder connection. A seder, or ritual feast, takes place on the first night of Passover, which lasts seven to eight days. Unlike the Synoptic gospels, the Book of John is clear that Jesus was judged, crucified, and entombed on the day before Passover began:

Now it was the day of Preparation for the Passover; and it was about noon. [Pontius Pilate] said to the Jews [sic], "Here is your King!" They cried out, "Away with him! Away with him! Crucify him!" ... Then he handed him over to them to be crucified. So they took Jesus; and carrying the cross by himself, he went out to what is called The Place of the Skull, which in Hebrew is called Golgotha. There they crucified him ... Since it was the day of Preparation, the Jews [sic] did not want the bodies left on the cross during the sabbath, especially because that sabbath was a day of great solemnity. So they asked Pilate to have the legs of the crucified men broken and the bodies removed. ... But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. ... Now there was a garden in the place where he was crucified, and in the garden there was a new tomb in which no one had ever been laid. And so, because it was the Jewish [sic] day of Preparation, and the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there. (John 19)²

As for the apparently contradictory chronology that appears in the Synoptic Gospels, the exegesis of German New Testament scholar Gerd Theissen³ will more than suffice:

In my opinion, in Mark we can discern behind the text as we now have it a connected narrative that presupposes a certain chronology. According to Mark, Jesus died on the day of Passover, but the tradition supposes it was the preparation day before Passover: in 14:1-2 the Sanhedrin decided to kill Jesus before the feast in order to prevent unrest among the people on the day of the feast. This fits with the circumstance that in 15:21 Simon of Cyrene is coming in from the fields, which can be understood to mean he was coming from his work. It would be hard to imagine any author's using a formulation so subject to misunderstanding in an account that describes events on the day of Passover, since no work was done on that day. Moreover, in 15:42 Jesus' burial is said to be on the "preparation day," but a relative clause is added to make it the preparation day for the Sabbath. Originally, it was probably the preparation day for the Passover (cf. Jn 19:42). The motive for removing Jesus from the cross and burying him before sundown would probably have been to have this work done before the beginning of the feast day, which would not make sense if it were already the day of Passover. Finally, the "trial" before the Sanhedrin presupposes that this was not a feast day, since no judicial proceedings could be held on that day. It would have been a breach of the legal code that the narrator could scarcely have ignored, because the point of the narrative is to represent the proceeding against Jesus as an unfair trial with contradictory witnesses and a verdict decided in advance by the high priests.

Then, too, there is the testimony of (non-contemporaneous) Jewish texts:

And it was taught: On the eve of the Passover Yeshua [the Nazarene] was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favor, let him come and plead on his behalf." And since nothing was brought forward in his favor, he was hanged on the eve of Passover." (BT. Sanhedrin 43a.) [emphasis added]

It is also noteworthy that particular dietary rules are an important part of the traditional Passover seder. The Gospels make it clear that Jesus was fairly contemptuous of Israelite notions of ritual purity.⁴ Violation of the purity code is practically a hallmark of Jesus' ministry For example, there is this passage from Mark 7 (cf. Matthew 15):

Now when the Pharisees and some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem gathered around [Jesus], they noticed that some of his disciples were eating with defiled hands, that is, without washing them. (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews [sic], do not eat unless they thoroughly wash their hands, thus observing the tradition of the elders; and they do not eat anything from the market unless they wash it; and there are also many other traditions that they observe, the washing of cups, pots, and bronze kettles.) So the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, "Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?" He said to them, "Isaiah prophesied rightly about you hypocrites, as it is written,

'This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching human precepts as doctrines.'

You abandon the commandment of God and hold to human tradition." Then he said to them, "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition! For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must surely die.' But you say that if anyone tells father or mother, 'Whatever support you might have had from me is Corban' (that is, an offering to God)--then you no longer permit doing anything for a father or mother, thus making void the word of God through your tradition that you have handed on. And you do many things like this." Then he called the crowd again and said to them, "Listen to me, all of you, and understand: there is nothing outside a person that by going in can defile, but the things that come out are what defile." When he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about the parable. He said to them, "Then do you also fail to understand? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile, since it enters, not the heart but the stomach, and goes out into the sewer?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.) And he said, "It is what comes out of a person that defiles. For it is from within, from the human heart, that evil intentions come: fornication, theft, murder, adultery, avarice, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, folly. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person."

The Gospels give no evidence that Jesus and his disciples ate a paschal lamb or bitter herbs—both part of a traditional Passover seder. It also seems unlikely the bread used at the Last Supper was matzo i.e. unleavened bread. The beginning of the Feast/Festival of Unleavened Bread is marked by Passover, of which it is a part. In the Koine Greek of the ancient texts, the Gospels use ἄζυμος (transliterated "azumos") in reference to unleavened bread whereas Jesus and his disciples ate ἄρτος (transliterated "artos"), i.e. regular leavened bread, for the Last Supper. This distinction also appears in the Latin Vulgate where the root for unleavened bread is "azym-" and leavened bread is "panem." As for the Aramaic, according to Roy A. Reinhold, the distinction holds true in those texts also. In short, the Last Supper took place before the appointed time for a traditional Passover seder and, in any event, it bears only a superficial resemblance to one. In the Last Supper, Jesus instituted a new rite to mark a new covenant:

While they were eating, he took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to them, and said, "Take; this is my body." Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, and all of them drank from it. He said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. (Mark 14:22-24; cf. I Cor. 11:25)

Notes:
¹ To underscore the opposition between the Jewish Passover and Easter (not to be confused with what is now known as Holy or Maundy Thursday), the first ecumenical Council of Nicea (325 A.D.) mandated that Easter should never be celebrated on the same day as Passover.
² All English-language biblical text in this post is from the New Revised Standard Version via The Unbound Bible. Latin Vulgate is from the Blue Letter Bible. My Latin translation was confirmed using Notre Dame University's Latin Dictionary and Grammar Aid.
³ For those for whom Theissen's treatment does not suffice, there is the detailed chronology of E. W. Bullinger in Appendix 156 of The Companion Bible, which harmonizes the apparent discrepancies among the Gospels.
⁴ It is anachronistic, although common, to refer to 1st century Israelite sects as "Judaism" or "Jewish." The sects criticized in the New Testament are not what we know today as Judaism, the same point could be made about Christianity. As Michael L. Brown, a self-described "Jewish believer in Jesus," states in Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus (Vol. 1), "... Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism are ... siblings;" Brown quotes Rabbi Hayem Goren Perelmuter as saying they "were shaped at approximately the same time."

See also:

• A Reflection on Passover
• "We killed Jesus, we'll kill you too!"
• 12/6 Protest Zionism & Jewish Chauvinism

Addendum: In "The Seder That Wasn't," Arthur Magida, former senior editor of the Baltimore Jewish Times, asserts:

But let's set the record straight: The Last Supper, an event that according to the New Testament occurred circa 30 C.E., did not resemble the seder as Jews know it today: a meal with several important elements that are eaten in a certain way for certain symbolic reasons. The seder as we know it today didn't even begin to develop until after the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 C.E., about 40 years after Jesus was crucified. [emphasis in original]

I was aware of Magida's piece when I first published the post but decided not to include it since it wasn't very relevant to my argument but, hey, it adds some interesting information and, so, here it is now.  

Revised: 04/25/2007, 7/18/2008

Labels: Christianity, Jesus, Jewish violence, Judaism, Passover