From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Fri Feb 21 2003 - 19:52:41 EST
We seem to some extent to be speaking at cross purposes. The only points I
have wanted to make here are:
1) The Hebrew scriptures do not support the view that strict prohibition of
intermarriage was an important feature of Israelite faith prior to the exile. (A fuller
discussion would have to take into account the likelihood that some of the pentateuchal
texts supporting such prohibition are from considerably later than the Mosaic period,
but my case can be made without considering this.)
2) Such strict prohibition played a practical role in the situation of Ezra &
Nehemiah, & continues to in situations like that of Jews in the United States where,
while perscution is not a major factor, there are strong societal pressures toward
assimilation. Of course over ~2500 years it isn't surprising that these ideas have come
to be seen by many Jews as an essential part of their religion &/or culture.
3) Galatians 3:28, among other texts, makes it clear that such prohibitions
should have no relevance for Christians.
RFaussette@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 2/21/03 1:12:35 PM Eastern Standard Time, gmurphy@raex.com
> writes:
>
> > 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
> religion.
> > 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.
So what? She was still Egyptian. & for that matter Moses married a Midianite
(Ex.2:21) or Cushite (Num.12:1). & these examples are from torah.
> 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 have not said that Jews in Israel or the US today are persecuted.
>
> I respectfully suggest you are stretching your argument.
Not at all. I respectfully suggest that you take seriously the biblical
examples I've cited without trying to force them into the confines of your theory.
Shalom,
George
>
> rich
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> In a message dated 2/21/03 1:12:35 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> gmurphy@raex.com writes:
>
> 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 & Nehemiah.
>
> 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 religion.
>
> But it's clear that this was not the case before the
>
> 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, biologically, 50% non-Israelite.
>
> 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.
>
> rich
-- George L. Murphy gmurphy@raex.com http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Feb 21 2003 - 19:53:30 EST