#Historical context of biblical laws

[ultrachoppedpenguinbouquet]

Anas and Caiaphas,

[dresshistorynerd]

Palestinian History Between Great Powers - Part 1

From Bronze Age to Ottoman Palestine

I started writing this article months ago but as it deserves proper research, it took me a long while, and at one point I started questioning is this helpful anymore. I thought it's obvious at this point to anyone not willfully ignorant that what we are seeing in real time is a genocide, and I'm not going to convince those who are willfully ignorant. I decided to finish it anyway since I do feel obligation to do something and maybe providing some accessible historical context is what I'm capable of doing. Even if I probably won't change any hearts and minds, I think the least we can do is not forget Palestinians and fall into apathy. And at the very least more understanding of the situation is always better even when we already oppose this genocide.

This is quite out of my area of focus, so I will be doing more of a general overview of the history and link in depth sources by more knowledgeable people than try to become an expert on this. My purpose is to offer an accessible starting point for the history of Palestine to help people put historical and current events into their proper context. I don't think the occupation and genocide in Palestine pose complex moral questions - it's pretty simple in my opinion that genocide, apartheid and colonialism are wrong and need to stop for peace to be possible - but the history is complex and it's understanding needs quite a lot of background. I will do my best to represent the complexity accurately and fairly while keeping this concise. Since there is a lot of history, even if this is very general overview, it's still very long, so I did need to cut this in two parts. First part will be covering everything to the beginning of WW1, second part the British Mandate period and Israel period.

Bibliography

I'm linking my sources and further reading here so it's easy to check some specific resources even if you don't want to/have time to read 5 000 years of history right now. Because there's so much misinformation and propaganda, I read as much as I could from academic sources, linked at the top here. They are really interesting and delve deeply into specific subjects so I do recommend checking out anything that peaks your interest (Sci-Hub is your friend against paywalled papers and in JSTOR you can make a free account to access most papers). Some of them I didn't really end up using, but I still linked them here since they provide some additional context that wouldn't fit in this overview. At the end there's some accessible resources (youtube videos, podcasts etc.) which are relevant and I think good.

Pre-Ottoman Era

On The Problem of Reconstructing Pre-Hellenistic Israelite (Palestinian) History - Critique of Biblical historical narratives

Canaanites and Philistines

Archaeological Sources for the History of Palestine: Between Large Forces: Palestine in the Hellenistic Period - Everyday life in Hellenistic Palestine

Ottoman Era

Rediscovering Ottoman Palestine: Writing Palestinians into History - Critique of politics of Ottoman Palestine historiography

The Peasantry of Late Ottoman Palestine

Consequences of the Ottoman Land Law: Agrarian and Privatization Processes in Palestine, 1858–1918

The route from informal peasant landownership to formal tenancy and eviction in Palestine, 1800s–1947

The Ottoman Empire, Zionism, and the Question of Palestine (1880–1908)

Origins of Zionism

Christian Zionism and Victorian Culture

Zionism and Imperialism: The Historical Origins

The Non-Jewish Origin of Zionism

Zionism and Its Jewish "Assimilationist" Critics (1897-1948)

The Jewish-Ottoman Land Company: Herzl's Blueprint for the Colonization of Palestine

Books

Boundaries and Baraka - Chapter II of Muslims and Others in Sacred Space - Local syncretic religious beliefs of Muslim and Christian Arabs in Palestine

Further "reading"

Israelis Are Not 'Indigenous' (and other ridiculous pro-Israel arguments) - Properly cited youtube video on settler colonialism of Zionism (Indigenous is defined here in postcolonialist way, in contrast with the colonialist, the video doesn't argue that diaspora Jews didn't originate from the Palestine area)

Gaza: A Clear Case of Genocide - Detailed Legal Analysis - Youtube video detailing current evidence on the ongoing genocide and assessing them through international law

What the Netanyahu Family Did To Palestine: Part 1 , Part 2 - Two part podcast episode of Behind the Bastards about Israel's history and Netanyahu Family's involvement in it with an expert quest

History of Israeli/Palestinian conflict since 1799 - Timeline of Palestinian history by Al Jazeera with documentaries produced by Al Jazeera for most of the entries in the timeline

Ancient Era (33th-4th century BCE)

Palestine's location in the fertile crescent, the connecting land between Africa and Asia and the strip of land between Mediterranean and Red Sea means since the earliest emergence of civilizations it has been in the middle of great powers. Thorough it's history it has been conquered many, many times for it's strategic value. Despite the changing rulers and migrating groups there has been a continuous history history of a people, which has changed, split and evolved, but not fully disappeared or replaced at any point, which is quite rare of a history spanning thousands of years.

Speakers of Semitic languages are the first recorded inhabitants of Palestine. At least from Bronze Age (c. 3300-1200 BCE) onward they inhabited Levant, Arabian peninsula and Ethiopian highlands. Semitic languages belong in the Afroasiatic language group, which includes three other branches; ancient Egypt, Amazigh languages and Cushitic languages of African Horn. Most prominent theories of the origins of proto-Afroasiatic is in Levant, African side of Red Sea or Ethiopia. In the Bronze Age the Levant's Semitic speakers were called Canaanites and there was already urban settlements in Early Bronze Age. Egypt had been extending it's control over Canaan for a while and in Late Bronze Age, 1457 BCE, it took over Canaan. Gaza, which had had habitation for thousand years already, became the Egypt's administrative capital in Canaan. Canaan stayed as Egypt's province until the Late Bronze Age collapse c. 1200-1150 BCE, when Egypt started losing it's hold on Levant. Egypt eventually retreated from Canaan around 1100 BCE. The causes of Late Bronze Age collapse are unknown, but theories suggest some kind of environmental changes that caused destruction of cities and wide-spread mass migration all around the East Mediterranean Bronze Age civilizations.

Canaanites was not what most of the people called themselves, but rather what the surrounding empires, especially Egypt and Hittites in the north, called them. Philistines appear in Egyptian sources around the Late Bronze Age collapse as raiders against Egypt, who were likely populating southern parts of Canaan, the Palestine area. Several groups with mutually intelligble languages emerged after Egypt left the area: in Palestine area Philistines, Israelites, in Jordan are Ammonites, Moabites and Edomites, and in Lebanon area Canaanites, who were called by Phoenicians by Greeks. Israelites have been theorized to split from Philistines, possibly after Aegonean migrants during the Late Bronze Age collapse influenced the culture of the costal Philistine city states, and/or through Israelites development of monotheistic faith. During Iron Age these different groups descendant from Caananites had their own kingdoms. In the area of Palestine there was two Israelite kindgoms, Kingdom of Judah is the highlands of Judah, were Israelites likely originated, and Kindom of Israel or Samaria north to it, as well as Philistine city states in the coast around the area of current Gaza strip.

Earliest historical evidence of Israel is from mid 9th century BCE and of Judah from 7th century BCE, though Israelites as a group were mentioned earlier. It's entirely possible the kingdoms predate these mentions, but the archaeological evidence suggests likely not by much. Israel was conquered by the Neo-Assyrian empire in 722 BC, so it's entirely possible kingdom of Judah was created by retreating Israelites of the earlier kingdom. The remaining Israelites under Assyrian rule came to be known as Samaritans, marking also the split of Jewish faith into Judaism and Samaritanism. Neo-Assyrian lingua franca was Aramaic, a Semitic language from southwest Syria, which became the major spoken language in Samaria. Judah became a vassal state of Assyrians and later Babylonians. After a rebellion Babylonians fully conquered Judah in 586-587 BCE and exiled the rebels, though more recent historical study suggests it targeted the rebelling population and was not a mass exile. In 539 BCE Babylon and by extension Judah was conquered by Persian Achaemenid empire, which allowed the exiles to return and rule Judah as their vassals. Persia also conquered Samaria and Philistines. Aramaic was also the official language of the both Neo-Babylonian and Achaemenid empires and replaces Old Hebrew as spoken language in Judah too, though Old Hebrew continued to be written language of religious scripture and is known today as Biblical Hebrew. Otherwise in the Palestine area there were Edomites, who migrated to the southern parts of former Judah kingdom, and Qedarites, a nomadic Arabic tribal federation, in southern desert parts.

Biblical narratives tell this early history very differently, and for a long while, those were used as historical texts, but more recent historical study has cast a doubt on their usefulness in historical inquiry. Even more recent archaeological DNA studies (like this and this) have supported the historical narratives constructed from primary historical texts.

Antique Era (4th century BCE - 7th century CE)

Under Persian rule the people in the Palestine area had a relative amount of autonomy, which lasted about 200 years. In the 330s BCE Macedonians conquered Levant along with a lot of other places. The Macedonian empire broke down quickly after the death of Alexander the Great, and Levant was left under the control of the Seleucid empire, which included most of the Asian parts of the Macedonian empire. During this time the whole Palestine area was heavily Hellenized. In the 170s BCE the Seleucian emperor started a repression campaign against the Jewish religion, which led to a Maccabean Revolt in Judea, lasting from 167-160 BCE until the Seleucids were able to defeat the rebels. It started with guerilla violence in the countryside but evolved into a small civil war. Defeat of the rebelling Maccabees didn't curb the discontent and by 134 BCE Maccabees managed to take Judea and establish the Hasmonean dynasty. The dynasty ruled semi-autonomously under the Seleucian empire until it started disintegrating around 110 BCE, and Judea gained more independence and began to conquer the neighbouring areas. At most they controlled Samaria, Galilee, areas around Galilean Sea, Dead Sea and Jordan River between them, Idumea (formerly Kingdom of Edom) and Philistine city states. During the Hasmonean dynasty Judaism spread to some of the other Semitic peoples under their rule. It didn’t take long for the rising power of the Roman Republic to make Judea into their client state in 63 BCE. Next three decades the Roman Republic and Parthian Empire would fight over control of Judea, which ended by Rome gaining control and disposing of the Hasmonean dynasty from power. It was a client state until  6 CE Rome incorporated Judea proper, Samaria, Idumea and Philistine city states into the province of Judea.

The Jewish population was very much discontent under Roman rule and revolted frequently through the first century or so. It led to waves of Jewish migration around the Mediterranean area, which would eventually lead to the formation of European and North-African Jewish groups. The Roman emperor’s decision to build a Roman colony into Jerusalem, which they destroyed along with Second Temple while squashing the previous revolt, provoked a large-scale armed uprising from 132-136 among Judean Jews, which Rome suppressed brutally. Jerusalem was destroyed again, Jews and Christians were banned from there, and a lot of Judean Jews were killed, displaced and enslaved. Rome also suffered high losses. Jews and Christians hadn’t yet fully separated into different faiths yet, but this strained their relations as Christians hadn’t supported the uprising. Galilee and Judea was joined into one province, Syria Palaestina. Galilean Jews hadn’t participated in the revolt and had therefore survived it unscathed, so Galilee became the Jewish heartland. During the Constantine dynasty, in the first half of the 4th century, when Christianity was the Roman state religion, Jerusalem was rebuilt as very Christianized. After the Constantine dynasty the Jewish relations with Rome were briefly improved by a sympathetic emperor, until Justinian came into power in 527 and began authoritarian religious oppression of all non-Christians, casting the whole area into chaos. Samaritans rebelled repeatedly and were almost fully wiped out, while Jews joined forces with several foreign powers in an attempt to destabilize Byzantium rule. By 636 the first Muslim Caliphate emerged as victors over the control of Palestine.

Muslim Period and Crusades (636-1516)

For more than 300 years under the rule of Muslim Caliphate, Palestine saw a much more peaceful period, with relative freedom and economic prosperity. Christianity continued to be the majority religion and Christians, Jews and usually Samaritans were considered People of the Book, who were guaranteed religious freedom. Non-muslims though had to pay taxes and depending on the caliph had more or less restrictions posed upon them. The position of Samaritans as People of the Book was unstable and at points they were persecuted. For the position of Jews it was a marked improvement, and after the expulsion of Jews from Jerusalem by Rome in the 2nd century, they were finally allowed to return. Jerusalem became a religious center for the Muslims too, as it was considered the third most holy place of Islam. Cities, especially Jerusalem, saw Arab immigration. The rural agricultural population was mostly Aramaic speaking, though even while Palestinian Arabs had mostly been bedouins in the southern deserts, there were few Arabic villages from the Roman era. People of the Book were protected from forced conversions, but over time conversions among the Christian population slowly increased, until Islam became the majority religion. Cities became Arabicized and slowly Arabic (also Semitic language) replaced Aramaic as the majority language. Towards the end of the first millennium persecution of Christianity increased with the threat of Byzantium.

In 970 a competing dynasty, Fatimids, conquered Palestine beginning a new era of continuous warfare and conquest by foreign powers. In the beginning of the new millennium Palestine was conquered by the Turco-Persian Seljuk empire for a couple of decades, recaptured by Fatimids for only a year, until the Crusaders took Palestine in 1099. During the next two centuries Palestine exchanged hands several times between the Crusaders and the Egyptian Ayyubid Sultanate. After internal struggle the Ayyubid dynasty was overthrown by the mamluk military caste and them in lead, the Sultanate secured Palestine. First they repelled the invading Mongol empire in 1260 and by 1291 they had defeated the remnants of the Cusaders and their Kingdom of Jerusalem. The period was devastating to the Palestinian populations, cities and economic life. The Crusaders especially committed numerous massacres against non-Christians and under Muslim rule Christians were persecuted and forcibly converted. The next two centuries under the Mamluk Sultanate were peaceful and Christian and Jewish communities were afforded some self-governance and relatively high religious freedom for being recognised as People of the Book again. The state had a more contentious relationship with Christians as the wars with the Crusaders were still looming between Christians and Muslims, and at some points Christians faced persecution and forced conversions.

Ottoman Period (1516-1917)

The Ottoman Empire gained dominance in western Asia over the Mamluk Sultanate during the late 15th century and conquered Palestine in 1516. It became a great imperial power in Asia and Europe for two centuries and in the 18th century started a slow decline, eventually becoming the "Sick man of Europe". The Ottoman Empire was very decentralized and under it Palestine was at first ruled by three Palestinian families semi-autonomously. The Ottoman state didn’t pay much attention to economic development, as they considered it contrary to their chivalric culture, so they instead attracted foreign businesses with the capitulation system. Capitulations were treaties between Ottomans and a foreign power by which the citizens of that foreign power were under their jurisdiction inside Ottoman borders. This guaranteed safety and religious freedom for non-Muslim merchants and exempted them from any additional taxes applying to foreigners and non-Muslims, which encouraged them to build businesses in the Ottoman Empire. Ottomans also intentionally attracted European Jews, who faced persecution and pogroms, and had built effective international trade networks through the tight knit diaspora communities. Jews and Christians had quite well secured position in the empire as People of the Book, but Samaritans were persecuted after they had sided with the Mamluk Sultanate against Ottomans and later for being considered "pagans". City elites adopted Turkish culture, while in rural areas peasant villages and Bedouin clans remained Arabic. The rural areas were very much self-governing as both villages and Bedouin clans were fairly self-reliant with their own political structures. Villages consisted of clan-like family groups, hamulas, and the village lands were distributed between their collective ownership.

In the 19th century the Ottoman Empire was leaving behind European imperial powers in economic and military development. With the rise of the international capitalist markets, capitulation approach, which had worked well for the empire in previous centuries, was extended to markets as a very laissez faire economic policy. This did not lead to hoped economic growth however, but rather deindustrialization. The Ottoman Empire opened itself to markets it couldn’t compete in and its resources were then easy to exploit by stronger economies. The other powers, such as the European powers, avoided this by first cultivating strong national industries with protectionist policies, and then opened to international markets. The capitulation system also became a political liability the way it interacted with the protégé system. The Ottoman Empire had agreed to allow some European powers to give their protection over certain minority religious groups (mostly Christian groups) in the Empire, allowing members of those groups to claim citizenship of their protectorate nation. This had allowed those Ottoman citizens to claim the benefits of the capitulation system and cultivated trade and business for the Empire. In the 19th century the European powers, notably France, British Empire, Germany and Russia, turned their interests towards Levant which was important for their access to their colonial interests in Asia and Africa. They had a vested interest in the continuing power of the weakening Ottoman Empire, which they believed they could control through economic dominance and the protégé system. It became a competition on who could gain the most influence in the Ottoman Empire. In Palestine this led to a change in class dynamics. Christian protégés of European imperial powers were given tax exemptions from the increasing taxes, which were implemented to balance the national deposit, and better opportunities to gain wealth from international trade, turning the urban Christian Arabs into elite.

In 1832 Egypt invaded Palestine, marking a point of more rapid decline of Ottoman rule. Egypt attempted to “modernize” Palestine, which was considered backward, but Egypt's policies, especially conscription, were considered intrusive. The local self-ruling clans and families were resistant to outside powers and with their sway over the population, they rose to a popular uprising after two years of Egyptian rule. The suppression of the uprising devastated many villages and Egypt still failed to enforce order and halt violence. In 1840 Britain intervened, returning its control back to the Ottomans. They didn’t yet have capitulations with the Ottomans and were concerned over the other European powers gaining influence over the aging empire, so in return for their military assistance, they gained capitulations and named Jews and Protestants as their protégés in Levant. Palestine rapidly opened to the international markets with the increase in capitulations combined with the laissez faire fiscal policies of the empire, allowing European powers to turn Palestinian cities, especially in the coast, to centers of trade. In 1858 the Ottoman Empire also attempted to privatize land ownership to increase agricultural production and profitability in order to help with their financial troubles. Most Palestinian land was public land, but in practice owned informally by the villagers cultivating it. As long as they paid taxes, they couldn’t be evicted, which rarely happened in those cases either, and their rights to the land were hereditary. The land reform codified and formalized land ownership and removed barriers to non-villagers gaining ownership of peasant land, laying groundwork for commodifying land. The Ottoman Empire also allowed foreigners to purchase private land. This didn’t immediately lead to large-scale transfer of land ownership, but increasing taxes impoverishing the peasantry and indebting them transferred land from its cultivators to urban absentee landlords. Peasants started to turn into landless tenants and a new type of large estates were established.

Birth of Zionism

The British pushed for more control over Levant, since they wanted to secure their access to India and their colonial ventures in Africa. They didn’t have much interest in colonizing Levant themselves, which is why they were interested in backing the Ottoman Empire and gaining stronger control over it via European Jewish immigrants. European Jews had been immigrating to Palestine in small numbers for a while for religious reasons, to escape persecution and to take advantage of the economic opportunities offered by the Ottoman Empire. The British though also had religious interests in supporting Jewish migration to Palestine. Since the early 19th century, there had been a growing religious movement of Christian Zionism, who sought to restore Jews into Palestine and then convert them to Christianity to cause the second coming of Jesus and the end times. As you do. They were considered fanatics, even lunatics, for their literal interpretations of prophecy, but they were enthusiastic imperialists and when they expressed the idea of restoration of Jewish Palestine in imperial terms, it gained popular acceptance in Britain. Some of the common talking points originating from Christian Zionism were Jews had the right to Palestinian land for Biblical reasons, the only way to not let the “underdeveloped” agrarian land go to waste was colonialism, and Jews would be a civilizing force in Palestine. While the end goal of Christian Zionists was conversion of Jews, they had Orientalist reverence for Jews, but among the wider imperialist support for these ideas there was in addition an explicitly antisemitic aspect. The imperialists' idea was that Britain, and Europe more broadly, could this way also get rid of the Jews.

The trouble was that at the time there was no wide interest at all among Jews to colonize Palestine. The Jews who were migrating there during the first half of the 19th century did so with all intentions of integrating to the Palestinian society. European Jews had since Enlightenment and the French Revolution gained unprecedented levels of social acceptance and equality (which still wasn’t very much), and liberal assimilationism had become the dominant ideology especially among Jewish elites. Assimilationist Jews considered Judaism a religious identity, not an ethnic one, and they rather identified with their nationality. In the latter half of 19th century Jewish socialism was contesting the liberal Jewish idea that antisemitism could be overcome with individualist approach and instead demanded structural change. During the century it became increasingly clear that the assimilationist approach couldn’t fix antisemitism as racial ideology and exclusionist ethnonationalism were gaining traction and fueling antisemitism, which culminated in the 1880s pogroms in Russia and 1894 Dreyfus Affair in France. These events certainly promoted socialist approach among many Jews, but the Jewish elite were certainly not interested in socialist solutions, where they would lose their elite status, even if for white Christians they were all second class citizens. So instead, like many elites facing the threat of socialism, they turned to nationalism. To the question of how to build a nation from a diverse diaspora, they found the answer from Christian Zionism. Jewish Zionism was distinctly secular, so while they did adopt many religious and biblical narratives and goals of Christian Zionism, they put them in nationalist terms. Their end goal was of course different from that of the millennialist Christians so Jewish Zionism was presented as a practical and rational alternative to utopian fanaticism, but they were still natural allies. Zionism was opposed in the European Jewish communities by both assimilationists and socialists, who both viewed it as countering the efforts of opposing antisemitism, which Zionists saw as an inherently impossible endeavor, and also by Orthodox Jews from a religious standpoint. Orthodox Jews denounced the secularization of the Promised Land, which according to them could only be bestowed by God and couldn’t be a state with secular power.

Before Zionism was fully formalized as a movement, there were proto-Zionist movements in Eastern-Europe as a direct response to the pogroms, with the goal of settling Eastern Jewish refugees to Palestine from 1881 forward. This is considered to be the start of the First Aliyah, the explicitly Zionist mass migrations to Palestine. The funding was secured from the European Jews, and with it the Zionists bought land from the absentee urban landlords with large estates and evicted the tenants in order to form Zionist colonies. This raised concern among Ottoman officials, who had become vary of the European exploitation of their capitulation system, which increased European influence with the immigration of European Jews. They were also concerned about the rising Arab nationalism in Palestine provoked by the European economic exploitation and even more pressingly the peasant displacement. The Ottoman Empire was already facing massive difficulties with nationalist movements in different parts of the empire, like in Armenia. They attempted to restrict Zionist land purchases with legal restrictions and failed.

The 1880s settling to Palestine was still unorganized and leaderless until Theodor Herzl, who is considered to be the founder of Zionism, joined Zionist ranks in mid-1890s and began formulating a colonialist venture in earnest. The British were supportive of the Zionist project, but as long as the Ottoman Empire was in charge of Palestine and the British could extend control over it, they weren’t interested in establishing such a state themselves. So the Zionist movement with Herzl in the lead turned to the Ottoman Empire in 1901. He envisioned the Zionist colonial project as a land company, modeled after the British and Dutch East Indian Companies, which would under imperial blessing operate fairly independently and govern over colonized land. The end goal was to build an ethnonationalist Jewish state and expel the native population. There were even dreams of Jewish empire that would colonize neighbouring countries, “civilize” them and bring them “prosperity”. To persuade the Sultan, Herz proposed to pay for the Ottoman Empire’s depts with European Jewish investments in exchange for allowing the Zionists to settle and govern Palestine. The Ottoman government was well aware of Zionist movement’s end goals and their alliances with European Imperialism, rejecting their proposals.

The Zionists evaded Ottoman restrictions anyway and continued to settle Palestine with British backing. European powers then pressured Ottomans to abolish those restrictions allowing a new wave of Zionist colonialism. The violence and pogroms in Russia had convinced some of the Eastern European Jewish socialists that fighting antisemitism was impossible, so they created Labor Zionism and used the “untouched land” to experiment with utopian socialist communes. In the process they displaced indigenous peasant hamulas, which had often for centuries farmed the land in communal ownership. Mass migration and eviction quickly provoked a predictable opposition in the Palestinian population and spread of Arab nationalist thought. This second wave of Aliyah ended at the First World War, which was also the end of the Ottoman Empire.

[gay-jewish-bucky]

Hey!

Are you a gentile who is not a member of an interfaith Jewish family?

Do you want to celebrate Passover/host a Seder, but you haven’t been invited to an event held by Jews (friends, family, co-workers, interfaith outreach initiatives etc.)?

DO NOT CELEBRATE PASSOVER OR ATTEMPT TO HOST A SEDER

No matter what your reasoning is for observing Pesach, from honouring or being like Jesus to “standing with Jews” nor for any other reason you may come up with.

Due to many factors, such as the fall of the second temple and the introduction of Rabbinic Judaism, Passover today is nothing like it was in Jesus' time.

Pesach being biblical does not justify non-Jews observing the holiday (outside of being welcomed in by Jews) as the covenants found in the Torah, laws that Jews still follow today, are not relevant to nor commanded of gentiles in general or of modern Christians.

Not only is this appropriation of a closed religion, but Passover is a major holiday has a deep cultural significance that cannot be removed from its religious and historical context.

If you have people in your life who are Jewish who welcome you to observe Pesach with them, that is wonderful and we are happy to have you, but you should not be doing it independently, especially if you are altering the message to make the story about Jesus.

Before you shout “gatekeeping” remember Judaism is a closed practice, if you want to be allowed through those gates you need the key.

[blueiscoool]

1,500-Year-Old Christian Ivory Reliquary Box Discovered in Austria

Archaeologists have discovered an exceptional Christian ancient ivory reliquary box in Austria that is thought to be around 1,500 years old.

Innsbruck archaeologists have been excavating in an old hilltop settlement in southern Austria since the summer of 2016. They made the incredible discovery of a Christian reliquary concealed in a previously unknown church two years ago. This reliquary contained an ancient ivory box, richly decorated with Christian symbols.

The incredible artifact was discovered on August 4, 2022, in an early Christian church on the Burgbichl hill in Irschen, southern Austria, by a team headed by archaeologist Gerald Grabherr. A marble shrine measuring around 20 by 30 centimeters was hidden under the altar in the side chapel area.

The artifact in question is heavily fragmented, but researchers said the pieces once formed a type of round container known as a “pyx” that in this case was made of ivory and richly decorated with Christian motifs.

The shrine contained a heavily fragmented ivory “box” (pyx) richly decorated with Christian motifs – a reliquary that is normally taken away as the “holiest” part when a church is abandoned. In this case, however, it was left behind. It is the first such pyx to be found in an archaeological context in Austria.

“We know of around 40 ivory boxes of this kind worldwide and, as far as I know, the last time one of these was found during excavations was around 100 years ago – the few pyxes that exist are either preserved in cathedral treasures or exhibited in museums,” explains the finder, Gerald Grabherr.

While the archaeologists initially assumed that the remains of a saint – i.e. a relic in the classic sense of the word – were also found in the marble box, the layering of the fragments found in the shrine indicates that the ivory pyx was already broken in late antiquity and was buried in the altar.

“The pyx was presumably also seen as sacred and was treated as such because it was in contact with a relic. The archaeological and art-historical significance of the pyx cannot be denied,” emphasizes Gerald Grabherr.

At one end, the pyx shows a figure at the foot of a mountain – the man depicted is turning his gaze away and a hand rising out of the sky above him, placing something between the person’s arms.

“This is the typical depiction of the handing over of the laws to Moses on Mount Sinai, the beginning of the covenant between God and man from the Old Testament,” says Gerald Grabherr. This is followed by depictions of biblical figures. At the end, you can see a man on a chariot with two horses harnessed to it – and here, too, a hand coming out of the clouds pulls this figure up into heaven. “We assume that this is a depiction of the ascension of Christ, the fulfilment of the covenant with God. The depiction of scenes from the Old Testament and their connection with scenes from the New Testament New Testament is typical of late antiquity and thus fits in with our pyx; however, the depiction of the Ascension of Christ with a so-called biga, a two-horse chariot, is very special and previously unknown.”

Since its discovery, the 1,500-year-old ivory pyx has been conserved at the University of Innsbruck.

Ivory stored underground absorbs moisture, making it very soft and easily damaged. Uncontrolled drying can lead to shrinkage and cracks.

Ulrike Töchterle, head of the restoration workshop in Innsbruck, said, “The high humidity in the marble shrine meant there was a high risk of condensation and mold, so we had to ensure a careful and prolonged drying process.”

Over the past two years, the individual pieces of the ivory pyx have been conserved for scientific analysis. The larger parts are deformed, so the pyx cannot be restored to its original state. However, researchers are working on a 3D reconstruction.

By Oguz Buyukyildirim.

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Hermeneutics

The philosophy of hermeneutics is the study of interpretation, particularly of texts, language, and symbolic expressions. Hermeneutics originally developed as a method for interpreting religious scriptures, but it has expanded to encompass broader issues of understanding and meaning in various contexts, including literature, law, art, and social sciences. Central to hermeneutics is the idea that understanding is not a straightforward process but involves complex interpretive acts influenced by history, culture, and the interpreter’s perspective.

Key Themes in the Philosophy of Hermeneutics:

Origins and Development:

Biblical Hermeneutics: Hermeneutics began as the art of interpreting sacred texts, particularly the Bible. Early thinkers like Augustine and Origen developed principles for understanding scriptures, focusing on the need to uncover deeper, often allegorical, meanings.

Philosophical Hermeneutics: Over time, hermeneutics expanded beyond religious texts to include general principles of interpretation. Friedrich Schleiermacher, often considered the father of modern hermeneutics, argued that understanding any text requires insight into both the author’s intent and the broader cultural context.

Hermeneutic Circle:

Part-Whole Relationship: A central concept in hermeneutics is the "hermeneutic circle," which describes the process of understanding as a circular relationship between the whole and its parts. To understand a text (the whole), one must interpret its individual elements (the parts), but understanding each part requires an awareness of the whole.

Prejudices and Preconceptions: The hermeneutic circle also highlights that interpretation is influenced by the interpreter’s preconceptions. Understanding is thus seen as a dynamic process where initial assumptions are continually revised in light of new insights.

Key Figures in Hermeneutics:

Friedrich Schleiermacher: Schleiermacher emphasized the importance of understanding the author’s psychological context and argued for a universal approach to interpretation that could apply to any text, not just religious ones.

Wilhelm Dilthey: Dilthey extended hermeneutics into the human sciences (Geisteswissenschaften), arguing that human experience and history could only be understood through interpretive methods, contrasting with the natural sciences’ emphasis on explanation.

Hans-Georg Gadamer: Gadamer, a leading 20th-century philosopher, developed a concept known as "philosophical hermeneutics." He emphasized the role of history and tradition in shaping understanding and argued that interpretation is a dialogical process, where the interpreter engages in a conversation with the text.

Paul Ricoeur: Ricoeur introduced the idea of a "hermeneutics of suspicion," where interpretation involves uncovering hidden meanings, often related to power, ideology, or unconscious motives. He also explored the interplay between explanation and understanding in interpreting texts.

Interpretation and Meaning:

Text and Context: Hermeneutics stresses the importance of context in interpreting meaning. A text cannot be understood in isolation; it must be seen within its historical, cultural, and linguistic context. This idea is crucial in both literary criticism and legal interpretation.

Meaning as Process: Hermeneutic philosophy views meaning not as a fixed entity but as something that emerges through the interpretive process. Meaning is constructed in the interaction between the interpreter and the text, shaped by both historical tradition and the interpreter’s unique perspective.

Understanding and Language:

Language as Medium: In hermeneutics, language is seen as the medium through which understanding occurs. Gadamer argued that language shapes our experience of the world and that all understanding is mediated by language. This leads to the view that interpretation is always situated within a linguistic and cultural tradition.

Fusion of Horizons: Gadamer introduced the concept of the "fusion of horizons," which describes how understanding involves merging the interpreter’s perspective (horizon) with that of the text or author. This fusion allows for a new, shared meaning to emerge, transcending the limitations of both the text’s original context and the interpreter’s preconceptions.

Hermeneutics and Phenomenology:

Influence of Heidegger: Martin Heidegger, a major influence on hermeneutic philosophy, argued that understanding is a fundamental aspect of human existence (Dasein). He shifted the focus from the interpretation of texts to the interpretation of being itself, emphasizing that our understanding of the world is always interpretive and situated within a particular historical and cultural context.

Existential Hermeneutics: Heidegger’s ideas led to the development of existential hermeneutics, which explores how individuals interpret their own existence and the world around them. This approach emphasizes the subjective and situated nature of understanding.

Applications of Hermeneutics:

Literary Criticism: Hermeneutics is a foundational approach in literary theory, where it is used to analyze texts, uncover deeper meanings, and explore the interplay between author, text, and reader.

Legal Interpretation: In law, hermeneutics is applied to interpret legal texts, such as constitutions, statutes, and contracts. It involves understanding the intent of the law, the context in which it was written, and how it applies to contemporary situations.

Historical Understanding: Historians use hermeneutic methods to interpret historical texts and events, recognizing that understanding the past involves reconstructing the perspectives and contexts of historical actors.

Critiques and Challenges:

Objectivity vs. Subjectivity: One critique of hermeneutics is that it can lead to relativism, where all interpretations are seen as equally valid. Critics argue that this undermines the possibility of objective knowledge. However, hermeneutic philosophers like Gadamer counter that interpretation is not purely subjective but is guided by tradition and shared norms.

The Role of Power: Hermeneutics has been challenged by critical theory, particularly by thinkers like Jürgen Habermas, who argue that hermeneutics often overlooks the role of power and ideology in shaping meaning. This critique has led to more critical approaches that incorporate an awareness of social and political factors in interpretation.

The philosophy of hermeneutics is a rich and complex field that explores how we understand texts, language, and human experience. It reveals that interpretation is not a straightforward process but is shaped by history, culture, language, and the interpreter’s perspective. Hermeneutics challenges us to recognize the situated nature of understanding and the dialogical process through which meaning emerges. Whether in literature, law, history, or everyday communication, hermeneutics offers profound insights into the nature of meaning and the act of interpretation.

[torque-witch]

I have a hot take but now that I’m 31 and still enjoying manga and anime, I actually don’t think kids under 17 should be enjoying it too bc half that shit just goes right over their heads 🫡

Wdym you didn’t understand that the entire plot is a political allegory? Your fav character would never do radical woke left things???

Wdym you didn’t understand the sexual sub context?

Actually wdym be fucking for real

Even 17 is too young. Actually be 25 and have a mostly formed brain. I beg of you. Please everything is an allegory for all kinds of mistreatment!!! These stories are dark!! They require adult experience to understand!!

***of course of course caveats for stories that are actually meant for children/young adults and the very real context of some people who have trouble processing but

Half these shonen should not be consumed by little kids who don’t understand what the world does to people. Trauma is key to so many plots. Historical romance is often political and contextual to eras. LOTS OF POWER DYNAMICS you need historical context for to not make your personality bc you saw it in media. Fantasy is so often psychologically high brow + political drama. Cultural dynamics are not a personality trait to consume. Lots of grey area consent or lack of consent or historical era consent.

Like seriously what 16 year old would watch Psycho Pass for example and get anything out of it except copaganda and completely miss the allegory for AI technology shaping society, the struggle for human based justice and logic, police state and government control and propaganda, the madness that comes from trying to become god, the struggle of ethics and morality in the context of politically biased laws, governments completely fine with controlling AND tossing out our bodies like garbage. All the biblical brain washing, the ideas of homogenous society and immigration politics. POLITICAL FINANCIAL GAIN OVER HUMAN LIFE. But big tech guns fun and interesting!

Don’t ever read the comments under episodes or related videos I beg you. It’s like the boomers on Facebook but for 14 year olds 😤

[nerdygaymormon]

Matthew 5:21-48 "Ye have heard it said..."

Five times in Matthew chapter 5, Jesus uses some version of "Ye have heard that it was said...But I say unto you..." Jesus is saying that this text has been interpreted this way, but I'm giving a better way. Jesus challenged traditional ideas, He expanded the interpretation.

We can do likewise.

There's two words used a lot in Biblical study, hermeneutics and exegesis.

Hermeneutics is deciding what we will use to help us interpret the text. We bring our own sensibilities, experiences, and understandings. Scholars may bring historical context, linguistical analysis, and a knowledge of Hebrew or Greek.

Exegesis is what understanding we pull from the text. The hermeneutics we use will affect what meaning we retrieve. This is why reading the same verses at different times of our lives will give us different insights.

Jesus taught that all the laws hang on the 2 great commandments to love God and to love people. I think we can use that as our hermeneutics as we read the scriptures. What does this teach me about loving God and about loving people? How does this relate to loving my neighbor, specifically the vulnerable and marginalized?

I also think about how does this relate to queer people? I bring to this my understanding that being queer is not a choice, God made us this way and expects us to live our life as queer. It's incorrect to view queer people as broken, not worthy, or not good enough. LGBTQ+ people deserve hope and an uplifting spiritual life.

Given those hermeneutics, let's look at the examples we find in Matthew 5.

—————————————————————  

Matthew 5:21-26

You've heard it said, 'Don't commit murder because you'll be in danger of being judged.' I say if you're angry at your siblings without a good cause, or you call them names, you'll be in danger of being judged and going to Hell. If you've come to worship God but things aren't right between you and your sibling, then leave and make things right before coming back.

Another way to state this is if a person plans to murder someone, but at the last moment doesn’t because of fear of consequences or cowardice, is that person still good with God? No. Don't murder them, but don't even be angry at them. You can't love God if you don't love your neighbor.

How does this apply to queer people? Don't physically harm LGBTQ+ people. Don't murder us, don't beat us up, don't bully us, and don't call us names. Stigma, prejudice, and discrimination create hostile and stressful social environments which lowers self-esteem, decreases psychological well-being, and has other harmful mental health outcomes. Instead, desire blessings for us and hope for our inclusion and equal standing.

—————————

Matthew 5:27-30

You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that every man who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

It is natural and good for a man to be attracted to women, he can't help that, it's how God designed humans so that we will procreate. But if he's attracted to another man's wife, how does he handle that? Does he merely note that she's attractive and move on or does he lust after her and think about being with her?

If two people have made vows to each other, it's harmful to try to get one of them to break that promise. Loving our neighbor means wanting their happiness and wanting them to have fulfillment in their most important relationship. To selfishly desire something for you that would harm their relationship is not loving. We should wish them the best in their relationship.

Unfortunately, I've had people use this passage to argue that being gay is a sin because I'm lusting after the wrong sort of person, just like the adulterer. And furthermore, by simply using the word 'gay' to acknowledge that I’m attracted to men, they say I'm identifying myself by my sin and I’m committing sin in my heart. That's not a generous or loving interpretation. This is not how straight people apply this teaching to themselves.

This scripture provides no reason to think of homosexual attraction any differently from heterosexual attraction. It's not a sin to be attracted to someone, and there are certainly appropriate ways to express those feelings. But if we seek to have sex with someone and upset their married relationship, that is a sin, as is lusting for that in our heart. A Christian should love their gay neighbor enough to want them to find a rewarding romantic relationship, just as they hope for themselves.

—————————

Matthew 31-32

It was said, 'Whoever divorces his wife must give her a divorce certificate.' But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual unfaithfulness, forces her to commit adultery. And whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

The law was if you're going to leave your wife, you gotta give her a divorce certificate. This way she can prove she's not married any longer and can pursue finding another husband.

At that time, men had the power to divorce, women did not. Also, women at that time had little power or rights, they were reliant on men. To divorce a wife is to make her vulnerable to real harm, such as poverty, hunger, and homelessness. To not provide documentation that she is no longer married to you and thus prevent other men from being willing to marry her will cause her harm and is not loving.

Many like to say that sexual immorality is the exception clause, you are not justified in getting divorced unless your spouse has cheated on you, in which case you can move forward with splitting up. I don't know. Maybe Jesus is saying that if she cheated on you then she chose to commit adultery, but if you divorce her then you are causing her to commit adultery should she ever remarry, and you'll also be committing adultery if you remarry.

Christianity has long wrestled with these verses. Forcing people to remain in an abusive relationship or letting them split but not get divorced which means they can't remarry, that doesn't seem like it's in their best interest.

I think due to the LDS experience with polygamy and how difficult it was, the church made peace with the idea of divorce and remarriage. Not that we don't discourage divorce, it's seen as a serious thing, but if someone wants to get divorced, we won't stand in the way. And when someone who is divorced wants to get married, we allow that and even give them the highest blessings by letting them get sealed in our temples. We recognize it is to their benefit to get married and enjoy a loving relationship. They have companionship. They have a partner to help with raising the children and the many tasks of life. They can find sexual satisfaction within the bonds of a marriage. They can help each other progress.

I'm glad my church has put aside this and other teachings against divorce and remarriage, and that we recognize what a blessing it is to individuals to get out of relationships which are harming them and also that it is a blessing for them to join a new, loving relationship.

How can we apply this to queer folks? We allow them the same blessings you want for yourself. Let them form loving, committed relationships and bless those with the recognition of marriage because we know such relationships bless their lives.

—————————

Matthew 5:33-37

Again you have heard 'Don't make a false promise, you should follow through on what you have pledged to the Lord.' But I say you shouldn't make such pledges, and don't swear by heaven. Let your yes mean yes, and your no mean no.

We need to keep the commitments we make. Don't be deceitful. Don't make a promise we intend to break. When we make promises that others rely on, all while knowing we don't intend to keep that commitment, it harms them. They take actions that benefit us without getting the same in return. That's definitely not loving our neighbor. We should be honorable and trustworthy and known to keep our word. We should have integrity.

I think of people who say they love and support queer people, call themselves an ally and say we should be treated fairly by society, and then they vote for candidates who seek to block us from having legal protections and rights. If you're going to vote for our harm, then you're not the loving ally you portray yourself as.

—————————

Matthew 5:38-42

You have heard it said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you when someone hits you on your cheek, turn the other to him. If someone legally takes your tunic, give them your cloak as well. If you are pressed into service for one mile, go two miles.

This is different from the other examples because those were saying for us not to harm others. These verses are how to respond when we get treated unfairly. Jesus is not saying that we should be a doormat inviting more injury to ourselves.

Jesus' examples are forms of passive resistance. If a Roman legionary tells you to do something, and you refuse, you are punished. If you are unjustly sued, and you lash out, then you go to prison, instead here's steps you can take to highlight the wrongness of what is being done.

I've read that in Jesus' time someone could backhand a person of lower status as a way to assert authority and dominance. If someone backhands you, turn your face so they can slap your other cheek. They can't use their left hand as it's used for unclean purposes, so will they now hit you with their open hand as that shows you're equal? By turning the other check, I am forcing them to recognize my equality or to walk away from my challenge to their dominance.

A person's tunic could be used as collateral for a loan, but not the cloak. The debtor can be forced to give the tunic off of his back, but by also giving them the cloak, they're now naked. Public nudity was viewed as bringing shame on not just the one who is naked, but also the viewer. The one enforcing his rights to take your clothes is shamed.

Inhabitants of occupied territories could be forced by Roman authorities to carry messages and equipment for one mile post, but the law prohibited forcing them to go further than a single mile. A Jew at any time could feel the tap on his shoulder from a Roman soldier and know he has to carry the soldier's gear for a mile. By going the extra mile, it's a nonviolent way to criticize the unjust Roman law and cause the Roman soldier to be at risk of discipline

These are each ways to assert our dignity and to shame others for the how they're treating us. Each is a form of resistance but not retaliation, each is a way of highlighting the injustice without it turning into revenge. This is nonviolent resistance, which can be powerful in changing hearts.

This passage reminds me of the first time I went to a Pride event, it was really joyous and wonderful, except for some preacher yelling about how we're all sinners and going to hell and even yelling insults at people walking by including about what they were wearing. He was really getting people upset. Instead of yelling insults back, or worse, a group formed a circle around him and started singing Katy Perry's song "Firework" and the rest of the crowd joined in, drowning out his hateful words, until security could remove him. We did no harm to him and our actions stood in contrast to his hate and anger. It was a way to affirm ourselves and negate his message

—————————

Matthew 5:43-48

You've heard it said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you. God's sun rises on both the good and the bad, the rain falls on the just and unjust, in other words, he blesses all. There's no benefit in only loving those who love you.

When one group perceives another as 'the Enemy,' it's easy for conspiracy theories, prejudice, and fear to cause us to no longer see their humanity. This leads to seeing all Muslims as undercover terrorists or for some to believe that gay people are responsible for hurricanes.

We are to love everyone. This includes people who aren’t our race, or religion, or nationality. This includes sexual minorities, poor people, that annoying coworker, the politicians voting to limit your rights.

We don't have to agree with them. We focus on the issues and don’t make things personal. We can look for peaceful, constructive ways forward. We can have kindness and goodwill for people even as we disagree.

I think of the hatred toward LGBTQIA+ people by many who identify as Christian. The lack of compassion towards queer people is disheartening, and to be asked to love them in return feels difficult, but it can lead to positive change.

In 2004, 60% of Americans disapproved of gay marriage. In 2019, 61% approved of gay marriage. That's a complete flip-flop in 15 years. There were many who were vehemently against gay marriage and expressed hatred towards queer people. Gay rights advocates were speaking of love, and when gay marriage was legalized, we saw videos of couples joyously celebrating their love, which stood in contrast to the bigotry that had been expressed. It's hard to see the joy and love and believe the hateful rhetoric. Individuals naturally don't want to see themselves aligned with people who are harming and hurting people.

We can keep protesting, keep speaking our truth, keep advocating for those who can't, but don't villainize those who oppose us. Stick to the issues and act with compassion and love. Let our actions stand in contrast against those who view us as enemies.

[trendingtattoo]

Are Tattoos Banned by the Bible? Exploring the Scriptural Perspective

Tattoos have become increasingly popular in contemporary society, serving as a form of self-expression and personal adornment. However, questions often arise about whether tattoos are permissible according to religious beliefs, particularly in relation to the Christian faith. In this article, we will explore the topic of tattoos in the context of the Bible and delve into the scriptural perspective to gain a deeper understanding of the subject.

The Historical Context:

To understand the biblical viewpoint on tattoos, it is essential to consider the historical context of the verses commonly referenced in this discussion. The books of the Bible were written thousands of years ago, primarily within the cultural milieu of ancient Israel and surrounding nations.

The Scriptural References:

The primary biblical passage that is often cited regarding tattoos is found in Leviticus 19:28, which states, "You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves: I am the Lord." This verse has led some to conclude that tattoos are categorically prohibited by the Bible.

Interpreting the Verse:

When interpreting any biblical passage, it is crucial to examine the verse within its broader context and consider its intended audience. Leviticus is part of the Old Testament's Mosaic Law, a collection of commandments given to the ancient Israelites as a guide for their moral and religious conduct. It covered various aspects of life, including dietary restrictions, clothing regulations, and rituals.

Understanding the Context:

It is important to note that the prohibition against tattoos in Leviticus 19:28 was closely linked to specific cultural and religious practices prevalent during that time. Pagan religions often employed tattooing and self-mutilation as acts of mourning or as expressions of allegiance to false gods. The Israelites were instructed to refrain from these practices as part of their distinct religious identity.

The New Testament Perspective:

When examining the broader Christian perspective on tattoos, it is necessary to consider the teachings of the New Testament, which provide additional insight. The arrival of Jesus Christ marked a new covenant, shifting the focus from strict adherence to ceremonial laws to matters of the heart, faith, and righteousness.

The New Covenant emphasizes the principles of love, grace, and freedom in Christ. Unlike the Mosaic Law, which regulated external practices, the New Testament teachings prioritize the internal transformation of individuals through faith in Jesus.

Freedom and Personal Conviction:

Based on the New Testament teachings, Christians are encouraged to consider their actions in light of the principles of love, respect, and self-control. While the Bible does not explicitly mention tattoos in the New Testament, it provides a framework for personal conviction and discernment.

Christians hold diverse perspectives on tattoos, and personal decisions about getting tattoos or not are often influenced by cultural, societal, and personal considerations. Some Christians choose to avoid tattoos due to a desire to maintain modesty, cultural sensitivity, or to prevent potential negative impacts on personal relationships.

Historical and Cultural Significance of Tattoos:

Tattoos have been a part of human history for thousands of years, with evidence of their existence in various ancient cultures worldwide. In some societies, tattoos held religious or spiritual significance, symbolizing one's connection to deities or ancestral spirits. They were also used to denote social status, tribe affiliation, or acts of bravery.

Cultural Relevance in the Modern Era:

In contemporary society, tattoos are predominantly seen as a form of self-expression and personal artistry. People choose tattoos to commemorate significant life events, express their passions, or simply as a means of aesthetic enhancement. The cultural significance of tattoos has evolved, and societal acceptance of body art has become more commonplace.

Individual Interpretation and Religious Beliefs:

Within the realm of Christianity, different denominations and individual believers have varying perspectives on tattoos. Some Christians interpret the Leviticus passage as a timeless commandment that prohibits tattoos outright, while others view it as specific to the cultural and religious practices of ancient Israel. They argue that the verse should be understood within its historical context and not necessarily applicable to Christians today.

The Role of Personal Conviction:

For Christians grappling with the question of tattoos, personal conviction plays a significant role. Many believe that since the New Testament does not explicitly address tattoos, it allows for greater freedom of choice. However, they also emphasize the importance of exercising discernment, considering the motives behind getting a tattoo, and ensuring it aligns with biblical principles.

Emphasis on the Heart and Inner Character:

Central to the Christian faith is the belief that God examines the heart and inner character rather than outward appearances. The New Testament encourages believers to focus on cultivating qualities such as love, humility, compassion, and integrity. Therefore, some Christians may prioritize the development of these inner virtues over external practices like tattooing.

Engaging in Dialogue and Respectful Discourse:

Given the diversity of beliefs among Christians regarding tattoos, it is essential to engage in respectful dialogue and understanding. Christians should approach the topic with an attitude of love, grace, and mutual respect, recognizing that personal convictions may differ while still maintaining a shared commitment to faith in Jesus Christ.

Conclusion:

While the Bible does contain a verse in Leviticus that is often interpreted as a prohibition against tattoos, it is important to understand its historical and cultural context. The New Testament teachings emphasize the principles of love, grace, and personal freedom in Christ. Consequently, Christians have varying perspectives on tattoos, with personal conviction and discernment playing a significant role in decision-making.

[diocletianscabbagefarm]

Dominique De Villepin, former Prime Minister of France (who also led France's opposition to the Iraq war and advocated for the Palestinians in 2014) who's had a significant diplomatic career gave a pretty good interview (source for translation) that touches on many of the reasons why the Palestine-Israel conflict is so insoluble and how the use of force is a cyclical dead end. Interview beneath the cut

"Hamas has set a trap for us, and this trap is one of maximum horror, of maximum cruelty. And so there's a risk of an escalation in militarism, of more military interventions, as if we could with armies solve a problem as serious as the Palestinian question.

There's also a second major trap, which is that of Occidentalism. We find ourselves trapped, with Israel, in this western bloc which today is being challenged by most of the international community.

[Presenter: What is Occidentalism?]

Occidentalism is the idea that the West, which for 5 centuries managed the world's affairs, will be able to quietly continue to do so. And we can clearly see, even in the debates of the French political class, that there is the idea that, faced with what is currently happening in the Middle East, we must continue the fight even more, towards what might resemble a religious or a civilizational war. That is to say, to isolate ourselves even more on the international stage.

This is not the way, especially since there's a third trap, which is that of moralism. And here we have in a way the proof, through what is happening in Ukraine and what is happening in the Middle East, of this double standard that is denounced everywhere in the world, including in recent weeks when I travel to Africa, the Middle East, or Latin America. The criticism is always the same: look at how civilian populations are treated in Gaza, you denounce what happened in Ukraine, and you are very timid in the face of the tragedy unfolding in Gaza.

Consider international law, the second criticism that is made by the global south. We sanction Russia when it aggresses Ukraine, we sanction Russia when it doesn't respect the resolutions of the United Nations, and it's been 70 years that the resolutions of the United Nations have been voted in vain and that Israel doesn't respect them.

[Presenter: Do you believe that the Westerners are currently guilty of hubris?]

Westerners must open their eyes to the extent of the historical drama unfolding before us to find the right answers.

[Presenter: What is the historical drama? I mean, we're talking about the tragedy of October 7th first and foremost, right?]

Of course, there are these horrors happening, but the way to respond to them is crucial. Are we going to kill the future by finding the wrong answers…

[Presenter: Kill the future?]

Kill the future, yes! Why?

[Presenter: But who is killing whom?]

You are in a game of causes and effects. Faced with the tragedy of history, one cannot take this 'chain of causality' analytical grid, simply because if you do you can't escape from it. Once we understand that there is a trap, once we realize that behind this trap there has also been a change in the Middle East regarding the Palestinian issue… The situation today is profoundly different [from what it was in the past]. The Palestinian cause was a political and secular cause. Today we are faced with an Islamist cause, led by Hamas. Obviously, this kind of cause is absolute and allows no form of negotiation. On the Israeli side, there has also been a development. Zionism was secular and political, championed by Theodor Herzl in the late 19th century. It has largely become messianic, biblical today. This means that they too do not want to compromise, and everything that the far-right Israeli government does, continuing to encourage colonization, obviously makes things worse, including since October 7th. So in this context, understand that we are already in this region facing a problem that seems profoundly insoluble.

Added to this is the hardening of states. Diplomatically, look at the statements of the King of Jordan, they are not the same as six months ago. Look at the statements of Erdogan in Turkey.

[Presenter: Precisely, these are extremely harsh statements…]

Extremely worrying. Why? Because if the Palestinian cause, the Palestinian issue, hasn't been brought to the forefront, hasn't been put on stage [for a while], and if most of the youth today in Europe have often never even heard of it, it remains for the Arab peoples the mother of all battles. All the progress made towards an attempt to stabilize the Middle East, where one could believe…

[Presenter: Yes, but whose fault is it? I have a hard time following you, is it Hamas's fault?]

But Ms. Malherbe, I am trained as a diplomat. The question of fault will be addressed by historians and philosophers.

[Presenter: But you can't remain neutral, it's difficult, it's complicated, isn't it?]

I am not neutral, I am in action. I am simply telling you that every day that passes, we can ensure that this horrific cycle stops… that's why I speak of a trap and that's why it's so important to know what response we are going to give. We stand alone before history today. And we do not treat this new world the way we currently do, knowing that today we are no longer in a position of strength, we are not able to manage on our own, as the world's policemen.

[Presenter: So what do we do?]

Exactly, what should we do? This is where it is essential not to cut off anyone on the international stage.

[Presenter: Including the Russians?]

Everyone.

[Presenter: Everyone? Should we ask the Russians for help?]

I'm not saying we should ask the Russians for help. I'm saying: if the Russians can contribute by calming some factions in this region, then it will be a step in the right direction.

[Presenter: How can we proportionally respond to barbarism? It's no longer army against army.]

But listen, Appolline de Malherbe, the civilian populations that are dying in Gaza, don't they exist? So because horror was committed on one side, horror must be committed on the other?

[Presenter: Do we indeed need to equate the two?]

No, it's you who are doing that. I'm not saying I equate the faults. I try to take into account what a large part of humanity thinks. There is certainly a realistic objective to pursue, which is to eradicate the Hamas leaders who committed this horror. And not to confuse the Palestinians with Hamas, that's a realistic goal.

The second thing is a targeted response. Let's define realistic political objectives. And the third thing is a combined response. Because there is no effective use of force without a political strategy. We are not in 1973 or in 1967. There are things no army in the world knows how to do, which is to win in an asymmetrical battle against terrorists. The war on terror has never been won anywhere. And it instead triggers extremely dramatic misdeeds, cycles, and escalations. If America lost in Afghanistan, if America lost in Iraq, if we lost in the Sahel, it's because it's a battle that can't be won simply, it's not like you have a hammer that strikes a nail and the problem is solved. So we need to mobilize the international community, get out of this Western entrapment in which we are.

[Presenter: But when Emmanuel Macron talks about an international coalition…]

Yes, and what was the response?

[Presenter: None.]

Exactly. We need a political perspective, and this is challenging because the two-state solution has been removed from the Israeli political and diplomatic program. Israel needs to understand that for a country with a territory of 20,000 square kilometers, a population of 9 million inhabitants, facing 1.5 billion people… Peoples have never forgotten that the Palestinian cause and the injustice done to the Palestinians was a significant source of mobilization. We must consider this situation, and I believe it is essential to help Israel, to guide… some say impose, but I think it's better to convince, to move in this direction. The challenge is that there is no interlocutor today, neither on the Israeli side nor the Palestinian side. We need to bring out interlocutors.

[Presenter: It's not for us to choose who will be the leaders of Palestine.]

The Israeli policy over recent years did not necessarily want to cultivate a Palestinian leadership… Many are in prison, and Israel's interest - because I repeat: it was not in their program or in Israel's interest at the time, or so they thought - was instead to divide the Palestinians and ensure that the Palestinian question fades. This Palestinian question will not fade. And so we must address it and find an answer. This is where we need courage. The use of force is a dead end. The moral condemnation of what Hamas did - and there's no "but" in my words regarding the moral condemnation of this horror - must not prevent us from moving forward politically and diplomatically in an enlightened manner. The law of retaliation is a never-ending cycle.

[Presenter: The "eye for an eye, tooth for tooth".]

Yes. That's why the political response must be defended by us. Israel has a right to self-defense, but this right cannot be indiscriminate vengeance. And there cannot be collective responsibility of the Palestinian people for the actions of a terrorist minority from Hamas.

When you get into this cycle of finding faults, one side's memories clash with the other's. Some will juxtapose Israel's memories with the memories of the Nakba, the 1948 catastrophe, which is a disaster that the Palestinians still experience every day. So you can't break these cycles. We must have the strength, of course, to understand and denounce what happened, and from this standpoint, there's no doubt about our position. But we must also have the courage, and that's what diplomacy is… diplomacy is about being able to believe that there is light at the end of the tunnel. And that's the cunning of history; when you're at the bottom, something can happen that gives hope. After the 1973 war, who would have thought that before the end of the decade, Egypt would sign a peace treaty with Israel?

The debate shouldn't be about rhetoric or word choice. The debate today is about action; we must act. And when you think about action, there are two options. Either it's war, war, war. Or it's about trying to move towards peace, and I'll say it again, it's in Israel's interest. It's in Israel's interest!"

[drivelikeaminister]

An Eye for an Eye

The following is a post from a UCC colleague and friend in Ann Arbor, Michigan (here's her church). Thank , Pastor Deb and Church of the Good Shepherd, for your loving presence in the world.

Dear friends-

When I started seminary at Pacific School of Religion in 1995, I took a class called The Bible and the Near East from a visiting Israeli scholar (Dr. Shalom Paul).  He approached the Hebrew Bible from a comparative literature perspective, and we read other ancient writings from other religions/ethnic groups from around the same time.  It was an interesting approach for sure.

One lesson that has stuck with me was about “an eye for an eye” that is found in Leviticus:

19 If someone injures a fellow citizen, they will suffer the same injury they inflicted: 20 broken bone for broken bone, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. The same injury the person inflicted on the other will be inflicted on them. (Lev. 24:19-21, Common English Bible).

We have all heard this saying even if we weren’t clear about where the saying came from.  You also might remember the famous Gandhi quote “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.”  I have seen that on numerous bumper stickers over the years.  Dr. Paul spent an entire class session talking about what this verse has meant to our Jewish siblings over the millennia as well as how this law was quite unusual in its ancient context.

According to our Israeli professor, an eye for an eye is not about revenge as one might guess.  An eye for an eye was about setting limits to revenge.  In an ancient context where “justice” was meted out in radically disproportionate ways (i.e. someone stole a piece a fruit and they would lose their whole arm), an eye for an eye was commanding that punishment fit the crime.  It was about a proportionate response to whatever crime or misdeed had happened.  While I do not believe in capital punishment, an eye for an eye regarding killing a human limited the response to only executing the person responsible for the death. Many other laws in that historical context would call to execute the whole family, or destroy the whole village.  Even if it can feel brutal in our context, an eye for an eye was about limiting the retribution, and that was a radical thing in the ancient near east.

Now, I cannot say with confidence that this interpretation is indeed the dominant interpretation in most Jewish contexts.  As we know, Biblical interpretation can vastly differ from community to community.  But I have carried that lesson with me for almost 30 years and I have been thinking about this so much in the last 10 days…the devastation in Israel/Palestine brings this question up for me in profound ways.

I have heard many people say, “This conflict is so complicated.”  I have said it in the past as well.  But it is becoming clearer and clearer to me that it is not that complicated.  The Israeli response to the Hamas massacre is beyond an eye for an eye.  It is beyond a proportionate response.  It is beyond “defending” itself.   The government of Israel has dropped 6000 bombs on Gaza in 10 days.  For context, the US dropped 6000 bombs in a year during an active war in Afghanistan.  6000 bombs have been dropped on 2.2 million people living in an area the size of Las Vegas, but with 3 times the population.  Gaza City is more densely populated that New York City.  And unlike any other city in the world, there is nowhere to flee.  Nowhere.

Yesterday in Washington DC, hundreds of people, mostly American Jews, protested in the capital.  These protesters were lamenting the loss of innocent lives in Israel and those who remain in Hamas custody.  But all of them were calling for a ceasefire.  One protestor said, “Killing Palestinian babies won’t bring back the murdered babies of Israel.���  Israel cannot kill its way out of this conflict, but the right-wing Zionist government of Israel is showing no signs of mercy.

I have no idea how we get beyond this terrible place. But I do know that a genocide of indigenous people in Gaza and in the West Bank is not the answer.  An Apartheid state for Palestinians is not the answer.  Western colonial expansion is not the answer.  The answer must be rooted in human dignity and agency…or we will never find our way out of this mess.

Not in our name.  That is what the protestors said yesterday.  Not in our name.

In love and solidarity, Deb

[menlove]

any recs for intro/base level jewish study texts? np if they’re academic ones I can use my uni’s library :-)

oooo okay. fair warning my minor is history so a lot of this is history focused but there are a lot of modern Jewish studies as well! like intersections w queerness and feminism etc. it is just not my wheelhouse.

starting w some comparative religion is always a solid base when it comes to academics bc some of the first classes are like world religions etc. it has been so long that i do Not remember which one i used but really any "intro to world religions" textbook that your uni's library has is good! and if you want to just focus on the section about Judaism go for it. looking at Christianity and Islam might also be helpful though to put it into some context.

A Short History of the Jewish People: From Legendary Times to Modern Statehood by Raymond P. Scheindlin is excellent. here if you want to dig deeper whenever it mentions a Jewish thinker/scholar, try and find some primary resources of their writings! like Moses Maimonides, possibly the most influential Jewish philosopher, or Moses Mendelssohn (another philosopher and theologin).

Genesis, Exodus, and Deuteronomy. if you wanna go the extra mile go for the whole Torah (so Leviticus and Numbers as well), but these three do a solid job of giving a good idea of the more non-historical aspect of Jewish religious history and will give you a good idea of where a lot of customs, laws, etc came from. of particular note are gonna be the two accounts of the Sinai event in both Exodus and Deuteronomy and ask yourself: why do they differ? why do you think that is? what could this tell you about Judaism and the ancient Israelites when each account was written?

I have not read it but Wanderings by Chaim Potok is a highly recommended one outside of academia and one that I know some goyim have read as well to better understand Jewish history. however I haven't read it so I don't know if there's any issues with it as it is an older work.

another one i see around a lot outside of academics is The Jewish Book of Why by Alfred J. Kolatch. this one is less history and more, as the title says, a book about Why and ritual/custom/etc.

more intermediate/deeper dives

this is my own personal niche so if you do not care about this you can ignore this section but I find it so interesting and useful/helpful to look at just How Judaism evolved and some good ones for that are The Origins of Biblical Monotheism by Mark S. Smith and as much as I have some beef w the man Jan Assmann is going to crop up a Lot in these types of discussions so giving him a read is useful, particularly Moses the Egyptian and The Price of Monotheism. give it a critical read though, I personally disagree w a lot of his conclusions but I find his work and history he gives to be of note & worthwhile. you might find you do totally agree and that's fine too.

continuing off of That i personally think the Ugaritic texts are incredibly important in understanding the context of the ancient Israelite religion that came before Judaism and thus Judaism itself and so if you're interested more in that type of ancient history when it comes to Jewish studies giving them a read is really eye-opening bc it gives you an idea of what sort of cultural knowledge was assumed by the writers of the Tanakh. like they were writing it with the assumption that their readers would Know these stories that were shared in this region so reading them is super helpful with putting certain customs/belief into context. but that's more of a lil deep dive so if you don't wanna do that you absolutely do not have to. rn i'm reading Stories From Ancient Canaan by Michael D. Coogan and Mark S. Smith

[thewayofyehoshua]

Dispensationalism divides Biblical history into different segments rather than looking it as a whole.

Dispensationalists teach Jesus/Yeshua did away with God/Yehovah’s Law, as it’s too hard to keep. In fact they go so far as to claim the Law was given to show that no one could keep it.

Their exegesis of Scripture is appalling, convoluted and confused. Following are just a few of the errors of Dispensationalism:

1. Context is not taken into consideration. Hermeneutics is ignored. We must seek to put ourself in the authors' linguistic, historical and religious frame of mind to discover the writers intended meaning. The Bible explains itself – Matthew 22:29

2. Cherry-picking verses is taking a part of a verse that is considered to be applicable. We are warned multiple times in Scripture not to add to or take away from it. ALL Scripture (the only Scripture at the time was the Old Testament) is given for teaching, rebuking and correction and training in righteousness – 2 Timothy 3:16

3. There are two Gospels – one for the Jew and one for the Gentiles. There is one gospel – Galatians 1:6-9

4. A distinction is made between Israel and the Church. Some go so far as to state that Church has replaced Israel. Believers are “grafted into Israel" -- Romans 11:19-20

5. Some believe Paul started a “new religion” Paul says he’s a Jew, who worshiped the God/Elohim of his fathers, “Believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets” – Acts 24:14

[testudoaubrei-blog]

If you ask people on here about some Salafist Jihadi suicide bombing they will very accurately discuss the geopolitical context of colonialism and the petro-kleptocracies Western powers ally with in the Middle East to get our oil fix. They may mention how Salafism has been promoted at some times by western powers as a counter to communism. If they are really up on their game they will dissect jihadi-salafi ideology as a modern political movement with a clearly modern, political lineage. What they won't do is say some stupid shit about how Muslims blow them selves up to get with 70 virgins in paradise, because that is stupid, and reductionist, and isn't an explanation that actually explains the world and the way it works. In short, people will, correctly, look at religious fundamentalism and place it in it's proper historical and political context without making broad essentialist claims about how modern people's behavior can be trave to some timeless theological essence of a religion. This is a good, skeptical, rigorous approach.

But when asked about why say, evangelical Christians support Israel's occupation of the West Bank, people become credulous and will absolutely believe that details of Evangelical eschatology explain the political behavior of 30% of the American public. And that's just...well like I said, it is credulous. And reductionist, and it isn't the way the world works, and it doesn't actually explain the world or human behavior. Because American Evangelical fundie assholes are as much creatures of politics as Wahabbi fundie assholes.

Let's take support for Israel. This is something where leaders of the Evangelical movement like Jerry Falwell very deliberately tried to influence their congregants to a certain perspective. And I would submit that this was because of politics - because evangelical leaders saw Israel as an ally against communism, and then, in the 90s, as an ally against Islam in the creepy existential struggle the global right was and is trying to make the defining conflict of our times. The weird shit about Zionism being necessary for the rapture is, in this explanation, a post hoc justification for their political position, a way of finding a supposed Biblical basis for what they want to believe anyway.

And I think this is how these assholes mostly work. Christian Nationalism is not a purely theocratic movement trying to institute Biblical Law, but also quasi fascist nationalist movement that sees their vision of America as divinely ordained. In many cases, their theology flows from their politics, not the other way around. It is a way of sanctifying conservative politics and calling them God's Will.

Basically, their view is that the power structures of American Society - Racial Hierarchy, patriarchal families, capitalism - are sacred, and they build their theology around that. This is the way it was in the 19th century where groups like the Southern Baptists were founded by slaveholders to create a Christianity that would defend and uphold slavery against alternative theological interpretations that said 'maybe owning people is wrong'.

Thus the best way to understand them is not through the post hoc theology and details of scriptural interpretation but through looking at what power structures that theology sanctifies and defends. This explains their actual behavior - why they embraced Divorcee Ronald Reagan and his astrology loving wife over pillar of the church and possible living saint Jimmy Carter, why they supported Donald Trump over a literal Sunday School Teacher, why they give away AR-15s in Church. It explains why they will ally with literal Atheist activist James Lindsay against people in their own churches who are attempting to achieve racial reconciliation or at least acknowledge the extent to which their religious tradition was founded by slaveholders. It also explains why they are never going to drop out of society and live like monks, because the banal comfort and perceived safety of American suburbia is sacred to them. Theirs is a small, weak and false god, thankfully.

[baublecoded]

“Foxe would delight Henry by showing him a 110-page Latin dossier explaining the ‘true difference between royal and ecclesiastical power’. A momentous document whose scruffy, uninviting appearance belies its significance, it is headed ‘Ex sacris scripturis et authoribus Catholicis’ (‘Compiled from Holy Scriptures and Catholic Authors’) and known today as the ‘Collectanea satis copiosa’ (‘Sufficiently plentiful collections’). Evolving from the ‘King’s Book’ and then marshalling new sources culled from biblical texts, the Church Fathers, the decrees of Church Councils, Roman law, Anglo-Saxon laws and national histories and chronicles, it made the bold argument that the pope was merely the Bishop of Rome. As such, his jurisdiction did not extend beyond his own diocese, whereas the King of England was the ‘Vicar of Christ’ in his kingdom. According to the dossier, Henry’s ‘lawful’ powers were just as ‘imperial’ as those of the early Byzantine emperors, notably Constantine the Great and Justinian, or the Old Testament rulers David and Solomon (Henry’s favourite kings were David and Solomon, and he could quote verbatim from the Old Testament and the Code and Institutes of Justinian). Should he choose to reappropriate his regal powers, he might appoint his own bishops instead of merely nominating candidates to the pope, and he could reform the monasteries. He might then also empower the Archbishop of Canterbury, or else a panel of bishops, to investigate and reach a verdict on his ‘scruples of conscience’, with no appeal allowed. None of this, Foxe argued, would make Henry schismatic like Luther. He would merely be ‘restoring’ to himself legitimate royal rights which, historically, Anglo-Saxon and Norman kings had exercised, and which the papacy had usurped. (Some of the dossier’s claims were true, although their historical contexts could be misunderstood; others were twisted to prove what its compilers wanted the king to believe.) Only Henry II in late 1169 at the height of his quarrel with Archbishop Thomas Becket had dared to make claims like these, and he had been forced to make amends after the appalling scandal of Becket’s murder.”

— John Guy & Julia Fox, Hunting the Falcon: Henry VIII, Anne Boleyn and the Marriage That Shook Europe

[woman-loving]

Commentary on Lesbianism in Jewish Tradition

Selection from Like Bread on the Seder Plate, by Rebecca Alpert, 1997.

The Prohibition Against Lesbianism “You shall not copy the practices of the land of Egypt where you dwelt ... nor shall you follow their customs” --Leviticus 18:3

This biblical passage also says nothing about lesbianism. Yet it was used by later Jewish legal sources to prohibit lesbian behavior: “What did they do? A man would marry a man, or a woman a woman, a man would marry a woman and her daughter, or a woman would marry two men.��� This textual reference is from Sifra (Aḥare Mot), a compilation of commentaries on Leviticus from the Roman era, second century C.E.[11] It links the biblical prohibition against “the practices of Egypt” with, among other things, lesbian marriage. The biblical text itself does not suggest that the prohibition of behaviors that are “like those of the Egyptians” have anything to do with same-sex marriage, and we have no evidence to assume that there were same-sex marriages in Egypt during that time when Leviticus was being written.[12] But it is very likely that the author of Sifra knew of same-sex marriages from the Roman culture in which he lived and interchanged the identities of Rome and Egypt without regard to historical accuracy.

Female homoeroticism was considered the ultimate depravity in Roman society. Women who loved other women were seen as seeking male privilege and attempting to usurp the authority of men.[13] But lesbian marriage was known in Roman society, and we do have other examples of references to women-women marriages in the second-century Roman empire. A novel by Iamblichus, a contemporary of Lucian, tells the story of a marriage of a queen of Egypt, Berenice, who is said to have loved and married a woman named Mesopotamia.[14] And Church Father Clement of Alexandria condemns female-female marriage as an unacceptable practice, contrary to nature.[15] 

More evidence of the awareness of female homoeroticism from Jewish sources of the early Roman period (probably for the beginning of the common era) is found in the fragmentary extra-canonical work, The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides. It was probably written by a Jew living in the diaspora. in this text, women are forbidden to imitate the sexual roles of men.[16] We do not know if this text refers to positions during heterosexual intercourse, to same-sex lovemaking, or to marriage.[17] But like the Sifra text, it reflects the era’s awareness that such activities existed.

While there are other discussions of lesbianism in ancient Jewish texts, this connection to the biblical text is not mentioned again until the twelfth century. Other ancient texts took lesbianism less seriously. In the Talmud (c. 500 C.E.), female homoeroticism is referred to as engaging in mesolelot. Modern english translations define mesolelot as “practicing lewdness.”[18] But there is no indication from the context that such a pejorative definition is warranted by the term. Apparently, this term was used for sexual behavior that did not involved penetration.[19] It is probably the Hebrew equivalent of “tribade,” the ancient term used in Greek and Roman cultures for women who engage in sexual activity by rubbing their genitals against one another.[20]

The rabbis of the Talmud were concerned about mesolelot only insofar as this behavior might change a woman’s status from that of virgin (betulah). Nonvirgins lose their eligibility for marriage to men of priestly descent (who were restricted to marrying virgins). The Talmud records two opinions. Rav Huna argues that women who practice mesolelot should not be eligible for priestly marriage; Eleazar says they should, and the law follows Eleazar. The text suggests that such behavior does not warrant punishment because it is priẓut. This is generally translated as “mere obscenity” but might better be understood as “minor infraction.” 

The Babylonian Talmud refers to mesolelot in one other case. In Shabbat 65a, it is reported that R. Samuel prohibited his daughters from sleeping together. The question is raised in the text as to why he would enforce such a prohibition. The commentators suggested that he was following Rav Huna’s interpretation and assuming that his daughters would be prohibited from marrying priests if they were engaging in mesolelot (in this case, incestuous mesolelot). But the conclusion of the text indicates that Samuel did not agreed with Rav Huna. It suggests that he prohibited his daughters from sleeping together so that they would not grow accustomed to “a foreign body.”

While I am tempted to argue that Samuel feared that his daughters might enjoy female homoeroticism so much that they would refuse marriage to a priest (or anyone else), it is more likely that these two texts illustrate a different point. The rabbis who wrote and edited these passages clearly knew of female homoerotic behavior but assumed that the women involved would certainly marry men. Thus their concern is probably with stopping this behavior, so that the women in question would be prepared for marriage. Samuel’s daughters should not get used to sexual pleasure either because they were not yet ready for marriage or because when they did marry they would have to sleep separately from their husbands. Husband and wife were not allowed to share one bed because of the laws of niddah, which prohibited touching between husband and wife while the woman was menstruating and for seven clean days after. So sexual pleasure, while encouraged, was limited to approximately half of the month because of the demands of niddah. That is not to say that the daughters in question might not have preferred each other’s company to a husband; of this we cannot be certain.

In the Middle Ages the Jewish laws found in the Talmud and other texts were codified by subject so that it would be easier for people to understand and gain access to Jewish legal precepts. One such codification, aptly titled Mishneh Torah (a second Torah) was compiled and edited by Moses Maimonides (1130-1205). Maimonides’ compilation did not only reiterate the legal precedents. His text also reflects his analysis and gives us some information about mesolelot in his era that sheds light on the question of lesbianism in later Jewish societies: 

“Women are forbidden to engage in mesolelot with one another, these being “the doings of Egypt” against which we have been warned, as it is said: “You shall not copy the practices of the land of Egypt ...” (Leviticus 18:3). Our Sages have said: “What did they do? A man would marry a man, or a woman a woman, or a woman would marry two men.” Although such an act is forbidden, the perpetrators are not liable for a flogging, since there is no specific negative commandment prohibiting it, nor is actual intercourse of any kind involved. Consequently, such women are not disqualified from the priesthood on account of prostitution, nor is a woman prohibited to her husband because of it. It behooves the court, however, to administer the flogging prescribed for rebelliousness since they performed a forbidden act. A man should be particularly strict with his wife in this matter and should prevent women known to indulge in such practices from visiting her and her from visiting them.[21]”

From the text it appears that Maimonides’ main interest is not with a hypothetical situation about marriages to priests, which he deals with perfunctorily, but with the problems of men who are married to women who keep company with women known to engage in mesolelot. Maimonides makes a connections not mentioned in the Talmud text between mesolelot and “women who marry [nosin, the technical legal term for Jewish marriage] one another.”

While lesbian behavior was only a minor sexual infraction, lesbian marriage as a subversion of heterosexual norms would have been a serious threat to the legal system and would receive more attention, as Maimonides’ comments suggest. The focus on the biblical source rather than the comments from the Talmud allowed Maimonides to view this behavior as serious and gave more license to punish it. Yet Maimonides still chose to define lesbian behavior as a minor crime of rebelliousness. This leniency is remarkable given his awareness of lesbian behavior in women married to men and his association of these practices with lesbian marriages, which he categorized among the biblically prohibited “doings of Egypt.” Maimonides saw lesbianism as the problem of a husband who could not control his wife’s behavior. But that behavior was not despised nor considered sinful. Lesbian behavior was not a serious crime, especially in comparison to male homosexuality, which was subject to capital punishment. It was taken lightly but not overlooked entirely. Punishment was to be meted out by the authorities of the community, the court, not simply by the man who was wronged by his wife. 

In contrast to modern European practice, Jewish law punishes the wife and not the partner, the presumed lesbian, who entices her. The person presumed to initiate sexual contact is not the one who is blamed or punished. Lesbian behavior itself is not considered problematic unless it threatens the institution of heterosexual marriage. 

Ancient Jewish sources were aware of, but not threatened by, female homoerotic behavior. This stance created a silence around he subject, for there was little to discuss. Now that lesbianism has become a more open topic in recent times, the neutrality of earlier sources tempers to some degree negative contemporary attitudes toward lesbianism.

In contemporary times there has been a limited response to lesbianism in Orthodox circles where the Jewish legal tradition has ultimate authority. In Norman Lamm’s definitive 1974 article on homosexuality, he did not examine lesbianism in early Judaism in any substantial way. He devoted one paragraph to rabbinic sources on women, in which he denied that such behavior had any significant impact on Jewish life.[22] In Lamm’s opinion, lesbianism is a lesser offense but is also not tolerated.

More recent awareness of the prevalence of lesbianism has led to stricter interpretations in traditionalist writings. In a 1994 book about women from an Orthodox perspective, Michael Kaufman briefly discusses lesbianism in a section on married women. Kaufman does not qualify lesbianism as a lesser offense but states boldly that it is prohibited by Jewish law, deriving the prohibition from the biblical injunction against Egyptian practices. According to Kaufman, lesbianism is not only legally prohibited but is “a perversion of nature and the divine order” and “intrinsically repulsive.”[23]

Reading traditional Jewish legal texts on lesbianism leads to the conclusion that the private sexual behavior of women was viewed as trivial. As feminists, we reject the rabbinic sensibility that claims our sexual activities don’t count and don’t matter. However, now that lesbianism has become public and challenges heterosexuality, the response form tradition circles is anger and revulsion.

Taken together, these biblical texts are deeply troubling for Jewish lesbians. They make our existence invisible, pejoratize and trivialize our sexuality, and proclaim norms for human existence that leave out our way of life. These factors are enough to make some lesbians decide to leave Judaism entirely. Others choose to ignore the texts while  maintaining their connections. But as I suggested a the beginning of this chapter, many Jewish lesbians feel a deep commitment to struggle with these texts and to find ways to counteract them.

[basicsofislam]

ISLAM 101: REVERED PROPHETS: DID JESUS HAVE SIBLINGS?: Part 2

“Brother” and “sister” in the Bible

The word “brother” in the Old Testament has a very broad meaning; it refers to the immediate descendants of the father, the son and the male relatives as a whole, cousins, in-laws and those with blood ties and even includes friends and those with whom a person has political dealings. The words “brother” and “sister” were sometimes used to portray the main family members as we see in the example of the forty-two “brethren” of King Uzziah. Another interesting example is in the Song of Solomon, where two lovers are serenading one another, and the young man says in some verses of the song, “How sweet is your love, my sister, my bride.” Maurice Bucaille, commenting on the word “brother” in the New Testament states that the words “adelphoi” and “adelphai” in Greek refer to biological brother and sister, and he said that these words, had been defectively translated from Semitic languages, where they had been used to denote “kin” in the general sense and the people in question were probably cousins. As the word “cousin” did not exist in Hebrew and Aramaic, the languages spoken by both Jesus and his disciples, they probably had no other option; they could either use the word “brother” or would have to define a person by calling them “my father’s sister’s son” and so on, which is neither easy nor appropriate, and this was the likely reason for Jesus using “brother” for his close acquaintances.

In the New Testament, the equivalent of the brother in Aramaic was given as the word “adelphos,” which in the general sense means “brother” or “brotherly friend,” a kind of sign of closeness to someone. Unlike in Hebrew or Aramaic, the word “anepsios” in ancient Greek gave a distinct meaning to the word “cousin,” but those who wrote the scriptures used “adelphos” or “friend” to correspond “cousin.”

So we understand from this that the writers of the New Testament used the same word “adelphos” from ancient Greek to convey the meaning of “friend” and for the meaning of “two sons of the same family” or “biological brothers.” This is very confusing when the text is translated into English or any other language.

According to the New Testament

One of the reasons for opinions that Jesus had brothers or sisters several verses in the New Testament which say that Mary was betrothed to Joseph, but before they had come together Joseph realized that she was carrying a child and had decided to leave Mary. But an angel came to Joseph in his dream and told him the truth of the miraculous conception, and Joseph decided to take Mary as his wife (Matthew 1:18–20; Luke 1:27; 2:5). There is no mention in the Qur’an or hadith of Joseph, the person said to be betrothed to Mary in the Bible, and there is certainly no report of the Biblical scriptures found in the Qur’an and hadith stating that Mary married this man called Joseph. However, there are a few weak reports of some historical sources that say that there was a carpenter of the same name who was a member of Mary’s family and both of them were serving at the Temple during the same period.

Another matter which leads the Protestant churches to believe that Jesus may have had brothers and sisters is the verse in the Gospel of Luke saying that Jesus was Mary’s “firstborn son” (2:7). However, this declaration is no reason to believe that Jesus had brothers and sisters, this statement being rather a declaration that her first child would be a holy servant of his Lord (Luke 2:23) a declaration invoking legislation in the scriptures.

As further evidence, the Gospel of Luke (2:41–52) tells how Jesus attended the Temple in Jerusalem for the feast of the Passover with his parents, that he went missing, and that his parents were searching for him. We see there is no mention at all of any other children except Jesus. To the contrary, the context leads us to believe that there was only one child present.

Another special detail is that according to the Gospel of John (19:26–27), Jesus entrusted his mother to one of the disciples when he was being placed on the crucifix, so immediately the question arises: if Jesus had brothers and sisters, then why did he entrust his mother to someone else? Even if we assume that Joseph, who was claimed to have married Mary was not alive at the time, there being no mention whatsoever of the existence of Jesus’ brothers or sisters at this point is another aspect which seems to invalidate the allegation.