The Hanufikkahtion of History

[Bubba_Switzler]

Thanks for joining the thread, we’d gotten away from my original questions which still interest me.

Moral lessons, even if fabricated from history, can teach vital truths. For example, one of America’s famous moral lessons involves George Washington, its first president. As a child, Washington was supposed to have chopped down his father’s favorite cherry tree. When the father confronted little George, he is said to have answered, “I cannot tell a lie. I chopped down the cherry tree.” The moral to his story (now known as a ‘fabrication’) was to teach children that to lie is morally wrong.

Certainly this is true. When I equated the Church to Hollywood I didn’t mean to suggest that it was somehow immoral to revise history to teach particular moral lessons.

However, it’s also a bit dangerous. History might be used simply because it’s interesting and therefore provides an interesting cast of characters. But more often it is invoked as a source of authority. This really happened to these people and these were the real consequences of their moral choices. If you make that choice that will happen to you too. In that respect, revising history is fraudulent.

Now the cherry tree story was almost certainly fictional but George Washington had a reputation for being a straight arrow so it was consistent with his true historical chracter.

It’s worth noting that Jesus’ prefered moral device was the parable. A parable is realistic but also ahistorical. There is no confusion where the reality ends and fiction begins. Can we safely say the same for Hannakuh?

Maccabees is one of the books thrown out of the protestant bible which means generations passed before anyone even knew anything about Hannukah. Not all Jews celebrate it, even today. Only in some of the Western democracies has Hannukah been propagandized to ‘compete’ with Christmas. The same has happened with Kwaanza (most African-Americans do not honor this because it is a “made up” celebration that dates only back to the 1960s and has no relevence to them), and the latest one now is Ramadan and Id for American Muslims.

Just to be clear, I’m not just picking on the Jews here. Hanufikkahtion of history is a Judeo-Christian tradition. The Bible, itself, both OT and NT, takes liberties with history to make certain points.

Getting back to your questions, I don’t think the success of the Macabee brothers set a standard for the Roman-Jewish Wars later on that resulted in the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. Jews have always fought repression throughout history no matter where they found themselves.

This is obviously not true. The Jews did not fight the Pharoahs until Moses came along to rescue them. Nor do modern diaspora Jews have a tradition of taking up arms against anti-semitism. One of the sad aspects of the Nazi Holocaust is that they went so quitly to their deaths. Certainly modern Israel has fought bravely to defend Israel but that is national defense, not resisting oppression.

Jesus could be looked upon as a Jewish reformer in the sense that he believed in social justice, particularly for the poor and outcast. There was so much oppression throughout the Roman empire that Christianity became a revolution of the person’s inner set of values which changed the world, especially when introduced to the Gentiles.

True, but Jesus also brought about a revolution within Judaism. So much so that he aroused the ire of the Jewish authorities. On the other hand, Jesus counseled against fighting the Romans without disputing their oppression.

 

[Hosh]

This is obviously not true. The Jews did not fight the Pharoahs until Moses came along to rescue them. Nor do modern diaspora Jews have a tradition of taking up arms against anti-semitism. One of the sad aspects of the Nazi Holocaust is that they went so quitly to their deaths. Certainly modern Israel has fought bravely to defend Israel but that is national defense, not resisting oppression.

As for the Holocaust, the simple fact is that none of them believed it. There may have been rumors but they really thought they were just being shipped of to concentration camps, not to there death. Who would believe that people would be capable of something so cruel. When the facts became unavoidable you got the Warsaw Ghetto uprising.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

As for the Holocaust, the simple fact is that none of them believed it. There may have been rumors but they really thought they were just being shipped of to concentration camps, not to there death. Who would believe that people would be capable of something so cruel. When the facts became unavoidable you got the Warsaw Ghetto uprising.

Fair enough, but I think it has to be conceded that the prevailing attitude was not to resist oppression but to get along and not “make trouble”. The Warsaw Ghetto was noteworthy almost as an exception to the rule when their back were literally to the wall. (Jews also joined partisan groups fighting the Nazis and Jews were prominant in various socialist movements before the Holocaust but were they disproportinately so?)

Now I do think it’s fair to say that modern Jews are disproportionately represented in civil rights movements that do not entail the use of violence. Which leads to the question: is that perhaps what God was wanting from them in the Second Temple period rather than to take on the great powers in wars of national liberation?

 

[Hosh]

Fair enough, but I think it has to be conceded that the prevailing attitude was not to resist oppression but to get along and not “make trouble”. The Warsaw Ghetto was noteworthy almost as an exception to the rule when their back were literally to the wall. (Jews also joined partisan groups fighting the Nazis and Jews were prominant in various socialist movements before the Holocaust but were they disproportinately so?)

Now I do think it’s fair to say that modern Jews are disproportionately represented in civil rights movements that do not entail the use of violence. Which leads to the question: is that perhaps what God was wanting from them in the Second Temple period rather than to take on the great powers in wars of national liberation?

Yes, Jews were very disproportionately represented amongst socialists, anarchists, doctors, lawyers, teachers, and just upper class in general… At least in western parts of Europe. It would have been suicide to fight against the 3rd Reich. Perhaps that would have been better than the gas chambers, but Hindsight is 20/20… I don’t know what God wanted, but you can draw a inference between the differences between route Israel and India achieved Independence from Great Britain. Jew’s achieved there independence largely through “smart” terrorism… India more through acts of good faith and civil disobedience. It didn’t take us more than… I’m not really sure, but not that long after we started kidnapping British officers. It took India almost 100 years.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Yes, Jews were very disproportionately represented amongst socialists, anarchists, doctors, lawyers, teachers, and just upper class in general… At least in western parts of Europe. It would have been suicide to fight against the 3rd Reich. Perhaps that would have been better than the gas chambers, but Hindsight is 20/20…

Just to clarify, the objective is not to perform 20/20 hindsight finger wagging but to evaluate the claim that the Jews always fought oppression against the historical record. History is filled with peoples who, from time to time, rose up against their oppressors, sometimes successfllly, sometimes not. But I think you’d be hard pressed to identify any culture or people who always rose up against oppression.

I don’t know what God wanted, but you can draw a inference between the differences between route Israel and India achieved Independence from Great Britain. Jew’s achieved there independence largely through “smart” terrorism… India more through acts of good faith and civil disobedience. It didn’t take us more than… I’m not really sure, but not that long after we started kidnapping British officers. It took India almost 100 years.

But we can look at this and see the historical cause and effects, the differences and similarities. There is nothing particularly surprising in either outcome. Violence can achieve it’s goals. I wouldn’t argue, for example, that America should have turned the other cheek to the Nazis in WWII. I’m not arguing for pacifism.

But the Jews of the Second Temple period were expecting national liberation by the hand of God, which, as we know, never came. Quite the contrary, Israel destroyed itself in the pursuit of national liberation by force of arms. At a minimum, God let the Jews down with regard to their expectations.

What is interesting about the NYT author’s description is the possibility that, as early as the Maccabees, there were Jews who were thinking about a different path.

I am still very interested in your earlier point about the Pharisees being influenced by Hellenistic reasoning. If so, perhaps there were were proto-Pharisees among the reformers in the Maccabee period.

 

[Angelo_Michael]

…]

But we can look at this and see the historical cause and effects, the differences and similarities. There is nothing particularly surprising in either outcome. Violence can achieve it’s goals. I wouldn’t argue, for example, that America should have turned the other cheek to the Nazis in WWII. I’m not arguing for pacifism.

…]

It seems a similar thread could be made about the “Americanization of History”, wherein America is depicted as playing a greater role in the defeat of the Nazis and is [somehow miraculously] immune to the content of Ezekiel, and Jeremiah, 18.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Hanukkah is upon us again and this seems an appropriate time to consider the perenial question: Is it kosher to sanitize history to create moral lessons?

The raw Bible is often much more interesting than the Sunday school stories we hear about it. If you read Macabbees, you will find that the lighting of the menorah, symolizing the rededication of the Temple, is a relatively small, if crucial, part of the story. Macabbees is full of human intrigue, great battles, and ultimatley, disappointment. More importantly, it set a pattern that was to be repeated to Israel’s destruction in the first and second centuries AD.

I was reminded of this by an editorial from the NYT:

It begins with the spread of Greek culture. Alexander’s Empire, and the smaller empires that succeeded it, brought modernizing ideas and institutions to the Middle East. At its best, Hellenistic culture emphasized the power of reason and the importance of individual conscience. It brought theaters, gymnasiums and debating societies to the cities. It raised living standards, especially in places like Jerusalem.

Many Jewish reformers embraced these improvements. The Greeks had one central idea: their aspirations to create an advanced universal culture. And the Jews had their own central idea: the idea of one true God. The reformers wanted to merge these two ideas.

nytimes.com/2009/12/11/opinion/11brooks.html?ref=global

The author was clearly sympathetic to the Jewish reformers who are not the heros of Macabees and Hanukkah.

The traditional view of Hanukkah is that it was faithful Jews vs. tyrannical Greeks and their Jewish collaborators and the traditional Jews won in a David and Golliath story.

But that is a sanitized version of history.

Most modern scholars argue that the [Seleucid ] king was intervening in a civil war between traditionalist Jews in the countryside and Hellenized Jews in Jerusalem.

Real history is much more interesting and the NYT author only tells part of it, but enough to make his point.

To see things clearly you have to look past the simplification that the traditional view of Hanukkah presents, faithful Jews vs. tyrannical Greeks and their Jewish collaborators. Instead, you have to recognize that the Jewish reformers might have represented a third point of view that was demolished in the confrontation between the Macabees and the Selucid Greeks.

History is filled with ironies and one of them is that the Sadducees were the descendants of the Macabees and they were the wealthy Jews in Jesus’ time who wanted to compromise and keep peace with the Romans.

And in addition to Jesus’ running antognists, the Pharisees, you had the relatively less religious diaspora Jews who were thoroughly helenized. Saul/Paul of Tarus was from this diaspora of Helenized Jews. And one of the most popular modern Jewish criticisms of Christianity is that it was a helenization of Judaism.

The question I want to pose here is to what extent do we rely on moral lessons that are fabricated from history (often before our very eyes). Is the moral lesson the thing, and history but a source of material, or should we treat history with greater respect accepting the gray nuances of our fallen condition?

And what are we to make of the Macabee period? The the Macabee success encourge the Jews to destroy themselves trying to repeat that success against Rome?

And what are we to make of the Jewish reformers of the Macabee period? Was Jesus a Jewish reformer? Is Christianity a similar reform of Judaism integrating the idea of a One God with Helenistic ideals of reason and universal culture? Is modern, democratic Israel a similar triumph of the marriage of Judaism and Greco-Roman ideals?

This is an interesting question regarding Hanukkah.

However, I think the Jewish people could ask Christians why we incorporated pagan practices into the celebration of the birth of Christ at Christmas.

I know this has been debated on the forums, and there are many disagreements on the subject. It is not my intention to take the thread off topic. I have neither the time nor energy to argue this subject, now, anyway.

My point is, Maybe would should sort out our own issues, before casting a “stone” at Judaism.

Just a thought,
Anna

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

It seems a similar thread could be made about the “Americanization of History”, wherein America is depicted as playing a greater role in the defeat of the Nazis and is [somehow miraculously] immune to the content of Ezekiel, and Jeremiah, 18.

Absolutely. It’s a general human tendency in many forms.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

This is an interesting question regarding Hanukkah.

However, I think the Jewish people could ask Christians why we incorporated pagan practices into the celebration of the birth of Christ at Christmas.

I know this has been debated on the forums, and there are many disagreements on the subject. It is not my intention to take the thread off topic. I have neither the time nor energy to argue this subject, now, anyway.

My point is, Maybe would should sort out our own issues, before casting a “stone” at Judaism.

I don’t mean to be casting stones and I certainly haven’t exempted Christianity. The issue on the Christian side is not so much the baptism of pagan symbols and themes but the similar subordination of historical accuracy to moral story telling.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I don’t mean to be casting stones and I certainly haven’t exempted Christianity. The issue on the Christian side is not so much the baptism of pagan symbols and themes but the similar subordination of historical accuracy to moral story telling.

Perhaps history has demonstrated the bias involved in writing historical accounts, regardless of the authors. We all have the bias of our own viewpoints and preconceived ideas.

A few years ago, my family published a book (for the family, only) about our ancestors. It turns out, even our relatives, who owned slaves, were “kind” slave owners. So, I would say our family history contains its own bias on how things were. I don’t think there was even one ancestor painted in an unfavorable light. I think our “history” was definitely “rewritten” by our family. lol

You have posed an interesting question, and in doing so, cause us all to consider our own biased views about particular events in history. Good Thread.

Anna

 

[Hosh]

Just to clarify, the objective is not to perform 20/20 hindsight finger wagging but to evaluate the claim that the Jews always fought oppression against the historical record. History is filled with peoples who, from time to time, rose up against their oppressors, sometimes successfllly, sometimes not. But I think you’d be hard pressed to identify any culture or people who always rose up against oppression.

But we can look at this and see the historical cause and effects, the differences and similarities. There is nothing particularly surprising in either outcome. Violence can achieve it’s goals. I wouldn’t argue, for example, that America should have turned the other cheek to the Nazis in WWII. I’m not arguing for pacifism.

But the Jews of the Second Temple period were expecting national liberation by the hand of God, which, as we know, never came. Quite the contrary, Israel destroyed itself in the pursuit of national liberation by force of arms. At a minimum, God let the Jews down with regard to their expectations.

What is interesting about the NYT author’s description is the possibility that, as early as the Maccabees, there were Jews who were thinking about a different path.

I am still very interested in your earlier point about the Pharisees being influenced by Hellenistic reasoning. If so, perhaps there were were proto-Pharisees among the reformers in the Maccabee period.

Keep in mind Christianity and Judaism were still closely tied during the 3rd Jewish-Roman war, With Christianity still almost being considered a branch of Judaism. When Bar Kokhba came around the Christians may not have joined the fight because to them the messiah had already come.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Perhaps history has demonstrated the bias involved in writing historical accounts, regardless of the authors. We all have the bias of our own viewpoints and preconceived ideas. A few years ago, my family published a book (for the family, only) about our ancestors. It turns out, even our relatives, who owned slaves, were “kind” slave owners. So, I would say our family history contains its own bias on how things were. I don’t think there was even one ancestor painted in an unfavorable light. I think our “history” was definitely “rewritten” by our family.

And we find plenty of that in the Bible, not just in Sunday school versions of the Bible. Historians speculate who wrote what, when, in part according to how the subjects are treated.

You have posed an interesting question, and in doing so, cause us all to consider our own biased views about particular events in history. Good Thread.

I think so, at least this is something that really interests me. And, again, it’s not about casting stones at anyone. I just started with Hannukah as an example because of the NYT article and the interesting implications of the author’s viewpoint on it.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Keep in mind Christianity and Judaism were still closely tied during the 3rd Jewish-Roman war, With Christianity still almost being considered a branch of Judaism. When Bar Kokhba came around the Christians may not have joined the fight because to them the messiah had already come.

Well, sure. Some have even argued that the Bar Kokhba revolt was, in large part, the Jewish/Christian divorce proceedings with Akiba promoting Bar Kokhba as messiah in order to force the split. Unfortunately, this is a rather dark period in terms of historical records so we can only speculate. But certainly the destruction of Israel had a major impact on how early Christians viewed Judaism.

 

[Hosh]

Well, sure. Some have even argued that the Bar Kokhba revolt was, in large part, the Jewish/Christian divorce proceedings with Akiba promoting Bar Kokhba as messiah in order to force the split. Unfortunately, this is a rather dark period in terms of historical records so we can only speculate. But certainly the destruction of Israel had a major impact on how early Christians viewed Judaism.

Certainly, Do you think its Coincidence that the second temple was destroyed roughly around the writing of Mark? It was viewed as an act of God right?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Certainly, Do you think its Coincidence that the second temple was destroyed roughly around the writing of Mark? It was viewed as an act of God right?

It is certainly true that the early Christians regarded it as such. I take a more restrained view of the matter. As I said to Angelo, it was sufficient for God not to intervene in history and let it take it’s brutal course. The question to ask, then, is not whether God had a hand in the destruction of the Second Temple but why God chose not to help the Jews in their war with Rome. I think the answer is that he wanted Judaism to take a different path in the Second Temple period, perhaps as early as the Maccabee period.

This comes back to the central disagreement between Judaism and Christianity about Jesus. Was he the messiah? Is it conceivable that he could be if he didn’t liberate Israel from its enemies?

If you’vre read Klinghoffer’s Why the Jews Rejected Jesus it’s hard to argue that the Jews didn’t have good reason to expect something different. But that argument rests on the assumption that a political liberation was what was promised.

 

[Hosh]

It is certainly true that the early Christians regarded it as such. I take a more restrained view of the matter. As I said to Angelo, it was sufficient for God not to intervene in history and let it take it’s brutal course. The question to ask, then, is not whether God had a hand in the destruction of the Second Temple but why God chose not to help the Jews in their war with Rome. I think the answer is that he wanted Judaism to take a different path in the Second Temple period, perhaps as early as the Maccabee period.

This comes back to the central disagreement between Judaism and Christianity about Jesus. Was he the messiah? Is it conceivable that he could be if he didn’t liberate Israel from its enemies?

If you’vre read Klinghoffer’s Why the Jews Rejected Jesus it’s hard to argue that the Jews didn’t have good reason to expect something different. But that argument rests on the assumption that a political liberation was what was promised.

So did God have a role in the Independence of Israel? Or for that matter the Anti Semitism in Europe which eventually culminated in the holocaust and WWII? Without these events it would be unlikely Israel would be the Jewish state it is today.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

So did God have a role in the Independence of Israel? Or for that matter the Anti Semitism in Europe which eventually culminated in the holocaust and WWII? Without these events it would be unlikely Israel would be the Jewish state it is today.

I’m generally of the opinion that God is restrained in his intervention in history. I know that puts me at odds with many others but I tend to take the view that God is a minimalist in human affairs prefering to let mankind make, and learn from, his own mistakes.

However, I am intrigued by the more general question: what is the role of the Jews in history. I am very skeptical of the Catholic replacement theology (and similar Christian views).

I think it’s quite a stretch to call modern Israel a rebirth of biblical Israel, and it’s hard to imagine the circumstances that would lead to the rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple. (I’d say Mulsims forcing another diaspora is more likely than that Islam would role over for razing the Dome Mosque to make way for the Third Temple and I can hardly imagine Tel Aviv Jews getting excited about resuming animal sacritices.)

And, yet, I don’t believe that God would abandon his chosen people, either. I suppose I yearn for a resolution of the Jewish/Christian schism. But that can’t happen so long as Jews and Christians inhabit seperate worlds of alternate history.

 

[Angelo_Michael]

So did God have a role in the Independence of Israel? Or for that matter the Anti Semitism in Europe which eventually culminated in the holocaust and WWII? Without these events it would be unlikely Israel would be the Jewish state it is today.

I don’t think it is possible to divorce God’s activity from any event in history. Nevertheless, the nature of the activity may indicate whether the dominant force is God or Satan. For example, the slander and murder of Jews by Nazis is indicative of the work of Satan as John 8:44, (“Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.”), suggests.

Nevertheless, this does not mean that God is absent, permissive, or incapable of intervention. It does not even mean that God is not intervening at those times. Yet, perhaps, an inference could be made that the intervention(s) God made was/were not necessarily always to deliver someone from [bodily harm, and/or a physical] death. For God, having surrendered His Son unto death many years before, and He conquering it thereby, would not necessarily be as compelled to intervene in a bodily-protective manner as before; for also the Son warns, “…] fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matthew 10:28)”; and therefore may have only been upholding His commandments, even if necessitating the burden of grief at witnessing the destruction of His inheritance.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Certainly, Do you think its Coincidence that the second temple was destroyed roughly around the writing of Mark? It was viewed as an act of God right?

It is certainly true that the early Christians regarded it as such. I take a more restrained view of the matter. As I said to Angelo, it was sufficient for God not to intervene in history and let it take it’s brutal course. The question to ask, then, is not whether God had a hand in the destruction of the Second Temple but why God chose not to help the Jews in their war with Rome. I think the answer is that he wanted Judaism to take a different path in the Second Temple period, perhaps as early as the Maccabee period.

This comes back to the central disagreement between Judaism and Christianity about Jesus. Was he the messiah? Is it conceivable that he could be if he didn’t liberate Israel from its enemies?

If you’vre read Klinghoffer’s Why the Jews Rejected Jesus it’s hard to argue that the Jews didn’t have good reason to expect something different. But that argument rests on the assumption that a political liberation was what was promised.

Mark 13:1-2 (ESV): 1 And as he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher, what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!” 2 And Jesus said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.”

Jesus foretells the destruction of the Temple in Mark 13:1-2. However, Jesus doesn’t just say the temple will be destroyed; he said, “There will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.”

That hasn’t actually happened, yet. The Western Wall of the Temple is still standing. There are still stones upon stones. Not all have been cast down.

There were some layers added, at different points in history, since the destruction of the Temple in 70AD. However, there are still stones upon stones that never fell during the destruction in 70AD.

Anna

 

[Hosh]

Mark 13:1-2 (ESV): 1 And as he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher, what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!” 2 And Jesus said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.”

Jesus foretells the destruction of the Temple in Mark 13:1-2. However, Jesus doesn’t just say the temple will be destroyed; he said, “There will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.”

That hasn’t actually happened, yet. The Western Wall of the Temple is still standing. There are still stones upon stones. Not all have been cast down.

There were some layers added, at different points in history, since the destruction of the Temple in 19BCE. However, there are still stones upon stones that never fell during the destruction in 19BCE.

Anna

19 BCE was Herods renovation it wasn’t distroyed until 70 CE. Sorry to have to point it out but if that were true it would negate Jesus foretelling its destruction. I think its going to have to be bombed. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Stone