Image from www.christianbooks.co.za

[First posted in 2015. This chapter in Jon D. Levenson’s SINAI and ZION, is on the same page, so to speak, with Sinai 6000.  This discussion validates Sinaites’ raison d’etre as the non-religious ‘movement’ for gentiles who are seeking or are in transition, who do not wish to affiliate with any of the three major world religions that trace their roots to Abraham: Judaism, Christianity, Islam.  

First posted April 19, 2015; related posts:  

• MUST READ: SINAI & ZION – 1 
•  SINAI AND ZION 2 – The Sinaitic Experience and Traditions About It .  
• SINAI and ZION 4 – SINAI and the Covenant Formulary

Reformatting and highlights added. —Admin1.]

Image from wordpress.com

Image from lds.ne

 

Image from www.riversonfineart.com

In fact, a blessing on the tribe of Joseph identifies YHWH with “the one who dwells in the bush” (Deut 33:16). If “bush” is not a scribal error for “Sinai,” the tree here is not merely a device to attract attention, as one might think from Exodus 3, but is, rather, an outward manifestation of divine presence. YHWH is the numen of the bush. The conjunction in Exodus 3 of bush or tree (we do not know the precise meaning of sene) and fire is not surprising in light of later YHWHistic tradition. “YHWH your God,” thunders a Deuteronomistic homilist, “is a devouring fire, a jealous God” (Deut 4:24).

Artlessly, an opposition has been set up between service to YHWH and service to Pharaoh.  Two masters, two lords, are in contention for the service of Israel in these first chapters of Exodus.  As the narrative develops, it becomes clear that—

• one master represents human pride, the security of an ancient and settled regime which has lasted for millennia and will, so its ruler believes, outlast the demand of these Asiatic barbarians for the liberty to serve their God in his desolate home.
• The other master is that unpredictable deity himself, unknown in the urban world of Egypt, a deity whose home and whose power lie outside Egyptian sovereignty, increasingly threatening it and continually reminding Pharaoh of the limits of his power, which he and his subjects regard as infinite and, in fact, divine.

The contrast is also between the desert and the urban state.  As Zev Weisman puts it,

“the desert serves as a cradle for this primitive universalism of social elements which are outside the control of government, in that it is a space free of any political authority whatsoever and of any organized governmental-cultic establishment.”

Image from bible.org

Note that I am not saying that the desert was the goal or ideal of life in ancient Israel. It was not. The desert was mostly conceived as a forbidding, even demonic area.  Nor am I saying that YHWH’s essential nature was perceived throughout biblical history as that of a desert deity.  It was not.

What I do claim is that the desert, which some poetry (which is probably early) regards as the locale of YHWH’s mountain home, functions in early prose as a symbol of freedom, which stands in opposition to the massive and burden-some regime of Egypt, where state and cult are presented as colluding in the perpetuation of slavery and degradation.

The mountain of God is a beacon to the slaves of Egypt, a symbol of a new kind of master and a radically different relationship of people to state.

Sinai is not the final goal of the Exodus, but lying between Egypt and Canaan, it does represent YHWH’s unchallengeable mastery over both.

[First posted in 2012; another interesting feature of Paul Johnson’s  A History of the Jews is the development of Islam, What is it about this world religion that is so misunderstood by its most fanatic adherents who misuse it and the name of its God in perpetrating the most horrific acts against all humanity including many of their own people sharing their same faith?  This book is downloadable as ebook from amazon.com, and part of our MUST READ category. Reformatting and highlight ours.

Related posts:

• The 3rd Monotheistic Religion that is from Abraham
• Revisit: The ‘Redeemed’ and the ‘Elect’ in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam

—Admin1]

—————————–

Image from www.dreamstime.com

Like Christianity, Islam was originally a heterodox movement within Judaism, which diverged to the point where it became a separate religion, and then rapidly developed its own dynamic and characteristics. The Jewish presence in Arabia is very ancient. In the south, in what is now Yemen, Jewish trading interests date back to the first century BC, but in the north or Hijaz, it goes back very much further. One Arab historical legend says that Jewish settlement in Medina occurred under King David, and another puts it back to Moses. Babylonian inscriptions discovered in 1956 suggest that Jewish religious communities were introduced in the Hijaz, in the 6th century BC, and they may have been there even before. [Source: Charles ‘C. Torrey, The Jewish Foundation of Islam). But the first definite confirmation, in the form of Jewish names in tomb inscriptions and graffiti, does not go back further than the 1st century BC. At all events, during the early Christian era, Judaism spread in north Arabia and some tribes became wholly Jewish. There is evidence that Jewish poets flourished in the region of Medina in the 4th century AD, and it is even possible that a Jewish-ruled state existed there at this time. According to Arab sources, about 20 tribes in and around Medina were Jewish.

These settled oasis tribes were traders as much as pastoralists, and Islam was from the start a semi-urban trader’s religion rather than a desert one. But the desert was important, because Jews living on its fringes, or moving to it escape the corruptions of city life, such as the Nazirites, had always practiced a more rigorous form of Judaism and, in particular, had been uncompromising in their monotheism. That was what attracted Mohammed.

The influence of Christianity, which would have been strictly monotheistic in his eyes, was very slight, at any rate at this early stage. What he seems to have wished to do was to destroy the polytheistic paganism of the oasis culture by giving the Arabs Jewish ethical monotheism in a language they could understand and in terms adapted to their ways.

• He accepted the Jewish God and their prophets, the idea of fixed law embodied in scripture—the Koran being an Arabic substitute for the Bible—and the addition of an Oral Law applied in religious courts.
• Like the Jews, the Moslems were originally reluctant to commit Oral Law to writing.
• Like the Jews, they eventually did so.
• Like the Jews, they developed the practice of responsum, and the earliest responsa seem to have consciously adopted a Judaic formula.
• Like the Jews, the Moslems accepted strict and elaborate codes covering diet, ritual purity and cleanliness.

Image rom smic-geography.weebly.com250 × 315Search by image

Mohammed’s development of a separate religion began when he realized that the Jews of Medina were not prepared to accept his arbitrarily contrived Arab version of Judaism. Had Mohammed possessed the skill and patience to work out an Arab halakhah, the result might have been different. But it is unlikely. One of the strongest characteristics of Judaism is the willingness of Jewish communities to exist in distant areas without the need for acculturalization. At all events, Mohammed rebuffed, and he thereafter gave a deliberate new thrust to Islamic monotheism.

• He altered the nature of the Sabbath and changed it to Friday.
• He changed the orientation of prayers from Jerusalem to Mecca.
• He redated the principal feast.
• Most important of all, he declared that most of the Jewish dietary laws were simply a punishment for their past misdeeds, and so abolished them, though he retained the prohibitions on pork, blood and carcasses, and some of the slaughtering rules.

All these changes made it quite impossible to bring about a merging of Jewish and Islamic communities, however much they might agree on ethical or dogmatic fundamentals; but, in addition, Islam soon developed a dogmatic dynamism of its own, and theological debate — leading to violent sectarianism — soon began to play a central role in Islam, as in Christianity.

Above all, Islam quickly created a theory and practice of forcible conversion, as the Jews had done in the time of Joshua, David and the Hasmoneans, but which rabbinic Judaism had implicitly and conclusively renounced. It spread with astonishing speed, to engulf the Near East, the whole of the southern Mediterranean, Spain and vast areas of Asia. By the early 8th century, the Jewish communities which still retained precarious footholds in the Greek and Latin worlds, found themselves cocooned in a vast Islamic theocracy, which they had in a sense spawned and renounced, and which now held the key to their very survival. But, by now, they had developed their own life-support system, the Talmud, and its unique formula for self-government —the Cathedocracy.

The Christian Jesus vs. the Jewish Jesus

[First posted in 2014.  Here is an excerpted part of Rabbi Jonathan Sack’s book which is featured here as Must Read/Must Own! Originally, we were to present only the ‘bookend’ chapters as we do with other recommended reads–Introduction and Conclusion.  However the discussion below is too good to miss, in case you readers are unable to get a copy for your own library.  This is an excerpt from Chapter 3: Diverging Paths, where Rabbi Sacks contrasts the foundation, belief system and teachings of Christianity and Judaism. It begins with a long explanation about right-brain vs. left-brain functions, Greek vs. Hebrew mindsets— which we will not include here; you will catch a whiff of it within the excerpt.  The latter part of the chapter is featured in the next installment  . . . . Reformatted for this post, images added.  Here are related posts from this book, you might as well check them out, here are the links:

• Must Read/Must Own: The Great Partnership: Science, Religion, and the Search for Meaning
• Must Read/Must Own: The Great Partnership – 2
• Must Read/Must Own – The Great Partnership – Diverging Paths 3a
• Must Read/Must Own: The Great Partnership – Diverging Paths – 3b
• Must Read/Must Own – The Great Partnership – Diverging Paths – 3c

— Admin1.]

————————

Jesus was a Jew.  He lived in the land of Israel, mainly in the Galilee area, in and among Jews.  He spoke to them as  a Jew.  He read the Bible and almost certainly prayed in Hebrew.  Most of his words, phrases, concepts and ideas are familiar to anyone acquainted with the rabbinic Judaism of the time.

Jesus spoke Aramaic, the language of Jews living in Israel at the time.  This was the language of the school and the marketplace, into which the Bible was orally translated, line by line, when read in the synagogue, for the benefit of those who did not understand the original.  Later it would become the language of the Talmud.

Whenever we hear the direct, untranslated speech of Jesus in the Gospels, he is speaking Aramaic.  When he brings back a dead girl to life, he says Talita kum, the Aramaic for ‘Little girl, get up.’  When he prays to God in Mark 14:36, he uses the word Abba, Aramaic for ‘Father’.  During the Sermon on the Mount he criticises those who call other people Raca, an Aramaic insult meaning ’empty one’.  Most famously, at the crucifixion he cries out, in its standard Aramaic translation, the line from Psalm 22, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ The Aramaic Eli, Eli lama sabachtani, is very close to the Hebrew Eli, Eli lama azavtani.

Jesus spoke Aramaic and Hebrew. But every book of the New Testament was written in Greek.  That is the extraordinary fact.  Even the Hebrew Bible was known to Christians for centuries in Greek only, in the form of the Septuagint, the translation into koine Greek made in Ptolemaic Egypt in the third century BCE.  The New Testament is, through and through, a Greek document, not a Hebrew or Aramaic one.

The testimony of perhaps the greatest Christian biblical scholar of our time, James Barr, is particularly striking.  Arguing that the New Testament ‘is much more Greek in its terms, its conceptuality and its thinking than main trends of modern biblical theology have tended to allow’, he continues:

My own experience makes this to me undeniable.  If one has spent most of one’s life, as I have, working on Hebrew and other Semitic-language texts, and then returns after some absence to a closer study of the New Testament, the impression of the essentially Greek character of the latter is overwhelming . . . The attempt, at one time popular and influential, to argue that, though the words might be Greek, the thought processes were fundamentally Hebraic, was a conspicuous failure.

Barr’s statement, made in the course of his 1991 Gifford Lectures, is all the more striking since it was he who, thirty years earlier, in his influential The Semantics of Biblical Language, argued against contrasting Greek and Hebrew modes of thought in terms of the structure of their respective languages.

The reasons or this strange turn of events are well known.  In the first decades after Jesus’ death the Church might have gone in either of two directions.  It might have become a Jewish sect, the Jerusalem church, under Jesus’ brother James.  In the event, however, it was Paul who found a ready audience among the Hellenistic Gentiles of the Mediterranean, especially those who had already shown an interest in elements of Jewish practice and faith.  It was the Greek– not the Hebrew-and-Aramaic-speaking population that proved to be the fertile soil in which Christianity took root and grew.

We do not know whether Jesus spoke or understood Greek. It is likely that he knew a few words, the kind you might use in the market or the street, but there is no evidence that he thought, taught or prayed in Greek, and the balance of probability is overwhelmingly against it.  It is an open question whether he would have understood the New Testament.  We have here, in other words, a unique phenomenon in the history of religion:  a religion whose sacred texts are written in what to its founder would have been a foreign and largely unintelligible language.

Had the languages in question been closely related, part of the same linguistic family, this might have been of little consequence.  But first-century Greek and Hebrew were not just different languages.  They represented antithetical civilisations, unlike in their most basic understanding of reality.  In terms of the last chapter, Greek philosophy and science — the Greece of Thales and Democritus, Plato and Aristotle–was a predominantly left-brain culture, the Israel of the prophets a right-brain one.  At precisely the time Greek came to be written left-to-right and Athens became the birthplace of science and philosophy, the two supremely left-brain conceptual, analytical ways of thinking.

Western civilisation was born in the synthesis between Athens and Jerusalem brought about by Pauline Christianity and the conversion of Emperor Constantine in 312, turning a small and often persecuted sect into the official religion of the Roman Empire.  It was an astonishing, improbable event and it eventually transformed the world.  Christendom drew its philosophy, science and art from Greece, its religion from Israel.  But from the outset it contained a hairline fracture that would not become a structural weakness until the seventeenth century.  It consisted in this, that though Christians encountered philosophy, science and art in the original Greek, they experienced the religion of their founder in translation.

Greek is a language into which the personal religious background of Jesus does not go.  It was the natural language of thought of Paul, the writers of the Gospels, the authors of the books of the New Testament, the early Church Fathers and the first Christian theologians.  It was their genius that shaped a new religious movement that was to prove the most successful in the entire history of the spiritual quest of humankind.  But it contained one assumption that would eventually be challenged from the seventeenth century until today, namely that science and philosophy on the one hand, and religion on the other, belong to the same universe of discourse.

They may.  But they may not.  It could be that Greek science and philosophy and the Judaic experience of God are two different languages that — like the left-and-right-brain modes of thinking we encountered in the last chapter — only imperfectly translate into one another.  Recognising this now might leave science freer to be science, and religion to be religion, without either challenging the integrity of the other.

The Christianity that eventually emerged from the tradition of Paul, Augustine, Anselm and Aquinas had strong Judaic elements.  It spoke of faith, hope, charity, righteousness, love, forgiveness, the dignity of the human person and the sanctity of life.  It valued humility and compassion.  It spoke of a God who loves his creatures.  But it also contained strands that were undeniably Greek and in striking contrast with the way Jews read the Hebrew Bible.  The following are some of them.

• The first and most obvious is universality. 

Judaism is a principled and unusual combination of universality and particularity: the universality of God, and the particularity of the ways in which we relate to God.  The God of Israel is the God of all humanity, but the religion of Israel is not, and is not intended to be, the religion of all humanity.  You do not have to be part of the Sinai covenant or even the covenant of Abraham, to reach heaven and achieve salvation.

Pauline Christianity rejected this.  The upside of this is its inclusivity, expressed most famously in Paul’s striking statement, ‘There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female‘ (Galatians 3:28).  The downside is its denial of any other route to salvation.  Extra ecclesiam non est salus:  ‘Outside the Church there is no salvation.’  Universality is supremely characteristic of Greek thought in the classic age between the sixth and third pre-Christian centuries (though of course it was not applied in their religious understanding).  Above all it is the legacy of Plato, who utterly devalued particulars in favour of the universal form of things.  For Plato truth is universal and eternal or it is not truth at all.  Paul and Plato are soulmates.

• The second is dualism.

To a far greater extent than Judaism, Christianity after Paul develops a series of dualisms, between body and soul, the physical and the spiritual, Earth and heaven, this life and the next, with the emphasis on the second of each pair.  the body, says Paul in Romans, is recalcitrant.  ‘What I want to do I do not do, but what I hate to do’ (Romans 7:15).

There is nothing like this in Jewish literature.  To be sure there is the ‘evil inclination’, but no suggestion that because of our embodied condition we are slaves to sin.  The entire set of contrasts — soul as against body, the afterlife as against this life — is massively Greek with much debt to Plato and traces of Gnosticism.  Paul’s occasionally ambivalent remarks about sexuality and marriage also have no counterpart in mainstream Judaism.

• Third is Pauline reinterpretation, one of the most radical in the history of religion, of the story of Adam and Eve and ‘the Fall’, and the consequent tragic view of the human condition.

There is no such interpretation of the passage in the Hebrew Bible.  According to Judaism we are not destined to sin.  In the very next chapter, before Cain murders his brother Abel, God reminds him of his essential freedom: ‘Sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you can dominate it‘ (Genesis 4:7).  The collective forgiveness of humankind occurs, in the Hebrew Bible, after the Flood.  ‘Never again,’ says God,  ‘will I curse the ground because of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood’ (Genesis 8:21).

The human tragedy as described by Paul is more Greek than Jewish, and as for the idea of inherited sin, it is already negated in the sixth pre-Christian century by both Jeremiah and Ezekiel.  Of course, in Christianity, tragedy is avoided by salvation; but salvation in this sense, the existential deliverance of the human person from the grip of sin, does not exist in Judaism.  We choose.  Sometimes we choose wrongly.  We atone (in biblical times through the Temple service, post-biblically by repentance) and God forgives.

• Fourth is the potential for the separation, unknown in Judaism, between ‘faith’ and ‘works’.

In Judaism the two go hand in hand.  Faithfulness is a matter of how you behave, not what you believe.  Believing and doing are part of a single continuum, and both are a measure of a living relationship characterised by loyalty.

In general one of the great differences between classical Greek and Hebraic thought is the immense emphasis in the latter on the will.  We are, in a Jewish view, what we choose to be, and it is in the realm of choice, decision and action that the religious drama takes place.  The Greek view emphasises far more than the role of fate and the futility of fighting against it.  Under its influence Christianity became more a religion of acceptance than protest — the characteristic stance of the Hebrew prophets.

• The fifth and most profound difference lies in the way the two traditions understood the key phrase in which God identifies himself to Moses at the burning bush.  ‘Who are you?’  asks Moses.  God replies, cryptically, Ehyer asher ehyeh.

 This was translated into Greek as ego eimi ho on,  and into Latin as ego sum qui sum, meaning ‘I am who I am’, or “I am he who is’.  The early and medieval Christian theologians all understood the phrase to be speaking about ontology, the metaphysical nature of God’s existence.  It meant that he was ‘Being-itself, timeless, immutable, incorporeal, understood as the subsisting act of all existing’.

Augustine defines God as that which does not change and cannot change.  Aquinas, continuing the same tradition, reads the Exodus formula as saying that God is ‘true being, that is being that is eternal, immutable, simple, self-sufficient, and the cause and principal of every creature’.

But this is the God of Aristotle and the philsophers, not the God of Abraham and the prophets.  Ehyeh asher ehyeh means none of these things.  It means ‘I will be what, where, or how I will be’.  The essential element of the phrase is the dimension omitted by all the early Christian translations, namely the future tense.  God is defining himself as the Lord of history who is about to intervene in an unprecedented way to liberate a group of slaves from the mightiest empire of the ancient world and lead them on a journey towards liberty.

Already in the eleventh century, reacting against neo-Aristotelianism that he saw creeping into Judaism, Judah Halevi made the point that God introduces himself at the beginning of the Ten Commandments not as God who created heaven and Earth, but by saying ‘I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.’

Far from being timeless and immutable, God in the Hebrew Bible is active, engaged, in constant dialogue with his people, urging, warning, challenging and forgiving.  When Malachi says in the name of God, ‘I the Lord do not change’ (Malachi 3:6), he is not speaking about his essence as pure being, the unmoved mover, but about his moral commitments.  God keeps his promises even when his children break theirs.  What does not change about God are the covenants he makes with Noah, Abraham and the Israelites at Sinai.

So remote is the God of pure being — the legacy of Plato and Aristotle — that the distance is bridge in Christianity by a figure that has no counterpart in Judaism, the Son of God, a person who is both human and divine.  In Judaism we are all both human and divine, dust of the Earth yet breathing God’s breath and bearing God’s image.

These are profoundly different theologies.   The unique synthesis of Athens and Jerusalem that became Christianity led to the discipline of theology and thus to the intellectual edifice of Western civilisation between the fourth and seventeenth centuries.  It was a wonderous achievement, a cathedral of the mind.  It brought together the Judaic love of God and the Hellenistic love of nature and human reason.

• There was the cosmological argument:  the universe must have a cause that is not itself caused.  Or the contingency of being must be rooted in necessary being.  Or the moving stars must have an unmoved mover.

• There was the ontological argument:  the most perfect being must necessarily exist since otherwise it would be imperfect.

• There was the argument from design.  as Cicero put it, ‘When you see a sundial or a water-clock, you see that it tells the time by design and not by chance.  How then can you imagine that the universe as a whole is devoid of purpose and intelligence, when it embraces everything, including these artifacts themselves and their artificers?’

• There is natural law.  Contemplation of nature tells us how to behave in such a way as to align ourselves with the order of the universe.  It leads us to cultivate virtue, pursue justice and have concern for the common good.

• And there is natural theology.  God’s purposes can be read in creation, for God wrote two books, one in words called the Bible, the other in works called the universe.  So wrote Hugh of St Victor in the twelfth century, as did Francis Bacon in the seventeenth, ushering in the age of science.   It was, to repeat, a wondrous creation — but it was as much Greek as Judaic.  The philosophical proofs for the existence of God derived ultimately from Plato and Aristotle.  Natural law came from the Stoics.  The idea that purposes are inherent in creation –that nature is teleological — was Aristotelian.  It combined left-brain rationality with right-brain spirituality in a single, glorious, overarching structure.

We may never see its like again.