The Jewish people

Originally posted by Maju It's supposed that the main forums must be in English. You can exchange in Hebrew in the Non-English Board subforum.

Word, my bad.

Jews are just like other people: nobody's perfect either on the good or on the bad side (whatever would that mean).

Off topic: it's nice to see that when it comes to good things that sprang out it's Chritianity or Islam or whatever did that. As for bad things it's not the religion, it's the people (and vice versa - depends of who's posting). It's always the people, religion is nothing but a concept. The way we use it it's our fault.

Originally posted by Golani It is my believe that any exterme religious opinions are dangersous...

Ironically, their adherents are often more logical than the rest =)

I think the key, really, is humility in one's degree of belief regarding just about anything.

Unfortunately, this is not a widely popular trait.


Edited by Halevi

This is my take on Jews.

First, is there such a thing? Can a religion really be a people? If so, who are the Jews - how close is their connection to ancient Hebrews? And what was the ancient Hebrew culture - was the religion as canon as it is today, or was there a grey area with people falling somewhere in between it and the religions of neighbours like the Phoenicians and Phillistines of Byblos and Tyre? Records from both Greek and Roman sources seem to indicate that at that time, Jews didn't see themselves as a people, but as a collection of different groups united by a religious system. How did that change over time?

The one thing that is remarkable about Jewish culture is that it contains elements of some of humanity's earliest civilizations and earliest eras of history. It's fascinating that it has been passed down to the present day. Other than that fact, the other remarkable thing about Jewish culture is the degree to which it is perceived as remarkable. To me, its alot like other groups all over the world. It's had its historical trials and tribulations (many groups have had the same or worse, eg native americans or gypsies) and there's nothing exceptional about Jews there, it often has a nationalistic or revisionist view towards its own history (nothing unique at all there - we all do that), it tries to cast itself as unique (again, I think we all do that), it sometimes does itself a disservice by trying to defend its darker figures and disassociate itself from or defend its darker moments in history (yet again, something common to all cultures) etc etc. I think people are just people, everyone should be proud of their heritage and see it for the good things as well as the bad things, but not let pride go so far as to eclipse an open mind. When it comes down to it culture and history are fine, but often they are just something we put on: the only reality is the present, and we should never sacrifice it in the name of the past.

Originally posted by Halevi   That being said, intermarriage and the increasing acceptance of conversions (which were once laughable) are definitely blurring these ethnic boundaries, and making us an even more enigmatic people in this world still dominated by ethno-nation-state logic.

It's certainly making definition very difficult, but I think one of the main reasons the Jewish culture has persisted to the present day is the simple mechanics of matrilineal descent when everyone else uses paternal descent. It's pretty hard to assimilate a group when their genealogy works at such a tangent to that of the assimilator. If, say, native Americans were all going by matrilineal descent, places like Mexico or even the US might seem quite different today! Judaism has probably been through at least limited episodes of this sort of mingling before and I strongly doubt it alone could impact much on its future.

Also, as surprising as it sounds, the intermingling of racial groups might have alot less impact than one might suspect. Genetic surveys of the British population, for instance, have produced alot of extremely surprising results. One would think that any traces of the original inhabitants would be all but obliterated, but genetic tests on Cheddar Man - a 9000 year old Stone Age skeleton - showed a number of his direct descendants were living in the immediate location, as in the closest village to the site, as indicated by mitochondrial DNA (passed only on the female side). One was a descendant with a close match and therefore a direct line of descent but obviously some external influences, but two were exact matches meaning little or no foreign influence on their mitochondrial DNA, this out of a sample of only 20 persons in the immediate vicinity, in a country historically famous as a genetic crossroads. 9000 years! Strange, no? It definately gives a new perspective on everyone's link with their past, if such a strong connection can exist in those conditions.

As for conversions, they can't have always been laughable. At some point, Judaism must have been - and forgive the term, I don't mean it any offensive manner - a new cult, vying for acceptance against (or possibly superimposed upon) established belief systems. Every member of any religion is ultimately the product of conversion somewhere along the line.

Edited by edgewaters

Originally posted by edgewaters Originally posted by Halevi   That being said, intermarriage and the increasing acceptance of conversions (which were once laughable) are definitely blurring these ethnic boundaries, and making us an even more enigmatic people in this world still dominated by ethno-nation-state logic. It's certainly making definition very difficult, but I think one of the main reasons the Jewish culture has persisted to the present day is the simple mechanics of matrilineal descent when everyone else uses paternal descent.

Totally.  Its a culturally adaptive trait, if you will ; )

That being said, until the modern era, it was relatively rare for a non-jewish man to marry a jewish woman, and then raise their kids as distinctly 'jewish'. The matrilinean descent thing is more a cultural protection against rape. Now things are totally different of course, and even 'half' jewish kids are considered jewish, and the ethnic makeup of the jewish 'people' has become even more diverse, leading some to mistakenly assume there was never any ethnic basis, and that its all just religion. Which is so simplistic its just wrong.

Originally posted by Halevi   As for conversions, they can't have always been laughable. At some point, Judaism must have been - and forgive the term, I don't mean it any offensive manner - a new cult, vying for acceptance against (or possibly superimposed upon) established belief systems. Every member of any religion is ultimately the product of conversion somewhere along the line.

Zero offence taken. I think youre right about the cult thing. Its just that this particular cult was only developed among a certiain number of close knit tribes, and was never meant to apply to anyone else. So, the doors closed pretty quickly, so to speak.

Originally posted by Maju I think that the non-proselitistic attitude of Judaism has never been monolithic: not just Christianism is a particularly proselitist version of Judaism but some scholars like Barbara Herschell argue that this attitude was rooted in the practices of some Judaist subsects like Essenians, of which Christianism is just an offshot. Apparently Essenians justified proselitzing among Gentiles for economic reasons, leaving always these Gentiles in the lowest strata of the socio-religious organization. This practice was called "fishing" (hence why the apostles wee "fishermen" and the esotheric symbol of Xtianity is a fish). Jesus and Paul in this sense were total revilutionaries because they accepted egalitariant treatment for Jews and Gentiles. But Judaist Proselytism has existed also in at least two other clear cases: In the Read Sea area: Falashas for instance are not related genetically to Jews yet they are Judaists since old. This proselytism may have been active in other communities such as Arabs Among the Khazars: the Khazars are a whole Turkic nation that converted en masse to Judaism. Even it seem that they initiated a second Levitic lineage. So Judaism hasn't been a closed religion always and in all contexts. In fact Christianity is the main proselytistc and messianic Judaist subsect, having had an incredible success - though it's now in decline.

Jewish history tells these stories differently, but i dont this its proveable either way. All i can say is the logic of the religion is against conversion to begin with... it makes no sense, talmudically. This is why it is so difficult for 'jewish converts' to be recognized by an orthodox rabbi, or the orthodox (original, unwesterninzed) branches of Judaism to begin with. Its just a totally foreign concept to Judaism as it has been practiced since the ancient Talumdic times.

Ethiopian, and other, Jews tell themselves that the Falasha are descendants of Queen Sheba + King Solomon's offspring, and thus they claimed Solomonic lineage, and decided to practice a form of Judaism to honour their paternal Jewish heritage. 

Since their lineage is not, originally, maternal, it took quite a bit of convincing for the orthodox establishments in Israel to accept that the Ethiopian "Falasha" / "Falashmura" were even really 'Jewish'... in the end, the politics of demographics won over, and they were granted the right of return according to the laws of the Israeli state.

The Khazars, we jews tell ourselves, converted themselves enmasse for political reasons, and constitute the only such case in all of history. I dont know if there were even accepted as 'Jews' by the ethnic-Hebrew orthodox establishment. They're exinct, anyway (unless they blended in to already existing Slavic/Caucasus Jewish diasporic communities, in which case i am a Khazar hahaha)

I dont know how accurate any of this really is, but these are the narratives we Jews tell ourselves. The idea of conversion is really anethema to the very concept of the religion, and proselytization is just a joke to us. Its hard for non-Jews to understand this, because we simply consitute one of the only examples of such a thing.  Like i said elsewhere, its really like a fancy country club that closed its doors to new members the day it opened. The only way you can get in is if your Mom's a member. (The Druze, by the way, are quite similar in this regard).







Edited by Halevi

Originally posted by Halevi Its just that this particular cult was only developed among a certiain number of close knit tribes, and was never meant to apply to anyone else. So, the doors closed pretty quickly, so to speak.

Yes, to some degree ... the thing is that they didn't stay shut. Through the Hellenic period there were waves of apostacy followed by waves of proselytism in an effort to restore the religion to the geographic area - without much consideration of heritage in any of the original tribes really being possible, since those divisions had, under Hellenistic influence, largely been forgotten and there was no real way to tell if a Semitic individual in large and very Hellenized sites like Caesarea, where groups like the Zealots were active, had any Hebrew blood or if he descended from the Phoenician natives of that particular area. So, all Semitic inhabitants of the area were considered potential apostates and therefore potential converts.

Hellenic rulers, of course, encouraged apostacy and/or syncretic interpretations of the religion, and fought against the attempts to restore it by what can only be deemed proselytism of a limited sort. One of the first acts of Constantine and the Council of Nice was to declare a ban on Jewish proselytism.

Edited by edgewaters

The Hellenic period in Israel is a vast and controversial topic ... hardly a scholarly source, but you might find this interesting:

Hellenization of Judaism

or this:

Hanukkah as Jewish Civil War

The problem with most attempts at understanding this period is that they are really distorted to two extremes - the one extreme, the national myth, tries to invent the notion that the Jews were all united in opposing Hellenization and the commoners stood up and threw off an oppressor (when many Jews actually liked and participated in Hellenization, much like many cultures today struggle with Westernization). It minimizes the terror that radicals like the Sicarrii inflicted on other Jews who they felt weren't Jewish enough, and dismisses the conflicts within Jewish society over the crisis.

The other extreme is also a national myth, but one that echoes from a dead civilization - it minimizes the terrible suffering of the Jews at the hands of the Hellenized rulers and Romans, and the deliberate attempts at destruction of their culture, which was alot like an ancient version of the worst excesses of the British Empire whether it be in Ireland or North America or India. Much worse, really. It portrays the Greeks and Romans the way they would have liked to be portrayed, as helpful civilizers dealing with a hysterical or barbaric population that irrationally resisted them. So subjective, and false. It completely ignores so much. Many among the Greeks and Romans admired Judaism and a great deal about it, and much of the hostility stems from their frustration at its inaccesibility to them - when offered an accessible offshoot, namely Christianity, it was massively popular, irresistable even, to their society. It's interesting to see in Greek writings how they go from writing about the Jews first as an over-idealized utopian nation of philosophers, but gradually become frustrated and begin to describe them as being "in revolt against humanity" or the descendants of lepers.

Both sides have plenty to say, you just have to sidestep their agendas to get at it.

Edited by edgewaters

Originally posted by Gyadu My question is regarding racism/colourism in Judaism/Israel. I'm asking this question due to the following reasons. 1}Most of the Indian {Indian looking} Jews have emigrated to Israel.Saw a program about them.They still eat  Indian food,listen Indian music. 2}Years ago heard a  program on BBC radio.One of the clips was about Blood of Ethiopian {Black Jews}.The blood they had donated was spilt without checking because Ethiopian Jews were reported to have a higher rate of AIDS. 3}Learnt on AE that there are Chinese Jews too.Used my power of dreaming to assume they look Chinese {on an average}. http://www.ocioa.org/chinese/Advisory_Board/Jew.jpg Is Dr.Harry S Jew a Jew?

HAHAHAHAHHA i doubt it.    I have a good friend from high school, actually, who is Cantonese. His last name is 'Jue' ... we had a whole slew of immature jokes surrounding this theme. Its a coincidence.   Depending on the tone, in Cantonese, 'Jue' can actually mean pork... or banana.