Conference taveng::bagels

    I watched the program last night with my wife - very interesting
    and well presented.
    
    It focused on several synagogues in London, UK and the people who
    attended them. Also interesting to note that the person who holds
    the Torah for the people called up to read it is known as the "Warden"
    and he wears a top hat. If I remember the symbolism correctly, the
    person called to read the Torah represents Moses, the Congregation
    represents the People of Israel, and the Warden represents G_d.
    
    I hope nobody minds but it helps if I can relate what I'm learning
    about Judaism to what I'm already familiar with and that is the
    top hat the Warden in the British synagogue wore reminded me of
    the top hat the Master of a Masonic Lodge wears when in lodge (he
    is the only one BTW with his head covered).
    
    Mark 

RE: Note 780.0 ABE::STARIN 

>    a service at Temple Beth Abraham in Nashua, NH. What was most
>    interesting was the fact that Christianity "borrowed" the same concept
>    (without giving credit to Judaism) only they substituted the Church
>    for the Sabbath as the bride and Jesus as the bridegroom.
    
>    The more I learn about Judaism the more I find the influence of
>    Judaism - often, as mentioned above, without due credit.
    
Why did it seem to surprise you that Christianity has seemed to 
"borrow" some Jewish concepts? While the concept you mentioned 
doesn't seem to me be one of the basic tenets or better known
tenets of Christianity, at least not in Protestant Christianity,
(my faith) the concepts that Christianity has "borrowed" from
Judaism are too numerous for me to mention. 

Jesus was born a Jew, he obeyed the Jewish laws while he lived,
and he died as a Jew. Most of his earliest followers were Jews
and saw themselves as Jews following the Messiah. Obviously there
were many other Jews who didn't see him as the Messiah. His
followers soon set out to preach to Gentiles but there were some
followers who thought that only a Jew could be follower of Jesus.
Those followers of Jesus did not even call themselves Christians
for about four hundred years if I remember my history correctly. 

So, I don't think it's not so much "borrowing" 'without due
credit' as it is having some common heritage. 

Jim

    Re .2:
    
    Hi Jim:
    
    Well, yes and no. Although how much is certainly open to debate
    (but hopefully not flames), Judaism and Christianity, to a certain
    extent, share a "common" heritage. I forget which book of the Christian
    Bible makes the analogy between Jesus (the groom) and the church
    (the bride) but it is there and has been the subject of some sermons
    from Christian pulpits. I have doubts as to whether it was original
    thinking - I have to believe it was "lifted" or "borrowed", whatever.
    
    However, I think it is also fair to say that relatively few Christian
    churches give credit where credit is due regarding church practices
    that have Jewish roots. For example, I believe (and others are free
    to correct me of course) the concept of Baptism, insofar as it is
    considered a "cleansing", really has its origins in the Mikveh.
    Where the Christian Bible refers to a "faith without works as a
    dead faith" is pointing to the importance of Mitzvot. Yet, in general,
    Christianity regards these as "new" concepts and their origins in
    Judaism is obscured, whether on purpose or from neglect is open
    to discussion.
    
    I agree with you about Jesus being a Jew as well as his early
    followers.  However, the ascendancy of Pauline theology following
    the destruction of the second Temple effectively eliminated Jewish
    influence on early Christianity. Furthermore, we should understand
    that (and I realize I'm digressing here) Jews For Jesus as we know
    them today are *not* practicing Judaism. The early followers of
    Jesus - that's a different story perhaps.
    
    Just some thoughts.....
    
    Mark

RE: .3 

Yes the analogy between Jesus (the groom) and the church (the
bride) is somewhere in the New Testament and yes it has been a
subject of some sermons from the pulpit. The concept is there but
it is not a central tenet the Protestant Christian churches. 
Perhaps it is more important to Roman Catholics or Eastern 
Orthodox Catholics; I don't know. In any case, should there be a
footnote indicating where the concept was "borrowed" from? 


>    However, I think it is also fair to say that relatively few Christian
>    churches give credit where credit is due regarding church practices
>    that have Jewish roots. 

Sad but true to a certain extent. Those Christians which study
the entire Bible, not just the New Testament should understand
this. After all, when Christians read from the first five books
of what we call the Old Testament aren't they also reading from
portions of what you call the Torah? 


>    For example, I believe (and others are free
>    to correct me of course) the concept of Baptism, insofar as it is
>    considered a "cleansing", really has its origins in the Mikveh.
>    Where the Christian Bible refers to a "faith without works as a
>    dead faith" is pointing to the importance of Mitzvot. Yet, in general,
>    Christianity regards these as "new" concepts and their origins in
>    Judaism is obscured, whether on purpose or from neglect is open
>    to discussion.
    
In my all too infrequent religious studies, I don't think I
recall these necessarily being presented as "new" concepts. In
fact, on at least one occasion that I remember, and perhaps on
other occasions that I don't remember, there was a discussion of
baptism and the possible links to Jewish traditions. 

Unfortunately I don't know what Mikveh or Mitzvot mean. However,
as the words seem to have some correlation to the Christian
practices, is there a possibility that other religions from the
Middle East that predate Judaism also had similar practices? 
After all the rivers of the region were the live blood of the 
entire civilization. It would seem rather natural for immersion
in the rivers or annointing with the river waters to have
significant religious meaning. 

In other words, is it possible that Abraham and his followers upon
leaving Ur "borrowed" at least some religious beliefs from other
Sumerian or Mesopotamian religions? Not necessarily the ones you
itemized but some others. 

On the Bill Moyers series of programs with the religious
philosopher that recently died (I forget his name and the name of
the book he wrote "Myths & something or other?") the one thing
that really struck me were the simililarities of "some" of the
practices of the religions of the world, at least as he saw them.
It seems that, to a certain extent at least, there seem to be not
as many original ideas as we might have thought. Lots of them
seem to have been "borrowed" and without credit. 

Jim

    
    RE .1 (Mark)
    
    >It focused on several synagogues in London, UK and the people who
    >attended them. Also interesting to note that the person who holds
    >the Torah for the people called up to read it is known as the "Warden"
    >and he wears a top hat. If I remember the symbolism correctly, the
    >person called to read the Torah represents Moses, the Congregation
    >represents the People of Israel, and the Warden represents G_d.
    
    The "Warden" has no special symbolic meaning in the British Synagogue.
    A Synagogue usually has about 3 people serving in this position, and
    part of the 'job' is non-religous as it includes serving on the 'Board
    of Management'. The Board of Management is a council that is elected by
    members of the Synagogue for running the Synagogues affairs.
    There is no compulsion for a Warden to wear a top hat, but this is the
    custom in many of the old established Anglo-Synagogues. Today this
    tradition is less strong in many places. 
    
    The main responsibility in the Synagogue service or the Warden is in 
    giving "Aliyot" which are the honours one can receive when one is asked
    to read from the Torah or open the Ark. 
    
    Malcolm

    

The Mikva is a ceremonial bathing facility. There is no mistaking the close
connection between baptism and the customs of the mikva. In Judaism, the mikva
is used to achieve ritual purity. Its use is required for conversion to Judaism.
It is also used by Orthodox women following their monthly period.

A mitzva is commonly considered to be any good deed. However, the Jewish rabbis
of old identified 613 commandments in the Jewish bible which are called the
mitzvot (plural of mitzva). I don't know the list, but I believe the 1st one is
..be fruitful and multiply. Others include keeping the Sabbath, giving to the
poor, and ransoming the hostage.

Dave

Re .4:

>In any case, should there be a footnote indicating where the concept was
>"borrowed" from?

Well, some Christian Bibles have footnotes that point back to references in the
Hebrew Bible for a variety of reasons. Certainly, it wouldn't be all that hard
to include a reference to the Sabbath Bride especially with regard to the
particular passage we are referring to in this discussion.

>After all, when Christians read from the first five books of what we call the
>Old Testament aren't they also reading from portions of what you call the
>Torah?

Very true. The problem is many Christians regard them "only" as the first five
books of the Bible and have little or no idea that they constitute the Torah.
Again, it might not be a bad idea from the standpoint of promoting
Jewish-Christian understanding if churches took a little extra time to explain
the connection.

>In my all too infrequent religious studies, I don't think I
>recall these necessarily being presented as "new" concepts. In
>fact, on at least one occasion that I remember, and perhaps on
>other occasions that I don't remember, there was a discussion of
>baptism and the possible links to Jewish traditions.

Don't feel bad, Jim - I'm no Biblical scholar myself. I guess what I was
referring to was while some churches *have* taken the time to point to the
Jewish origins of many Christian rites, in my opinion, they've been the
exception and note the rule.

>Unfortunately I don't know what Mikveh or Mitzvot mean.
    
See 780.6. Dave explained it better than I could.
    
    >However, as the words seem to have some correlation to the Christian
    >practices, is there a possibility that other religions from the
    >Middle East that predate Judaism also had similar practices? After all
    >the rivers of the region were the live blood of the entire
    >civilization. It would seem rather natural for immersion in the rivers
    >or annointing with the river waters to have significant religious
    >meaning.
    
    Good questions. I'll leave it someone more learned than myself to answer
    them however!     

>In other words, is it possible that Abraham and his followers upon
>leaving Ur "borrowed" at least some religious beliefs from other
>Sumerian or Mesopotamian religions? Not necessarily the ones you
>itemized but some others. 

    See above response.
    
>On the Bill Moyers series of programs with the religious
>philosopher that recently died (I forget his name and the name of
>the book he wrote "Myths & something or other?") the one thing
>that really struck me were the simililarities of "some" of the
>practices of the religions of the world, at least as he saw them.
>It seems that, to a certain extent at least, there seem to be not
>as many original ideas as we might have thought. Lots of them
>seem to have been "borrowed" and without credit. 

    I think you're referring to Joseph Campbell and "The Power of Myth".
    Christianity apparently borrowed from other sources besides Judaism,
    according to Campbell. Two examples I think he used was the way Jesus's
    mother Mary was elevated to a quasi-deity status by Christian doctrine
    or the three days which, according to Christian doctrine, Jesus
    supposedly spent in Hell before his resurrection. Both of these had
    roots in myths and legends of the Middle East. Needless to say the
    church isn't too excited about anyone examining too closely any
    possible mythological roots of Christianity nor if a faith claims
    they are the one and true faith, as Christianity does, does that faith
    willingly acknowledge its roots in another faith if those roots
    contradict the message the one, true faith is trying to present.
    
    Re .5:
    
    Thanks Malcolm for that information. Much obliged.
    
    Mark
    
Jim

RE: .6 & .7 


RE: .6 

Thanks Dave for your explanation of Mikveh or Mitzvot. These
concepts seem close to some practiced in my faith as well as many
others, I imagine. 


RE: .7

>Well, some Christian Bibles have footnotes that point back to references in the
>Hebrew Bible for a variety of reasons. Certainly, it wouldn't be all that hard
>to include a reference to the Sabbath Bride especially with regard to the
>particular passage we are referring to in this discussion.

>The problem is many Christians regard them "only" as the first five
>books of the Bible and have little or no idea that they constitute the Torah.
>Again, it might not be a bad idea from the standpoint of promoting
>Jewish-Christian understanding if churches took a little extra time to explain
>the connection.


Study Bibles are the ones with all the footnotes. These are
usually about 3-4 times more expensive than normal Bibles.
Typically, normal Bibles don't contain much in the way of
footnotes. There are usually cross references to other related
passages but not to external books. People who use study Bibles
are doing so to learn more about the Bible and their faith. Those
individuals cannot fail to learn and understand the Jewish
connection. Perhaps not o the degree you'd like, but the 
connections are made. However, as I understand it, there are
Christian faiths (Roman Catholicism is one, I think; I may get
dumped on for this) in which reading and studying the Bible is
not very important, or hasn't been until recently. I agree that
the connection should made more often. After all if one doesn't
understand the roots of one's religion, it's easier to
misunderstand it. 

>    I think you're referring to Joseph Campbell and "The Power of Myth".
>    Christianity apparently borrowed from other sources besides Judaism,
>    according to Campbell. Two examples I think he used was the way Jesus's
>    mother Mary was elevated to a quasi-deity status by Christian doctrine
>    or the three days which, according to Christian doctrine, Jesus
>    supposedly spent in Hell before his resurrection. Both of these had
>    roots in myths and legends of the Middle East. Needless to say the
>    church isn't too excited about anyone examining too closely any
>    possible mythological roots of Christianity nor if a faith claims
>    they are the one and true faith, as Christianity does, does that faith
>    willingly acknowledge its roots in another faith if those roots
>    contradict the message the one, true faith is trying to present.
    

Yes, that's the one. Campbell wasn't the first to point out the
adaptive nature (how's that for making it a positive feature) of
Christianity. I have a book titled "A History of The Christian
Church" written in 1918 (nineteen eighteen) which states,
"Christianity entered no empty world. Its advent found men's
minds filled with conceptions of the universe, of religion, of
sin, and of rewards and punishments, with which it had to reckon
and to which it had to adjust itself. Christanity could not build
on virgin soil. The conceptions which it found already existing
formed much of the material with which it must erect its
structure. Many of these ideas are no longer those of the modern
world. The fact of this inevitable intermixture compels the
student (my parens; notice he said student, not just believer) to
distinguish the permanent from the transitory in Christian
thought, though the process is one of exceeding difficulty, and
the solutions given by various scholars are diverse." 

(BTW, for the most part, Protestant Christianity doesn't elevate
Mary to a quasi-deity status as practiced by Catholic
Christianity.) 


So, it seems to me that some of the mythological roots of
Christianity don't seem to bother Christians any more than do
other mythological roots (maybe even the same mythological roots
in the case of Adam & Eve, and Noah [that indicates that I'm not a
fundamentalist, right?]) bother followers of other religions. Nor
does it seem to bother Christians that the concept of angels and
satan were derived from Judaism, as shown in our Old Testament.
Who knows how many Christains or Jews might be bothered if they
understood that, according to the same book I quoted above, these
concepts were derived from a Persian religion (pre-Islam Persia
of course). 


Lets face it, in all religions, practitioners MUST take some
things on faith, right?
    
Jim

    Re .8:
    
    Hi Jim:
    
    The situation regarding the status of the Bible and its place in
    Roman Catholic worship is changing. It used to be, many moons ago,
    that all Catholics had was the Missal which was sort of the "official"
    version of the Bible and they were not encouraged to read anything
    else. I work part-time at a local TV station which tapes a Roman
    Catholic service every Saturday afternoon for re-broadcast on Sunday.
    The Bible has a significant place in the Catholic worship service, if that
    church is any example to go by, compared to years past.
    
    You're right about how Mary is generally viewed by Protestants. For the
    most part, she is regarded as an ordinary person who played a major
    role in a miraculous birth but who by no stretch of the imagination
    had assumed the status of a deity.
    
    You are also correct on Christianity's adaptation to the existing
    faiths of its early days. Out of necessity it had to "borrow" a
    little bit of this and a little bit of that; the purpose being to
    broaden its appeal. After all, if doctrine had Jesus saying, "Go
    into all the world....etc", then a message that didn't reach the
    greatest number of people or which the greatest number of people could
    not identify with meant the church would lose the "numbers" game
    which of course translated into worldly power. Judaism never had that
    problem because its emphasis was not on converting people - only on
    observing the Law. By observing the Law, the Jews would then be
    an example for the rest of mankind.
    
    Mark

Umm, folks, BAGELS is for discussion of Jewish and, by extension, Israeli
issues.

The nuances of Christian theology are perhaps better discussed in the
CHRISTIAN notesfile.

Martin.
co-moderator, BAGELS

    Re .10:
    
    Sorry about that. We edged into a gray area and perhaps then edged
    out of the gray area a little bit more than necessary.
    
    Thanks for mentioning it.
    
    Mark

RE: .10

Wow! We did get off on a tangent didn't we? Sorry 'bout that.

Jim

>Wow! We did get off on a tangent didn't we? Sorry 'bout that.

Well, it was interesting anyway!

BTW, to prevent misunderstanding (reported to me already), I assume
that Martin's comment (back a few) was NOT that Bagels is for Jews but that
it is for Jewish topics, rather than Christian theological discussions.

I wouldn't even bother to mention this except that I know someone who
interpreted the moderator's comment otherwise and felt hurt, so obviously
we all have to be very careful about how we express things.

-ZAITCH

re: .13:

>BTW, to prevent misunderstanding (reported to me already), I assume
>that Martin's comment (back a few) was NOT that Bagels is for Jews but that
>it is for Jewish topics, rather than Christian theological discussions.

Of course: thanks for the clarification.

>I wouldn't even bother to mention this except that I know someone who
>interpreted the moderator's comment otherwise and felt hurt, so obviously
>we all have to be very careful about how we express things.

Please accept my apologies.

Martin.