Conference taveng::bagels

>   ... Judaism disturbs me in a different sense, because, whereas
> the others became Christians when we worked hard on them, the Jews
> stuck to an anti-Christian position.

We have been hearing this for about 1800 years. You'd think that by this
time someone would have got the message.

Dave

It's interesting how he differentiates between being opposed to Jews
(anti-Semitic) and opposed to Judaism ("anti-Judaist"), but he says
that Jews who don't convert to Christianity are "anti-Christian."

Why, some of my best friends are Christians!

The article says that some of Strugnell's colleagues attribute his
pronouncements to his ill health, but it quotes another as saying that
his ill health may have reduced his inhibitions rather than changed
his beliefs (he's always been an anti-Semite, but he's been discreet
about it).

    As an editor of the Dead Sea Scrolls, what impact have his anti-Jewish
    beliefs had on his work on the scrolls?
    

I had heard three years ago (from a Junior Fellow at Harvard, who was teaching
a course I took at Harvard Hillel on "How Judaism became the Religion of the 
Jews") that Strugnell was very slow in publishing the texts, and that he was
also very reluctant to grant access to the unpublished texts to researchers
not in his group.  He (the Junior Fellow, whose name I don't recall) said
that the community of researchers was quite cross about this, though he did
not suggest that Strugnell was motivated by anti-Judaism (presumably Strugnell
was "well" enough to hide his attitudes). Maybe his remarks (without which
he may not have been as easily fired) will inadvertantly be a help to those
trying to study the dead-sea scrolls.

I wonder whether Strugnell (who, from his comments, must be an extremely
dogmatic and intolerant Christian) was motivated by not liking what some of the
scrolls were saying about the early stages of Christianity.

    re: .4
    
    Louis,
    
    I think you touched on something VERY important in the last paragraph
    of .4.
    
    It is deeply disturbing to me that a number of Christians firstly don't
    understand their roots and secondly (as a "natural" progression) adopt
    a spirit of anti-semitism - believing that's somehow glorifying to G-d.
    
    It is *not* glorifying to G-d to hate anyone, let alone His chosen
    people, and I'd like to stress that a growing number of Christians
    refuse to share this anti-semitic world view.
    
    Steve

I heard an interview with the author of the Ha'aretz article,
in which he was questioned about the general reaction in 
Israel to the comments. Basically, Israelis are saying, "so
what else is new?"

Jem

re: .6:
    Basically, Israelis are saying, "so what else is new?"

Which reminds me of a Sholom Alechim story:

It seems that in the villiage, there was a know-it-all Jew named Berel
Isaacs who always had the news from foreign places (like Kiev) before
anyone.  So, whenever one Jew related something to another, the second
would answer "So I heard from Berel Isaacs."

On Easter Sunday, a Jew was walking about when a Christian, who had
newly moved to the villiage and didn't recognize the Jew, was returning
from church services.  As Christians do on Easter Sunday, he greeted
the other with "Christ is Risen!"

What could the Jew do?  He couldn't answer with the traditional "Lo, He
is Risen" -- that would be blasphemy.  Any other answer would get him
a beating.

So, he answered the only way he know how: "So I heard from Berel Isaacs."

re .6 ("so what else is new?"):

I'm (almost) never surprised by anti-Semitism, but I was surprised at the
form that Strugnell's anti-Semitism took.  He sounded more like a redneck
fundamentalist preacher than a Harvard Divinity School professor.  I'm not
saying that genteel anti-Semites are better than crude ones -- they're
probably worse, because they attract more followers.

Re: .8

> I'm not
>saying that genteel anti-Semites are better than crude ones 

I've met Brooklynites who have all but eradicated any verbal sign of
their noble geographical origins -- under normal circumstances.
But catch them when they're slightly edgy... dey stawt tawkin'
like dey yoosta - wen dey wah kids. (This is not true of Bronxites,
of course. :-)

It's almost impossible for a Jew-hater to maintain a fraudulent 
air of sophistication in perpetuity. It may work for a very long
time, but at some point, the true colors of necessity emerge. This
includes, of course, those "truth-seekers" who gleefully hide behind 
the now-popular cloak of "anti-Zionism." In the course of many
conversations, they will invariably slip in a comment about the
"Elders of Zion," or inadvertently quote a passage from "Mein
Kampf." 

Jem

    The Globe had a follow-up article on Strugnell today.  It quotes various
scholars on whether there's an anti-Jewish bias in Biblical scholarship.
Here are some interesting excerpts:

    Paula Fredrikson, a professor of religion at Boston University, said,
"There is low-grade anti-Semitism sort of endemic in the academic study
of Christianity.  Comparisons are always drawn between Christianity and
Judaism that make Judaism look bad.  This passes as academic analysis,
but it is not.  What it's about is an identity confirmation on the part
of a Christian discipline.
    "What's surprising to me is that people are surprised" at Strugnell's
remarks.

    A half-dozen of Strugnell's colleagues said he had long had a drinking
problem and described him as a longtime manic depressive in the throes of
a breakdown.  Others said his deteriorating physical health has become
complicated by gangrene in his legs.

      I must say something in reply to .8 saying that an anti-Semite sounds
    like a fundamentalist.  
    
    I am not a fundamentalist but I must correct .8.
    
    Every fundamentalist I know will tell you that the Jews are the chosen
    people of God.  Most of them support with money the Israeli government.
    So please do not classify them as anti-Semite.
    
    
                                 Marshall

    Marshall, I think you misunderstood .8
    
    FWIW,
    
    Steve

re .11:

>    Every fundamentalist I know will tell you that the Jews are the chosen
>    people of God.                                          ???

I dont mean to start an inter-faith war, but I've heard various TV type 
fundamentalists claim that the Jews WERE the chosen people, until we rejected
Jesus.

I've also heard TV preachers (they're great fun to watch - esp when there is 
nothing else on Sunday night) claim that the Jews AREN'T the chosen people -
Israel is.  And when Jesus came, the title Israel fell onto his followers.

One preacher even went further than that:  He went thru a detailed overview of
Tanach - how the Israelite kingdom was split after the death of Solomon in two:
Israel in the north and Judea in the south.  Modern day Jews descendants of 
Judea - NOT Israel (i.e. they are NOT descendants of the chosen people).  He
then went on to claim (this without any proof) that after the destruction of 
the Northern kingdom, the tribe of Reuben setteled in Nothern Europe and 
Britian.  Therefore White Anglo-Saxon Protestants are descendants of Israel 
and are THE Chosen People (or at least part of it).

(maybe the Queen is Jewish?)


				Louuuuuuuuuuuuu

Re: .13

>I dont mean to start an inter-faith war, but I've heard various TV type 
>fundamentalists claim that the Jews WERE the chosen people, until we rejected
>Jesus.

Most fundamentalist (Protestant) denominations I know of are indeed strongly 
pro-Israel (not-so-hidden agendas notwithstanding). The Vatican, on the other
hand, has always maintained that Christians (Catholics?) have replaced the
Jews as the "Chosen People." The booklet "Pathways to the Torah" quotes
the Vatican newspaper "Osservatore Roman" which in 1919 published Pope Pious 
X's position on Zionism:
	
	"Jewish dispersion is the divine will and they will not return to
	the land of Israel until after they convert."

Pope Pious' theological anti-Zionism (he called it "the Zionist illusion"
in his conversation with Herzl) is, of course, maintained to this day by
the Vatican. Israel is a serious philosophical thorn in the Church's side,
which explains the sudden staunch support by the present Pope of "Palestinian
rights," a code-phrase for the destruction of Israel. Only when the Jewish
state is razed will the Pontificator be able to rest easily.

Jem 

re:  .-1

>Pope Pious' theological anti-Zionism (he called it "the Zionist illusion"
>in his conversation with Herzl) is, of course, maintained to this day by
>the Vatican. Israel is a serious philosophical thorn in the Church's side,
>which explains the sudden staunch support by the present Pope of "Palestinian
>rights," a code-phrase for the destruction of Israel. Only when the Jewish
>state is razed will the Pontificator be able to rest easily.


	The current Pope's "Christmas" message dealt a little with the
	Middle East.  I don't have a written text - I only heard it read.
	(I hope it will be in this week's Jerusalem Post or Jerusalem
	Report).  But the phrase:  " .... I wish granting of legitimate
	rights for the Palestinian people, and peace for the other inhabitants
	of the region" really stuck in my mind.

	Two words this Pontiff apparently has trouble saying: "Jew", and
	"Israel".

don

    I'm not an authority on this but it seems to me that I've seen
    various Christian stands. The following aren't complete but are among
    the views I've encountered.
    
    Jews as G-d's chosen:
    
    - All Christians would assert that the Jews were G-d's chosen people.
    - Some Christians would say that the Jews are still G-d's chosen
    people.
    - Some Christians would say that the Jews are still G-d's chosen people
    but that Christians were "grafted" into the tree.
    - Some Christians would say that the Jews "lost" their status as
    "chosen" and that now the Christians are chosen.
    
    
    Support for the state of Israel:
    
    	- some Christians say; Jews = G-d's chosen people, Israel = Jews,
    therefore Israel is G-d's chosen state and should be supported in all
    circumstances.
    	- some Christians say; Jews = G-d's chosen people, but Jews are
    distinct from the actions of a secular state, so support for Israel
    depends upon the state's actions, ie conditional support.
    	- some Christians say; Jews <> G-d's chosen people, therefore
    Israel is a state like any other and should be supported no more or no
    less (for religious reasons) than any other state.
    
                                   

    According to yesterday's Globe, Strugnell has been removed from the
    Dead Sea scrolls project.

    re: the pope...
    
    So much for papal "infalability"  ;-)
    
    Jem - this is what I've been saying all along...the pope does NOT speak
    for all Christians.  Most if not all institutionalized Christianity
    isn't remotely similar to Y'Shua's teachings.  If nothing else, I just
    want to stress again the fact that the pope does NOT speak for all
    Christians.
    
    re:  the "replacement" theory
    
    Unfounded - totally unfounded.  This isn't to say that it's not
    preached from many a "Christian" pulpit, but there has never been, nor
    will there ever be a replacement group of chosen people.  G-d made the
    choice - He made it forever - that's it.
    
    A few replies ago someone (sorry, didn't write your name down...)
    mentioned the differing Christian views, including the "grafting in". 
    This is the one I personally subscribe to but I'll spare the details.
    
    Suffice it to say, G-d *chose* Israel and the Jews *are* (have been and
    continue to be) G-d's chosen people.
    
    Finally, while I naturally believe my faith to be true (otherwise I
    wouldn't believe it), I have no hidden/not-so-hidden agenda.  I want to
    stress that so that you can understand that I *sincerely* hold that
    there is no room in Christianity for anti-Semitism/Jew hatred -
    whether overt or covert...it is not and never should have been
    considered a "part" of Christianity.
    
    Trying to be clear,
    
    Steve
  

.18>                                                 ...the pope does NOT speak
.18>    for all Christians ...
.18>
.18>                                                                  I want to
.18>    stress that so that you can understand that I *sincerely* hold that
.18>    there is no room in Christianity for anti-Semitism/Jew hatred -
.18>    whether overt or covert...it is not and never should have been
.18>    considered a "part" of Christianity.

We appreciate that.  But the fact is that many more Christians recognize the
Pope's authority in such matters than yours.  Given the number of Roman
Catholics in the world, we have to treat the Vatican's attitudes towards us as
being representative of Christians in general.

I understand your view of Christianity and anti-Semitism, but I hope that you
understand mine.

    Eric,
    
    I am trying to understand your perception here, and I believe (if I
    understand it correctly) it's flawed for a couple of reasons.
    
    I think you stated (roughly) that you perceive that the pope speaks for
    christianity in general.  Here's why I disagree with you:
    
    First of all, there are more "protestant" variety christians than there
    are roman catholics (though the RC denomination is the largest single
    denomination).
    
    Secondly, I grew up as a RC and can tell you that not all RCs even
    understand, let alone agree with everything the pope has uttered.
    Even for those he is supposed to speak for - he doesn't!
    
    I am quite sure that the larger percentage of christians agree with me
    that the pope does not speak for them.
    
    Are christians anti-semites?  Some are - yes.  Too large a number -
    yes.   If *one* person claiming to be a christian harbors anti-semitism,
    that is one too many.  I've stressed over and over again that I am
    deeply grieved by and sorry for the things done to Jews in the name of
    "christianity" over the centuries....I will do everything I possibly
    can to prevent those things from ever happening again...that starts
    with a personal commitment to study my faith and understand what
    *really* transpired long ago - not what "scholars" say happened.  And
    in keeping with my own personal commitment, I want desperately to share
    the *facts* with you that the pope does NOT speak for christianity in
    general by any stretch - the majority of christians will tell you
    the same.
    
    On a personal level, as far as I'm concerned - you can disregard the
    vast majority of what the pope says as it usually has nothing to do
    with true christianity or Y'Shua at all.
    
    
    Sincerely,
    
    Steve
    

    
    Re: .20
    
    I think what Eric might have meant was that there are a great number 
    of anti-Semites in the Christian world, irrespective of their
    particular denominations. Obviously, there are notable exceptions, 
    but *over-all*, I don't know that there is less grass-roots Jew-hatred
    today than there was say, 1000 years ago. Like it or not, the Christian
    Bible contains many passages which have been used for many centuries
    to incite just such hatred (Acts 2:36, Thess. 2:15, Titus 1:16, Rev.
    2:9). A scholar may have the ability to reinterpret these depictions
    of Jews as Christ-killers and abominable hypocrites, but to the average
    reader, the message seems quite clear. Even without such hateful
    tracts, differing religious and ethnic groups are naturally distrustful
    of one another - how much more so when the holy text of one group
    states clearly that the other group killed their Diety! So, by default, 
    most *average* Bible-reading Christians are likely to have anti-Jewish 
    sentiments, although many may educate themselves and become no less
    than sincere philo-Semites.
    
    But even among those who fall in the latter category, a substantial
    portion are fundamentalists, who view themselves as lacking if they
    fail to missionize among the Jews. So that, on the one hand, they
    may recognize the "choseness" of the Jewish people, and strongly 
    support the State of Israel, but at the same time desire (and endeavor)
    to see every Jew accept Jesus as the Messiah and Diety. Obviously, this
    position is equally (more!) unacceptable to those whose ancestors suffered 
    voluntary Auto-da-Fes and their equivilent in so many of the past 19 
    centuries rather than discard the faith of their fathers. 
    
    >			as far as I'm concerned - you can disregard the
    >vast majority of what the pope says as it usually has nothing to do
    >with true christianity
    
    Whether this is true or not, I don't believe a Jewish conference is
    an appropriate place to debate intra-Christian theological issues.
    
    Jem  

    I would like to introduce a twist to this argument.  First,
    Christian teaching in general and Catholic teaching in particular have
    preached anti-Semitism throughout the twenty centuries of the church's
    existence.  Only recently has that trend begun to change, notably in
    the last twenty years, after the Second Vatican Conference.  However,
    attitudes tend to require more than simple pronouncements before
    they are meaningfully altered.
    
    I am a former Catholic taking instruction in Judaism preparatory
    to returning to the ancient faith.  My ancestors were Spanish Jews
    forcibly converted to Christianity under the autos de f� to which
    the last note-writer referred.  While not a Catholic-hater, I can
    quite easily recall discussions in which the Jews were detested
    for being a deicidal nation.  While the Church no longer teaches
    such nonsense (as per the encyclical "Nostra Aetete (sp?)"), it
    appears that the attitudes of the faithful will require a much-longer
    time to change.
    
    Just a note.
    
    
    Ram�n Salas
    were 

    Re: .22
    
    >However,
    >    attitudes tend to require more than simple pronouncements before
    >    they are meaningfully altered.
    
    You've hit the proverbial nail squarely on its head.
    
    I'm fascinated as to how you discovered your Spanish-Jewish roots.
    Perhaps you could start a new note on this. Anyway, welcome home!
    
    Jem
    
    
    
    
    

    Maybe this is old news, but...
    
    According to a Radio Netherlands broadcast, it's been
    decided that some (or most) currently known information
    about the Dead Sea Scrolls will be released for publication.
    
    Until recently (?) access by researchers to Scroll materials
    was highly restricted. RN implied that a Rockefeller-
    sponsored foundation had acquired control over the Scrolls
    decades ago. [I had heard that an Israeli organization did.]
    
    RN said that the decision to publicize the Scrolls now
    stems partly from recent unauthorized leaks of Scroll
    information by researchers at Huntington Institute
    (College?) in California (?).
    
    RN said that a few researchers feel that some information
    from the Scrolls could be disturbing to various established
    religions. RN added that other authorities deny this.
    
    RN said a Netherlands publishing house has arranged to
    publish the (or an) official version of Scroll contents
    and/or interpretation.

    This is great news. Count me in. I saw a special on the discovery
    channel that really scratched my interest. I don't care how disturbing
    the scrolls are, the truth does not always fit in with man preconceived
    notions of rationality.
    
    From what I recall from the Discovery special:
    
    1) There is a controversy concerning whether the wicked priest is
    actually Jesus. The only argument against it relies on the handwriting
    style. Proponents claim that this dating method is not accurate and
    that all other comparisons are consistent.
    
    2) Jesus was born of a virgin. A virgin was a social status reserved
    for women who married priests.
    
    3) Jesus drank poison while on the cross, which is why he "died" after
    only several hours instead of the usual days or weeks.
    
    4) Jesus and the other heretics ( thieves were not crucified ) were
    removed from the crosses in observance of the sabbath. Usually their
    legs were broken to prevent their escape, but the guards thought Jesus
    was dead.
    
    5) The apostles nursed Jesus back to health in the tomb.
    
    6) Apparently, the biggest thing to come out of the dead sea scrolls
    was valuable insight into how the language was used in those days.
    The researcher said that her theories are consistent with the language
    in the bible once the language usage is taken into account.
    
    Does anyone have any pointers to some books I could read on the
    subject? Thanks,
    						John.

The following book, which I've just read, addresses much of what this topic
is about (from its contents, not its title).

I recommend that anyone interested in the relationship between Jews and
Christians read Hans K�ng's newest book, "Judaism: Between Yesterday and
Tomorrow".  It's an expensive book, so borrow it from your town library.
Just published, it is to be followed by companion volumes on Christianity
and Islam in order to cover the three religions of the Abrahamic ecumene.

As for the info in .-1; that sounds like the program was based primarily
on a book entitled "The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception", written by an author
whose other writings show that he has a bone to pick with Christianity.

/john

re .25:

>                                   A virgin was a social status reserved
>    for women who married priests.

Not quite.  Only the high priest (kohen gadol) was restricted to marrying
a virgin.  Other kohanim were allowed to marry either a widow or a virgin
(no divorcees).  Presumably there were more virgins than kohanim, so many
non-kohanim married virgins.

    As I said, the program I saw only scratched the surface. As far as
    having a bone to pick with christianity is concerned, I would say that
    the only one I have would be against the people who have been stalling
    the release of the scrolls for so long.
    							John.

	RE: .25

�    Does anyone have any pointers to some books I could read on the
�    subject? Thanks,

	One of the best, and most readable, books I've seen is "The Dead Sea
Scrolls and the Bible", by Charles F. Pfeiffer.  I'm not sure if it's still in
print; my copy is dated 1969, and is published by Weathervane Books in New York.

	It is concise (just under 150 pages), and definitely *not* geared only
for archeologists, or linguists, or literary critics.  It covers the discovery
of the scrolls, the background of the Qumran community, dating the scrolls,
the historical background of the time, and then goes into the scrolls them-
selves (in terms of translation, textual critcism, integrity, etc.).  There are
about 20 illustrations as well.

	As to the Discovery special, I cannot comment directly, since I didn't
see it, but I would tend to agree with .26 in that it sounds like something a
bogus "scholar" like Hugh Schonfeld or Lloyd Larson would write.  I am only
judging, of course, based on your recollections, but I'm including topics of
a historical, as well as religious, nature.  For example:

�    4) Jesus and the other heretics ( thieves were not crucified ) were

	The standard Roman method of execution at the time was the gibbet.  It
would not be surprising to see someone who had been caught shoplifting a
tomato crucified next to a mass murderer.  In fact, Rome *had* not jurisdiction
over the people's religious beliefs.  According to history, when Jesus was
brought before Pilate, Pilate told the people to take him to Herod, since he
had commited no crime against Rome.  (Interestingly enough, it was only the
*Romans* who could carry out the sentence of crucifixion...  I'm not sure I can
balance those two things  --  using Romand law to crucify a man already declared
"not guilty" of breaking any Roman law...)

�    Usually their
�    legs were broken to prevent their escape, but the guards thought Jesus
�    was dead.

	No one "escaped" crucifixion.  Between the battering that often took
place prior to a crucifixion, and the incredible trauma of being crucified, it
is hardly thinkable that one would "run away".  Rather, the legs were broken to
hasten death by asphyxiation.  As one hangs suspended by the arms (whether 
nailed to a cross or not), the diaphragm constricts, and makes breathing harder
and harder.  (Try it some time.)  The only relief for a crucifixion victim was
to periodically take some of the weight off of his arms by pushing up with his
legs and "standing" rather than "hanging".  By breaking the legs, this relief
was no longer possible, and the victim quickly died of asphyxiation.

�    3) Jesus drank poison while on the cross, which is why he "died" after
�    only several hours instead of the usual days or weeks.

	Not sure of the historical basis for this, either.  I don't recall
reading in *any* historical account that Jesus -- or, for that matter, *any*
other crucifixion victim -- was given poison.  It was not uncommon to have a
concoction of vinegar and gall, a very bitter mixture, available to revive
victims who were dying "too quickly".  The Roman guards would sometimes make a
show that they were actually being "humanitarian" by offering liquid for the
parched throats of their victims, while offering them something totally un-
palatable.  However, I've never known vinegar to be poisonous.

	Sounds like the researcher should have done a little more homework,
particularly on the Roman customs of the day.

	F

    I just finished reading a recent book on the dead sea scrolls. It is
    entitled, "The dead sea scrolls deception" by Michael Baigent & Richard
    Leigh. It raises some very curious assertions.

    1) That the "international team" was primarily secular and the Ecole
    Biblique in Jerusalem they operated from was overseen by the vatican
    and in particular the grand inquisitor. ( Yes, the vatican still has a
    grand inquisitor to control heresy ).

    2) Large amounts of the scrolls have not been published even after 40
    years.

    3) They offer an alternative interpretation of the scrolls that
    connects them directly with James, Paul, and Ananas. In this
    interpretation:

    	James ( the brother of Jesus ) is the teacher of righteousness.
    	Paul ( the founder of the christian church ) is the liar.
    	Ananas ( high jewish priest of jerusalem ) is the wicked priest.

    They say that alot of the correlation comes from within ACTS in the new
    testament. This means that a great deal of the scrolls come from a
    period immediately after the death of Jesus. The essenes in their
    interpretation are indistinguishable from the zealots. There were three
    primary factors in Jerusalem at the time:

    	1) The Romans.
    	2) The Temple.
    	3) The Zealots.

    The Zealots were a jewish fundamentalist sect that was claiming true
    inheritance to the Temple in Jerusalem. The temple at that time was
    being controlled by priests who worked in collusion with the Romans.
    The Zealots ( and essenes ) were seeking to overthrow Rome and the
    wicked priest Ananas. Saul ( who later became Paul ) was converted to
    the zealot fundamentalism and was sent abroad to seek help in
    overthrowing the Romans. He did not preach the strict adherence to Law
    that the Zealots preached. Thus he was rejected by the Zealots and in
    particular James. Paul was later taken into protective custody by the
    Romans when it was clear his life was in danger.

    Shortly after, the Romans Killed James. The Zealots responded by
    Killing Ananas and staging a full fledged rebellion. This rebellion
    took many Roman legions to suppress and was culminated in events such
    as Masada were cornered and surrounded Zealots committed mass suicide.

    							John.
    

Baigent & Leigh are not considered to have a clue about anything; all their
writings are violently antireligous.