Archive for the ‘Current Events’ Category
Even though the Israeli celebration of Independence Day, based on the Hebrew calendar (Iyyar 5) was celebrated this year on April 19th, there is something profound about May 14 on the Gregorian Calendar that really acts as a marker of great events of the last century.
Just to think, on this very date, in 1948 these great and momentous things happened. One very interesting fact is that if you follow an “observed” Jewish calendar for 1948 and don’t add the 13th month that year, it moves everything one month back–that is “Adar II becomes Nisan, Nisan becomes Iyyar, and Iyyar becomes SIVAN–which makes the establishment of the State of Israel fall on Sivan the 5th, the evening of Shavuot or Pentecost. That would mean the establishment of the State of Israel in some way echoes the Standing At Sinai in the days of Moses, and the giving of the Torah, also celebrated in Jewish tradition as falling at Sivan 5/6th. It is certainly uncanny that both the former and latter “national” founding of Israel would correspond to this festival of “Weeks.”
One can not help but think of Isaiah’s ancient query:
Is. 66:8 Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall a land be born in one day? shall a nation be brought forth at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children.
There is a nice set of articles on the Aish HaTorah Web site dealing with the history of Israel and Zionism more generally:
http://www.aish.com/holidays/Israel_Independence_Day/holiday_page.asp
In this day and time when “Zionism” is used by so many as some kind of ugly word, it is refreshing to capture some of the Spirit that the true “returnees to Zion” really had 60 years ago. The founder of United Israel World Union, David Horowitz, was one of those “pioneers,” who moved to what was then called “old Palestine,” in July, 1924. You can read more about his experiences and life with photos of those times in a previous Blog post here: Remembering David Horowitz.
An very nicely done illustrated “Timeline” can be found here:
http://www.zionism-israel.com/his/Israel_war_independence_1948_timeline.htm
For those a bit “rusty” on the history, here is a crash course Crash_Course_in_Jewish_History:
Crash Course in Jewish History Part 65 – The State of Israel
by Rabbi Ken Spiro
After the British brutally turned away Holocaust survivors from Israel, the UN voted to partition the land.
The British broke promise after promise to the Jews while they created new Arab countries out of the land of the former Ottoman Empire. In addition, because of Arab revolts and pressure, the British even barred entry to the land of Israel to Jews fleeing the Holocaust. (See Part 64.)
Even when the full scope of the Holocaust was known, and thousands of Holocaust survivors were stranded in refugee camps (DP camps), the British refused to relent.
One of the most egregious of the British actions involved the refugee ship, Exodus, which the Royal Navy intercepted in 1947 in the Mediterranean Sea with 4,500 Jews aboard. The ship was brought into Haifa port under British escort; there the Holocaust survivors were forcibly transferred to another ship and returned back to Germany via France.
Abba Eban, who was then the Jewish liason to a special UN committee — called Special Commmitte On Palestine or UNSCOP — persuaded four UN representatives to go to Haifa to witness the brutality of the British against the Jews.
Historian Martin Gilbert includes Eban’s account of what happened there in Israel: A History (p. 145):
“[In Haifa] the four members watched a ‘gruesome operation.’ The Jewish refugees had decided ‘not to accept banishment with docility. If anyone had wanted to know what Churchill meant by a “squalid war,” he would have found out by watching British soldier using rifle butts, hose pipes and tear gas against the survivors of the death camps. Men, women and children were forcibly taken off to prison ships, locked in cages below decks and set out of Palestine waters.’
“When the four members of UNSCOP came back to Jerusalem, Eban recalled, ‘they were pale with shock. I could see that they were pre-occupied with one point alone: if this was the only way that the British Mandate could continue, it would be better not to continue it at all.’”
UN PARTITION OF PALESTINE
The British also wanted out of the problem. They had 100,000 soldiers/police trying to maintain control with a total population of about 600,000 Jews and 1.2 million Arabs. (Interestingly, they had the same size force controlling India with a population of over 350 million!)
And so it came to pass that the British turned the matter over to the UN which decided to end the British Mandate over what was left of “Palestine” (after the creation of the country of Jordan) and to divide the remaining land among the Arabs and Jews. The proposal called for the Jews to get:
a narrow strip of land along the Mediterranean coast, including Tel Aviv and Haifa
a piece of land surrounding the Kineret (Sea of Galilee), including the Golan Heights
a large piece in the south, which was the uninhabitable Negev Desert
The Arabs were to get:
the Gaza Strip
a chunk of the north, including the city of Tzfat (Safed) and western Galilee
the entire West Bank of the River Jordan and the hills of Judea and Samaria
Jerusalem was to be under international control.
On November 29, 1947, the United Nations voted for this partition plan. Of those voting, 33 nations voted yes, including USA and USSR; 13 mostly-Arab nations voted no; 11 nations abstained.
Hard-hearted to the end, the British did not vote yes; they abstained.
As disappointed as the Jews were with the portion allotted for the Jewish state, they felt that something was better than nothing after all the waiting and the pain.
However, the Arabs, always maximalist in their demands, rejected the UN resolution. The next day Arab rioting began, and two weeks later soldiers from surrounding Arab countries began arriving into Palestine.
The British, happy to be out of the situation, were packing up to go and turned their backs on what was going on. Writes David Ben Gurion in his Israel: A Personal History (p. 65):
“The British did not lift a finger to stop this military invasion. They also refused to cooperate with the UN committee charged with supervising implementation of the General Assembly resolution. At the same time, the Arabs living in the district destined to become part of the Jewish state began evacuating their homes and moving to the Arab states neighboring Palestine at the orders of the Arab High Committee.”
In the midst of confusion, the rioting continued with almost 1,000 Jews murdered by Arabs in the ensuing four months.
One of the worst incidents occurred on April 13, 1948. A convoy of 70 doctors and nurses making their way to Hadassah Hospital on Mount Scopus was ambushed by Arabs. This happened 200 yards of a British police station. After a seven-hour shoot-out, during which the British did nothing, all the doctors and nurses were killed. Afterwards, the Arabs mutilated their bodies.
JERUSALEM UNDER SIEGE
In all of this, the British encouraged the King of Jordan, Abdullah, to invade and annex the Arab sections to his kingdom. To Abdullah this was not enough. He wanted Jerusalem too.
As a result Jerusalem came under siege.
The focus of the struggle during April and May 1948 was the road to Jerusalem which passes through the mountains. The vehicles on that road are completely exposed to gunmen up above. It was on this road that all supplies to the Jews of the city had to come. But they could not get through.
Hunger reigned. The residents of the Jewish Quarter of the Old City were completely cut off.
And then an amazing incident happened. A young Yemenite Jew, who was not known for his shooting skills, almost accidentally killed three Arab men in the hills. One of these men was the Arab leader, Abdul Khader el Husseini. Demoralized, the Arab forces abandoned their positions to attend his funeral.
As a result a huge convoy of 250 trucks of food was able to re-supply the city. Writes Berel Wein in Triumph of Survival (p. 397):
“[On Shabbat, April 17, 1948] Jews left their synagogues and, with their prayer shawls still draping their shoulders, helped unload the convoy. The siege of Jerusalem was broken for the moment. The Arabs, however, mounted a strong counter-attack, and by the end of April once again cut the Jerusalem road… for the next seven weeks Jewish Jerusalem was isolated.”
A NEW STATE IS BORN
The official date given by the United Nations in their partition vote for the creation of the two new entities was May 15th, 1948.
Thus, May 14th was to be the last day of the British Mandate. At 4 p.m., the British lowered their flag and immediately the Jews raised their own.
It was a flag designed in 1897 by the First Zionist Congress. It was white (the color of newness and purity), and it had two blue stripes (the color of heaven) like the stripes of a tallit, the prayer shawl, which symbolized the transmission of Jewish tradition. In its center was the Star of David.
Thus on May 14, 1948 at 4:00 p.m., Hay Iyar, the 5th of Iyar, Israel declared itself a state.
After 2,000 years, the land of Israel was once more in the hands of the Jews.
David Ben Gurion read the Declaration of Independence over the radio:
“The Land of Israel was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here the spiritual, religious and national identity was formed. Here they achieved independence and created a culture of national and universal significance. Here they wrote and gave the Bible to the world…
“Exiled from Palestine, the Jewish people remained faithful to it in all the countries of the dispersion, never ceasing to pray and hope for their return and restoration of their national freedom.
“Accordingly we, the members of the National Council met together in solemn assembly today and by virtue of the natural and historic right of the Jewish people and with the support of the resolution of the General of the United Nations, hereby proclaim the establishment of the Jewish state in Palestine to be called Israel…
“We offer peace and amity to all neighboring states and their peoples and invite them to cooperate with the independent Jewish nation for the common good of all…
“With trust in the Rock of Israel, we set our hands to this declaration at this session of the Provisional State Council in the city of Tel Aviv on Sabbath Eve, 5th Iyar 5708, 14th day of May 1948.”
(Note that the Declaration of Independence of Israel — unlike the American Declaration of Independence — does not mention God. This is because the hard-line secularists that dominated the Jewish Agency opposed any such thing. “Rock of Israel” became a compromise.)
Everyone was dancing in the streets. But not for long.
Almost immediately five Arab countries declared war and Egypt bombed Tel Aviv.
Theodor Herzl, the visionary Austro-Hungarian Jew is often seen as the “founder” of the secular Jewish State of Israel. This Op-Ed by Natan Natan demonstrates clearly that his life and motivation were far from secular, though he was not conventionally religious. I wanted to pass it on as it contains much of interest in terms of setting the historical record straight. As David Horowitz, a pioneering Zionist of the next generation, said so often, “HaShem moves in mysterious ways.”
A Blessed Rosh Chodesh and Rosh HaShanah to all!
Op-ed : by Natan Natan
“ARBEIT MACHT FREI” & THEODOR HERZL’S “ULTIMATE DREAM”
Theodor Herzl wrote in his diary (September 1, 1897) :
“Were I to sum up the Basel Congress in one word, it would be this : at Basel I have founded the Jewish State. If I were to say it publicly today, I would be answered by universal laughter. Perhaps in five years and certainly in fifty, everyone will recognize it.”
Theodor Herzl’s grandfather, Simon Loeb Herzl, was a fervent disciple of Rabbi Judah Alkalai (1798-1878) who, for most of his life, had been a preacher in Semlin, near Belgrade. This Rabbi astounded his congregants when, among other pronouncements, he published a textbook declaring that establishing Jewish colonies and a Jewish State in the Holy Land was the necessary prelude to the Redemption of Israel and to the Restoration of the Temple of Jerusalem for the coming of Messiah. Thus, this Sephardic Rabbi Judah Alkalai, along with, for instance, the Ashkenazi Rabbi Zvi Kalischer of Prussia were representatives of a very tiny minority of European and American Rabbis who supported the religious concept of the Jewish people returning progressively to Palestine in order to recreate Israel and to restore the Temple.
However the vast majority of Rabbis (and religious Jews) opposed violently this view and were divided (to simplify matters with modern vocabulary) between “Reform Jews” and “Orthodox Jews” :
- The “Reform Jews” insisted that the Jews must integrate as loyally as possible any Nation where they found themselves, and that they do not need their own Land because they are, exclusively, a religious community.
- The “Orthodox Jews” and “Hasedim” (=”ultra Orthodox”) insisted (to summarize) that the Jews could not have a State of their own and rebuild their Temple in Jerusalem, until Messiah comes (although the Jews did not wait Messiah to rebuild the second Temple (Joshua and Zerubbabel) after their return from exile in Babylon (520 BCE), and although, also, the Jews did not wait Messiah to restore (20 BCE) the third Temple, rebuilt by Herod after he had completely destroyed the second Temple (including its foundations).
The Orthodox Jews’ belief of the necessary waiting of Messiah before recreating Israel and restoring the Temple of Jerusalem was mainly based on a Midrash Aggadah “The three Oaths” which is found in the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Ketubot 111a ( a tractate dealing mainly with the laws relating to marriage and married life). “The three Oaths” are a mystical Aggadic interpretation of a refrain in the Biblical carnal love Poem Song of Songs (2/7 , 3/5 , 8/4) :
I adjure you, O Daughters of Jerusalem,
By the deers and by the gazelles of the field
Do not arouse or awaken love until it so desires.
The Rabbis in Tractate Ketubot 111a gave the following mystical interpretation of this refrain :
(R. Jose son of R. Hanina said :) ‘What was the purpose of those three adjurations (oaths) ?
- One, that Israel shall not go up [to restore Jerusalem all together as if surrounded] by a wall, the second, that whereby the Holy One, blessed be He, adjured Israel that they shall not rebel against the nations of the world ; and the third is that whereby the Holy One, blessed be He, adjured the idolaters that they shall not oppress Israel too much.
This Aggadic interpretation of Ketubot 111a became progressively the steadfast cornerstone of the mystical leitmotiv of the diasporas Rabbis and their communities :
For instance, the Maharal of Prague (Rabbi Betzalel Lowy who lived in the 17th century) declared :
“Even if the nations wanted to kill the Jews with terrible torture, the Jews are forbidden to change the applicability of the “three Oaths’. This is relevant to every one of these ‘three Oaths’ and must be understood. Therefore, not only is it forbidden to leave the Exile even with the permission of the nations, but even if they force the Jewish People to do so under pain of death, it is forbidden to violate these ‘three Oaths’ in the same way it is required to give up one’s life rather than accept another religion.”
And one of the most renowned German Jewish leader of the nineteenth century, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch wrote :
“During the reign of Hadrian when the uprising led by Bar Kochba proved a disastrous error, it became essential that the Jewish people be reminded for all timesof an important, essential fact, namely that the people of Israel must never again attempt to restore its national independence by its own power : Israel has to entrust its future as a nation solely to Divine Providence (to the Messiah).” Incidentally, the Rabbis had also to resort rather laboriously to a similar Aggadic interpretation of the same Biblical love Song of Songs, in order to explain why the Jews stand in the wrong axis (west to east) when mourning and praying at the “Wailing Wall” in Jerusalem…)
In August 1897 , at almost the same time as the First Zionist Congress organized by Theodor Herzl took place, the Central Conference of American Rabbis adopted a resolution totally disapproving of any attempts for the establishment of a Jewish State. And in the same spirit this Conference of American Rabbis, which met at Richmond, Va., on Dec. 31 1898, declared itself as opposed to the whole Zionist movement on the ground (as one of the members stated) “that America was the Jews’ Jerusalem and Washington their Zion…” The “Reform Advocate” in Chicago even suggested editorially that the real object of Theodor Herzl was to possess himself of the savings of their poorer brethren.
Isaac M. Wise, president of the Hebrew Union College, thought that the Zionists were “traitors, hypocrites, or fantastic fools whose thoughts, sentiments, and actions are in constant contradiction to one another” (Hebrew Union College Journal Dec., 1899) ; while Rabbi Samfield wrote in the “Jewish Spectator” that “Zionism is an abnormal eruption of perverted sentiment.” Prof. Louis Grossman held that the “Zionistic agitation contradicts everything that is typical of Jews and Judaism,” and that the “Zionistic movement is a mark of ingenuity, and does not come out of the heart of Judaism, either ancient or contemporary” (Hebrew Union College Journal, Dec., 1899). In fact, the Rabbinical authorities had led the Jewish communities of the World for nearly 2,000 years.
The rise of Zionism was (as they wrongly thought) a distinct threat to their authority, power, revenues and their teachings. Besides, the prominence of secular Jews in the movement and the emphasis on settlement in Palestine made them (wrongly) fear that the center of Judaism would move away from their local Yeshiva and Synagogue. Moreover, the entire world’s incredulity at Theodor Herzl’s dream was such that an anecdote cited by Theodor Herzl in his Diary gives the full scope of the uphill battle he had engaged. In the Neue Frei Press (The Viennese newspaper where Theodor Herzl worked as journalist) they had a feuilleton by Flammarion: “Is Mars Inhabited ?” At the office they were discussing Mars. Bacher said to me in a superior tone : “Maybe you can set up your Jewish State on Mars.” Laughter among the smart boys.
(Hertz Diary, 28 January 1897)
For all these reasons (Jewish and non Jewish), one can understand that, despite all the superhuman organization efforts and the phenomenal diplomatic activity of Theodor Herzl -aimed at recreating politically a State of Israel which would have been recognized by the main international Powers- it took (after ceaseless pogroms and other similar anti-Semitic persecutions) the immense revulsion of the civilized world caused by the Shoah-Holocaust to convince a core of the secular Jewish community that, in order to survive, the Jews definitively needed their Jewish State, whatever the price would have to be paid for it.
Meanwhile, in this crucial History of Judaism, and although Theodor Herzl had lived as a secular, largely assimilated Jew and had been fluent in neither Hebrew nor Yiddish, his main mystical motivation and inspiration have been singularly and scandalously eclipsed. According to the account which he gave to the Hebrew writer, Reuben Brainin, less than a year before his death (which makes his confidence most significant), Theodor Herzl was attracted to the Messiah legends of the Jews from early adolescence. At the age of twelve, he had a “wonderful dream,” which he recounted as follows :
The King-Messiah came, a glorious and majestic old man, took me in his arms and swept off with me on the wings of the wind. On one of the shining clouds we encountered the figure of Moses. The features were familiar to me out of my childhood in the statue by Michelangelo. The Messiah called to Moses: “It is for this child that I have prayed !” And to me he said: “Go and declare to the Jews that I shall come soon and perform great wonders and great deeds for my people and for the whole world !”
That Theodor Herzl had been, all is life, emotionally guided by his grand-father’s imprint is also revealed, for instance, by the following experience which he confided in his Diary, 6 September 1897 : In deference to religious considerations, I went to the Synagogue on Saturday before the Congress of Basel. The head of the congregation called me up to the Torah. I had the brother-in-law of my Paris friend Beer, Mr. Markus of Meran, drill the “brokhe’’ (traditional Blessing recited upon reading the torah) into me. And then I climbed the steps to the altar : I was more excited than on all the Congress days. The few Hebrew words of the ‘’brokhe’’ caused me more anxiety than my welcoming and closing address and the whole direction of the Congress proceedings.
But most of all, is is The Old New Land (or Altneuland in the original German) is autopian novel published by Theodor Herzl in 1902. which outlined specifically Herzl’s vision for a Jewish State in the Land of Israel. Altneuland became, in fact, Theodor Herzl’s intimate Legacy to the Jews.
Altneuland was translated into Yiddish by Israel Isidor Elyashev. and translated intoHebrew as “Tel Aviv” (Hebrew: תֵּל־אָבִיב) by Nahum Sokolow – which directly influenced the choice of the same name for the Jewish-Zionist Jaffa suburb founded in 1909 which was to become the major Israeli city. Hereafter is the conclusion of this premonitory Vision and Dream of the State of Israel by Theodor Herzl :
Altneuland – Book Five- Jerusalem (extracts)
They (the heroes of the visionary novel) reached the Temple (of Jerusalem). The times had fulfilled themselves, and it was rebuilt. Once more it had been erected with great quadrangular blocks of stone hewn from nearby quarries and hardened by the action of the atmosphere. Once more the pillars of bronze stood before the Holy Place of Israel. “The left pillar was called Boaz, but the name of the right was Jachin.” In the forecourt was a mighty bronze altar, with an enormous basin called the brazen sea as in the olden days, when Solomon was king in Israel.
Sarah and Miriam went up to the women’s gallery. Friedrich sat beside David in the last row downstairs. “When the places were assigned,” said David, “I chose the very last row. I wanted nothing else.”
Jews looked different now simply because they were no longer ashamed of being Jews. It was not only beggars and derelicts and relief applicants who professed Judaism in a suspiciously one-sided solidarity. No ! The strong, the free, the successful Jews had returned home, and received more than they gave. Other nations were still grateful to them when they produced some great thing; but the Jewish people asked nothing of its sons except not to be denied. The world is grateful to every great man when he brings it something ; only the paternal home thanks the son who brings nothing but himself.
Suddenly, as Friedrich listened to the music and meditated on the thoughts it inspired, the significance of the Temple flashed upon him. In the days of King Solomon, it had been a gorgeous symbol, adorned with gold and precious stones, attesting to the might and the pride of Israel. In the taste of those days, it had been decorated with costly bronze, and paneled with olive, cedar, and cypress,-a joy to the eye of the beholder. Yet, however splendid it might have been, the Jew could not have grieved for it eighteen centuries long. They could not have mourned merely for ruined masonry; that would have been too silly. No, they sighed for an invisible something of which the stones had been a symbol. It had come back to rest in the rebuilt Temple, where stood the home returning sons of Israel who lifted up their souls to the invisible God as their fathers had done upon Mount Moriah.
The words of Solomon glowed with a new vitality:
“The Lord hath said that he would dwell in the thick darkness.
I have surely built Thee a house of habitation,
A place for Thee to dwell in forever.”
Jews had prayed in many temples, splendid and simple, in all the languages of the Diaspora. The invisible God, the Omnipresent, must have been equally near to them everywhere. Yet only here was the true Temple…
At last Friedrich put a question, and every man answered it after his fashion. “We see a new and happy form of human society here,” he said. “What created it ?”
“Necessity!” said Littwak the elder.
“The reunited people !” said Steineck the architect.
“The new means of transportation !” said Kingscourt.
“Knowledge !” said Dr. Marcus.
“Will Power !” said Joe Levy.
“The Forces of Nature !” said Professor Steineck.
“Mutual Toleration!” said the Reverend Mr. Hopkins.
“Self-Confidence !” said Reschid Bey.
“Love and Pain !” said David Littwak.
But the venerable Rabbi Samuel arose and proclaimed: “God !”
EPILOGUE
But, if you do not wish it, all this that I have related to you is and will remain a fable…
Now, dear Book, after three years of labor, we must part. And your sufferings will begin. You will have to make your way through enmity and misrepresentation as through a dark forest. When, however, you come among friendly folk, give them greetings from your father. Tell them that he believes Dreams also are a fulfillment of the days of our sojourn on Earth. Dreams are not so different from Deeds as some may think. All the Deeds of men are only Dreams at first. And in the end, their Deeds dissolve into Dreams.
“If you will it, it will not be dream but reality”
Theodor Herzl
February 2010, the author, Natan Natan, a French Jew, is the Author of “The Real History of the Temple of Jerusalem” on-line at http://www.jerusalem-4thtemple.org/
The incredible story of the late NFL football star Reggie White, who turned in his last years from preaching Christianity to a quest for Torah faith, as powerfully documented in this ESPN video:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090924093355.htm
Jewish Priesthood Has Multiple Lineages, New Genetic Research Indicates
ScienceDaily (Sep. 25, 2009) — Recent research on the Cohen Y chromosome indicates the Jewish priesthood, the Cohanim, was established by several unrelated male lines rather than a single male lineage dating to ancient Hebrew times.
The new research builds on a decade-old study of the Jewish priesthood that traced its patrilineal dynasty and seemed to substantiate the biblical story that Aaron, the first high priest (and brother of Moses), was one of a number of common male ancestors in the Cohanim lineage who lived some 3,200 years ago in the Near East.
The current study was conducted by Michael F. Hammer, a population geneticist in the Arizona Research Laboratory’s Division of Biotechnology at the University of Arizona. Hammer’s collaborators in the study include Karl Skorecki of the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology and Rambum Medical Center in Haifa and colleagues and collaborating scientists from Tel Aviv University and the Russian Academy of Sciences.
The July 2009 issue of Human Genetics has published the Hammer team’s newest findings in their article entitled “Extended Y chromosome haplotypes resolve multiple and unique lineages of the Jewish priesthood.”
Hammer and Skorecki were part of the first research group 10 years ago that found the DNA marker signature of the Cohanim, termed the Cohen Modal Haplotype. Today, Hammer and his colleagues are able to use a much larger battery of DNA markers and consequently able to develop a more fully resolved Cohen Modal Haplotype called the extended Cohen Modal Haplotype. The smaller number of markers used in the original Cohanim studies did not allow for full resolution of the history of the Jewish priesthood.
“These findings should motivate renewed interest in historical reconstructions of the Jewish priesthood as well as additional high resolution DNA marker analyses of other populations and ‘lost tribes’ claiming ancient Hebrew ancestry,” Hammer said.
Using the new data, Hammer and his team were able to pinpoint the geographic distribution of a genetically more resolved Cohen Modal Haplotype and tease apart a multiplicity of male lines that founded the priesthood in ancient Hebrew times. The more fully resolved Cohen Modal haplotype (called the extended Cohen Modal Haplotype) accounts for almost 30 percent of Cohanim Y chromosomes from both Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi Jewish communities, is virtually absent in non-Jews, and likely traces to a common male ancestor that lived some 3,200 years ago in the Near East.
Additional Y chromosome lineages that are distinct from that defined by the extended Cohen Modal Haplotype, but also shared among Cohanim from different Jewish communities, reveal that the priesthood was established by several unrelated male lines.
Journal reference:
- Michael F. Hammer, Doron M. Behar, Tatiana M. Karafet, Fernando L. Mendez, Brian Hallmark, Tamar Erez, Lev A. Zhivotovsky, Saharon Rosset and Karl Skorecki. Extended Y chromosome haplotypes resolve multiple and unique lineages of the Jewish priesthood. Human Genetics, 2009; DOI: 10.1007/s00439-009-0727-5
Just this week I became aware of the amazing work of Shmuel Greenbaum and his efforts with Partners In Kindness. I spent some time browsing the Web site and found it incredibly moving. I remember very well the bombing at the pizza place on Jaffa road in 2001 but I had not heard of the response and subsequent efforts of this widower who lost his wife Shoshana to find kindness in our world of darkness and light.
I just subscribed to the e-mail newsletter called “Kind Words” and I have also just ordered the book, A Daily Dose of Kindness. I have written and talked a lot about YHVH’s self-proclaimed “character description” in Exodus 34:5-7 (see my full discussion in Restoring Abrahamic Faith, pp. 23-26). In that formulaic statement, subsequently repeated in the Torah, Prophets, and Writings, YHVH is described as both Rav-Chesed and Notzer Chesed–full of loving-kindness and “keeping” kindness. In my studies of the word Chesed I have come to the view that we have no precise English equivalent. Our English world “love” is unfortunately used in so many ways that it can hardly serve to carry much specific meaning. “Kindness” works quite well I think, but perhaps the notion of loyal-kindness should be included–thus “keeping” kindness, or even “guarding” kindness. It is not feeling alone, but something that involves work, commitment, and action.
A recent statement titled “A Note on Ambiguities Contained in Covenant and Mission,” issued by the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is rightly causing lots of stir and controversy among Jewish leaders. Despite what had come to be seen as progress based on the 1965 Second Vatican Council declaration, Nostra Aetate, with its assertion that the Jewish people collectively are not to be blamed for the death of Jesus as well as a general understanding that interfaith dialogue should not have as its purpose the conversion of Jews, this latest statement from the USCCB makes clear that the Catholic Church stands firm in its historic position that Christianity has superseded and thus effectively replaced Judaism:
“The long story of God’s intervention in the history of Israel comes to its unsurpassable culmination in Jesus Christ, who is God become man.” According to the document, “we also believe that the fulfillment of the covenants, indeed, of all God’s promises to Israel, is found only in Jesus Christ.”
Abraham H. Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamantion League (ADL) has issued for formal statement of protest, highlighted on the ADL Web site:
ADL Troubled By U.S. Bishops’ Statement That Appears to Green Light Missionizing Of Jews
The Catholic News Service (CNS) has also posted a story:
Jewish leaders say bishops’ June statement could hurt dialogue
A more pointed story was just posted by Israel National News ISN):
US Jews Enraged by Catholic Document Urging Missionizing of Jews
Despite Pope John Paul II’s language about the Covenant with Israel being one that was “never revoked,” the Bishops were keen to make clear that such language does not in any way preclude “supersessionism,”that is, the notion that this “Old Covenant” has in point of fact become obsolete. Jews remain valuable as “historic witness” to God’s previous dealings with humankind, but there is nothing in the Roman Catholic understanding of salvation, past or present, that declares the Jewish people, short of accepting Christ, as enjoying a fulfilled relationship with God. Accordingly, the historic Christian insistence on the “conversion of Jews” remains central to the Christian mission, despite any progress in ecumenical dialogue and exchange among Rabbis and Bishops.
It has become somewhat fashionable in our time, and particularly among certain circles of biblical scholarship, to argue that the documents of the New Testament, and those associated with Paul and John in particular, do not in fact support the subsequent Christian doctrine that Israel’s covenant with God has been superseded and made obsolete. New Testament scholars are familiar with the work of Loyd Gaston (Paul and the Torah 1987), supported by John Gager (Reinventing Paul 2000) and the late Kirster Stendahl, who argue that Paul upheld Israel’s Sinai covenant as eternally valid for Jews, while Gentiles are part of a new covenant through Christ. According to this view when Paul seems to speak negatively about the Torah, or the insufficiency of Israel’s covenant for salvation, he has in view only attempts by his opponents to force such upon his Gentile converts. As attractive as such a view might be for modern ecumenical relations between Christians and Jews, I am convinced that Alan Segal (Paul the Convert 1992), Ed Sanders (Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People 1983) and any number of others, have adequately demonstrated that for Paul both Jew and Gentiles find hope for salvation only in the New Covenant brought by Christ.
In that sense there is really “nothing new” in this latest clarification by the Catholic Bishops. They are simply saying clearly what orthodox Christians have said now for nearly 2000 years, despite some hope by Rabbis and Jews interested in Jewish-Christian dialogue that things might have changed. The fact remains, Paul’s view that his Jewish brothers and sisters are accursed from God, cut off from Christ, having a “zeal for God, but without true knowledge” could not be more clear. They are branches broken off the Olive Tree of Israel, God’s true people, for their unbelief in Christ, while Gentiles who do accept Christ are “grafted in,” as wild shoots (Romans 9-11).
In my book The Jesus Dynasty I maintain that Jesus was and remained a Jew and never entertained the establishment of a new religion. In contrast, it was Paul who might actually be called the “founder” of Christianity, with its distinctive theological doctrines. Even though Jews disagreed on how one might reflect and live out all the teachings and commandments of the Sinai revelation, especially regarding what came to be called halacha (literally “the way” or “the walk”), that is how to fulfill the various commandments, in general religious Jews, who took seriously the revelation of Torah, agreed on the obvious point that Israelites of all persuasions were obligated to live according to the commandments in order to be faithful to the Covenant.
Historians and scholars seem to be in almost universal agreement that what is called “the Jesus movement,” as represented by the teachings of John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth, was a movement within Judaism/s of its time and is most properly understood in this way, rather than as a “new” religion, separate from the mother faith. Likewise, I think there is general agreement, as far as I am aware, that James the brother of Jesus, leader of the Jesus movement after Jesus’ death, remained an observant Jew himself (Acts, letter of James, Josephus, Hegesippus, etc.).
To be “observant” in this broader context does not so much imply a uniform “orthodoxy” such as later developed within Rabbinic Judaism, but that whatever one’s halachic view, one remained “in the camp” in terms of covenental identity with the Jewish people and a concerted attempt to embody the teaching and commandments of the Sinai revelation. Judaism, as it developed, was understood as a religion, a people, and a culture, so matters of “definition” could be quite complex, i.e., you could have one who was born as a Jew, spurning the religion, or living immorally, or even turning to another faith, and yet, technically, remaining “Jewish.” In the same way non-Jews might take up Jewish customs and observances and still, nonetheless, not be considered “Jews” in a formal sense. E. P. Sanders, in his book Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, might be one of the best summaries of this entire matter. He exhaustively explores the various “Judaisms” of the period, showing ways in which they differed, but also what gave them their essential identity, something he terms “covenantal nomism.”
Non-Jews, in most of these forms of emerging Judaism, were not expected to “convert” to Judaism in order to have a spiritual relationship with God. They could function within the more universal “Noahite” covenant, and the notion and even social existence of the “righteous Gentile” or the “God-fearer” has been extensively documented, particularly during the late Roman empire. Here I recommend the monumental study of my teacher Louis Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Roman World. One way of putting it was the adage “The righteous of all the nations will have a place in the world to come.” Jesus appears to share this openness to the non-Jew and the messianic vision of the Prophets was that all nations would learn to walk in the light of the Torah’s essential ethical teachings.
If Paul did indeed redefine the people of Israel (what he calls the “true Israel” ) as those who had faith in the heavenly Christ, thus excluding those he called “Israel after the flesh” from his new covenant, and if he also held the view that the Torah given to Moses was valid “until Christ came,” so that even Jews are no longer “under the Torah,” or obligated to follow the commandments or mitzvot as given to Moses but a new “Law of Christ,” then most historians have agreed that we are not merely dealing with a movement “within Judaism,” but the makings of a “new religion” that comes to be called Christianity. This is not to deny Paul’s “Jewishness,” in the cultural sense of that term. He surely believes in the God of Israel, Jesus as the Messiah of Israel, and the Torah and Prophets as Scripture. But in Paul’s thinking, instead of humanity divided as “Israel and the nations” which is the classic understanding of Judaism, we have “Israel, the Gentiles or “non-Jews,” and the new people called “the church of God.” This does not mean that Paul advocated immoral living, he surely did not. In all his letters he takes pains to enforce and reinforce the essential ethics revealed in the Torah as applicable to Gentiles upon his followers.
The rub comes for Jews–if it is now okay for a Jew who is “in Christ” and thus part of this new spiritual Israel, to fail to circumcise his or her children, to ignore observance of the Sabbath and the festivals, to eat anything set before them, and to generally “live as a Gentile” in terms of observing such marks of Torah observance then Paul’s position takes him outside of “Judaism” or observant Torah faith. Such a view implicitly leads to the abolition/replacement of the mother faith. It was upon that basis that the entire super-sessionist/replacement idea that became so current in Christianity developed. Paul takes the position in Romans 9 that any Jew who does not share his faith in Christ is “lost” and cut off from God, no matter what might be his or her spiritual devotion, Torah observance, or even reliance upon the grace of God.
Then there is also the matter of “justification by faith.” Judaism in all its forms has taught that all humans are sinners and can only be accepted in God’s eyes through repentance and faith. Psalm 51 would be the most classic expression of this, the Thanksgiving Hymns in the Dead Sea Scrolls reflect the same for the Qumran community, as srict was they were in their legal interpretations, and Rabbinic literature reflects the same. As a Jew Jesus expressed these very ideas when he speaks of the two men praying in the Temple, one of them a “sinner” who smites his breast and turns to God, and is thereby “justified,” and the other self-righteousness, thinking he had no need of justification. E.P. Sanders is very good to make it clear that the notion that Christianity depends on “grace” and Judaism on “works” is a terribly unfortunate misunderstanding of Judaism. What divides Paul from Judaism is his insistence that this grace bringing justification is only extended to those who accept his Christ faith.
With these three elements based on Paul’s perceptions and heavenly visions: a new definition of Israel, the abrogation of the Sinai covenant, and the restriction of God’s grace to those who “accept Christ as savior,” we truly have a “new religion” and by no theological, cultural, or historical definition could it properly be called “Judaism,” but even more to the point, it must ever stand opposed, by its own self-identity, to all forms of Judaism as expressions of faithfulness to the God of Israel. Talk about irony. But such are the ways of the history of religions when it comes to the Abrahamic faiths–with each successive manifestation, first Christianity, and finally Islam, seeking to invalidate that which went before, while offering lip service to superseded obsolescence. For a full discussion of this point, and particularly the ways in which a more universal view of Hebraic faith addresses the issues of super-sessionism, see the treatment in my recently republished book, Restoring Abrahamic Faith.
This past Thursday morning, July 23rd, Nehemia Gordon, Keith Johnson, and I were guests on the NPR interview show “Charlotte Talks” with Mike Collins, talking about their new book, A Prayer to Our Father: The Hebrew Origins of the Lord’s Prayer. I thought it went exceptionally well and is worth taking time to listen. Lots of important information both from the new book, and related thereto, is covered. For those of you who are outside the Charlotte area you can listen now on-line by downloading the Podcast or streaming it live. Just go to the Web site for details and click on “Listen to Show”:
On Sunday July 26th, Keith Johnson and Nehemia Gordon, authors of A Prayer to our Father, will talk about their book at a special event sponsored by United Israel and hosted by Dr. James D. Tabor at the Doubletree Inn & Suites located in South Park (6300 Morrison Blvd, Charlotte, NC 28211 Tel: 704-364-2400). This meeting will be from 4-6pm in the Barringer room. The public is invited and there is no admission charge. Copies of the book will be available for purchase.
Two billion Christians worldwide consider the Lord’s Prayer the ultimate expression of their faith—but few know the stunning story of its Hebrew origins. A Prayer to Our Father (175 pp., tpb, $19.95) is the true story of an exciting journey of faith of a Jewish Bible scholar and an African American pastor who join forces to uncover the truth about the most beloved prayer in the Christian world.
Their provocative new book reads like a detective novel. Written by two most unlikely collaborators, the charismatic personalities of the authors are as riveting as the story. Former chaplain to the Minnesota Vikings, Keith Johnson has ministered to some of the top names in the NFL and NBA. Jerusalem-based Jewish scholar and author, Nehemia Gordon, has spent his career translating the Dead Sea Scrolls and studying the deep mysteries of the Jewish religion.
Johnson and Gordon’s gripping adventure begins in the ancient city of Jerusalem and takes them to the very spot in Galilee where Jesus taught the multitudes to pray. Along the way they discover a Hebrew version of the Lord’s Prayer, preserved in secret by Jewish rabbis for over a thousand years. Their riveting journey and extraordinary relationship are chronicled in A Prayer to Our Father.
See the Website: http://www.aprayertoourfather.com/ for further details on the book and the background of the authors.
Nehemia Gordon holds a Masters Degree in Biblical Studies and a Bachelors Degree in Archaeology from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Gordon has worked as a translator on the Dead Sea Scrolls and as a researcher deciphering ancient Hebrew manuscripts. He has been invited to speak in synagogues and churches around the world and has led groups of pilgrims and visitors on tours of biblical sites. A native of Chicago, Nehemia has made his home in Jerusalem, Israel for the last fifteen years.
Keith Johnson earned his Masters of Divinity from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and has spent nearly two decades in Christian ministry. As an ordained Elder in the United Methodist Church, Johnson has served as pastor of Park Avenue Church in Minneapolis and as chaplain of the Minnesota Vikings. Johnson was also chosen as one of only 40 chaplains from around the world to serve the athletes of the 1996 Olympics Games in Atlanta. Keith lives in Charlotte, North Carolina with his wife and sons.
James Tabor’s second interview with Tovia Singer is now on-line and can be listened to or downloaded. Here is the description and the link:
Professor James Tabor, Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina and author of “Restoring Abrahamic Faith” (available through http://genesis2000.org) explores Christianity’s foundational break with Judaism and Paul’s role in this monumental schism. Tabor emphasizes the apocalyptic and thus “temporary” nature of the original Jesus movement and how it quickly sought to replace Judaism.
For more information, you can find the schedule and location info on this page
http://universaltorah.com/programming/speaking-schedules/